"The previous chairman , the world famous climatologist Robert Watson , was forced from the position and replaced by Rajendra Pachauri at the insistence of the Bush administration http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17...
Since then they have been whining that Pachauri is not a climatologist and pretending he was only a railway engineer
What a bunch of pathetic dishonest hypocrites who love to make up lies about him : http://www.deccanherald.com/content/9040...
You Pat have posted the most infantile drivel about him in the past : quote :
"Rajendra Pachauri is just a common socialist. He has proclaimed his desire to end Capitalism and wants Global Governance. Nobody disputes what he wants the world to be like. He's a mouse in a man's body who hides behind the seal of the United Nations. Cry-baby pee-pants! Always whining about how unfair the world is."
FFS"
You can give as much money as you want to these clowns, but they can't even prove that their "own desks aren't shape-shifting aliens" (a quote from Chem Flunky herself).
---------------------------------------...
Jungle Jim - I didn't like either of the Bush's or Reagan when it comes to policies on climate change. Pachauri is a whiney pee-pants!
Hey,
Check here http://bit.ly/Y2PFq5 if you want to get for free: Farm Frenzy 2
With this link you can get the full version completely free.
Farm Frenzy 2 features funny scenes and 3D characters, content suitable for the whole family and a game mode that will require the best of your abilities to win.
It's a really nice game.
Don't confuse annual fluctuations with long-term trends. Lool at it this way, assuming you get your checks deposited to your checking account and any surplus transferred to your savings account (which also makes up any shortfalls, so your checks don't bounce). Your checking account can double or be halved in a single day. No big deal. If that happened to your savings account, that WOULD be a big deal. Similarly, a hot year or a cold one has just minor repercussions. For example, the mild winter in my area meant that we had a lot of ticks in the spring. The same sort of temperature change over a decade or two would mean changes in both natural vegetation and farm crops.
Interesting that you picked 1880 as a benchmark. Look up what happened in 1883.
The planet is not 'rising by 1C in just over a year'. There would need to be a huge influx of energy for that to occur. The surface measurements change by that much according to things such as the ENSO which merely redistribute heat. The 'planet' does not increase or decrease total energy. You have a horrible misunderstanding of the ENSO cycle.
Edit: Then perhaps you should say what you mean. the 'planet' is not increasing in temperature with every El Nino (Minus the long term trend of increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases, as well as other lesser sources). It is merely a redistribution of heat energy. Global warming deals with the total flux of energy.into and out of the system. Regarding 1998, perhaps you should look up what occurred as a result of those warm years before making statements.
http://portal.nceas.ucsb.edu/working_gro...
There are also papers on droughts due to the El Nino of that year and pretty much everything else.
>>... or was there any climate scientist even close to what actually happened in 1997-1998?<<
They were not trying to predict it; they were interested in studying it.
More than any other single event, the 1997-98 El Nino helped to form the scientific consensus on AGW - which did not exist prior to then. The "consensus" developed in the late 1990s and early 2000s as more and better data became available.
The 1997-98 signal was so powerful that scientists in multiple disciplines who were collecting and studying climate sensitive data all detected it. This allowed them to better isolate and identify the frequency response signals in their data and to determine that the observed global temperature trend could not be fully explained by the natural factors that are known to have historically driven it.
======
edit --
>>Is it a "preponderance of evidence" that the conclusion was made to show GHG warming or is there "empirical evidence" that shows this?<<
It is an overwhelming preponderance of empirical evidence from multiple independent sources of climate-sensitive data combined with well-understood and widely-accepted scientific principles in physics and chemistry.
>>Basically the question is "How much of that warming (%) was anthropogenic?<<
How is that even a valid question, let alone "the" question?
Even if the climate system was deterministic, unless it is a finite-state machine, the relationship between climate and its observable properties is non-deterministic.
The real questions are: How would you answer your question? ... and even if you obtained a solution...Does the answer mean anything?
In part, cumulative effects. Even ignoring the fact that what we're measuring is only a small fraction of the heat going into the system (for example, when I asked, one estimate is that there is not enough heat on the planet to melt all the ice on the planet), many years of a given set of conditions can do a lot more damage than a single year.
For example, most habitats can survive one dry year without much difficulty or damage. Plants can tap deep water reserves, animals can live in part off of stored fat, seeds can lay dormant, and so on. But if they get 10 years in a row of drought, this could easily stress the system past the point where most of the inhabitants can survive.
One year without a good frost will lead to a moderate increase in insect activity the next year. 30 years of this, and all the trees are dead from boring beetles.
One warm year will lead to a little extra glacial melt. 30 warm years, and a glacier could entirely disappear.
And so on.
Lack of scientific understanding is the problem.
Greenhouse gasses trap heat.
Most of that heat goes into the oceans, some of it goes into melting ice, some of it goes into the soil surface.
The residual heat goes into the atmosphere, dependent primarily on how the heat in the oceans gets distributed.
The local temperature of the atmosphere depends on the heat content, the water vapor content, and the pressure.
Planetary air temperatures are thus a noisy response to the heat added to the planet.
Planetary air temperature measurements are a noisy representation of the planetary air temperature.
You're looking at the variability of a noisy measurement of what happens to less than 1% of the heat added to the planet and confusing it with the actual change in conditions..
The slittiest rise of temperature can change the climate in the world. It can effect everyone and everything that lives on earth. Unfortunately ppl are going to continue the way they get transportation and pollute the world
Because you can create panic by making a mountain out of a mole hill. It works every time on suckers.
Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
Scare stories and over-representations, that is what we are getting. We can adapt to those changes. History shows we have in the past.
Yes.Causes of sea level rise
Due to various human activities, carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are accumulated
in the earth’s atmosphere, resulting in climate change. Rising temperature expand the ocean volume
in two ways. Firstly, it melts mass volume of ice of the polar region and secondly, it causes thermal
expansion of water of the ocean. Wigley and Raper (1987) comment that the relative contributions
of thermal expansion and ice melting to this sea level rise are uncertain and estimates vary widely,
from a small expansion effect through roughly equal roles for expansion and ice melting to a
dominant expansion effect. These two factors increase volume of ocean water of the earth and rise
in the sea level.The human factor that is mainly responsible for global warming and sea level rise is burning of
fossil fuels. Deforestation is another human activity, responsible for decreasing the CO2sink
Chem Flunky gave this answer on a similar question : ""A couple of degrees" doesn't sound like much until you realize that the difference in average global temperature between now and the last ice age is a matter of less than 10 degrees.
And even 1 degree a century is... a lot faster than average historical climate change, as far as we can tell."
Why does 'climate science' think they know how the Planet is going to re-act in any situation? Is there any climate scientist who predicted the almost 1C rise in temperatures in a little over one year? ... or was there any climate scientist even close to what actually happened in 1997-1998?
In one year, forests don't turn to grassland, grasslands don't trun to desert, and glaciers don't disappear. But a permanent change in temperature of 1 degree C can have such effects.
No one can predict with certainty exactly what the stock market will do in advance.
But YA is not filled with posters "asking" why "economists" and "financial analysts" think they know how the economy and investment markets react.
The stock market is not wrecking our economic future, and no industry, like the fossil fuel industry, is making billions of dollars of profit each year due to that wrecking.
It dis balance the planet.
It is not, that would make it about as warm as the medieval warm period, and humankind got along just fine thank you.
