Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,207
14,248
113
Low Earth Orbit
Noooo it boils down to 97% of 33% which is actually a 1% decline.

The no stance are the other 66% .

There is no overall consensus. You've been lying to yourself.

I can't believe you believe in ghosts.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Interesting development...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141112144825.htm

Not long ago, it would have taken several years to run a high-resolution simulation on a global climate model. But using some of the most powerful supercomputers now available, scientists were able to complete a run in just three months. What they found was that not only were the simulations much closer to actual observations, but the high-resolution models were far better at reproducing intense storms, such as hurricanes and cyclones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cNyftYdjt-Q
 

grainfedpraiboy

Electoral Member
Mar 15, 2009
715
1
18
Alberta The Last Best West
Petros. Dude. What does it take?

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources

American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3


American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4





American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5


American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6





American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7




American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8




The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9



Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus

International academies: Joint statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10




U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11




U.S. Global Change Research Program

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12




Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.


Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus




List of worldwide scientific organizations
 

grainfedpraiboy

Electoral Member
Mar 15, 2009
715
1
18
Alberta The Last Best West
Is there any funding for scientists trying to prove the opposite?

Let's be savvy here. If any scientist working in Australia or Canada or China or the USA or any OPEC nation for government, a university or industry but where the vested interest in pursuing the status quo is especially high, they would get all the money they could possibly use and more. Sure they might be vilified by ideologically driven special interest groups on the left but they would be championed by the dogmatic right in equal measure.

I honestly don't believe the current Conservative government as an example, would dismiss an opportunity to prove that the climate was being changed by anything other than man and I know I would strongly prefer if it were anything other than us and most scientists believed in a theory other than us being at fault that we could rally around.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
This isn't about left vs right and the one who yells, threatens or mocks the loudest and sways public opinion to their side wins. We have a problem we are causing as a species that we need to address.

How many bank transfers will it take to stem AGW?.. Is it a function of the # of transfers or the dollar amount?.. Probably both, I'd guess.

Jesus Christ.....how much more evidence to support the fact of anthropogenic climate change is needed to sway a mental heavy weight such as yourself? If 98% of the world's scientists agreed with you instead of 97% is that the tipping point?

How much support is needed?.. How about determining that anthro sources are having the dire affects that you claim?.. This will be an excellent start.

In the face of the various realities that do not support your position, your 97% consensus that initially supported Anthropogenic Global Warming (it was a fact and the debate was over, remember) swung 180 degrees to Climate Change... How very scientific... What compelling proof! Afterall, there was a 'consensus' among an elite group at a UN sponsored department that thumped their chests that only money from the West can buy our way out.

Here's a few items that the mental heavyweights in the IPCC and ecotard crowd have accomplished during their tenure


  • ALL models supporting AGW have failed.
  • ALL projections have not been realized.
  • AGW position specifically has no answer nor recognition for historical variations absent humanity (think multiple periods of continental glaciation).
  • Coordinated, fraudulent actions by the IPCC and East Anglia University.
  • Refusal of AGW theories to incorporate solar inputs.
  • Inability to incorporate variables associated with the oceans.
  • Corruption and abuse of the Peer Review process.
  • Refusal of the trusted inner eco-circle to consider any papers from non-supporting sources that may negate the AGW/CC hoax.

By the way, your 97% consensus is not only subject to the realities that Petros outlined, the 'climate scientists' (the original 2500) included many unrelated professional like medical doctors, etc.


"We are all born ignorant but one must work hard to remain stupid." - Ben Franklin

You might want to reevaluate posting this statement, at least in terms of who should be paying heed to the words

99.9% of climate scientists agree things are f'up

There is no such thing as a formal course of study (to produce a degree, Masters or Doctorate) in 'Climate Science', so think twice before you pile all of your eggs in that ever so fragile basket.

You have it right. China will sign more deals with Uncle Scam in the near future, it will cost them nothing to elevate slightly the positive rays of an expiring lame duck President, leader of a mess in terminal decline. While the western rabble applaud the merely suggested forward motion on an altogether stupid pointless proposal. A photo op of great nothingness.
I have already sent a detailed list of the capitalist sympathisers in this forum to my new Chinese masters, they have offered me north eastern Nova Scotia in return for my cooperation.

Did the Chinese sign a binding doc on giving you NE Nova Scotia?

Take heed my friend
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,207
14,248
113
Low Earth Orbit
If so called climate scientists faced the same legal liabilities as exploration geologists, we'd have another Bre-X on our hands on a scale that would forever change accountability of the peer process forever with extreme crimal time.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
If so called climate scientists faced the same legal liabilities as exploration geologists, we'd have another Bre-X on our hands on a scale that would forever change accountability of the peer process forever with extreme crimal time.

Climate Scientists only exist in references and as academic third parties, whereas Geologists actually exist academically and professionally



How come you didn't include this quote from the site?

"The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming"
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Is there any funding for scientists trying to prove the opposite?

Sure. Scientists like John Christy ( a contributor to many of the IPCC reports no less), Judith Curry (she testified before US Congress in 2013, her CV lists her grants at $7.44 million ), William Gray (one of the authorities on hurricanes), Henrik Svensmark (the clouds-cosmic ray hypothesis is due to his work). There are all kinds of skeptical scientists who are well funded and involved in the processes.

As for the news that China and US have agreed to targets and actions, well it`s a start. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to larger global agreements has been the conspicuous absence of the worlds two largest emitters. As for China? They have to do something, they are living in toxic smoke most days.

With the two most energy hungry countries making investments in more efficient technologies, that's going to be good for other countries, as the production costs will come down. Well, they already have been going down. Effectively the US and China will be paying the development costs, along with others like the EU.