It's all over but for the sweating?

[NeilBlanchard]

We know the major reasons for climate change in the past, and we know now that climate change at this time is being caused largely by we humans burning fossil fuel. The isotopes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere show this. And we know what the other major forcings are - and only the increased level of carbon dioxide and explains what the data show.

What Is This “Polar Vortex” That Is Freezing the U.S.? | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

[mcrews]

nice......really.

in 2007 some scientist also said there would be no snow in the antaritca by...last week...........is this the same idiot?

Can you answer that directly for me?

[freebeard]

#1200 (permalink)

So do you get a prize?

If we end war, poverty and environmental destruction and the aliens still won't talk to us—would that be such a bad thing?

http://http://boingboing.net/2014/01...ml#more-278145

We've still ended war, poverty and environmental destruction.

[P-hack]

Unless you have a mass mind control device, you can't end war. And if you do then I am declaring war on you

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We know the major reasons for climate change in the past,

It depends on who you listen too, some claim that CO2 from volcanic activity or other natural event caused it.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

and we know now that climate change at this time is being caused largely by we humans burning fossil fuel. ,

That is what is being debated, the proof is sketchy at best. Yes increased CO2 can cause warming, but how much that is the question.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

The isotopes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere show this.,

That only shows that we are the source of the increased CO2, it does not prove that the resulting CO2 increase is the cause of most of the warming.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

And we know what the other major forcings are - ,

It doesn't help when a direct measurement is ignored over a proxy because the proxy shows what they want to see.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

and only the increased level of carbon dioxide and explains what the data show.

No it doesn't.

I have regularly posted pretty direct data on this thread, including the current average temperature deviation, the recent TSI (Total Solar irradiance) until the satellite failed, and often other direct measured facts.

It is currently reported that solar activity is low due to low sunspot number. You yourself have even repeated that. But the fact is that the average TSI is higher this cycle than last cycle by a little bit due to the fact that there are less sun spots for some unknown reason. Higher TSI means higher temperatures.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Unless you have a mass mind control device, you can't end war. And if you do then I am declaring war on you

We DO have a mass mind control device. It's called the media, and it is sanctioned and sometimes even funded by government.

Don't expect it to end war. Actually, you might expect the opposite outcome to occur ...thanks to both the nature of government and it's willing conduit of propaganda, the media.

[CFECO]

"If we end war, poverty and environmental destruction and the aliens still won't talk to us—would that be such a bad thing?"

NO!!!!!
But none of those things will EVER be ended...except for the Aliens, maybe!
Humans ARE animals, and when it comes down to it, only the strong survive.
If "ALL" aggression was done away with, war would end, that will never happen. There will always be people who have no ambition to improve their lives.... So there will Always be poverty. Whatever man does, and I am pro-environment, but not a Radical to the point that people cannot visit and enjoy Nature, or responsibly use it. There WILL always be "Environmental Destruction". One volcano can, and has, devastated a lot of the Environment, and they Always WILL.
Erosion, which is totally Natural, destroys more environment, than man ever has, or ever could, I believe.
So, be kind to your neighbors, don't force your will on others with differing opinions, and never deny others their rights to do as they wish, as long as they don't hurt others. (;-{)

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

Was there some expectation stated somewhere that the B1 scenario of emissions would provide the exact same results as the RCP2.6 pathway of concentrations?

Since no one was able to answer this question, I did a little research myself. The answer is:

The forcing pathway of the RCP4.5 scenario is comparable to a number of climate policy scenarios and several low-emissions reference scenarios in the literature, such as the SRES B1 scenario.

From: http://www.imedea.uib-csic.es/master...s_Overview.pdf

So no expectation of an exact match, but comparable. And if the German blogger (or anyone reposting the blogger's info) would have bothered to do the same (simple) research I did and then looked at the chart, then he (or she) would've seen that the B1 range and the RCP4.5 range is pretty close... certainly not a 0.9*C difference.

Thank you, me.

[NeilBlanchard]

Who's debating about climate change? I'm certainly not. Could we debate evolution, or plate tectonics or the the structure of the atom? We could speculate, we could guess, and even make educated guesses - but we can't debate anthropogenic climate change, or any other scientific field.

If you debate how gravity works, does it change the knowledge we have about it?

There is no scientific debate about the basic fundamentals of human-caused climate change. There just isn't.

There is certainly no debate about the greenhouse effect of various gases. From Svante Arrhenius to the US Air Force, we know to a precise level the effects of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by freebeard

So do you get a prize?




.

I'm still waiting........but you'll be the first to know!!!

(im hopping for an ecomodder sticker....)