Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
GENEVA, Sept 9 (Reuters) - Atmospheric volumes of greenhouse gas hit a record in 2013 as carbon dioxide concentrations grew at the fastest rate since reliable global records began, the World Meteorological Organization said on Tuesday.
"We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud in a statement accompanying the WMO's annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.
"Past, present and future CO2 emissions will have a cumulative impact on both global warming and ocean acidification. The laws of physics are non-negotiable," Jarraud said. "We are running out of time."
The volume of carbon dioxide, or CO2, the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities, was 396.0 parts per million (ppm) in 2013, 2.9 ppm higher than in 2012, the largest year-to-year increase since 1984, when reliable global records began.
The second most important greenhouse gas, methane, continued to grow at a similar rate to the last five years, reaching a global average of 1824 parts per billion (ppb). The other main contributor, nitrous oxide, reached 325.9 ppb, growing at a rate comparable to the average over the past decade.
The world has the knowledge and tools to keep global warming within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), a U.N. goal set in 2010, Jarraud said, which would "give our planet a chance and... our children and grandchildren a future".
"Pleading ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not acting." (Reporting by Tom Miles, editing by Stephanie Nebehay)
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2014 - 12:14pm PT
|
You discredit him, you discredit every entity he worked with and every article/study he had a very integral part in... The AGU, AMS, NOAA, the US National Science Report etc etc etc.
So funny to hear you stand up for the very organizations that you spit upon.
What's the definition of "hypocrite" again?
[k-man] posted a link to the warmist equivalent of WUWT.
If the site is such bunk, it should be easy to debunk the claims made on that page, right? Those aren't splitting hairs on a few insignificant statements. The page details outright lies told to cloud the science behind AWG.
Go ahead, try to show that Pielke didn't make those erroneous statements about climate change.
Should we wait??
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In psychology, passive-aggressive behavior is characterized by a habitual pattern of passive resistance to expected work requirements, opposition, stubbornness, and negativistic attitudes in response to requirements for normal performance levels expected of others. Most frequently it occurs in the workplace where resistance is exhibited by such indirect behaviors as procrastination, forgetfulness, and purposeful inefficiency, especially in reaction to demands by authority figures, but it can also occur in interpersonal contexts.[1]
Another source characterizes passive-aggressive behavior as: "A personality trait marked by a pervasive pattern of negative attitudes and characterised by passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to complying with expectations in interpersonal or occupational situations. Behaviors: Learned helplessness, procrastination, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible".[2]
Passive-aggressive may also refer to a person who refuses to acknowledge their own aggression (in the sense of "agency"), and who manages that denial by projecting it. This type of person insists on seeing themselves as the blameless victims in all situations.
According to Living with the Passive-Aggressive Man, a self-help book, a passive man does little to get what he wants as it is too much effort to do so, and ranges from the inept "loser" type to the conformist who does anything to be liked, avoids making waves and rarely says what he feels.[3]Passive-aggressive behavior is the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, sarcasm, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible.
For research purposes, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) revision IV describes passive-aggressive personality disorder as a "pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in social and occupational situations".
let us know if you need help with the big words.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Im surprised you idiots are still posting Hansens projections. Any third grader in the world, but obviously not you morons, knows it's been business as usual high end emissions the entire time since 1988. His temp/emmisions projections failed long ago and posting this again just makes you look dumber than you've already proved yourselves to be.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
That big "Hansen" graph Chief posts over and over is obviously not by Hansen, its source seems to be a British right-wing think tank The Global Warming Policy Foundation. But oddly enough the url for Chief's graph leads to a post by the statistical blogger Tamino, who posted that graph to explain why it's wrong!
The biggest problem is that the GWPF has presented the ultimate simpleton’s viewpoint of the situation. They imply that temperature had to come closest to Hansen’s scenario A because CO2 increase has most closely matched Hansen’s scenario A. But global temperature is affected by a lot more than just CO2, it is affected by the entirety of climate forcing. CO2 is only one of many.
Notice also that actual forcing follows scenario C more closely than the other scenarios. On that basis, we should expect observed temperature change to match scenario C more closely than the other scenarios. And it does.
In fact, the match of observed temperature to Hansen’s scenario is C quite good. Damn good. So good, that I suspect the match isn’t entirely due to the excellence of the model, in part it was coincidence. Regardless of that, to claim on the basis of these 25-year-old model runs that “Empirical evidence confirms failed performance of global climate models” is downright ludicrous. Really. Ludicrous.
Folks who can read graphs and numbers might take a look at the rest of Tamino's piece, which centers on that tricky concept that things have more than one cause. Folks who can't grasp that will keep repeating the same talking points.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2014 - 03:56pm PT
|
More vapid ranting from Sketch. I'll address a couple of your points here, but will ignore the rest, you are a great waste of time.
Speaking of waiting.... we're still waiting for you to show where Roger Pielke, Sr. was fully discredited in this thread.
OK, there have been over a thousands posts deleted on this thread. It could very well be that one of those was the debunking of Pielke. But now I have added a new post that shows Pielke's true colors.
And speaking of waiting... I am still waiting for you to tell us why the graphs you post have any meaning with regards to climate change. Were you trying to make a point, and if so what was it? Or, were you just posting so you could watch us (well, mostly Ed) tear apart your post?
And about Skeptical Science's treatment of Pielke, the first quote was:
"not all glaciers and ice caps are melting. While the Arctic ice, for example, has been decreasing in areal extent...Antarctic sea ice coverage has not"
That statement is true.
Yes, that statement is true--when taken out of context. However, in the context of where he made the statement (see the references), Pielke was trying to say that although the Artic ice is melting, the increase in Antartic sea ice makes up for the loss of the Arctic ice.
So, the point Pielke was making is actually false when you add it to the context in which he made the statement.
I'll leave the rest of the article as a homework assignment for you, I'm certain you have the wherewithal to figure out how Pielke distorts the findings of climate scientists.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2014 - 03:59pm PT
|
The Chief, you reference a Blog that has been proven to be full of crap.
My references are in the link to a Blog post, you can go back and look them up.
Debunk them if you can.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 9, 2014 - 04:02pm PT
|
I didn't say that. I said the blog you reference has been shown to post items that are false.
Not the same thing.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
To chief and the rest of the deniers...
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
That didn't take long...like a moth to a flame.
Less than seven minutes for both of the them.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
More insight from the deniers.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Hansen predicted emission scenario B would be most likely. Actual emissions was between B and C, but closer to B.
Scenario A is exponential CO2 emission growth. No chance of that when the soviet union broke up and eastern European emissions were reduced dramatically, plus the strong growth of alternative energy sources, and the Montreal Protocol.
He got climate sensitivity wrong. Not bad for 26 years ago.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
Comedy
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
LOL, try to focus, Chief.
You asked where Hansen said Scenario B was most likely.
I gave it to you.
If you want to move the goal post, go ahead and keep digging.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
rick:
Aside from Curry's name being on the BEST study...
as long as there is a scientific literature, Curry's name will be on that paper for anyone to read and associate with its findings....
long after her blog is gone. you don't get it rick, she put her name on that report because she supported its conclusions... twist that anyway you want. fact is, she is and always will be a co-author, and she chose to be.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!