Global Warming ... Myth?

[K-man]

The Melbourne Age, today.

Global carbon budget to be blown in 21 years, study finds


The world risks blowing through its carbon budget in 21 years, threatening to cause global warming of more than double the threshold deemed safe by the United Nations, the global accounting firm PwC said today in a study.


The budget is the amount of greenhouse gases the world can emit by 2100 to cap the temperature rise at 2 degrees Celsius. CO2 emitted per unit of economic output fell at 0.7 per cent per year from 2007 through 2012, less than an eighth of the required rate now needed, PwC said.


“G20 countries are still consuming fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow,” PwC Sustainability & Climate Change Director Jonathan Grant said. “The results raise real questions about the viability of our vast fossil fuel reserves, and the way we power our economy. The 2-degrees carbon budget is simply not big enough to cope with the unmitigated exploitation of these reserves.”


World leaders endorsed the 2-degree target as the scale of temperature increase from the start of the industrial era that’s acceptable before more dangerous impacts occur. Those include rising seas, more intense storms and shifting rainfall patterns.


Envoys from 190 nations are aiming to craft a treaty by 2015 that will put the planet on a path to limit warming to 2 degrees. The pact would replace the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated in 1997 and regulates the greenhouse gases in a group of industrial nations that now are responsible for less than 15 per cent of global emissions.


A number of “silver bullets” identified for large-scale decarbonization, including nuclear power and carbon capture and storage, appear to be failing, PwC said. Cheap shale gas, which has helped lower U.S. emissions by replacing coal, displaced dirtier coal to other markets, including Europe, according to the consultant.


Among G20 nations, Argentina, the U.S. and Australia achieved the biggest average annual reductions in the carbon intensity over the 5 years through 2012, PwC found. Intensity rose in Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Japan.

Funny, despite Bill reassuring us that global warming is a myth, more and more people seem to be concerned. Why could that be?
:idunno:

 

[billc]

Because they are being lied to by people with strong, monetary incentives to convince people to buy into man made global warming.

This may help to ease your concern...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/nongovernmental_climate_scientists_slam_the_uns_ipcc.html

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a final version of their Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of its fifth assessment report (AR5) on September 27, 2013. This new SPM reveals that the IPCC has retreated from about a dozen alarmist claims promulgated in its previous reports or by scientists who are prominently associated with the IPCC. Their SPM also contains more than a dozen misleading or untrue statements, plus about another dozen statements that mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science.

1. IPCC-AR5 retreats from previous positions
The IPCC's 2013 SPM apparently retreats from more alarmist positions struck in earlier assessment reports. For example, the IPCC concedes for the first time that a fifteen-year-long period of insignificant warming (or perhaps even cooling) has occurred since 1998, despite a 7% rise in Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. This is striking evidence that there is something wrong with the IPCC's climate models, which all predict a substantial warming in response to rising CO2.
IPCC scientists are of two minds in trying to explain this discrepancy between models and observations. On the one hand, they argue that this is a statistical fluctuation. One might compare it to fifteen heads in a row when tossing a coin. However, with each passing year without warming, the probability of such a fluctuation becomes smaller.

2. Misleading or untrue statements
Among the many untrue claims, is one that asserts that post-1950 warming is "unprecedented." However, as shown by the Hadley [UK] record, it is reported as of about the same magnitude and rate as the 1910 - 1940 warming.
The IPCC-SPM also suggests a significant radiative forcing for carbon monoxide; but this is contradicted by statements made by the IPCC authors themselves. Carbon monoxide, CO, is not a greenhouse gas.
Elsewhere, the SPM admits that both the sign and amplitude of cloud feedback are uncertain. But then it is impossible to be sure, as claimed, that the net radiative feedback is positive.
In comparing models and observations, the underlying claim is that the models include all of the relevant physics. This is a false statement because our knowledge is far from complete -- and specifically, the models omit important forcings, such as changes in ocean currents or solar magnetic activity.

3. Deceptive language that misrepresent the Science
The SPM claims that globally averaged surface temperatures show a linear warming trend over the period 1880 to 2012. This is a cherry-picked interval, used to give a false impression of a steady, continuous warming. It includes the major warming between 1910 and 1940, and a slight cooling from 1940 to 1975. It includes also the 1998 warming spike caused by a Super El Nino and temperature 'jumps' around 1976 and 2002, which cannot be attributed to human influences. It fails to distinguish fully between temperature 'trend' and temperature 'level.'
The SPM misleadingly claims that the troposphere has warmed globally since the mid-20th century. This statement fails to acknowledge that there has been effectively no warming in the tropical troposphere as universally projected by models (the 'missing hotspot')

Let's be accurate, I have never said global warming is a myth, just man made global warming is a myth. I live in a location that was at one point covered by mile high glaciers...those glaciers are now gone...so a little warming seems to have occurred...long before we were using green house gasses.

If people want to be afraid of something, fear the possible return of global cooling...now that would be a real problem...

http://www.thegwpf.org/lawrence-solomon-global-cooling-consensus/

Now an increasing number of scientists are swinging back to the thinking of the 1960s and 1970s. The global cooling hypothesis may have been right after all, they say. Earth may be entering a new Little Ice Age.


“Real risk of a Maunder Minimum ‘Little Ice Age,’” announced the BBC this week, in reporting startling findings by Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University. “Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years [raising the risk of a new Little Ice Age] from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%,” explained Paul Hudson, the BBC’s climate correspondent. If Earth is spared a new Little Ice Age, a severe cooling as “occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.”

 

[K-man]

Let's be accurate, I have never said global warming is a myth, just man made global warming is a myth.

In that case we are on the same page.

 

[arnisador]

It's possible for things to have more than one cause. You can have man-made global warming occurring alongside natural trends.

To say that the level of pollution in Beijing, for example, has no effect on temperatures there is nonsense. Now extend the whole petroleum-based industrial revolution to the rest of the planet for a hundred years or so, and coal for longer. It's inconceivable that it could have no effect.

 

[K-man]

It's possible for things to have more than one cause. You can have man-made global warming occurring alongside natural trends.

To say that the level of pollution in Beijing, for example, has no effect on temperatures there is nonsense. Now extend the whole petroleum-based industrial revolution to the rest of the planet for a hundred years or so, and coal for longer. It's inconceivable that it could have no effect.

Absolutely right. Just that I thought Bill has been saying there is no warming. As to the human component, I think it is too little, too late to stop what is going to happen either naturally or with our help. Undoubtably Earth will survive, as will the human race, but it will be a different place with a lot of challenges ahead.
:asian: