Report shows UN admitting solar activity may play significant role in global [W:478]

Mr.Nick said:

There is no evidence to suggest that our climate is changing any more rapidly than it did before humans existed.

Click to expand...

TheNextEra said:

There is, you just don't accept ANY of it. Therefore your opinion is noted.

Click to expand...

Mr.Nick said:

Of course I don't accept it because it's flawed data that is primarily based on a couple hundred years of climate data. That data (which most of it is fudged) paints a big picture with a broad brush. Lets also not forget these so called "climatologists" have been repeatedly caught manipulating data, lying and caught on tape arrogantly stating global warming is an agenda, not a concern.

So yeah, I'm not going to believe a bunch of liars who have an agenda and ignore the geological record - that would make me you if I did.

Click to expand...

TheNextEra said:

So you believe that humans have ZERO impact on climate change then?

Click to expand...

Manc Skipper said:

This is the rehashed we don't know everything, so we know nothing.. (often followed by Goddidit) argument. We know enough to make an informed assessment of what is happening. We also know that no alternative explanation better fits the circumstances in which we find ourselves

Click to expand...

Travis007 said:

so the dinosaurs caused the ICE AGE... right?...

Click to expand...

TheNextEra said:

So you believe that humans have ZERO impact on climate change then?

Click to expand...

Manc Skipper said:

Who rattled your cage?

Click to expand...

Mr.Nick said:

Of course I don't accept it because it's flawed data that is primarily based on a couple hundred years of climate data.

Click to expand...

donsutherland1 said:

The instrument record extends several hundred years. Paleoclimatic data e.g., from ice cores extends back much farther in time. For example, the Vostok ice cores provide temperature estimates from more than 400,000 years ago.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/readme_petit1999.txt

Click to expand...

donsutherland1 said:

I will add to my comments in Message #2. Three quick thoughts before posting some of the draft report's key findings:

1. It is astonishing that the whomever wrote the news story cited at the beginning of this thread never read the IPCC report.
2. The news story is an example of confirmation bias at its worst. It latches onto a piece of information that is taken out of context and assumes that the draft report has retreated on the findings of earlier IPCC assessments.
3. Perhaps the two points above explain why the news organization that disseminated the story and the bloggers who have latched onto the incorrect story, were so far off the mark when it came to the 2012 U.S. Presidential election.

In general, in a free society, people need reliable information to make rational choices. The above story is not an example of reliable information. Public policy that is based on such flawed information is not optimal, as it misses the actual problem at hand (assumes that it doesn't exist). Hence, one can't proceed to the necessary discussion of costs and benefits, even as the opportunity costs associated with that flawed assumption could be rising.

As for the leaked draft report, these are its major conclusions as it relates to AGW:

Globally, CO2 is the strongest driver of climate change compared to other changes in the atmospheric composition, and changes in surface conditions. Its relative contribution has further increased since the 1980s and by far outweighs the contributions from natural drivers. CO2 concentrations and rates of increase are unprecedented in teh last 800,000 years and at least 20,000 years, respectively.

I underlined the text related to natural drivers, as solar activity is a natural driver. The report makes unambiguously clear that the forcing related to CO2 far exceeds the impact of natural drivers, including the solar component, when it comes to ongoing climate change.

The report adds:

There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the Earth System due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.

Notice again that natural factors explain only "a small fraction" of the earth's ongoing energy imbalance, which is leading to heating. Indeed, the earth maintained a sizable energy imbalance even during the recent solar minimum, which was the longest and deepest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century.

Click to expand...

Travis007 said:

reality...

Click to expand...

Manc Skipper said:

How would you tell that?

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Fine and dandy if you want to place all your trust into what the UN comes up with for you, personally I do not. Second, tell me, what is the methodology they used to come up with that pant load of crap?

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Fine and dandy if you want to place all your trust into what the UN comes up with for you, personally I do not. Second, tell me, what is the methodology they used to come up with that pant load of crap?

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Well, surprise, surprise....Warming is caused by the sun.....Who'd have thunk it?.....:mrgreen:

So the question is, why would an international body like the UN be pushing so hard for man made climate change? The answer is in what few know about, called agenda 21.,.

Click to expand...

IPCC 5th report on global warming draft leaked online, evidence stronger - National Green Living | Examiner.com
DECEMBER 14, 2012
BY: ANNE SECCOMBE

"...The agent of the Leak is a rather colorful Climate Contrarian named Alec Rawls, who essentially claimed, on the basis of a single sentence in the draft, that the entire edifice of climate science is about to collapse. - In his interpretation, the group putting the report together, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is about to acknowledge the validity of a longstanding fringe theory: that cosmic rays have a huge influence on the earth’s climate.

The lead author of the chapter from which the sentence in question was plucked, is Professor Steve Sherwood, the director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW. ABC News in Australia contacted Steve directly to get his response to the blogger's interpretation of the information. Here is what HE had to say:

"I'm sure you could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we Conclude Exactly the Opposite - that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible,"​

he told Mark Colvin of the ABC's PM show.

"What it shows is that we looked at this. We look at everything.
"The IPCC has a very comprehensive process where we try to look at all the influences on climate and so we looked at this one."​

Professor Sherwood and other leading scientists in the field of climate science are of the Consensus that the body of data we have available today has effectively disproved the hypothesis that sunspots have a greater effect on global warming than does anthropogenic, or in other words human, activity.

"There have been a couple of papers suggesting that solar forcing affects climate through cosmic rays, cloud interactions, but most of the literature on this shows that doesn't actually work," he said.

"Even the sentence Doesn't say what they say and certainly if you look at the context, we're really saying the Opposite."

The entire interview is available to listen to here. Draft IPCC report leaked - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Click to expand...

Redress said:

Damn, you where quick to believe the UN when you thought they said what you wanted to believe. Did you get whiplash reversing yourself like that?

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

If I used the UN before in any argument it was only in a search of a source that liberals like you would accept...Trust me when I say, that I don't trust most all of what their agenda is.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Well, surprise, surprise....Warming is caused by the sun.....Who'd have thunk it?.....:mrgreen:

So the question is, why would an international body like the UN be pushing so hard for man made climate change? The answer is in what few know about, called agenda 21.



So you all tell me. I know that those willing, or wanting to mask the "ends" that they are for will attack me for using the Blaze as a source for the secondary piece, but agenda 21 is there for all to read...

Agenda 21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read it, and do your own research, but this is probably the clearest sign that the UN is a dangerous to freedom, and needs to be dismantled.

Click to expand...

mbig said:

There are a few strings already in the E&C section about the/this Alec Rawls leak.
Debunked ones.
ie
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...game-changing-reversals-5.html#post1061258085

Click to expand...

Redress said:

You only needed to search this thread. Hell,m just look at the title of the thread.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

I am sorry that I don't buy into the religion of man made global warming con job, that is aimed at taking rights. But you are free to....

Click to expand...

Redress said:

And now you switch to unresponsive evasions.

Click to expand...

head of joaquin said:

clownboy, the climatologist speaks.

Regrettably for rightwing conspiracy theorists, real climatologists disagree.

Click to expand...

donsutherland1 said:

I will add to my comments in Message #2. Three quick thoughts before posting some of the draft report's key findings:

1. It is astonishing that the whomever wrote the news story cited at the beginning of this thread never read the IPCC report.
2. The news story is an example of confirmation bias at its worst. It latches onto a piece of information that is taken out of context and assumes that the draft report has retreated on the findings of earlier IPCC assessments.
3. Perhaps the two points above explain why the news organization that disseminated the story and the bloggers who have latched onto the incorrect story, were so far off the mark when it came to the 2012 U.S. Presidential election.

In general, in a free society, people need reliable information to make rational choices. The above story is not an example of reliable information. Public policy that is based on such flawed information is not optimal, as it misses the actual problem at hand (assumes that it doesn't exist). Hence, one can't proceed to the necessary discussion of costs and benefits, even as the opportunity costs associated with that flawed assumption could be rising.

As for the leaked draft report, these are its major conclusions as it relates to AGW:

Globally, CO2 is the strongest driver of climate change compared to other changes in the atmospheric composition, and changes in surface conditions. Its relative contribution has further increased since the 1980s and by far outweighs the contributions from natural drivers. CO2 concentrations and rates of increase are unprecedented in teh last 800,000 years and at least 20,000 years, respectively.

I underlined the text related to natural drivers, as solar activity is a natural driver. The report makes unambiguously clear that the forcing related to CO2 far exceeds the impact of natural drivers, including the solar component, when it comes to ongoing climate change.

The report adds:

There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the Earth System due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.

Notice again that natural factors explain only "a small fraction" of the earth's ongoing energy imbalance, which is leading to heating. Indeed, the earth maintained a sizable energy imbalance even during the recent solar minimum, which was the longest and deepest solar minimum since at least the early 20th century.

Click to expand...

TheNextEra said:

I know of noone that is dealing in absolutes in regards to solar not causing ANY change. Please show us the comment where someone made that solar has abosultely ZERO effect on climate change while humans make absoultely ALL of the change. I'm guess you can't because you pulled that comment out of your ass.

Click to expand...