Global cooling

[mac]

I overestimated you NW, you're not just cherry-picking, you are a bottom feeder. Quoting a fraud because you are skeptical shows that you are stupid as well as skeptical. Or would gullible be a nicer term? It just amazes me that the righties who are, rightly, suspicious of modeling of climate, wet themselves when a modeler from Russia says something you desperately want to believe.

Now back to substance. The issue of solar cycles has been around for many years, and put up by climate change deniers--only most of whom are paid by the CO2 industries. Here's an interesting link http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716113358.htm, showing that the NSF has been doing research on those cycles for a long time. It is shown in this article that such cycles appear to account for the El Nino/La Nina cycles. Now here's where it gets a little complicated. An El Nino can raise the temperature by 2 degrees, and causes very large changes in water surface elevation because of surge. The 1982-83 El Nino in California raised water levels by 3 feet--much more than the 14 inches expected by global warming through the middle of the century. But those anomalies are temporary--water levels have not remained at the 1983 levels. Global warming, so far as we know right now, is a one way ticket. So a solar cycle that caused a downturn in temperature of 1-2 degrees might temporarily offset the temperature increase from CO2 trapping heat. But only temporarily. Because even with those solar cycles, the net effect on energy is trivial. From the article, for those of you who bother to read science instead of denier junk:

[nw30]

Heh, okay.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

I was not aware that anybody of an open and enquiring mind (right wing or otherwise) who has rightly been suspicious of Global WARMING modelling, is now wetting themselves because 'some Russian modeller' (very condescending) says something we desperately want to hear.

On the contrary. It shows that some have open minds with which to consider the implications of alternatives to global warming, which makes us question just why such a stance causes such bitterness and anger, in some minds?

[nw30]

mac: "for those of you who bother to read science instead of denier junk"

You mean like this?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Dem resolution warns climate change could push women to ‘transactional sex’
By Pete Kasperowicz - 04/29/13 11:06 AM ET


Several House Democrats are calling on Congress to recognize that climate change is hurting women more than men, and could even drive poor women to "transactional sex" for survival.

The resolution, from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and a dozen other Democrats, says the results of climate change include drought and reduced agricultural output. It says these changes can be particularly harmful for women.


"[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health," it says.

Climate change could also add "workload and stresses" on female farmers, which the resolution says produce 60 to 80 percent of the food in developing countries.

The chances for regional conflict also increase with climate change, the resolution says, because changing weather patterns could lead to migration and refugee crises. It said these sorts of potential conflicts over land will have a disproportionate impact on "the most vulnerable populations including women."

More broadly, the resolution says climate change will hurt "marginalized" women, such as refugees, sexual minorities, adolescent girls, and women and girls with HIV. It also cites Hurricane Katrina as evidence of how climate change can affect women, noting that the storm displaced "over 83 percent of low-income, single mothers" in the region.

In a statement to The Hill, Lee said women are critically underrepresented in the development of climate change policy.

"My resolution will affirm the commitment to include and empower women in economic development planning and international climate change policies and practices," she said. "This will help communities adapt to climate impacts, and embark on a path towards clean and sustainable development."

The resolution calls on Congress to recognize the effects on women, and to use "gender-specific frameworks in developing policies to address climate change."

It says Congress recognizes the need for "balanced participation of men and women" in climate change adaption efforts, and that Congress will support women who are vulnerable to climate change.

Finally, it encourages the president to "integrate a gender approach in all policies and programs" related to climate change, and to ensure these policies "support women globally to prepare for, build resilience for, and adapt to climate change."


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/296679-%20dems-warn-climate-change-could-drive-women-to-transactional-sex#ixzz2S3MVXECu

[mrgybe]

[mac]

NW--so now we know where you bottom feed.

[swchandler]

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman


The above is in the header of Real Science. What does that convey? To me, a lack of any credibility for anything that follows.

[isobars]

[mac]

Not surprising that mrgybe missed the distinction between a scientific team in Russia--and the posing by NW30 of a fraud funded by his industry. I know, I know, peer review is so yesterday. Truly sneer worthy.

[keycocker]

It is certainly true that Global warming is treated like a religion by most deniers as well as most supporters.
Their reasons seem to be politics.
It is not true that the warming models predictions have not turned out correct because it was cold this week.
They only predict trends extending out for generations.
The rest is hype on both sides.