Global cooling

[pueno]

[coboardhead]

[mrgybe]

These two aren't liberals??

For all the immediate challenges that we gather to address this week – terrorism, instability, inequality, disease – there's one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate," Mr Obama said. (last week)

Saying that climate change ranks among the world's most serious problems -- such as disease outbreaks, poverty, terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called on all nations to respond to "the greatest challenge of our generation." (mid August)

[MalibuGuru]

It's not the asteroid. It's the super volcano, the ebola, the crop failure, the extended Ca drought, or any number of other events that could really cause harm. We should be prepared for all of them. Not just global warming.

How ironic it would be if the honey bees were to all die off while we spent trillions on GW. Billions would die.

I find the idea that warming could kill off billions, a farcical trip down the rabbit hole.

I'd be all for water desalination in CA, or earthquake preparation, than I am for a reduction in CO2.

[mac]

Bard is a perfect illustration of a low information voter who gets his information from low truth right wing sources. "I'd be all for water desalination in Ca."

Water desalination costs about 10 times what they sell water to agricultural users, and it has an extraordinarily high carbon signature. Conservation is dramatically cheaper. If we added pricing incentives to water we would have enough. That would be a market solution that would be endorsed by conservatives--if there were any sane ones left.

You have to shake your head...

[mac]

And, to twit those who think the oil industry can do no wrong:

[isobars]

[nw30]

Just might have to drop the "warming" from Global Warming because it just isn't happening the way they (the alarmists) were hoping, and yes I mean hoping.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ditch U.N. temperature target for global warming, study says

By Alister Doyle

OSLO (Reuters) - A temperature goal set by almost 200 governments as the limit for global warming is a poor guide to the planet's health and should be ditched, a study published in the journal Nature said on Wednesday.

The world's environment ministers agreed in 2010 to cap a rise in average surface temperatures at 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times as the yardstick to avoid more floods, heat waves, droughts and rising sea levels.

"Politically and scientifically, the 2 degree C goal is wrong-headed," David Victor and Charles Kennel, both professors at the University of California in San Diego, wrote in the Nature article entitled "Ditch the 2C Warming Goal".

Among objections, they said the goal was "effectively unachievable" because of rising greenhouse gas emissions, led in recent years by China's strong economic growth.

And they said the target was out of line with recent trends. Temperatures have risen about 0.85 degree Celsius (1.5F) since about 1900 but have been virtually flat since about 1998 despite higher emissions from factories, power plants and cars.

They said that blood pressure, heart rate or body mass were all vital signs of health for a person, not just temperature. "A similar strategy is now needed for the planet," they wrote.

The study urged a shift to other yardsticks to gauge the planet's health, such as concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or changes in the heat content of the oceans.

Some other scientists said the 2C target was still the best goal to guide U.N. talks on a deal to limit climate change, due to be agreed by governments in late 2015 at a summit in Paris.

HOT 1998

"Their arguments don't hold water," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

He said that a shift to tracking carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, for instance, would not help because no one knows exactly how far rising carbon concentrations affect temperatures.

And he said that 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, warmed by a powerful El Nino event in the Pacific Ocean. The period since then was not typical of long-term trends.

A German group of experts, Climate Analytics, also defended the 2C goal. "Whilst no one is in doubt about the difficulty of limiting warming below 2 degrees C, it is incorrect to claim that achieving this goal is infeasible," they wrote.

The U.N.'s panel of climate experts said in March that it was still possible to keep temperatures below 2C at a moderate annual cost of about 0.06 percent of economic output.

The panel says it is at least 95 percent probable that man-made greenhouse gas emissions, rather than natural swings in the climate system, are the main cause of global warming since 1950.

http://news.yahoo.com/ditch-u-n-temperature-target-global-warming-study-171123790.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Going to have to try a different tactic, something like climate change leads to Ebola and other potential pandemic diseases, yeah, that sounds good, lets try that route next, that could suck them in.
Like I've said before, you'd think they (the alarmists) would be happy, but they aren't.

[keycocker]

Nw30
The GW thing is political for you isn't it?
These articles are the score some folks are keeping in a bitter political battle.
For me it has nothing to do with libs vs. GOP.
It is science.

[nw30]