Members of this forum have frequently made incorrect claims like "the California drought is caused by climate change" when the NOAA has stated it is not caused by climate change. Or they have stated that there is no pause or hiatus, even while the journal Nature continues to accept research which seeks to explain the cause of the pause/hiatus. There really is nothing to be alarmed about when it comes to anthropogenic climate change - especially if you follow what the IPCC is most confident about. I however have my doubts about how strong the CO2 influence is, but even if the IPCC were correct (in its most confident assessment of climate change - RCP 2.5), that would mean a whopping 1 ft of sea level rise by 2100 along with 1° C increase in temperature. In fact, the global mean surface temperature has risen by 1.4° F since 1880 - when the Earth emerged from the "Little Ice Age". Not much to worry about. The study linked to by the OP seems to focus more on the possibility of a solar minima and what that could mean for the global climate - particularly England. The best estimation of truth is that there is a lot of uncertainty. People should focus more on the science and less on the supermarket tabloids when they want to learn about or keep up-to-date with climate change. Here is what can be found at NASA's website:
I assume you are referring to RCP2.6? Of the four possible scenarios, this was the one that led to the least greenhouse gas concentration levels. Where did they say that this was the scenario they were most confident in?
Where is the break between climate and weather? The California Drought is weather. I think a Little Ice Age is just weather. A real Ice Age would be climate.
All time record high temps are about to be set across the west today and tomorrow. Throw a little lightning in and we'll have a wildfire situation that we normally wouldn't see until mid-August or so. I'll be looking for this sun cool down this summer.
It's actually forecast to be a cooler than normal summer in the east, Texas, and Midwest thanks to El Niño.
You need to get your **** together people, you're killing the planet. The NOAA is full of lies. <iframe width="854" height="510" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EYPAxEcZeuw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Instead of denying global warming, conservatives should advocate smart laws to deal with it (carbon tax)
Uh, because the Arctic hasn't completely melted yet and it is the RCP that most clearly mimics reality - the hiatus.
Good luck to you guys, I don't envy that situation. Thankfully, for the first time in several years, we've had and might/should continue to have moderate temps and rainfall this summer in Texas. I believe I saw something that said this is the wettest January-June in recorded history here. El Nino? Love that guy.
So when you wrote it is "the most confident assessment", this is your own judgment based on what happened in the last few years or what they themselves said? I thought you were referring to some statistical model of confidence that they had specified for each of the pathways, which I was not aware of. Your post left the impression that this is what they were projecting, when its actually just one possible modeled projection out of 4 (and, by far, the most optimistic one at that). I don't think they said anything about which one is most likely, but perhaps I missed it.
BTW, the abstract for the paper which describes this scenario: https://staff.ucar.edu/browse/people/24453/OSGC-000-000-010-491 [rquoter] The RCP2.6 emission and concentration pathway is representative of the literature on mitigation scenarios aiming to limit the increase of global mean temperature to 2 degrees C. These scenarios form the low end of the scenario literature in terms of emissions and radiative forcing. They often show negative emissions from energy use in the second half of the 21st century. The RCP2.6 scenario is shown to be technically feasible in the IMAGE integrated assessment modeling framework from a medium emission baseline scenario, assuming full participation of all countries. Cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases from 2010 to 2100 need to be reduced by 70% compared to a baseline scenario, requiring substantial changes in energy use and emissions of non-CO2 gases. These measures (specifically the use of bio-energy and reforestation measures) also have clear consequences for global land use. Based on the RCP2.6 scenario, recommendations for further research on low emission scenarios have been formulated. These include the response of the climate system to a radiative forcing peak, the ability of society to achieve the required emission reduction rates given political and social inertia and the possibilities to further reduce emissions of non-CO2 gases. [/rquoter] This scenario depends, optimistically, on a substantial decrease in GHG emissions relative to the baseline trajectory, based on stringent climate policies being enacted. The same policies I assume you and climate change skeptics would be opposed to. So it doesn't really make sense to me for you to use projections based on this scenario as an argument against climate change policy.
The US met its Kyoto Protocol emmissions target. Which piece of legislation or CO2 mitigatting-effort lead to that?
