Consilience » Blog Archive » Tackling Global Climate Change: Is the US Finally Onboard?

We are undoubtedly entering a historic period in the annals of climate history.

Momentum is building toward the Copenhagen climate negotiations in December, where-many hope-the nuts and bolts of a new international climate change framework will be negotiated. There is a growing sense of optimism in the air. Some are hopeful that, this time, the international community will actually forge a workable climate treaty. The source of this optimism? For one, the world has learned its lessons from past failures, including the Kyoto Protocol and a number of regional initiatives (such as Phase One of the European Emissions Trading System, ETS). Furthermore, thanks to continued scientific research and concerted efforts to inform policymakers and the public, the science of climate change has become ever starker; the policy options, clearer; and the willingness to include critical sectors like deforestation and land-use change, much stronger.

Fresh Bilge » Davos Delusions

The authors of the report imagine than man causes climate, and that a sacrifice of humankind’s carbon output would miraculously stabilize climate — on a planet in the middle of a violent ice age cycle. This ignorant and irrational angst seems to some a mere excuse for a global power grab by the international elite. Certainly it is being exploited for that purpose, as Al Gore openly admits. But Davos man, believing in no other power than man, actually imagines that humans can control the climate of Earth. It is a dangerous delusion.

How Science Will Get Rid Of The AGW Dogma « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

It’s rather straightforward, and on past performance suggests any date between 2018 and 2091 as the year CO2-based AGW (or CO2-AGW) went the way of the dodo (using a quasi-arbitrary baseline of 1988 as when AGW became mainstream, with Hansen’s testimony to the US Senate).

A Climate Change Paradox (Part II) | JoNova

Michael Hammer previously calculated that if the IPCC were right, the oceans should have absorbed a lot more heat, but just how much? He has revised his previous calculation after discovering an error. Now instead of oceans missing as much as 90% of the heat capacity, they are missing less, but it’s still around two-thirds. Its a lot of energy that somehow, somewhere, is not being absorbed. Where is the energy that greenhouse gases are supposedly ‘trapping’? Not in the air, and not in the water. What sort of radiative imbalance is this? Not one to get scared of.