Former Obama Official: Climate Change Not 'Settled' Science

[lostinblue 1,989]

And went on to say

However, Koonin adds, while humans can cause serious issues for the climate, "they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole," with additions to carbon dioxide to "directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%."

Other scientists have argued that the sun’s solar activity has a much greater impact on earth temperatures that human activities.

You cannot roll with the sun idea.... A bit hard to tax folks with that claim.

[Rob L 3,811]

"

Other scientists have argued that the sun’s solar activity has a much greater impact on earth temperatures that human activities."

I hope so, not sure where we would be temp wise without the sun

[Rob L 3,811]

You cannot roll with the sun idea.... A bit hard to tax folks with that claim.

We are now unburying that carbon a *MILLION* times faster than it was buried, leading to unprecedented rates of increase in greenhouse concentrations and resulting climate changes. To claim that this is just part of a natural cycle is to be either deeply naive or disingenuous

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/09/20/on-eve-of-climate-march-wsj-publishes-call-to-wait-and-do-nothing/

Dr. Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology and Director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State:

Koonin mentions that this climate is always changing. This is a standard line in the WSJ because it sounds reasonable at first blush, but of course it conveys a deep falsehood. The fact is that the actual peer-reviewed scientific research shows that (a) the rate of warming over the past century is unprecedented as far back as the 20,000 years paleoclimate scientists are able to extend the record and (b) that warming can ONLY be explained by human influences.

Indeed, it is the RATE of warming that presents such risk to human civilization and our environment. There is no doubt that there were geological periods that were warmer than today due to long-term changes in greenhouse gas concentrations driven by natural factors like plate tectonics. But consider the early Cretaceous 100 million years ago when CO2 concentrations were even higher than today, and there were dinosaurs roaming the ice-free poles. Over the last 100 million years, nature slowly buried all of that additional CO2 beneath Earth’s surface in the form of fossil fuels. We are now unburying that carbon a *MILLION* times faster than it was buried, leading to unprecedented rates of increase in greenhouse concentrations and resulting climate changes. To claim that this is just part of a natural cycle is to be either deeply naive or disingenuous

[Boiler 43,592]

The world population had doubled since I came along give or take, and individual energy usage is significantly higher and globally spread.

They say by the end of the Century it will have doubled again.

This is what will drive the debate, not increasing the number of electric cars. Which anyway mainly use Electricity derived from Coal.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Other scientists have argued that the sun’s solar activity has a much greater impact on earth temperatures that human activities.

Talk about stating the obvious.

[khwaidee1 196]

When I was a boy in the 70s all the scientists then said the next ice age was coming. I believe they based their predictions on very limited data, like 140 years or something. Now at least they have 40 more years to go. It's not like the place has been around millions and millions of years, oh wait.......

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Other scientists have argued that the sun’s solar activity has a much greater impact on earth temperatures that human activities.

Talk about stating the obvious.

IS it so obvious? From reading on here, very few people seem to realize that even if human's contributed NOTHING to the change in climate, the earth moving a mere 1,000 km closer to the sun could have a much greater impact on the environment. To read all the quotes here, it seems many believe the end of the world as we know it is nigh upon us, and it's all because we produce a few metric tonnes of CO2 each year...

[Rob L 3,811]

IS it so obvious? From reading on here, very few people seem to realize that even if human's contributed NOTHING to the change in climate, the earth moving a mere 1,000 km closer to the sun could have a much greater impact on the environment. To read all the quotes here, it seems many believe the end of the world as we know it is nigh upon us, and it's all because we produce a few metric tonnes of CO2 each year...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

IS it so obvious? From reading on here, very few people seem to realize that even if human's contributed NOTHING to the change in climate, the earth moving a mere 1,000 km closer to the sun could have a much greater impact on the environment. To read all the quotes here, it seems many believe the end of the world as we know it is nigh upon us, and it's all because we produce a few metric tonnes of CO2 each year...

It most certainly is. But from reading that post of yours it is fairly clear that you failed to understand what those concerned about the human impact on our climate have been saying.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

It most certainly is. But from reading that post of yours it is fairly clear that you failed to understand what those concerned about the human impact on our climate have been saying.

What have I failed to understand?

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Since you said no words, I'm not certain what you want me to glean from this. Direct correlation says that temps over 11 years went up about 0.81° C, while TSI fluctuated about 0.7 watts per square meter. (*Said measurement of TSI variations has only been possible since about 1978 with the advent of satellite monitoring so not sure where your chart pulls the data prior to that)

The solar cycles occur on an 11-year average cycle, and the average TSI is 1366 watts per square meter.

I can see that recently, the TSIs have dropped, while temps have risen, if that is what you are trying to show.

[Rob L 3,811]

What have I failed to understand?

That fluctuation of radiation from the sun and its imapct on earth does not exceed the variations we are seeing in global temperatures over that last two decades. The "noise" from the sun does not exceed the "signal" from the human causes

[Rob L 3,811]

“Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”

Frank Luntz Political Strategist in a 2002 leaked memo

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

That fluctuation of radiation from the sun and its imapct on earth does not exceed the variations we are seeing in global temperatures over that last two decades. The "noise" from the sun does not exceed the "signal" from the human causes

And here's another source that shows CO2 levels for the past 75 years, 800,000 years, as well as 65 million years. Looks to me like CO2, while not at an all-time low, has been MUCH higher in past times. In fact, it cycles up and down. Our current slope is indeed positive, but nowhere near as high as say 25 million years ago.

Source: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.VCOPgi5dUVG