For the global warming denial tarts

[Necrosis]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

still believe it doesn't exist?

when you have a group of people who deny evolution (a fact), global warming (a fact) and believe in sky gods (a fairy tale) it is a recipe for disaster.

[Soul Crusher]

its 30 degrees this am in NYC. 

[Roger Bacon]

Surely there is proof connecting humans to climate change?  Someone post it up?

[blacken700]

How we know human activity is causing warming

We know the planet is warming — scientists have a clear understanding why


The theory of global warming is nothing new. The Nobel Prize-winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first proposed the idea of global warming in 1896. Carbon dioxide, he knew, traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. He also knew that burning coal and oil releases carbon dioxide (CO2).
 
Arrhenius speculated that continued burning of coal and oil would increase concentrations of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, making the planet warmer. It's called the greenhouse effect.
 
What warms the Earth?
 
To determine what is causing today's rapid global warming, scientists have examined all the factors that can affect the Earth's temperature. There are essentially three factors that could be responsible for recent rapid global warming:
 1.The sun
 2.Earth's reflectivity
 3.Greenhouse gases
 
Which of these is causing our current global warming?
 
It's not the sun: cause of little warming since 1750, none since 1980s
 
Ultimately, the climate system is powered by the sun: all else being equal, if you turn up the sun, you'll warm up the Earth. According to IPCC estimates, the sun has accounted for just a small portion of warming since 1750. A study of more recent solar activity has demonstrated that since about 1985 the sun has changed in ways that, if anything, should have cooled the planet—even as global temperatures have been rising. So the sun is not causing global warming.
 
It's not reflectivity: changes point to cooling, not warming
 
Around 30% of the sun's energy that reaches the Earth is reflected back into space. Changes in how much sunlight is absorbed, and how much is reflected, can affect global temperatures. Using satellite and land-based observations and computer models, scientists have calculated how Earth's reflectivity has changed over time.
 
These calculations suggest that human-produced particulate pollution, especially reflective sulfur-containing particles, have had a cooling effect on the climate, masking some of the warming effect of greenhouse gases. In fact, the slight decrease in global temperature between 1945 and 1975 was likely caused by a combination of rising particulate pollution and natural factors. Warming resumed after 1975 when industrialized countries began to clean up their particulate pollution while continuing to increase their greenhouse gas emissions.
 
As for human land use changes (primarily forest clearing for agriculture), they have on balance brightened the planet since 1750. This would have a cooling effect, yet we've seen warming. Changes in the frequency of volcanic eruptions, which can send reflective particles up into the stratosphere, also cannot explain the observed warming trend. So reflectivity is not causing global warming.
 
All the evidence points to greenhouse gases
 
That leaves the greenhouse effect as the only remaining scientific explanation for the rise in global temperatures in recent decades. We have direct measurements of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere going back more than 50 years, and indirect measurements (from ice cores) going back hundreds of thousands of years. These measurements confirm that concentrations are rising rapidly.
 

Historic CO2 levels
 



The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than at any time in measurable history, and predicted to increase dramatically this century. Source: GlobalChange.gov
 



Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 390 ppm. That's 30% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
 
We also know the additional CO2 in the atmosphere comes mainly from coal and oil, because the chemical composition of the CO2 contains a unique "fingerprint."
 
As far as scientists are concerned, it's case closed: human activity is causing the Earth to get warmer, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, with a smaller contribution from deforestation. All other scientific explanations for why the Earth is getting warmer have been eliminated.
 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=proof%20global%20warming%20is%20caused%20by%20humans&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edf.org%2Fclimate%2Fhuman-activity-causes-warming&ei=ZyBbUfdikcLgA_jugeAC&usg=AFQjCNEpjUaMO1cWH1e0fyF9bCW7TXdT0g

[Roger Bacon]

How we know human activity is causing warming

We know the planet is warming — scientists have a clear understanding why


The theory of global warming is nothing new. The Nobel Prize-winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first proposed the idea of global warming in 1896. Carbon dioxide, he knew, traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere. He also knew that burning coal and oil releases carbon dioxide (CO2).
 
Arrhenius speculated that continued burning of coal and oil would increase concentrations of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, making the planet warmer. It's called the greenhouse effect.
 
What warms the Earth?
 
To determine what is causing today's rapid global warming, scientists have examined all the factors that can affect the Earth's temperature. There are essentially three factors that could be responsible for recent rapid global warming:
 1.The sun
 2.Earth's reflectivity
 3.Greenhouse gases
 
Which of these is causing our current global warming?
 
It's not the sun: cause of little warming since 1750, none since 1980s
 
Ultimately, the climate system is powered by the sun: all else being equal, if you turn up the sun, you'll warm up the Earth. According to IPCC estimates, the sun has accounted for just a small portion of warming since 1750. A study of more recent solar activity has demonstrated that since about 1985 the sun has changed in ways that, if anything, should have cooled the planet—even as global temperatures have been rising. So the sun is not causing global warming.
 
It's not reflectivity: changes point to cooling, not warming
 
Around 30% of the sun's energy that reaches the Earth is reflected back into space. Changes in how much sunlight is absorbed, and how much is reflected, can affect global temperatures. Using satellite and land-based observations and computer models, scientists have calculated how Earth's reflectivity has changed over time.
 
These calculations suggest that human-produced particulate pollution, especially reflective sulfur-containing particles, have had a cooling effect on the climate, masking some of the warming effect of greenhouse gases. In fact, the slight decrease in global temperature between 1945 and 1975 was likely caused by a combination of rising particulate pollution and natural factors. Warming resumed after 1975 when industrialized countries began to clean up their particulate pollution while continuing to increase their greenhouse gas emissions.
 
As for human land use changes (primarily forest clearing for agriculture), they have on balance brightened the planet since 1750. This would have a cooling effect, yet we've seen warming. Changes in the frequency of volcanic eruptions, which can send reflective particles up into the stratosphere, also cannot explain the observed warming trend. So reflectivity is not causing global warming.
 
All the evidence points to greenhouse gases
 
That leaves the greenhouse effect as the only remaining scientific explanation for the rise in global temperatures in recent decades. We have direct measurements of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere going back more than 50 years, and indirect measurements (from ice cores) going back hundreds of thousands of years. These measurements confirm that concentrations are rising rapidly.
 

Historic CO2 levels
 



The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than at any time in measurable history, and predicted to increase dramatically this century. Source: GlobalChange.gov
 



Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 390 ppm. That's 30% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
 
We also know the additional CO2 in the atmosphere comes mainly from coal and oil, because the chemical composition of the CO2 contains a unique "fingerprint."
 
As far as scientists are concerned, it's case closed: human activity is causing the Earth to get warmer, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, with a smaller contribution from deforestation. All other scientific explanations for why the Earth is getting warmer have been eliminated.
 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=proof%20global%20warming%20is%20caused%20by%20humans&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edf.org%2Fclimate%2Fhuman-activity-causes-warming&ei=ZyBbUfdikcLgA_jugeAC&usg=AFQjCNEpjUaMO1cWH1e0fyF9bCW7TXdT0g

Interesting theory, far from concrete proof though.

[Necrosis]

Interesting theory, far from concrete proof though.

ah when a model or theory predicts change and that specific change comes (the facts) then strength is added to that theory. The fact is the climate is changing, it's getting warmer. 33 points out how dumb he is as he indicates the weather today, the difference between climate and weather is foreign to him. Back to the subject at hand, one prediction is that the ocean if GW is human induced would form a sink in specific areas, low and behold a huge heat sink has been found. The factors causing warming are clear and objective, we know 2 of the 3 aren't changing. Unless there are variables we know nothing of.

[Soul Crusher]

ah when a model or theory predicts change and that specific change comes (the facts) then strength is added to that theory. The fact is the climate is changing, it's getting warmer. 33 points out how dumb he is as he indicates the weather today, the difference between climate and weather is foreign to him. Back to the subject at hand, one prediction is that the ocean if GW is human induced would form a sink in specific areas, low and behold a huge heat sink has been found. The factors causing warming are clear and objective, we know 2 of the 3 aren't changing. Unless there are variables we know nothing of.

Lets have a tax and shut off the lights right? 

[Shockwave]

ah when a model or theory predicts change and that specific change comes (the facts) then strength is added to that theory. The fact is the climate is changing, it's getting warmer. 33 points out how dumb he is as he indicates the weather today, the difference between climate and weather is foreign to him. Back to the subject at hand, one prediction is that the ocean if GW is human induced would form a sink in specific areas, low and behold a huge heat sink has been found. The factors causing warming are clear and objective, we know 2 of the 3 aren't changing. Unless there are variables we know nothing of.

Meh, still cant bring self to care.

[Soul Crusher]

Ban china ! 

[Necrosis]

Lets have a tax and shut off the lights right? 

ya because that is sane

you are stupid as all hell. With rising sea levels alone many atoll based countries will vanish. Only an idiot would think that trying to fix the problem is a negative.

[Soul Crusher]

ya because that is sane

you are stupid as all hell. With rising sea levels alone many atoll based countries will vanish. Only an idiot would think that trying to fix the problem is a negative.

So again - tell me the solution you propose - a carbon tax and shutting off the lights right? 

[dario73]

ConfusedPhoton says:
March 31, 2013 at 5:08 am
I see the Guardian has not taken up another prediction Myles Allen was involved in-
“Myles Allen first hit the headlines when a research project that he was involved with issued a press release (26th Jan 2005) predicting that temperatures could rise by 11° C even if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is limited to only double the level before the Industrial Revolution.”
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=81
Strange how the press release does not seem to be available on climateprediction.net!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/global-warming-predictions-prove-accurate-guardian/

[dario73]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/global-warming-predictions-prove-accurate-guardian/

These claims raise a number of issues, but let’s start by looking at the actual numbers. Plotted below are the annual HADCRUT4 anomalies, (based on y/e August, in line with Allen’s workings).


The decade averages, as indicated by the red lines, have increased from 0.196C to 0.467C, so on the face of it, Allen’s prediction was spot on. But we need to delve a little deeper.

1) Let’s start by making a general observation. The Guardian suggest that the results of this one model somehow vindicate climate modelling in general. This is clearly a nonsense, as we will see later, as is their claim that it “should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change”

2) The article also talks about “the relative slow-down in warming since the early years of the early 2000s”. This is more nonsense – warming has not “slowed down”, it has stopped.

3) The first thing to notice about Allen’s prediction is just how low it was, compared with most other models. His forecast of 0.25C warming in 16 years equates to about 1.5C/century, well below other predictions. We’ll compare a couple later.

4) His starting point, the 10 years ending 1996 were, of course, affected by Pinatubo. The years 1992-94 were about 0.15C lower than the years before and after, so it is reasonable to assume the decadal average was about 0.04C lower as a result. In other words, about a sixth of Allen’s prediction of a 0.25C increase is no more than a rebound from Pinatubo.

5) As there was warming between 1986 and 1996, the temperatures at the end of that decade were already higher than the decadal mean. The average of 1995/96 was 0.07C higher than the decadal mean. In other words, part of Allen’s predicted increase between 1996 and 2012 had already occurred before 1996.

6) By the time the paper was written in 1999, Allen, of course, already knew that temperatures had climbed significantly since 1996, with the average of 1997 and 98 being 0.46C. Remember that his model predicted a figure of 0.45C for the decade to 2012, (0.196C + 0.250C).

I wonder why we were not told then that there would be no net warming for the next 13 years?

7) Although the model has, fortuitously, accurately predicted the temperature to 2012, this does not mean that it has been validated. The lack of warming for at least 10 years is a significant feature, and any model that fails to predict this cannot be said to be validated. It is ludicrous to posit that it “should give a boost to confidence in scientific predictions of climate change”.

As I mentioned, many other models forecast much more rapid rates of warming. The Met Office’s decadal forecast in 2007, for instance, which predicted global temperatures in 2012 would be 0.60C higher than 1996.



http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/met-office-decadal-forecast2007-version/

9) Or Hansen’s famous 1988 model, that predicted more than a degree of warming, even under Scenario B.

[loco]

Medieval Warm Period

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate  events around the world during that time, including in China,[1]  New Zealand,[2]  and other countries[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]  lasting from about AD 950–1250.[10]  It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.[11][12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period


Those darn knights, crusaders, and vikings must have caused this Medieval global warming with all their horse and cattle farting.   

[Roger Bacon]

I've read that naturally occurring c02 in the atmosphere fluctuates more than the total c02 emitted by man.

This exact same climate cycle has occurred repeatedly throughout Earths history.  The Ocean has been much higher and lower. 


The first thousand times this happened it was natural (because we couldn't possibly connect it to mankind), this time though.... 

[blacken700]

Fifty-eight percent of Republicans believe that global warming is a “hoax,”   

[Soul Crusher]

Fifty-eight percent of Republicans believe that global warming is a “hoax,”   

It is a hoax.  Its fng cold in NYC today

[GigantorX]

Fifty-eight percent of Republicans believe that global warming is a “hoax,”   

Do you have something to add?

[Roger Bacon]

Medieval Warm Period

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate  events around the world during that time, including in China,[1]  New Zealand,[2]  and other countries[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]  lasting from about AD 950–1250.[10]  It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.[11][12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period


Those darn knights, crusaders, and vikings must have caused this Medieval global warming with all their horse and cattle farting.   

There are sea shells allover the midwestern United States.  1100ft above sea level...  

[blacken700]

Do you have something to add?

need you say more, that about sums it up 

[Soul Crusher]

need you say more, that about sums it up 

The climate is always changing.  Can you give me a perdiod of time in the earths' existence when the climate was perfect and not changing that we should try to get back to? 

[blacken700]

The idea that Global Warming is a natural cycle is well understood from paleo data covering the past 1 million years. Is there a difference between current climate, and the natural cycle? For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages. This shifting in and out of warm periods and ice ages is correlated strongly with Milankovitch cycles. In order to understand the difference between natural cycle and human-caused global warming, one needs to consider changes in radiative forcing and how this affects systems on earth such as the atmosphere, vegetation, ice and snow, ocean cycles and related effects.



Is global warming a natural cycle? Or is global warming affected by human influence? What does the science say? Both are true. In the natural cycle, the world can warm, and cool, without any human interference. For the past million years this has occurred over and over again at 100,000 year intervals. About 80-90,000 years of ice age with about 10-20,000 years of warm period.
 
The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. Current warming is clearly not natural cycle. The earths natural cycles, if human industrial output had not been involved, would have us near or slightly below thermal equilibrium, possibly slightly cooling.
 
In other words, if we were in the natural cycle without human influence, the forcing levels would likely be around 0W/m2 to -0.1W/m2. We are currently experiencing a positive forcing of around 3.6 to 3.8W/m2 and a human induced negative forcing of around 2W/m2. The resultant forcing, depending on current levels and the Schwabe cycle is around +1.6W/m2 above natural cycle as estimated.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=global%20warming%20is%20it%20a%20natural%20cycle&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fossfoundation.us%2Fprojects%2Fenvironment%2Fglobal-warming%2Fnatural-cycle&ei=IFZcUZT0GdK24AOAwIHoCg&usg=AFQjCNGMk3woZ3vD6FpWTGz9AofrduDPHA

[loco]

The idea that Global Warming is a natural cycle is well understood from paleo data covering the past 1 million years. Is there a difference between current climate, and the natural cycle? For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages. This shifting in and out of warm periods and ice ages is correlated strongly with Milankovitch cycles. In order to understand the difference between natural cycle and human-caused global warming, one needs to consider changes in radiative forcing and how this affects systems on earth such as the atmosphere, vegetation, ice and snow, ocean cycles and related effects.



Is global warming a natural cycle? Or is global warming affected by human influence? What does the science say? Both are true. In the natural cycle, the world can warm, and cool, without any human interference. For the past million years this has occurred over and over again at 100,000 year intervals. About 80-90,000 years of ice age with about 10-20,000 years of warm period.
 
The difference is that in the natural cycle CO2 lags behind the warming because it is mainly due to the Milankovitch cycles. Now CO2 is leading the warming. Current warming is clearly not natural cycle. The earths natural cycles, if human industrial output had not been involved, would have us near or slightly below thermal equilibrium, possibly slightly cooling.
 
In other words, if we were in the natural cycle without human influence, the forcing levels would likely be around 0W/m2 to -0.1W/m2. We are currently experiencing a positive forcing of around 3.6 to 3.8W/m2 and a human induced negative forcing of around 2W/m2. The resultant forcing, depending on current levels and the Schwabe cycle is around +1.6W/m2 above natural cycle as estimated.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=global%20warming%20is%20it%20a%20natural%20cycle&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fossfoundation.us%2Fprojects%2Fenvironment%2Fglobal-warming%2Fnatural-cycle&ei=IFZcUZT0GdK24AOAwIHoCg&usg=AFQjCNGMk3woZ3vD6FpWTGz9AofrduDPHA

LOL...blacken700, below is the link to your article.  No need to post that long arse link you got from googling the heck out of this to find what suits you.   

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle

[Shockwave]

Meh, ill give a fuck about global warming when conclusive evidence that proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that we are going to cause climate change on such a scale that it will wipe out ALL life on earth.

Until its proven that we are going to wipe out every living thing on earth, quite frankly I don't give a flying fuck.

[Roger Bacon]

Wasn't a coming ice age the big thing of the 80's/90's?  Backed by Scientific evidence.... 

Same garbage, we'll be looking back at these idiots laughing.