I don't dispute that we could change the climate; it's not even't particularly difficult: a couple of big nuclear bombs and we could change it pretty radically. I just don't know that our influence is as large as is claimed.
The other known variables may not account for it, but there may also be unknown variables. I'm just not too quick to jump on the bandwagon and I am not convinced that human activities have the effect that is claimed in this case. To be sure they have some effect (see hydrofluorocarbons, for example) and considering that this is the only planet on which we are currently capable of surviving, it would be smart to take steps to protect it for reason other than the purely selfish one of helping ensure that it can continue to foster our survival.
Again the world;s climatologists have said it is us, there was a paper released recently that put your (unknown variables) to bed, the chance of it not being humans was lower then .01 and as you know in stats, that's it, the finding is significant. There is no unknown variable and if there is the chance is so small that it's meaningless, hence that's not a valid argument. You could make that argument about anything, however, in stats alpha levels of .05-.01 are the standard, it's been met and then some. What possible variables could explain all this? give me some examples, if not, it's simply you not having enough information on the subject. I have yet to hear one valid argument, anywhere. Where is the literature?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00622.1"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “very likely” statement that anthropogenic emissions are affecting climate is based on a statistical detection and attribution methodology that strongly depends on the characterization of internal climate variability. In this paper, the authors test the robustness of this statement in the case of global mean surface air temperature, under different representations of such variability. The contributions of the different natural and anthropogenic forcings to the global mean surface air temperature response are computed using a box diffusion model.
Representations of internal climate variability are explored using simple stochastic models that nevertheless span a representative range of plausible temporal autocorrelation structures, including the short-memory first-order autoregressive [AR(1)] process and the long-memory fractionally differencing process. The authors find that, independently of the representation chosen, the greenhouse gas signal remains statistically significant under the detection model employed in this paper. The results support the robustness of the IPCC detection and attribution statement for global mean temperature change under different characterizations of internal variability, but they also suggest that a wider variety of robustness tests, other than simple comparisons of residual variance, should be performed when dealing with other climate variables and/or different spatial scales."
2014 was the warmest summer in history, ever recorded or hinted at. Mcway wants you to interpret this data as cooling though.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/8Those fucking japs, tree hugging liberals.
"NASA and the Japan Meteorological Agency agree that August was the warmest on record. NASA puts August’s global temperature at 0.7 degrees Celsius above the 1951-1980 average, while the JMA, which compares temperatures to a more recent period, reports August was 0.32 degrees Celsius above the 1981-2010 average."
This summer was a record for heat, EVER.
The cause is increase CO2, Fact. It doesn't need more evidence, the models we use make accurate predictions, they showed slowing winds, earlier storms, record cold and hot months in the same year, ocean acidification, ice sheet collapsing. They take into account the sun, the wind, the ocean, the movement of the earth, the natural cycles.
Also, this natural cycle bullshit needs to go. When you see saw up and down in weight, it's not natural cycles, it's glycogen and water depletion, calories intake etc this create the "natural cycle", we know the variables, hence we know the natural cycle. I mean if you aren't satisfied with a .01 or greater then %95 confidence interval then you are holding climatology to an unfair standard.
