The source of the extra confidence comes from a multitude of separate advances. For a start, observational records are now roughly five years longer, and the global temperature increase over this period has been largely consistent with IPCC projections of greenhouse gas–driven warming made in previous reports dating back to 1990. In addition, changes in more aspects of the climate have been considered, such as those in atmospheric circulation or in temperatures within the ocean. Such changes paint a consistent and now broadened picture of human inter-vention. Climate models, which are central to attribution studies, have also improved and are able to represent the current climate and that of the recent past with considerable fidelity. Finally, some important apparent inconsistencies noted in the observational record have been largely resolved since the last report.
The most important of these was an apparent mismatch between the instrumental surface temperature record (which showed significant warming over recent decades, consistent with a human impact) and the balloon and satellite atmospheric records (which showed little of the expected warming). Several new studies of the satellite and balloon data have now largely resolved this discrepancy—with consistent warming found at the surface and in the atmosphere.
An experiment with the real world that duplicated the climate of the 20th century with constant (rather than increasing) greenhouse gases would be the ideal way to test for the cause of climate change, but such an experiment is of course impossible. So scientists do the next best thing: they simulate the past with climate models.
Two important advances since the last IPCC assessment have increased confidence in the use of models for both attribution and projection of climate changes. The first is the development of a comprehensive, closely coordinated ensemble of simulations from 18 modeling groups around the world for the historical and future evolution of the earth’s climate. Using many models helps to quantify the effects of uncertainties in various climate processes on the range of model simulations. Although some processes are well understood and well represented by physical equations (the flow of the atmosphere and ocean or the propagation of sunlight and heat, for example), some of the most critical components of the climate system are less well understood, such as clouds, ocean eddies and transpiration by vegetation. Modelers approximate these components using simplified representations called parameterizations. The principal reason to develop a multimodel ensemble for the IPCC assessments is to understand how this lack of certainty affects attribution and prediction of climate change. The ensemble for the latest assessment is unprecedented in the number of models and experiments performed.
The second advance is the incorporation of more realistic representations of climate processes in the models. These processes include the behavior of atmospheric aerosols, the dynamics (movement) of sea ice, and the exchange of water and energy between the land and the atmosphere. More models now include the major types of aerosols and the interactions between aerosols and clouds.
When scientists use climate models for attribution studies, they first run simulations with estimates of only “natural” climate influences over the past 100 years, such as changes in solar output and major volcanic eruptions. They then run models that include human-induced increases in greenhouse gases and aerosols. The results of such experiments are striking. Models using only natural forcings are unable to explain the observed global warming since the mid-20th century, whereas they can do so when they include anthropogenic factors in addition to natural ones. Large-scale patterns of tempera-ture change are also most consistent between models and observations when all forcings are included.
See what we're tweeting about
67 Comments
Add CommentWhat a ridiculous propaganda piece. There are literally hundreds of climatologists who dispute man-made global warming, and they have very sound science backing them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, why have the much lauded computer models been completely unable to predict the total lack of warming over the past decade, not to mention the cooling over the past seven years (and especially the past 12 months)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis entire sham is based on correlation (not causation) and computer models inherently designed to blame GHG increases for any observed warming. Any decent PhD thesis committee would ask repeatedly: why has this theory (and "high fidelity" computer models) totally failed to predict the lack of warming over the past decade?
The next 20 years are going to be quite revealing in light of the ultra-low solar activity of late. The one thing to take heart in is that when observation deviates from theory, science dictates changing the theory. Otherwise, it's just religion.
I hope the world is warming up because I don't like cold weather. I hope it kills all the crickets also. I can't stand crickets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat science publications do these "Hundreds" publish in?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery detailed piece that I see describe how there are natural factors and human generated factors. EVERY ONE also says that the man-made contribution is incontravertable and excelerating. Ever since the advent of agriculture humans have been impacting the environment, but the rate of change is rapidly accelerating.
What does "excelerating" mean?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"incontravertable" I don't know that word either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, Scohn, but there are several incontrovertible realities that say that warming and/or human forcing of warming is not accelerating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, even the global temperature data used by the UN IPCC (such as the Hadley Center in the UK) say there has been zero global warming over the past decade. In fact, that data shows a moderate cooling trend over the past seven years, with significant cooling over the past year. Al Gore's bogus claims of "accelerating global warming" are just another of his gross misrepresentations.
Second, even the anthropogenic global warming theory espoused by the alarmists concedes (because physics forces them to concede) that each additional unit of CO2 (or other greenhouse gas) added to the atmosphere has less radiative forcing power than the previous added units. Thus, even with linear increases in atmospheric GHGs, the forcing power decreases in a reverse log fashion, eventually reaching near zero. So, the prospect of runaway global warming are completely unrealistic.
At some point, this theoretical house of cards will come crashing down, and the reputation of "science" will be the loser. Hence, the exponentially increasing number of retired climate scientists who are speaking out to say this is a sham being driven more by politics than by science.
As for who and where are the contrarian scientists? Two first rate, world class non-alarmists are Dr. John Christy at U of Alabama Huntsville and Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT. They publish in the top climate science journals in the world. There are many more, for those willing to get beyond rhetoric and look at the actual science. (By the way, the UN IPCC is about the most unscientific body/process devised. Consensus is NOT science. Ask Galileo or Louis Pasteur or Einstein, or . . . I could go on.)
The game is over. the politiicans have stretched the Truth to the breaking pointandbeyond. Now the AGW Farce is coming apart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no causitive relationship between CO2, CH4, N20 an O3 and the Halogens and global warming. Even the correlative effect is now gone. All save CO2 are now in control and not increasing, and are going down, in the atmosphere. Only CO2 climbs, even as the the world cools.
No amount of "ad hominem" attacks and bluster is now sufficient to hide the reality of manipulated Science by non-scientists like the failed politiician and never-was Scientist, Algore. And his acolytes andi minions like Dr Hansesn who he appointed to run the NASA databases of surface temperatures. Dr. Hansen-Lysenko is a tool, who is destroying the integrity of one of the four great repositiories of past weather, not climate data, as he constantly and inexplicably fiddles with the data "adjusting" it to protect his biases. As he does so, his database deviates ever more widely from the other three record keeping weather science databases.
There has been no Global Warming for a decade after a mere two decades of Warming supposedly induced by CO2. Ever more scientific evidence is published that refutes the AGW hypothesis, in the scientific journals. Hansens predictions of 20 years ago are far off the track of reality andit is hard not to miock the politically appointed fool and tool of Mr. Gore. Mr. hansesn constantly condemns anyone who disagrees with ever more bizarre predictiosn, as a minion of big oil even though they record no funds from anyone. Meanwhile the record is replete with over two millions dollars of special payments to Mr. Hansen. This is in addition to his well compensaterd feeding at the public trough with his Gorean sinecure.
It is too bad the non science journalists have corrupted the media and even formely great publicatiosn like Sientific american have succumbed and become mindless propaganda mouhtpieces for AGW with the guidance of the Columbia Gaiaist.
The game is over. the politicians have stretched the Truth to the breaking point and beyond. Now the AGW Farce is coming apart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no causative relationship between CO2, CH4, N20 an O3 and the Halogens and global warming. Even the correlative effect is now gone. All save CO2 are now in control and not increasing, and are going down, in the atmosphere. Only CO2 climbs, even as the the world cools.
No amount of "ad hominem" attacks and bluster is now sufficient to hide the reality of manipulated Science by non-scientists like the failed politician and never-was Scientist, Algore. And his acolytes and minions like Dr Hansen who he appointed to run the NASA databases of surface temperatures. Dr. Hansen-Lysenko is a tool, who is destroying the integrity of one of the four great repositories of past weather, not climate data, as he constantly and inexplicably fiddles with the data "adjusting" it to protect his biases. As he does so, his database deviates ever more widely from the other three record keeping weather science databases.
There has been no Global Warming for a decade after a mere two decades of Warming supposedly induced by CO2. Ever more scientific evidence is published that refutes the AGW hypothesis, in the scientific journals. Hansen's predictions of 20 years ago are far off the track of reality and it is hard not to mock the politically appointed fool and tool of Mr. Gore. Mr. Hansen constantly condemns anyone who disagrees with ever more bizarre predictions, as a minion of big oil even though they record no funds from anyone. Meanwhile the record is replete with over two millions dollars of special payments to Mr. Hansen. This is in addition to his well compensated feeding at the public trough with his Gorean sinecure.
It is too bad the non science journalists have corrupted the media and even formerly great publications like Scientific American have succumbed and become mindless propaganda mouthpieces for AGW with the guidance of the Columbia Gaiaist.
So if the science is wrong then how do you explain the melting glaciers and rising waters around many islands?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease recognize that no one has said that the climate has not warmed during the past 150 years. Our climate has been warming since the last time glaciers covered much of the northern hemisphere. In addition, we had what we call the Little Ice Age, a period of unusually cool temperatures that ended about 200 years ago. Modern evidence indicates that the glaciers began receding about 1830, which is approximately 100 years before the onset of significant increases in carbon dioxide concentration. I know that the media are fond of claiming that the Maldives, especially Tuvalu, are sinking beneath the waves, but it is not true. The sea level gauge in the area indicates very little sea level rise. Scientists ascribe the worst of Tuvalus problems to land subsidence caused by over pumping groundwater and to erosion caused by the islanders mining of the barrier reefs for calcium carbonate for cement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe debate is about the cause of the increasing warmth. The IPCC seems bound and determined to blame the increased warmth on carbon dioxide. Scientists who are more rational point out the many holes in the IPCC position and ascribe the increased warmth to solar influences, which they acknowledge are poorly understood. Perhaps, if we could spend 5% of the $5 billion dollars that the US government has spent on damning carbon dioxide on investigations of the mechanisms of the putative solar influence, we could resolve the issue.
Please recognize that no one has said that the climate has not warmed during the past 150 years. Our climate has been warming since the last time glaciers covered much of the northern hemisphere. In addition, we had what we call the Little Ice Age, a period of unusually cool temperatures that ended about 200 years ago. Modern evidence indicates that the glaciers began receding about 1830, which is approximately 100 years before the onset of significant increases in carbon dioxide concentration. I know that the media are fond of claiming that the Maldives, especially Tuvalu, are sinking beneath the waves, but it is not true. The sea level gauge in the area indicates very little sea level rise. Scientists ascribe the worst of Tuvalu’s problems to land subsidence caused by over pumping groundwater and to erosion caused by the islanders mining of the barrier reefs for calcium carbonate for cement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe debate is about the cause of the increasing warmth. The IPCC seems bound and determined to blame the increased warmth on carbon dioxide. Scientists who are more rational point out the many holes in the IPCC position and ascribe the increased warmth to solar influences, which they acknowledge are poorly understood. Perhaps, if we could spend 5% of the $5 billion dollars that the US government has spent on damning carbon dioxide on investigations of the mechanisms of the putative solar influence, we could resolve the issue.
Please recognize that no one has said that the climate has not warmed during the past 150 years. Our climate has been warming since the last time glaciers covered much of the northern hemisphere. In addition, we had what we call the Little Ice Age, a period of unusually cool temperatures that ended about 200 years ago. Modern evidence indicates that the glaciers began receding about 1830, which is approximately 100 years before the onset of significant increases in carbon dioxide concentration. I know that the media are fond of claiming that the Maldives, especially Tuvalu, are sinking beneath the waves, but it is not true. The sea level gauge in the area indicates very little sea level rise. Scientists ascribe the worst of Tuvalu’s problems to land subsidence caused by over pumping groundwater and to erosion caused by the islanders mining of the barrier reefs for calcium carbonate for cement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe debate is about the cause of the increasing warmth. The IPCC seems bound and determined to blame the increased warmth on carbon dioxide. Scientists who are more rational point out the many holes in the IPCC position and ascribe the increased warmth to solar influences, which they acknowledge are poorly understood. Perhaps, if we could spend 5% of the $5 billion dollars that the US government has spent on damning carbon dioxide on investigations of the mechanisms of the putative solar influence, we could resolve the issue.
Please recognize that no one has said that the climate has not warmed during the past 150 years. Our climate has been warming since the last time glaciers covered much of the northern hemisphere. In addition, we had what we call the Little Ice Age, a period of unusually cool temperatures that ended about 200 years ago. Modern evidence indicates that the glaciers began receding about 1830, which is approximately 100 years before the onset of significant increases in carbon dioxide concentration. I know that the media are fond of claiming that the Maldives, especially Tuvalu, are sinking beneath the waves, but it is not true. The sea level gauge in the area indicates very little sea level rise. Scientists ascribe the worst of Tuvalu’s problems to land subsidence caused by over pumping groundwater and to erosion caused by the islanders mining of the barrier reefs for calcium carbonate for cement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe debate is about the cause of the increasing warmth. The IPCC seems bound and determined to blame the increased warmth on carbon dioxide. Scientists who are more rational point out the many holes in the IPCC position and ascribe the increased warmth to solar influences, which they acknowledge are poorly understood. Perhaps, if we could spend 5% of the $5 billion dollars that the US government has spent on damning carbon dioxide on investigations of the mechanisms of the putative solar influence, we could resolve the issue.
Glaciers and the polar ice are still melting due to the inertia in the system. Watch and you will see them stop retreating and begin to grow again as the cooling trend has a chance to get moving. Crops in northern latitudes will begin to fail, again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen people say the debate is over they are Not practicing science. That becomes religion. If they welcomed debate and provided useful information I could believe the IPCC but they continue to lie and prevent debate in journals such as Nature.
"Glaciers and the polar ice are still melting due to the inertia in the system. Watch and you will see them stop retreating and begin to grow again as the cooling trend has a chance to get moving. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is your time span for this prediction? How did you come up with that number? What is your mechanism for this cooling? Where is your data for this prediction? If your prediction is falsified what then?
What evidence would convince you that AGW is real? Please note, I am not asking for a screed on why you do not believe.
"If they welcomed debate and provided useful information I could believe the IPCC but they continue to lie and prevent debate in journals such as Nature."
Who in particular is lying? What in particular are they lying about? What evidence do you have that the IPCC has prevented articles from being published?
Hello Snorbert,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Please recognize that no one has said that the climate has not warmed during the past 150 years."
Have you not ever heard of the "Global Warming Stopped in 1998" lie? No? Go to Google and put that search term in. When I do it I get this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml
" Our climate has been warming since the last time glaciers covered much of the northern hemisphere."
False. Temperature reconstructions up to the 20th century show that in the past 10k years the GLOBAL average has not varied between more than -1c and +1c. Here take a look: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png
" In addition, we had what we call the Little Ice Age, a period of unusually cool temperatures that ended about 200 years ago."
As best as can be determined the "Little Ice Age" appears to be a regional phenomena, not a GLOBAL one. Please see the following:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm
" I know that the media are fond of claiming that the Maldives, especially Tuvalu, are sinking beneath the waves, but it is not true. The sea level gauge in the area indicates very little sea level rise. Scientists ascribe the worst of Tuvalu’s problems to land subsidence caused by over pumping"
groundwater and to erosion caused by the islanders mining of the barrier reefs for calcium carbonate for cement."
Red Herring. The Global sea level has been rising steadily year after year.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
If you agree with me that the world is warming: Why would you not expect the sea to rise? Can please explain this contradiction in your views?
"The debate is about the cause of the increasing warmth."
Sorry but the scientific literature does not support this position. Here take a look at this survey of 10 years of climate research:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
From: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Hello Alex,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"First, even the global temperature data used by the UN IPCC (such as the Hadley Center in the UK) say there has been zero global warming over the past decade."
False. Here is what the researchers at the Hadley Center actually say:
"Despite the inherent interannual variability that is observed within our climate, in a series of temperature observations dating back over 150 years, the warmest 10 years have all been since 1995."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080429.html
I think that your rhetorical question about my having heard that global warming stopped 10-years ago is not quite on target. I think that there are two issues. One is that the land-based and satellite and balloon data all seem to agree that the temperature of the atmosphere has stabilized during the past 10 years in spite of the fact that the carbon dioxide concentration has continued to climb. In fact, the current temperature is below the lower error band of predictions made just 10 years ago. This seems to demonstrate that the GCMs are not as accurate as I would like them to be if I am to reduce my standard of living significantly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe second issue is that the sun has stopped producing sunspots and refuses to go into its next active cycle. The unanswered question is, Is it merely coincidental that the temperature stopped rising at the same time that the frequency of sunspots decreased? Or, is it possible that solar output is driving all climate changes and the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide is a symptom, not a cause of global warming?
I do not think that your display of proxy temperatures is strong evidence that the temperature has remained within 1-Celsius degree for 10k years. I do know that the ice core data are subject to serious hysteresis effects and suspect that the other proxy data are also. In fact, the graphic is a quintessential demonstration of the reason the logical prohibition called fallacy of the argument of the faggot .
I am aware that the IPCC also has claimed that the Medieval Climate Optimum was also a North Atlantic regional occurrence. However, data from all continents prove that it was not. I have seen not evidence that the Little Ice Age was anything other than worldwide.
If you will review my post, you will see that I said that sea level rise is not remarkable ( very little ). Your graphic confirms that sea level has risen at a more or less constant rate since early in the 19th century, over one hundred years before carbon dioxide concentrations began rising. My main point was that the trouble in Tuvalu is not caused by AGW. Thanks for your support.
Anyone can confirm that the papers that Oreskes reviewed start with an acknowledgement of AGW and then proceed to predict dire consequences to various species if the IPCC is correct. In fact, scientists wrote most of those papers with no expertise in climate science and the subjects of those papers was the harm that might accrue if the climate continues to warm. I cannot understand why anyone would think that the Oreskes paper demonstrates that a majority of knowledgeable scientists agree with the IPCC.
As well as world wide glacier melt how do you account for species retreat to higher elevations and latitudes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs well as world wide glacier melt how do you account for species retreating to higher elevations and latitude?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I think that your rhetorical question about my having heard that global warming stopp ed 10-years ago is not quite on target.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose were not rhetorical questions. They were and are legitimate questions of science. I am going to keep asking you those questions till I get a answer.
“One is that the land-based and satellite and balloon data all seem to agree that the temperature of the atmosphere has stabilized during the past 10 years in spite of the fact that the carbon dioxide concentration has continued to climb.”
False. From the Hadley Center in the U.K we find that “"Despite the inherent interannual variability that is observed within our climate, in a series of temperature observations dating back over 150 years, the warmest 10 years have all been since 1995."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080429.html
“The second issue is that the sun has stopped producing sunspots and refuses to go into its next active cycle.”
Study after study has shown that the solar variation of the past 30 years has no relationship to the global temperature rise. Please see the following studies:
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surf air temperature.
"There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
That is a pdf file.
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
"Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot number may be taken as an indication that the Sun has contributed to the unusual degree of climate change during the twentieth century, we stress that solar variability is unlikely to be the prime cause of the strong warming during the last three decades."
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
That is a PDF file.
You know we can actually measure the Total Solar Irradiance that the Earth receives. Study after study shows no correlation.
“I do not think that your display of proxy temperatures is strong evidence that the temperature has remained within 1-Celsius degree for 10k years. I do know that the ice core data are subject to serious hysteresis effects and suspect that the other proxy data are also. In fact, the graphic is a quintessential demonstration of the reason the logical prohibition called fallacy of the argument of the faggot .”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell then publish your findings. Show us how Forminifera, bore holes, tree rings, corals are all exactly wrong. If they are all full of problems how is it they agree with each other? Show me your temperature reconstructions. Show me with what data set you use and the analytical tool implemented. None of these questions are rhetorical.
“I am aware that the IPCC also has claimed that the Medieval Climate Optimum was also a North Atlantic regional occurrence.”
You do realize that the IPCC Working Group I does no original science work? It is simply a consensus summary of the science. Why don't you go to the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science and download the PNAS publication title “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years”
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#toc
If you do that then you can go and hunt out peer reviewed articles on the subject as "Was there a 'Medieval Warm Period' and if so, when and where?" Climatic Change, Volume 26, pp. 109-142. 1994.” Which find little evidence of a global MWP.
“I have seen not evidence that the Little Ice Age was anything other than worldwide.”
I am sorry, but you got the burden of evidence backwards Your making the assertion you go to provide the evidence.
“Your graphic confirms that sea level has risen at a more or less constant rate since early in the 19th century, over one hundred years before carbon dioxide concentrations began rising.”
You seem to not be aware that the Industrial Revolution began some 150 years prior to the beginning of the 20th century. So CO2 levels were already rising. You also seem to be unaware of the increased sea level rise since the 1990's.
“Anyone can confirm that the papers that Oreskes reviewed start with an acknowledgement of AGW and then proceed to predict dire consequences to various species if the IPCC is correct.”
You have not read the paper have you? I can tell that your simply bluffing it. Why do you not go and read the paper I linked too and save yourself from further embarrassment.
I have no idea if the science is correct and I really don't care. The climate changes, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot for all kinds of reasons. We're told a majority of scientist agree global climate change is heavily influenced by civilization yet no one can say how many scientist there are, who counted them, or who polled them, or even what constitutes a scientist. So how do they now most scientist agree? Many people who claim to be scientist seem to disagree with the theory. What is a legitimate scientist and what is a charlatan? Lots of alleged scientist seemed to be raking in the money and fame from it. So maybe global climate change is an economic theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello Praire Dweller,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I have no idea if the science is correct and I really don't care."
Then why comment on a subject you do not care about or know anything about?
"The climate changes, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot for all kinds of reasons."
Yes, it does. Which in no way means that we have no way idea what the mechanism of for those climate changes.
"We're told a majority of scientist agree global climate change is heavily influenced by civilization yet no one can say how many scientist there are, who counted them, or who polled them, ..."
We have two methods of finding this question out.
1. A survey of the relevant literature peer reviewed. This has been done most famously by Naomi Orsekes, in 2004. Her peer reviewed article that appeared in the journal "Science" says:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
2. Look at what the relevant scientific organizations say. The following is only a sample of scientific societies positions on climate change.
The Royal Meteorological Society
http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
http://www.amos.org.au/publications/cid/3/t/publications
The American Geophysical Union
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Institute of Phyisics
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
The Canadian Meteorological Society
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
"...or even what constitutes a scientist."
A scientist is someone who does science. Why do you not consult with the above organizations to see what it takes to be a peer in that organization.
"Lots of alleged scientist seemed to be raking in the money and fame from it."
Whom? And how does it weigh up against the trillion dollar fossil fuel corporations, profits?
So this explains the Piltdown hoax also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this really the top ten of scientific hoaxes or is there another one waiting in the wings to be exposed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/nov/13/research.highereducation2
Hello Praire Dweller,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Is this really the top ten of scientific hoaxes or is there another one waiting in the wings to be exposed?"
How can anyone take you seriously since you have by your own admission "don't know or care" about this issue? I want to suggest that you actually go and learn about science history and methodology before you actually comment on it.
I'm just fickle, you're an asshole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello Praire Dweller,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'm just fickle, you're an asshole."
The above is a amazing demonstration of logic and courtesy. Not. What It really is, is an unimpressive demonstration of blustering crudity.
Now let me try this out on you. What empirical evidence would change your mind on this subject? Please note: I am not asking for a screed on why you do not believe, but what would honestly convince you of the reality of AGW.
If you seriously want to understand warming and cooling trends and recent history here are two useful links:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=128
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
and to keep an eye on both sides in an even-handed way check out and monitor www.climatedebatedaily.com.
Regretably most of our mainstream media fail dismally to report anything except the received and filtered wisdom of the supposed consensus. That is not science, it is politics. So, evidently, is this article as can be seen by the accompanying triumphant picture above.
I have reviewed the issue of the Holocene temperature data and view it as uncompelling. The main issue is that the methods make no mention of how the conjectured tie between pollen and other plant material and temperature resolve such small temperature differences. From a paleontogical viewpoint, certainly these types of data can capture large scale shifts in environment, but to conclude that they can be used to show +/- 1 degree celsius stability is unsupported.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is self evident in the world around us today. Assuming that a several degree shift in temperature has already occurred, numerous wide ranging and species (the best ones to use for global or even regional measurements) should have gone extinct, and others should have taken their place. A simple example is my mother's garden. In the past few years she was able to coax grapes to grow, but last winter was cold and the grapes died. According to pollen proxy data, one might conclude that a major warming was occurring, but now one might be forced to conclude that a major cooling had occurred.
I still remain unconvinced that proxy data is able to resolve anything remotely close to a +/- 1 degree shift. If anyone has any data on this issue please please present it. I am open to the concept, but I see nothing to convince thus far.
First you would have more credability if you recognized the phenomona you are discussing is not the traditional "green house" effect of radiation passing through something such as glass, but a different phonomona. Why can't you show us some data in support of all of these words so we can judge the data. I am sure many readers have the knowledge to understand the data. I got nothing out of this article that convinced me global warming is man caused!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery poor quibble and mindless debating point, Trent1492 at 04:09 PM on 10/10/08. The question was not what HADLEY "researchers" say but what their data says.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd stating that the warmest 10 years have been since 1995 is entirely consistent with there having been no significant warming in the last decade. Which is what all the reliable data also shows.
Read this recent paper to educate yourself beyond the Hansen/GISS/Schmidt/RealClimate propaganda machine:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf
And to further understand how the IPCC cabal controls the publication of research see Roy Spencer's comments here: http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2008/10/post_55.html
Finally, to understand the economic fraud being perpetrated on the world by the Stern report's arbitrary and ridiculous 2% discount rate, read:
http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book440pdf
As well as glacier melt how do you explain species retreat to higher elevations and latitudes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs well as glacier melt how do you explain species retreat to higher elevtions and latitudes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo argue over a 10 year temperature change is superflous. In the grand scheme 10 years is nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy now I think we all know that there is global warming and that we Are the cause, if not the only one. The thing we dont understand, or arent aware of due to lack of insight, is that like stated in this article even if global warming or this thermal captured energy stops, we would not even see the decrease or re-stabilizing for at least 50 years which by then we will have polluted this earth so much more even by trying that basically this will forever be an endless cycle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Earth needs to re coop and to start to bring itself back to normal which wont happen unless we all do our part, which will NEVER happen or at least not until its too late! That movie with the ex President of America (dont remember which) says it all and I for one believe it! If the Earth gets 5degrees warmer the icecaps will melt and we will all die!! scary
Jo, stop worrying about imaginary stuff you don't understand and look after real things like your family instead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Very poor quibble and mindless debating point, Trent1492 at 04:09 PM on 10/10/08. The question was not what HADLEY "researchers" say but what their data says."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, look! Another fact free assertion by Alan. So tell Alan, what are the chances 11 of the past 13 years are going to set global temp records? In other words, what if I flipped a coin what are the chances that they will come up heads 11 of 13 times? Come on Alan, show me how that is just a random event.
So you think the world's climate scientist lying about the data? Provide the evidence Alan, provide the evidence. But you want the data, eh? Here try this: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
Does that look like global cooling to you? Well I guess if you hold the graph upside down it does.
"And stating that the warmest 10 years have been since 1995 is entirely consistent with there having been no significant warming in the last decade. Which is what all the reliable data also shows."
You are aware that GISS and Hadcru data sets go back to 1880 and 1860 respectively? You do know that statistically significant means right? You do know that climate is defined as 30 YEARS of temperatures? Something tells me that you are utterly ignorant of these facts. What the data show is an upwards trend. Here is what the RSS data shows: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tlt
Go look at the TLT channel. That is the layer of the atmosphere that we humans live in. Again another data set showing a upward trend.
I am sorry Alan but the world's climate scientist are not in a vast conspiracy to bankrupt poor little Exxon-Mobile. It is a reality, the physics is undeniable and the observations are unequivocal.
Maybe Scientific American should restore its integrity by giving the leading advocates who claim that Global Warming is nothing more that PR and political hysteria a chance to present their scientific data and claims. Why not publish an edition of Scientific American that features articles by 3 or 4 of the best known skeptics of Global Warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand that at the International Bali Conference on Global Warming last year only promoters of Global Warming were allow to speak and the media assemblied there dutifully reported what they had to say. I also understand that several leading opponents of the Global Warming Theory ask to make presentations and had in fact prepared presentations but were not allowed on the stage to speak. What kind of Scientific investigation is this? It does sound more like political propaganda rather than science.
prginww@yahoo.com
Maybe Scientific American should restore its integrity by giving the leading advocates who claim that Global Warming is nothing more that PR and political hysteria a chance to present their scientific data and claims. Why not publish an edition of Scientific American that features articles by 3 or 4 of the best known skeptics of Global Warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand that at the International Bali Conference on Global Warming last year only promoters of Global Warming were allow to speak and the media assemblied there dutifully reported what they had to say. I also understand that several leading opponents of the Global Warming Theory ask to make presentations and had in fact prepared presentations but were not allowed on the stage to speak. What kind of Scientific investigation is this? It does sound more like political propaganda rather than science.
prginww@yahoo.com
Article from 2007! Why not an article from the meeting in NYC of those that disagree with the Nobel "winners." Seems they jumped the gun on this one. More snow & colder weather from Alberta, Idaho, Utah & North Dakota to New England. I know, if I were a true believer I'd never try to argue with Al Gore. He might send folks out to discredit me as he has others. See, "Politicalizing of Science" put out by the Hoover Institute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you been reading George Will? His idea that" global temperatures have not risen in the last ten years" was arrived at by misconstruing World Meteorological Data. See "George Will's Climate Deception" at jcmooreonline for the rest of the story. NASA's data shows 2005 as the hottest year on record. How could that be if has not gotten hotter in the last ten years?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQue
To frgough...can you provide a definitive list of the climatologists who dispute climate change? One of the main reasons we don't hear about debates among scientists about this issue is because there is no debate among the world's majority of climate researchers. The ones who deny anthropogenic causation are in the extreme minority. the question of the day is: How is the average person getting their information and from what source? Please see Andrew Weaver's "Keeping Our Cool" for an unbiased expose re: problems with journalistic integrity on the issue of accurate science reporting. The effects associated with global climate change are severe enough and unprecedented enough to warrant our full attention, not our dismissal. Ignore at the peril of yourself, your family, your children and grandchildren and all those who are and will be faced with the climatological effects of humankind's unremitting consumption of fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans manage to screw up about every system that we interact with. Is it really so absurd to suggest we're screwing up the climate as well?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's important for everyone to keep in mind that science is not simply debate or argument. Science develops a hypothesis, tests it, and evaluates whether the test confirms the hypothesis. It's very telling that, generally speaking, deniers of anthropogenic global warming freely make hypotheses but do not test them or publish their results. What could explain that? Are their assertions not defended by observations?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been clearly shown by scientific experiment that increasing the CO2 or CH4 concentration in an atmosphere increases that atmosphere's ability to trap heat. Do any of you dispute this? If not, why do you doubt that this scientific principle applies on a larger scale?
If you do doubt that, please test it yourself and get back with us about your findings. It's not a hard test. CO2 is readily available - go to the store and buy some dry ice. Let us know how your test goes.
The idiocy has to stop.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming is among the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations. Humanity must reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions now at our disposal.
UCS leads the critcal campaign to elevate the voices of climate scientists around the country to disprove fallacies and educate the public about the real facts on global warming. Click on the following link to see how you can help.
The Weight of the Evidence
The whole basis basis for CO2 induced global warming is the totally unsubstantiated statement "Consequently, we can now confidently estimate the total human- induced component. Our best estimate is some 10 times larger than the best estimate of the natural radiative forcing caused by changes in solar activity."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe sun has driven our temperatures for millions of years and continues to do that today. Unfortunately there is no money in fighting the sun.
wjhirt@yahoo.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 fraud
CO2 causes global warming on Venus where it makes up 97% of the atmosphere. It makes up .038% of the Earths atmosphere, an increase of .002% over the last decade. More than 95% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is from nature, not man made. The idea that this relatively small amount has 10 times the impact on global temperatures of the sun is absurd.
It's called summer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's called summer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you,SA,for this wonderful and informative article on the causes and proofs behind human-influenced climate change. It always amazes me how otherwise intelligent people can deny the evidence that has become so obvious in study after study, model after model. I also like that the article points out that the climate science community has largely reached a concensus on this issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOpponents of climate science like to distort the facts in to say that there is division within the scientific community regarding climate change, or that the "jury is still out" on the evidence. This is false, and I'm glad this article pointed that out.
The theory about the sun causing climate change has long been discredited. The levels of CO2 emitted from the sun that actually reach the earth are not significant enough to cause changes to the climate at the level that we have seen over the past 20+ years. This theory about the sun and climate change is one that has been promoted by Rush Limbaugh (and I'm sure others on the AM radio dial) and it is not based upon sound research. It has long since been refuted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly! If you look at the before and after photos that show how the artic glaciers have been melting and receding (sometimes over a mile) during the past few decades, it becomes clear that what we are dealing with in climate change is definitely real. Once you see the overwhelming evidence,it becomes harder to deny it or explain it away!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe claims in this article have no physics basis. Because climate is changing, this itself is not proof that humans are doing the change. Using "weather" (climate change) as an excuse for taxation is an evil way to justify new taxes. I have three reasons for not believing the "experts":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Carbon dioxide is used in microwave wave-guides because it is so transparent. But certain "experts" continue to claim that the gas is not transparent, as it would need to be to cause "weather" change.
2) Carbon dioxide is used in very efficient lasers. The lasers are efficient because CO2 is incredibly transparent. But certain "experts" continue to ignore this fact, and they continue to claim that more CO2 emissions will cause more "weather" changes.
3) It is a fact that CO2 stops all 15-micron photons in sunlight, and thus CO2 lowers Earth's surface temperature. But, more CO2 cannot stop more photons since all those photons are already stopped. Therefore, it is doubly odd that the "experts" can claim that more CO2 emissions can further warm instead of cool the planet.
You would probably call Rachel Carson, Jacques Cousteau, Sylvia Earle, and Andrei Sakharov alarmists too. Most of the people who would sign on to your views about global warming are probably Tea Party zealots.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Weather" and "climate" are not the same thing. "Weather" refers to specific meteorological conditions in a region(s) during particular seasons. "Climate" refers to overall patterns and shifts in general meterological conditions, on a continental and/or global basis, and does not refer to a specific kind of meterological condition(s).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood question - also ask what this word means: incontravertable ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisR.Blakely says: "The claims in this article have no physics basis. Because climate is changing, this itself is not proof that humans are doing the change. Using "weather" (climate change) as an excuse for taxation is an evil way to justify new taxes. I have three reasons for not believing the "experts":
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Carbon dioxide is used in microwave wave-guides because it is so transparent. But certain "experts" continue to claim that the gas is not transparent, as it would need to be to cause "weather" change.
2) Carbon dioxide is used in very efficient lasers. The lasers are efficient because CO2 is incredibly transparent. But certain "experts" continue to ignore this fact, and they continue to claim that more CO2 emissions will cause more "weather" changes.
3) It is a fact that CO2 stops all 15-micron photons in sunlight, and thus CO2 lowers Earth's surface temperature. But, more CO2 cannot stop more photons since all those photons are already stopped. Therefore, it is doubly odd that the "experts" can claim that more CO2 emissions can further warm instead of cool the planet."
Some people claim that greenhouses use glass to raise the temperature inside. Those claims have no physics basis. Because the temperature inside greenhouses rises, this itself is not proof that glass is doing the change. Using an increase in temperature inside greenhouses as an excuse to buy new greenhouses is an evil way to justify buying greenhouses. I have three reasons for not believing the "experts":
1. Glass is used in picture windows because it is so transparent. But certain "experts" continue to claim that glass is not transparent, as it would need to be to capture heat inside greenhouses.
2. Glass is used in very efficient light bulbs. The light bulbs are efficient because glass is incredibly transparent. But certain "experts" continue to ignore this fact, and they continue to claim that putting more glass in greenhouses will raise the temperature inside the greenhouses.
3. It is a fact that glass stops all 15-micron photons in sunlight, therefore it lowers the temperature in greenhouses. But more glass cannot stop more photons because all those photons are already stopped. Therefore it is doubly odd that the "experts" can claim that more glass can further warm instead of cool the greenhouse.
I believe we should all stop using greenhouses, and investigate the vast conspiracy by the "experts" to make money by selling greenhouses to the gullible.
Actually, not true. There are no longer many scientists who dispute that Climate change is occuring, and that the burning of fossil fuels is the culprit. You might try to find peer-reviwed scientific papers that take your view, and if you do try, you won't find any. But you will find hundreds that analyze and conclude the phenomenon is indeed occuring, and is due to fossil fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real question is why do folks like you claim to know Climate Change is is not happening, and yet haven't looked into the science itself?
Actually the 'religion' is to claim climate change is not occuring when hundreds of peer-reviewed papers conclude it is, and not one concludes it isn't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you read any of these papers?
The "hundreds" do not exist. As near as I can tell, there are precisely Zero peer-reviewed papers saying Climate Change is not happening, but hundreds saying it is. To ignore the scienctific conclusions is to believe that astrology is more reliable than the scientific process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe IPCC does not claim that Climate Change will 'run away". In fact, they claim the opposite, and indeed agree with you in the sense that it will stabilize. Unfortunately, that's at a level an average of 5- 10 degrees C higher than today -- with more of the warming occuring over land than over sea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think that's inconsequential, you might dig a little deeper into the science rather than ridicule the life's work of hundreds of climate scientists.
They can't. They can only ridicule the life's work of scientists. Are we entering a new age of no-nothing--itis?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you truly knew who and what the claims being made by Lindzen actually consisted of, you would recognize what every student who ever studied under Lindzen and the entire MIT faculty has long known about the man. Although undoubtedly brilliant, he long ago adopted a "contrarian" philosophy he presumably believes will lead more quickly to whatever revealed truths he believes are out there. Because of it, he instantly and consistently adopts whatever position is least supported by the rest of the scientists studying in that field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHad you known that, the simple fact that Lindzen opposes the IPCC consensus stands as proof in itself that a scientific consensus DOES exist, and that it is the opposite of whatever position he is claiming to hold (although simple logoc dictates he must know what it is that his peers are saying is fact in order for him to then take steps to formulate a position against it...or at least one that isn't instantly recognizable as being mere opposition for opposition's sake alone.
However, unlike in the past where his contrarian positioning could be written off or marveled at for philosophical reasons, the importance of presenting AGW as settled science sooner than later has led many of those who might have defended him in the past to now denounce him for making grossly irresponsible statements having real world consequences, none of which have positive outcomes. YOU - in fact- are evidence of exactly that sentiment's truthfulness.
I want you to know that lists of those making claims like "none of the years in the last decade have shown an increase in global temps", or "that in fact there has been a cooling trend which destroys the IPCC agenda set by "algore" (cute...and so intelligent-sounding) are being collected and drawn up in formats suitable for transmission to the many around the world who will soon be displaced by the effects of AGW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd there WILL come that time. Not even the wealthiest oil concerns or well funded propaganda outlets (like Heartland) will be able to continue confusing the popular understanding of events that will become obvious to everyone. That includes the widespread realization of how so much grief could have been averted but for the efforts of paid propagandists like those of you here.
Your day of reckoning WILL come. Make no mistake about it.