Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then explain it to me. Where does the science fail? If I'm not thinking, educate me. Telling a political story and calling AGW a scam, tells me nothing.
It's not that hard to see. We're talking about processes that develop over a geological timescale, and for which we have a small section of data to make use of. We don't have all the variables (we don't even know what all of the variables are, or what the relative importance is of the variables we do have). We don't have a control, which is important in science.
We're making the best educated guesses we can, making and then re-making models (which so far haven't proven to be great).
I think it is self-evident to anyone who knows even a little about science in general that we can't possibly have the level of certainty, in either direction, that is claimed by those involved in the political aspect of the debate.
The last 50 years is geological time scale? We have seen, are continueing to see, accelerating warming. Warming to the point that we have had three years now during which both the Northwest and Northeast passage were open.
And those in the Royal Society and the other National Academy of Sciences seem to be pretty certain that we are the primary cause of the warming, and that the warming represents a danger to all of us.
By "scam" Si Modo isn't referring to the science, but instead, is referring to the scientific tradition of critical skeptacism that seems to have been strangely omitted from the GW institutional debate.
So, the science ISN'T a scam. Thank you. Why call it one then, when you mean exaggeration? If you don't, then who's REALLY perpetrating a scam?
No, Thank you for the excellent example of purposeful misinterpretation that continues to make GW such a controversial subject:
Rather than simply accepting the need to objectively investigage alternative causes for physical phenomena, you'd rather stifle the discussion before this normal process can be done.
This only adds to the suspicion that GW is a scam.
And immediatly get gigged by people like yourself for putting 'may have, there is a strong possibility, given the evidence' ect' in their papers. If they state unequivocaly, you say that is bad science, if they state it in terms of possibility, then you say, see, they really don't know what they are talking about.
Simply, you, and the rest like you, do not like real science. Especially if it disagrees with your political version of false reality.
What we can say that there is very, very strong evidence that AGW is the primary cause of the present warming. We saw the speed with which glaciers reacted to even a little cooling from 1940 to 1970. Now we see them very rapidly retreating, and the Greenland Ice Cap and the Antarctic Ice Cap loosing ice by the giga-ton. Yet the TSI of the sun has actually declined a bit, the last sunspot cycle has been the quietest in a hundred years. We had a strong La Nina at a solar minimum in 2008, and it was the tenth warmest year on record. But the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere was 40% for CO2, 150% for CH4, and there are industrial GHGs that are thousands of times as effective GHG as CO2.
I think that we can safely say that it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that we are the primary contributor to the present warming.
What we can say that there is very, very strong evidence that AGW is the primary cause of the present warming. We saw the speed with which glaciers reacted to even a little cooling from 1940 to 1970. Now we see them very rapidly retreating, and the Greenland Ice Cap and the Antarctic Ice Cap loosing ice by the giga-ton. Yet the TSI of the sun has actually declined a bit, the last sunspot cycle has been the quietest in a hundred years. We had a strong La Nina at a solar minimum in 2008, and it was the tenth warmest year on record. But the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere was 40% for CO2, 150% for CH4, and there are industrial GHGs that are thousands of times as effective GHG as CO2.
I think that we can safely say that it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that we are the primary contributor to the present warming.
What caused the Earth to heat up beginning in 1850 (and is continuing in the present)?
Of course the peak output maxed out in 1950...
What we can say that there is very, very strong evidence that AGW is the primary cause of the present warming. We saw the speed with which glaciers reacted to even a little cooling from 1940 to 1970. Now we see them very rapidly retreating, and the Greenland Ice Cap and the Antarctic Ice Cap loosing ice by the giga-ton. Yet the TSI of the sun has actually declined a bit, the last sunspot cycle has been the quietest in a hundred years. We had a strong La Nina at a solar minimum in 2008, and it was the tenth warmest year on record. But the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere was 40% for CO2, 150% for CH4, and there are industrial GHGs that are thousands of times as effective GHG as CO2.
I think that we can safely say that it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that we are the primary contributor to the present warming.
What caused the Earth to heat up beginning in 1850 (and is continuing in the present)?
The same thing that caused the Mid evil warm period, roman warm period and Holocene optimum. The sun!
Old Rocks is just being pompass again. The latest paper on solar output finds that the ivsible spectra (that heats us) has increased even though overall output has decreased. His climate models totally simplistic and fail to include factors that are too complex or unknown. CO2 will increase the temp a few tenths of a degree but that is probably a good thing. And his everpresent 'tipping points' are nothing but fevered imagination.
Old Rocks is just being pompass again. The latest paper on solar output finds that the ivsible spectra (that heats us) has increased even though overall output has decreased. His climate models totally simplistic and fail to include factors that are too complex or unknown. CO2 will increase the temp a few tenths of a degree but that is probably a good thing. And his everpresent 'tipping points' are nothing but fevered imagination.
Fevered imagination? Perhaps you should do some research first. There's all sorts of info out there. Simply calling everything simplistic doesn't cut it. How about telling us what factors are too complex? Even more ludicrous is the notion of "unknown" factors. If they're unknown, how can you be confident they even exist? You're just furthering the meme that "scientists don't know what they're talking about", when the truth is just the opposite with regard to who knows what.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)
And no response at all to a 40% increase in the primary greenhouse gas? Yes, the earth's climate responds to small changes in the solar output. That is why we should be seeing a cooling right now like that we saw between 1940 and 1970. But we are not. We are seeing an accelerating warming.
And, by the way, if we are still responding to minor increase in solar output between 1850 and 1940, why did it cool from 1940 to 1970? That could not be from particulate matter that mankind put in the air could it? And if we can affect the temperature of the Earth from particulate matter, then what makes you think that our changing the composition of the atmosphere to the point that we have 40% more GHGs is not going to have an affect?
Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society
Climate forcing by greenhouse gas changes
28 Changes in atmospheric composition resulting from human activity have enhanced the
natural greenhouse effect, causing a positive climate forcing. Calculations, which are
supported by laboratory and atmospheric measurements, indicate that these additional
gases have caused a climate forcing during the industrial era of around 2.9 Wm-2, with
an uncertainty of about ±0.2 Wm-2. Other climate change mechanisms resulting from
human activity are more uncertain (see later); calculations that take into account these
other positive and negative forcings (including the role of atmospheric particles) indicate
that the net effect of all human activity has caused a positive climate forcing of around
1.6 Wm-2 with an estimated uncertainty of about ±0.8 Wm-2.
29 Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of
processes that amplify or reduce climate change (see paragraphs 12 & 13), the climate
sensitivity would be around 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing
of 1.6 Wm-2 (see previous paragraph) would, in this hypothetical case, lead to a globallyaveraged
surface warming of about 0.4oC. However, as will be discussed in paragraph
The Royal Society Climate change: a summary of the science I September 2010 I 6
36, it is expected that the actual change, after accounting for the additional processes,
will be greater than this.
Old Rocks is just being pompass again. The latest paper on solar output finds that the ivsible spectra (that heats us) has increased even though overall output has decreased. His climate models totally simplistic and fail to include factors that are too complex or unknown. CO2 will increase the temp a few tenths of a degree but that is probably a good thing. And his everpresent 'tipping points' are nothing but fevered imagination.
Fevered imagination? Perhaps you should do some research first. There's all sorts of info out there. Simply calling everything simplistic doesn't cut it. How about telling us what factors are too complex? Even more ludicrous is the notion of "unknown" factors. If they're unknown, how can you be confident they even exist? You're just furthering the meme that "scientists don't know what they're talking about", when the truth is just the opposite with regard to who knows what.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)
konrad, poor konrad. Forst you have to resort to wiki, which is a joke in and of itself, then you have to resort to yet another tipping point article How many tipping points are we up to now? 7? 9? You crack me up, you people have been warning of us impending doom for longer than the loon with the sandwhich boards!
And no response at all to a 40% increase in the primary greenhouse gas? Yes, the earth's climate responds to small changes in the solar output. That is why we should be seeing a cooling right now like that we saw between 1940 and 1970. But we are not. We are seeing an accelerating warming.
And, by the way, if we are still responding to minor increase in solar output between 1850 and 1940, why did it cool from 1940 to 1970? That could not be from particulate matter that mankind put in the air could it? And if we can affect the temperature of the Earth from particulate matter, then what makes you think that our changing the composition of the atmosphere to the point that we have 40% more GHGs is not going to have an affect?
Climate Change: A Summary of the Science - Publications - The Royal Society
Climate forcing by greenhouse gas changes
28 Changes in atmospheric composition resulting from human activity have enhanced the
natural greenhouse effect, causing a positive climate forcing. Calculations, which are
supported by laboratory and atmospheric measurements, indicate that these additional
gases have caused a climate forcing during the industrial era of around 2.9 Wm-2, with
an uncertainty of about ±0.2 Wm-2. Other climate change mechanisms resulting from
human activity are more uncertain (see later); calculations that take into account these
other positive and negative forcings (including the role of atmospheric particles) indicate
that the net effect of all human activity has caused a positive climate forcing of around
1.6 Wm-2 with an estimated uncertainty of about ±0.8 Wm-2.
29 Application of established physical principles shows that, even in the absence of
processes that amplify or reduce climate change (see paragraphs 12 & 13), the climate
sensitivity would be around 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. A climate forcing
of 1.6 Wm-2 (see previous paragraph) would, in this hypothetical case, lead to a globallyaveraged
surface warming of about 0.4oC. However, as will be discussed in paragraph
The Royal Society Climate change: a summary of the science I September 2010 I 6
36, it is expected that the actual change, after accounting for the additional processes,
will be greater than this.
