Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[Si modo]

Global Warming Human Fingerprints | Union of Concerned Scientists

Human Fingerprints
Download: Human Fingerprints (high-res fact sheet | Human Fingerprints (low-res fact sheet)
Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered. Like detectives, science sleuths seek the answer to "Whodunnit?" — are humans part of the cause? To answer this question, patterns observed by meteorologists and oceanographers are compared with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can now positively identify the "human fingerprints" associated with the changes. The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth's climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface.

When they lead off with a statement like this...

"Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades."

Which is provably false...then it follows the rest is worthless propaganda.

That's a given with the UCS.

Never, ever would I join that political group.

 

[westwall]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

Or, in other, more honest words, you can't deal with the actual science that debunks and demolishes your myths.

The fact is that there is less radiation leaving the Earth at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites and the loss is in the spectral absorption frequencies of CO2 and methane. There is more measurable infrared energy coming back to Earth, again at frequencies associated with greenhouse gases. There is a clear causal link between human carbon emissions and global warming that is scientifically verified.

Did your little denier cult brain just explode?

And yet GISS, Hadley, RSS, UAH and the NOAA Argo Buoy array all agree that the globe has been cooling 2002.

Do these folks also have "denier cult brains?

"Global Warming" Has Stopped -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net

Gee, at the beginning of this thread, deniers were denying that they deny the Earth is warming. code and westie both posted a thanks to si's post, but now code posts a denial of global warming and westie posts a thanks.
Flip-flop much?

When have we EVER claimed that there was no global warming? Huh silly person? The question is whether man has any ownership as to cause. We say the evidence for that supposition is lacking (in fact it is so far non-existent), we have never said that the world isn't warming. It has been warming (with interwoven cycles of hot and cold that last for hundreds of years) for the last 14,000 years.

You idiots were proven wrong with the environmental disaster of MTBE and we're proving you wrong with this as well. Fortunately before you have been able to destroy the economies of the world for no measurable effect.

 

[edthecynic]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

And yet GISS, Hadley, RSS, UAH and the NOAA Argo Buoy array all agree that the globe has been cooling 2002.

Do these folks also have "denier cult brains?

"Global Warming" Has Stopped -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net

Gee, at the beginning of this thread, deniers were denying that they deny the Earth is warming. code and westie both posted a thanks to si's post, but now code posts a denial of global warming and westie posts a thanks.
Flip-flop much?

Oh, he is a scientist?

Read what I said, Ed. "Scientific skeptics". You bolded it so you should be able to see it.

He linked to "scientific skeptics." BTW the UAH chart created by "Scientific skeptics" Christy and Spencer used in the link has been exposed as a fraud, created by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift. When the correct sign is used the chart shows warming, but the dishonest deniers like Monckton still use the fraudulent chart.

 

[westwall]

Global Warming Human Fingerprints | Union of Concerned Scientists

Human Fingerprints
Download: Human Fingerprints (high-res fact sheet | Human Fingerprints (low-res fact sheet)
Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered. Like detectives, science sleuths seek the answer to "Whodunnit?" — are humans part of the cause? To answer this question, patterns observed by meteorologists and oceanographers are compared with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can now positively identify the "human fingerprints" associated with the changes. The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth's climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface.

When they lead off with a statement like this...

"Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades."

Which is provably false...then it follows the rest is worthless propaganda.

That's a given with the UCS.

Never, ever would I join that political group.

Nor I. I don't do well with political whores.

 

[Si modo]

Gee, at the beginning of this thread, deniers were denying that they deny the Earth is warming. code and westie both posted a thanks to si's post, but now code posts a denial of global warming and westie posts a thanks.
Flip-flop much?

Oh, he is a scientist?

Read what I said, Ed. "Scientific skeptics". You bolded it so you should be able to see it.

He linked to "scientific skeptics." BTW the UAH chart created by "Scientific skeptics" Christy and Spencer used in the link has been exposed as a fraud, created by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift. When the correct sign is used the chart shows warming, but the dishonest deniers like Monckton still use the fraudulent chart.

And, did not Spender absolutely support Muller's work in verifying data?

Yup, he did.

So, you're point is what?

 

[edthecynic]

It does look like there has been warming since 1800, and that was the likely outcome.

Good for Muller for checking this work.

Now, if anyone can link that warming to being caused in any significant manner to man-made CO2, then the skeptics will be happy.

Contrary to popular belief, few of the scientific 'skeptics' argued that there was no warming. They surely did want honest data, but more importantly they want the science to support any claims that man-made CO2 caused any warming, and if it did, the magnitude and significance of that contribution.

The science does not support any conclusions on that.

And yet GISS, Hadley, RSS, UAH and the NOAA Argo Buoy array all agree that the globe has been cooling 2002.

Do these folks also have "denier cult brains?

"Global Warming" Has Stopped -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net

Gee, at the beginning of this thread, deniers were denying that they deny the Earth is warming. code and westie both posted a thanks to si's post, but now code posts a denial of global warming and westie posts a thanks.
Flip-flop much?

When have we EVER claimed that there was no global warming? Huh silly person? The question is whether man has any ownership as to cause. We say the evidence for that supposition is lacking (in fact it is so far non-existent), we have never said that the world isn't warming. It has been warming (with interwoven cycles of hot and cold that last for hundreds of years) for the last 14,000 years.

You idiots were proven wrong with the environmental disaster of MTBE and we're proving you wrong with this as well. Fortunately before you have been able to destroy the economies of the world for no measurable effect.

No one is as dumb as you pretend to be!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Oh, he is a scientist?

Read what I said, Ed. "Scientific skeptics". You bolded it so you should be able to see it.

He linked to "scientific skeptics." BTW the UAH chart created by "Scientific skeptics" Christy and Spencer used in the link has been exposed as a fraud, created by using the opposite sign to correct for diurnal satellite drift. When the correct sign is used the chart shows warming, but the dishonest deniers like Monckton still use the fraudulent chart.

And, did not Spender absolutely support Muller's work in verifying data?

Yup, he did.

So, you're point is what?

Only AFTER he was caught fudging the data! And what choice does he have now if he wants to save face???

 

[Si modo]

Or, in other, more honest words, you can't deal with the actual science that debunks and demolishes your myths.

The fact is that there is less radiation leaving the Earth at the top of the atmosphere as measured by satellites and the loss is in the spectral absorption frequencies of CO2 and methane. There is more measurable infrared energy coming back to Earth, again at frequencies associated with greenhouse gases. There is a clear causal link between human carbon emissions and global warming that is scientifically verified.

Did your little denier cult brain just explode?

Blogs aren't science.

And, it's amazing that I have to say that.

No little nitwit, "blogs aren't science" because science is science and accurate scientific information can be found in many places on the internet, including blogs. You can also find pseudo-science and lies on blogs. So what? The fact that you asked for the scientific basis for attributing the causation of global warming to mankind's carbon emissions and then when you received that information, with links to peer reviewed papers from science journals, you rejected it out of hand without even trying to deal with the facts or dispute the information provided, just shows that you are another politically motivated and very brainwashed denier cultist who is not interested in the science or the truth.

And, you've posted no science.

If you are asking me to prove that there is no science that supports that the warming is caused by man-made CO2 and gives the magnitude and significance of that on warming, you are just being ridiculous.

Or, better yet, let us all know how a negative is proved?

Then let us all know how that shift of burden works?

Thanks.




Damn, this is beyond remedial stuff.

 

[westwall]

Blogs aren't science.

And, it's amazing that I have to say that.

No little nitwit, "blogs aren't science" because science is science and accurate scientific information can be found in many places on the internet, including blogs. You can also find pseudo-science and lies on blogs. So what? The fact that you asked for the scientific basis for attributing the causation of global warming to mankind's carbon emissions and then when you received that information, with links to peer reviewed papers from science journals, you rejected it out of hand without even trying to deal with the facts or dispute the information provided, just shows that you are another politically motivated and very brainwashed denier cultist who is not interested in the science or the truth.

And, you've posted no science.

If you are asking me to prove that there is no science that supports that the warming is caused by man-made CO2 and gives the magnitude and significance of that on warming, you are just being ridiculous.

Or, better yet, let us all know how a negative is proved?

Then let us all know how that shift of burden works?

Thanks.




Damn, this is beyond remedial stuff.

No kidding. It's like trying to teach a baboon how to add. It can be done but is the effort really worth it?

 

[Si modo]

Gee, at the beginning of this thread, deniers were denying that they deny the Earth is warming. code and westie both posted a thanks to si's post, but now code posts a denial of global warming and westie posts a thanks.
Flip-flop much?

When have we EVER claimed that there was no global warming? Huh silly person? The question is whether man has any ownership as to cause. We say the evidence for that supposition is lacking (in fact it is so far non-existent), we have never said that the world isn't warming. It has been warming (with interwoven cycles of hot and cold that last for hundreds of years) for the last 14,000 years.

You idiots were proven wrong with the environmental disaster of MTBE and we're proving you wrong with this as well. Fortunately before you have been able to destroy the economies of the world for no measurable effect.

No one is as dumb as you pretend to be!!!!

Actually, he is absolutely correct, Ed.

As I said before, warming was denied by few scientific skeptics.

The data was tainted so naturally it was questioned.

It has more validity now AND the data appears less tainted.

However, and this is where the skepticism is set, the causation of that warming is more than suspect. There is NO science that quantifies ANY significance and/or magnitude that man-made CO2 has on the warming.

The state of the science does not allow for any conclusion one way or the other about man-made CO2 on warming.

 

[edthecynic]

When have we EVER claimed that there was no global warming? Huh silly person? The question is whether man has any ownership as to cause. We say the evidence for that supposition is lacking (in fact it is so far non-existent), we have never said that the world isn't warming. It has been warming (with interwoven cycles of hot and cold that last for hundreds of years) for the last 14,000 years.

You idiots were proven wrong with the environmental disaster of MTBE and we're proving you wrong with this as well. Fortunately before you have been able to destroy the economies of the world for no measurable effect.

No one is as dumb as you pretend to be!!!!

Actually, he is absolutely correct, Ed.

As I said before, warming was denied by few scientific skeptics.

The data was tainted so naturally it was questioned.

It has more validity now AND the data appears less tainted.

However, and this is where the skepticism is set, the causation of that warming is more than suspect. There is NO science that quantifies ANY significance and/or magnitude that man-made CO2 has on the warming.

The state of the science does not allow for any conclusion one way or the other about man-made CO2 on warming.

The deniers were called deniers because they denied there was any global warming. Denying man is the cause is the fallback position.

It was the deniers' data was tainted, not the scientific data. If you remember the tainted UAH data was used to taint all the good data that was just confirmed. The tainted UAH data was used to discredit the ground station data. Back then the deniers said that only satellite data did not suffer from the urban heat island effect, but when the RSS satellite data confirmed the ground station data, deniers claimed it was no good because it came from Hansen. The only satellite data the deniers would accept was the tainted UAH data which showed global cooling. Based on the tainted UAH data alone, the skeptics denied that there was any global warming. Once the tainted UAH data was exposed and corrected and now also confirmed the ground station data, suddenly ALL satellite data was bad.

Next we were told the Berkley Project would expose the flaw in the ground station data, but now that that didn't happen, first the deniers tried to discredit the study. That hasn't worked so the fallback position is there is global warming but man is not the cause.
Sorry, but deniers have no credibility.

 

[Si modo]

No one is as dumb as you pretend to be!!!!

Actually, he is absolutely correct, Ed.

As I said before, warming was denied by few scientific skeptics.

The data was tainted so naturally it was questioned.

It has more validity now AND the data appears less tainted.

However, and this is where the skepticism is set, the causation of that warming is more than suspect. There is NO science that quantifies ANY significance and/or magnitude that man-made CO2 has on the warming.

The state of the science does not allow for any conclusion one way or the other about man-made CO2 on warming.

The deniers were called deniers because they denied there was any global warming. Denying man is the cause is the fallback position.

It was the deniers' data was tainted, not the scientific data. If you remember the tainted UAH data was used to taint all the good data that was just confirmed. The tainted UAH data was used to discredit the ground station data. Back then the deniers said that only satellite data did not suffer from the urban heat island effect, but when the RSS satellite data confirmed the ground station data, deniers claimed it was no good because it came from Hansen. The only satellite data the deniers would accept was the tainted UAH data which showed global cooling. Based on the tainted UAH data alone, the skeptics denied that there was any global warming. Once the tainted UAH data was exposed and corrected and now also confirmed the ground station data, suddenly ALL satellite data was bad.

Next we were told the Berkley Project would expose the flaw in the ground station data, but now that that didn't happen, first the deniers tried to discredit the study. That hasn't worked so the fallback position is there is global warming but man is not the cause.
Sorry, but deniers have no credibility.

Wrong.

Here, read this, and learn:

An Insult to All Science – Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale
Thursday, December 24th 2009, 1:33 AM EST

How do we know our medication is effective; that our vehicle is safe; that the bungee cord in our jump will not break? Most of the population has taken it on faith – faith in the integrity of the scientists – that these questions have been sufficiently studied and answered. And they have been, through effective communication of science in the scientific community. Knowledge is consistently exchanged using our currency, peer-review, until the point where the public benefits from the application of science in our everyday lives. We’ve had faith in the value of that currency, until now.

A few weeks ago, emails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England were published on the internet. With any illegally obtained information, the credibility of the contents should be questioned. However, if these published emails are genuine, the contents indicate a scandal in the climate science community that is an insult to the integrity of the entire scientific community. It’s an insult to truth.

Many scientists have had suspicions about the state of the climate science and the overstated solidity of its predictive ability for some time. I am not a ‘denier’, whatever a denier denies; but I, along with several others have been asking questions about the peer-reviewed science. We cannot conflate climate scientists with environmentalists and activists, though. The latter two have compiled predictive models by the former and asserted that we are headed for doom and destruction if extreme environmental policies are not enacted immediately. Many scientists and critical thinkers have dared ask fundamental questions, though. We have questioned whether the state of the science can allow any definitive conclusion about the significance of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on global warming, let alone its ability to predict future effects.

Climate scientists peddling predictive models, and the environmentalists who have compiled them, present these models where almost any combination of datasets are consistent with the predictive model indicating near disaster. The Third Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the most celebrity in that predictive science. Climatologist Roger Pielke, for example, has demonstrated that there has yet to be a dataset that is not consistent with these models. The prediction scientists rarely articulate a hypothetical dataset that would be inconsistent with a predictive model. A hypothesis or theory is falsifiable, thus scientific, if it can be both verified and falsified through physical experiments and/or observations. If there exists no dataset for which the IPCC predictive models are inconsistent, the model was never scientific. Where is the demarcation of predictive climate science and pseudo-science if there is no falsifiability?

Other indications and warnings that the science is less than solid have been there as well. A rhetorical analysis of many of the reports indicates that the focus on the science and logic have taken a back seat to a focus on the source and emotions, combining near sophistry and propaganda with bandwagon (consensus) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation as causation) fallacies in logic, for example. When presenting science, if the primary tools of rhetoric are not the science and logic, we should immediately probe further into the actual science.

....

We all should value scientific integrity, but all scientists must value it above all else if there is to be continued growth of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, this discipline of science has been so soiled by politics that the lines between science and politics are gone. This scandal is an insult to the integrity of all scientists and a devaluation of our currency of peer-review. It deserves the scoff and scorn of our community.

​

climategate.tv | An Insult to All Science

 

[RollingThunder]

Blogs aren't science.

And, it's amazing that I have to say that.

No little nitwit, "blogs aren't science" because science is science and accurate scientific information can be found in many places on the internet, including blogs. You can also find pseudo-science and lies on blogs. So what? The fact that you asked for the scientific basis for attributing the causation of global warming to mankind's carbon emissions and then when you received that information, with links to peer reviewed papers from science journals, you rejected it out of hand without even trying to deal with the facts or dispute the information provided, just shows that you are another politically motivated and very brainwashed denier cultist who is not interested in the science or the truth.

And, you've posted no science.

But Dodo, back on page 9, I did post the science linking increased CO2 levels to global warming that you're always asking for but you just refused to acknowledge it, apparently because you're either a paid troll trying to spread misinformation or you're just too retarded to comprehend it. Here it is again, you clueless dimwit. I'll highlight the scientific citations for you this time since you're so ideologically blinded.

These are your ignorant uninformed "opinions", not facts.
"As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation."
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "magically transform them into facts" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "opinions" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

....

It is a fact.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......that is just too hilarious and ironically hypocritical....let's take the first line there of your post and combine it with the last line of your post:
"Unlike you, apparently, they know the difference between an opinion and fact."
If we add in a couple more of your lines, it reaches ROTFLMAO levels of hilarity.
"Recall, opinions are not science. (Who would ever have imagined that an alleged adult would have to be reminded of that fact?)"

So no, Slo dodo, "it" is not a "fact", "it" is just your uninformed opinion and it is a very mistaken one based only on your own apparently deliberate ignorance.

.... The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "opinions" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.

If you don't believe it to be a fact, produce the science demonstrating such causation.

OK, Dodo, here you go.

Let's start with the fact that scientists have been able to determine past atmospheric CO2 levels by analyzing air bubbles trapped in ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years. There is a lot of evidence that CO2 levels stayed around 275ppm to 285ppm for at least the last ten thousand years, the period in which mankind was able to take advantage of a period of relatively stable climate to develop agriculture and cities and civilization and a world population of 7 billion. It stayed the same until about two centuries ago when mankind started to seriously develop and make widespread the use of coal and oil and natural gas and deforestation became widespread. Now mankind has raised CO2 levels by about 40%, from 285ppm to the current level of 389ppm. Here is a good account, with references and links to the scientific papers, to just how that increase in CO2 levels ties into the high degree of scientific certainty about the human "causation" of the current global warming/climate changes. Follow the link to the site for more detail.


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
(excerpts)

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

 

[westwall]

No little nitwit, "blogs aren't science" because science is science and accurate scientific information can be found in many places on the internet, including blogs. You can also find pseudo-science and lies on blogs. So what? The fact that you asked for the scientific basis for attributing the causation of global warming to mankind's carbon emissions and then when you received that information, with links to peer reviewed papers from science journals, you rejected it out of hand without even trying to deal with the facts or dispute the information provided, just shows that you are another politically motivated and very brainwashed denier cultist who is not interested in the science or the truth.

And, you've posted no science.

But Dodo, back on page 9, I did post the science linking increased CO2 levels to global warming that you're always asking for but you just refused to acknowledge it, apparently because you're either a paid troll trying to spread misinformation or you're just too retarded to comprehend it. Here it is again, you clueless dimwit. I'll highlight the scientific citations for you this time since you're so ideologically blinded.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......that is just too hilarious and ironically hypocritical....let's take the first line there of your post and combine it with the last line of your post:
"Unlike you, apparently, they know the difference between an opinion and fact."
If we add in a couple more of your lines, it reaches ROTFLMAO levels of hilarity.
"Recall, opinions are not science. (Who would ever have imagined that an alleged adult would have to be reminded of that fact?)"

So no, Slo dodo, "it" is not a "fact", "it" is just your uninformed opinion and it is a very mistaken one based only on your own apparently deliberate ignorance.

If you don't believe it to be a fact, produce the science demonstrating such causation.

OK, Dodo, here you go.

Let's start with the fact that scientists have been able to determine past atmospheric CO2 levels by analyzing air bubbles trapped in ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years. There is a lot of evidence that CO2 levels stayed around 275ppm to 285ppm for at least the last ten thousand years, the period in which mankind was able to take advantage of a period of relatively stable climate to develop agriculture and cities and civilization and a world population of 7 billion. It stayed the same until about two centuries ago when mankind started to seriously develop and make widespread the use of coal and oil and natural gas and deforestation became widespread. Now mankind has raised CO2 levels by about 40%, from 285ppm to the current level of 389ppm. Here is a good account, with references and links to the scientific papers, to just how that increase in CO2 levels ties into the high degree of scientific certainty about the human "causation" of the current global warming/climate changes. Follow the link to the site for more detail.


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
(excerpts)

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

The responses are better then the article! I love this assertion...

"Statistically, this isn't true, the trend in global temperature has still been increasing. Don't fall into the trap of comparing single points in a noisy signal - that is not the way to determine a long term trend. More importantly, the physical reality is that the planet is still accumulating heat. There is still an energy imbalance. Satellites and ocean heat measurements find more energy is still coming in than going out."

The first statement is an outright fib. Any "warming" that has been "observed" is well within the error bands of the statisitical analysis.

The second statement flies in the face of reality. How does a planet "accumulate heat"?
If there is an energy imbalance please show where that energy is stored. The third statement is likewise a fib, the satellites do not show more energy going in then coming out. And here's where they divorce themselves from the basic fundamental physical laws of the universe as we know it, if there were energy going in it would be warming the oceans, there is ZERO data to support that.

Thus they are asking you to believe that heat is trapped in the cold, cold depths of the oceans. A thinking person would figure out pretty quick that that violates at least two Laws of Physics.

Try again buckwheat, this only shows how divorced from reality they are.

 

[Bigfoot]

"...the Berkeley Earth Project"

Berkeley? I am sure that is a bastion of scientific objectivity.

Exactly.

 

[RollingThunder]

And, you've posted no science.

But Dodo, back on page 9, I did post the science linking increased CO2 levels to global warming that you're always asking for but you just refused to acknowledge it, apparently because you're either a paid troll trying to spread misinformation or you're just too retarded to comprehend it. Here it is again, you clueless dimwit. I'll highlight the scientific citations for you this time since you're so ideologically blinded.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......that is just too hilarious and ironically hypocritical....let's take the first line there of your post and combine it with the last line of your post:
"It is a fact."
"Unlike you, apparently, they know the difference between an opinion and fact."
If we add in a couple more of your lines, it reaches ROTFLMAO levels of hilarity.
"Recall, opinions are not science. (Who would ever have imagined that an alleged adult would have to be reminded of that fact?)"

So no, Slo dodo, "it" is not a "fact", "it" is just your uninformed opinion and it is a very mistaken one based only on your own apparently deliberate ignorance.

If you don't believe it to be a fact, produce the science demonstrating such causation.

OK, Dodo, here you go.

Let's start with the fact that scientists have been able to determine past atmospheric CO2 levels by analyzing air bubbles trapped in ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years. There is a lot of evidence that CO2 levels stayed around 275ppm to 285ppm for at least the last ten thousand years, the period in which mankind was able to take advantage of a period of relatively stable climate to develop agriculture and cities and civilization and a world population of 7 billion. It stayed the same until about two centuries ago when mankind started to seriously develop and make widespread the use of coal and oil and natural gas and deforestation became widespread. Now mankind has raised CO2 levels by about 40%, from 285ppm to the current level of 389ppm. Here is a good account, with references and links to the scientific papers, to just how that increase in CO2 levels ties into the high degree of scientific certainty about the human "causation" of the current global warming/climate changes. Follow the link to the site for more detail.


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
(excerpts)

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

The responses are better then the article! I love this assertion...

"Statistically, this isn't true, the trend in global temperature has still been increasing. Don't fall into the trap of comparing single points in a noisy signal - that is not the way to determine a long term trend. More importantly, the physical reality is that the planet is still accumulating heat. There is still an energy imbalance. Satellites and ocean heat measurements find more energy is still coming in than going out."

The first statement is an outright fib. Any "warming" that has been "observed" is well within the error bands of the statisitical analysis.

The second statement flies in the face of reality. How does a planet "accumulate heat"?
If there is an energy imbalance please show where that energy is stored. The third statement is likewise a fib, the satellites do not show more energy going in then coming out. And here's where they divorce themselves from the basic fundamental physical laws of the universe as we know it, if there were energy going in it would be warming the oceans, there is ZERO data to support that.

Thus they are asking you to believe that heat is trapped in the cold, cold depths of the oceans. A thinking person would figure out pretty quick that that violates at least two Laws of Physics.

Try again buckwheat, this only shows how divorced from reality they are.

LOLOLOL....you are such a funny delusional fruitcake, walleyedretard. As usual, your ignorance and room temperature IQ prevent you from comprehending what you read and you moronically assume that because you can't understand it, it must be wrong. You have consistently demonstrated a basic misunderstanding of the laws of physics and of science in general. As usual, you are wrong about everything and just making up wild BS that has no connection to reality, and on top of that you are apparently so lost in your own personal little fantasy world that you imagine anyone gives two hoots about your unsupported and very mistaken assertions about how wrong all of the world's climate scientists really are. You poor confused bamboozled dufus.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Global Warming Human Fingerprints | Union of Concerned Scientists

Human Fingerprints
Download: Human Fingerprints (high-res fact sheet | Human Fingerprints (low-res fact sheet)
Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered. Like detectives, science sleuths seek the answer to "Whodunnit?" — are humans part of the cause? To answer this question, patterns observed by meteorologists and oceanographers are compared with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can now positively identify the "human fingerprints" associated with the changes. The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth's climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface.

When they lead off with a statement like this...

"Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last two decades."

Which is provably false...then it follows the rest is worthless propaganda.

Exactly.

And demonstrating that current temps are rising does not prove it is man made. Nor does showing a paralel rise in CO2 prove anything as corelation does not equal causation.

The same old bullshit repackaged and retold a dozen different ways proves nothing nor does 'scientific consensus'.

But that and outright lies like claiming the himalayan glaciers are shrinking, is all the Warmistas have and all they have ever had.

There is not piece of scientific evidence that proves man made CO2 is direct primary cause of recent temperature increases. none that I have seen. It i s all appeals to questionable authority, corelation and panic, nothing more.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But Dodo, back on page 9, I did post the science linking increased CO2 levels to global warming that you're always asking for but you just refused to acknowledge it, apparently because you're either a paid troll trying to spread misinformation or you're just too retarded to comprehend it. Here it is again, you clueless dimwit. I'll highlight the scientific citations for you this time since you're so ideologically blinded.

The responses are better then the article! I love this assertion...

"Statistically, this isn't true, the trend in global temperature has still been increasing. Don't fall into the trap of comparing single points in a noisy signal - that is not the way to determine a long term trend. More importantly, the physical reality is that the planet is still accumulating heat. There is still an energy imbalance. Satellites and ocean heat measurements find more energy is still coming in than going out."

The first statement is an outright fib. Any "warming" that has been "observed" is well within the error bands of the statisitical analysis.

The second statement flies in the face of reality. How does a planet "accumulate heat"?
If there is an energy imbalance please show where that energy is stored. The third statement is likewise a fib, the satellites do not show more energy going in then coming out. And here's where they divorce themselves from the basic fundamental physical laws of the universe as we know it, if there were energy going in it would be warming the oceans, there is ZERO data to support that.

Thus they are asking you to believe that heat is trapped in the cold, cold depths of the oceans. A thinking person would figure out pretty quick that that violates at least two Laws of Physics.

Try again buckwheat, this only shows how divorced from reality they are.

LOLOLOL....you are such a funny delusional fruitcake, walleyedretard. As usual, your ignorance and room temperature IQ prevent you from comprehending what you read and you moronically assume that because you can't understand it, it must be wrong. You have consistently demonstrated a basic misunderstanding of the laws of physics and of science in general. As usual, you are wrong about everything and just making up wild BS that has no connection to reality, and on top of that you are apparently so lost in your own personal little fantasy world that you imagine anyone gives two hoots about your unsupported and very mistaken assertions about how wrong all of the world's climate scientists really are. You poor confused bamboozled dufus.

A very typical Warmista post, composed entirley of ad hominem attacks and not one shred of reason or evidence at all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

These are your ignorant uninformed "opinions", not facts.
"As I said, and keep on saying, the state of the science does not support ANY conclusion about the causation of warming nor the significance and/or magnitude of that causation."
You can repeat your assertions over and over all you want but it won't "magically transform them into facts" or change the very simple fact that you don't (and can't) support your "opinions" with any evidence or data or citations from the scientific literature. All of your posturing and pronouncements amount to just more hot air with no substance.

....

It is a fact.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......that is just too hilarious and ironically hypocritical....let's take the first line there of your post and combine it with the last line of your post:
"Unlike you, apparently, they know the difference between an opinion and fact."
If we add in a couple more of your lines, it reaches ROTFLMAO levels of hilarity.
"Recall, opinions are not science. (Who would ever have imagined that an alleged adult would have to be reminded of that fact?)"

So no, Slo dodo, "it" is not a "fact", "it" is just your uninformed opinion and it is a very mistaken one based only on your own apparently deliberate ignorance.

.... The scientists and scientific organizations and societies and universities that I cited earlier aren't just flapping their lips like you, dimwit. They base their statements on the literally mountains of evidence and data the have been gathered and that are summed up in the IPCC reports. The world scientific community is about as scientifically certain about this as it is possible to get. Call their conclusions "opinions" if you want, but I, or any other intelligent person, will take their informed 'opinions' on this matter over your ignorant unsupported drivel any day.

If you don't believe it to be a fact, produce the science demonstrating such causation.

OK, Dodo, here you go.

Let's start with the fact that scientists have been able to determine past atmospheric CO2 levels by analyzing air bubbles trapped in ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years. There is a lot of evidence that CO2 levels stayed around 275ppm to 285ppm for at least the last ten thousand years, the period in which mankind was able to take advantage of a period of relatively stable climate to develop agriculture and cities and civilization and a world population of 7 billion. It stayed the same until about two centuries ago when mankind started to seriously develop and make widespread the use of coal and oil and natural gas and deforestation became widespread. Now mankind has raised CO2 levels by about 40%, from 285ppm to the current level of 389ppm. Here is a good account, with references and links to the scientific papers, to just how that increase in CO2 levels ties into the high degree of scientific certainty about the human "causation" of the current global warming/climate changes. Follow the link to the site for more detail.


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
(excerpts)

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

Again, nothing proving that man made CO2 directly causes an increase of temperature, only corelation is shown. Other causes of global warming, that h ave put our planet through cycles of heating and cooling for millions of years are completely ignored.

Since our planet has in the past been far warmer and much colder, and none of that due to human caused CO2 increases, it is impossible to prove that man made CO2 increases are the cause of current warming by merely showing an increase of atmospheric warming and increases of CO2. The other causes have to be proven to not contribute significantly and that is not possible. you cannot prove such a negative.

Warmistas *want* to believe the planet is warming as it gives them another crisis to justify handing all power over to the state, a state they presume that they will control, and erroneous assumption if there ever was one, demonstrated throughout history to be wrong most of the time. The revolutionaries never run the state after the revolution past ten years. Others do and the first thing they do is rid themselves of the successful revolutionaries for obvious reasons.

 

[Si modo]

No little nitwit, "blogs aren't science" because science is science and accurate scientific information can be found in many places on the internet, including blogs. You can also find pseudo-science and lies on blogs. So what? The fact that you asked for the scientific basis for attributing the causation of global warming to mankind's carbon emissions and then when you received that information, with links to peer reviewed papers from science journals, you rejected it out of hand without even trying to deal with the facts or dispute the information provided, just shows that you are another politically motivated and very brainwashed denier cultist who is not interested in the science or the truth.

And, you've posted no science.

But Dodo, back on page 9, I did post the science linking increased CO2 levels to global warming that you're always asking for but you just refused to acknowledge it, apparently because you're either a paid troll trying to spread misinformation or you're just too retarded to comprehend it. Here it is again, you clueless dimwit. I'll highlight the scientific citations for you this time since you're so ideologically blinded.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......that is just too hilarious and ironically hypocritical....let's take the first line there of your post and combine it with the last line of your post:
"Unlike you, apparently, they know the difference between an opinion and fact."
If we add in a couple more of your lines, it reaches ROTFLMAO levels of hilarity.
"Recall, opinions are not science. (Who would ever have imagined that an alleged adult would have to be reminded of that fact?)"

So no, Slo dodo, "it" is not a "fact", "it" is just your uninformed opinion and it is a very mistaken one based only on your own apparently deliberate ignorance.

If you don't believe it to be a fact, produce the science demonstrating such causation.

OK, Dodo, here you go.

Let's start with the fact that scientists have been able to determine past atmospheric CO2 levels by analyzing air bubbles trapped in ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years. There is a lot of evidence that CO2 levels stayed around 275ppm to 285ppm for at least the last ten thousand years, the period in which mankind was able to take advantage of a period of relatively stable climate to develop agriculture and cities and civilization and a world population of 7 billion. It stayed the same until about two centuries ago when mankind started to seriously develop and make widespread the use of coal and oil and natural gas and deforestation became widespread. Now mankind has raised CO2 levels by about 40%, from 285ppm to the current level of 389ppm. Here is a good account, with references and links to the scientific papers, to just how that increase in CO2 levels ties into the high degree of scientific certainty about the human "causation" of the current global warming/climate changes. Follow the link to the site for more detail.


Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
(excerpts)

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

It wasn't science when you posted it before, and bolding and coloring it more does not magically transform it into science now.

As I said before, you don't even know what science IS, yet you post about it.

It's a tragic reflection of what our public education has become.