Evidence for Man-Made Climate Change Getting Even Stronger

[westwall]

"Denialist political cultists sputter their rage out at the real world. Film at 11."

Sure moothy old girl. We're not the ones claiming the end is nigh and walking around with the sandwich boards....remember those kooks?

They are you!

 

[skookerasbil]

"Denialist political cultists sputter their rage out at the real world. Film at 11."

yuk.......yuk............

Source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/appa.pdf and http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/tbla17.pdf



Welcome to the real world sweetie..............

 

[Trakar]

why do you keep asking us to fight the same battles over and over again?

You are the one who keeps bringing up multipley discredited and disproven arguments that are casually refuted by the facts and serious investigations, I simply keep reminding you of what the evidence indicates and the understandings compellingly explain.

 

[IanC]

So, when the UK Met Office says there has been no warming for the last 16 years....what global warming are you talking about man causing...specifically?

Please link to the specific Met Office release, on a Met Office site that supports your assertion.

As for a Met office link that confirms and supports AGW there are many. Examples of these comments:

"...The scientific consensus states that it is very likely that most of the warming over the last 50 years is a result of greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity.
The exchange of 'man-made' carbon dioxide between man-made emissions, atmosphere, ocean and land, is about 7 GtC/year (billion tons of carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, per year), which also shows much larger natural exchanges between atmosphere and ocean (about 90 GtC/yr) and atmosphere and land (about 60 GtC/yr). However, these natural exchanges have been in balance for many thousands of years, leading to the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 remaining steady at about 280 ppm.
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising. They have increased by about 38% since industrialisation began, from 280 ppm (parts per million) to 387 ppm. Two-thirds of that increase has occurred in the last 50 years. CO2 levels are now 30% higher than at any time over at least the last 800,000 years..."
Climate change — frequently asked questions - Met Office

"...It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing due to man-made greenhouse gases. We are already committed to future substantial change over the next 30 years and change is likely to accelerate over the rest of the 21st century..."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/b/1/informing.pdf

"
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal' and that 'Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations'..."
Statement from the UK science community - Met Office

or more directly in response to Mr. Rose's disingenuous confabulations:

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 « Met Office News Blog

Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog

why do you keep asking us to fight the same battles over and over again?

the Met and other distributors of global temps have all produced data that show no significant warming for the last 15 years. when you add in the rather bizarre homogenization adjustments (or should I say remove) then there is a distinct possibility that there has been cooling but not at a significant level.

are you saying there has been significant warming? your links do not say that. because even with the massive 'adjustments' in temp data sets there is none.

 

[Trakar]

are you saying there has been significant warming? your links do not say that. because even with the massive 'adjustments' in temp data sets there is none.

I am merely asking the people who make unsupported assertions:

So, when the UK Met Office says there has been no warming for the last 16 years....what global warming are you talking about man causing...specifically?

...to provide links to an official UK Met Office release that supports their assertion. The fact that your personal political opinions are not supportive of the scientific findings and understandings is irrelevant to these issues of professional research and finding.

 

[Old Rocks]

Please link to the specific Met Office release, on a Met Office site that supports your assertion.

As for a Met office link that confirms and supports AGW there are many. Examples of these comments:

"...The scientific consensus states that it is very likely that most of the warming over the last 50 years is a result of greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity.
The exchange of 'man-made' carbon dioxide between man-made emissions, atmosphere, ocean and land, is about 7 GtC/year (billion tons of carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, per year), which also shows much larger natural exchanges between atmosphere and ocean (about 90 GtC/yr) and atmosphere and land (about 60 GtC/yr). However, these natural exchanges have been in balance for many thousands of years, leading to the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 remaining steady at about 280 ppm.
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rising. They have increased by about 38% since industrialisation began, from 280 ppm (parts per million) to 387 ppm. Two-thirds of that increase has occurred in the last 50 years. CO2 levels are now 30% higher than at any time over at least the last 800,000 years..."
Climate change — frequently asked questions - Met Office

"...It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing due to man-made greenhouse gases. We are already committed to future substantial change over the next 30 years and change is likely to accelerate over the rest of the 21st century..."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/b/1/informing.pdf

"
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal' and that 'Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations'..."
Statement from the UK science community - Met Office

or more directly in response to Mr. Rose's disingenuous confabulations:

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 « Met Office News Blog

Met Office in the Media: 29 January 2012 « Met Office News Blog

why do you keep asking us to fight the same battles over and over again?

the Met and other distributors of global temps have all produced data that show no significant warming for the last 15 years. when you add in the rather bizarre homogenization adjustments (or should I say remove) then there is a distinct possibility that there has been cooling but not at a significant level.

are you saying there has been significant warming? your links do not say that. because even with the massive 'adjustments' in temp data sets there is none.

The Arctic Ice gone for part of the summer before 2020 is not significant? The repid melt of the alpine glaciers worldwide is not significant? An increase in extreme weather events measured in factors, not percentages, is not signficant? And that measuring is not being done by climate scientists, but by capitalistic organizations such as Swiss Re and Munich Re.

Just what would you consider significant?

 

[Trakar]

...Just what would you consider significant?

The typical scientific definition of significant refers to the statistical usage of the term, meaning "probably caused by something other than mere chance."

Statistical Significance

"...When you have a large sample size, very small differences will be detected as significant. This means that you are very sure that the difference is real (i.e., it didn't happen by fluke). It doesn't mean that the difference is large or important...Significance is a statistical term that tells how sure you are that a difference or relationship exists..."

 

[westwall]

why do you keep asking us to fight the same battles over and over again?

You are the one who keeps bringing up multipley discredited and disproven arguments that are casually refuted by the facts and serious investigations, I simply keep reminding you of what the evidence indicates and the understandings compellingly explain.

Oh? You mean like Greig et al?

 

[westwall]

why do you keep asking us to fight the same battles over and over again?

the Met and other distributors of global temps have all produced data that show no significant warming for the last 15 years. when you add in the rather bizarre homogenization adjustments (or should I say remove) then there is a distinct possibility that there has been cooling but not at a significant level.

are you saying there has been significant warming? your links do not say that. because even with the massive 'adjustments' in temp data sets there is none.

The Arctic Ice gone for part of the summer before 2020 is not significant? The repid melt of the alpine glaciers worldwide is not significant? An increase in extreme weather events measured in factors, not percentages, is not signficant? And that measuring is not being done by climate scientists, but by capitalistic organizations such as Swiss Re and Munich Re.

Just what would you consider significant?

The fact that 90% of the melting occurred when CO2 levels were below 300 and occurred before the year 1900 isn't significant?

 

[tjvh]

U.N. + AGW hoax + stupid believers = Quite possible the greatest financial swindle ever to be perpetrated in the history of our planet. Bernie Madoff must be proud.

 

[Trakar]

U.N. + AGW hoax + stupid believers = Quite possible the greatest financial swindle ever to be perpetrated in the history of our planet. Bernie Madoff must be proud.

Please cite and provide reference to the journal published economic and financial analyses of these issues which support your contention.

 

[edthecynic]

So, when the UK Met Office says there has been no warming for the last 16 years....what global warming are you talking about man causing...specifically?

And if by 16 years you mean the last 6 years have leveled off at the elevated levels of the previous 30 years, then suddenly you wouldn't be exaggerating.

 

[Old Rocks]

are you saying there has been significant warming? your links do not say that. because even with the massive 'adjustments' in temp data sets there is none.

The Arctic Ice gone for part of the summer before 2020 is not significant? The repid melt of the alpine glaciers worldwide is not significant? An increase in extreme weather events measured in factors, not percentages, is not signficant? And that measuring is not being done by climate scientists, but by capitalistic organizations such as Swiss Re and Munich Re.

Just what would you consider significant?

The fact that 90% of the melting occurred when CO2 levels were below 300 and occurred before the year 1900 isn't significant?

Once again you state this. Once again, show the studies that show this. For you are repeating an obvious lie. 90% of the melting did not occur before 1900. Not for the Arctic Ice, not for the alpine glaciers.

 

[IanC]

are you saying there has been significant warming? your links do not say that. because even with the massive 'adjustments' in temp data sets there is none.

I am merely asking the people who make unsupported assertions:

So, when the UK Met Office says there has been no warming for the last 16 years....what global warming are you talking about man causing...specifically?

...to provide links to an official UK Met Office release that supports their assertion. The fact that your personal political opinions are not supportive of the scientific findings and understandings is irrelevant to these issues of professional research and finding.

ahhh....you are just splitting hairs then. when the Met puts up figures that show no significant warming for 16 years but they do not say in words that there is no significant warming, then it doesnt count. OK. that is the typical climate science response anyways.

obviously you think the present temps are unnaturally high and due to CO2. but if you step back and analyze temperature records in the long run, then present conditions are easily within normal bounds. you want to see a connection between CO2 and warming so it has clouded your judgment. it is a common mistake of humans who are genetically programmed to look for patterns and are often confused by over reading things into coincidence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

U.N. + AGW hoax + stupid believers = Quite possible the greatest financial swindle ever to be perpetrated in the history of our planet. Bernie Madoff must be proud.

Please cite and provide reference to the journal published economic and financial analyses of these issues which support your contention.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Arctic Ice gone for part of the summer before 2020 is not significant? The repid melt of the alpine glaciers worldwide is not significant? An increase in extreme weather events measured in factors, not percentages, is not signficant? And that measuring is not being done by climate scientists, but by capitalistic organizations such as Swiss Re and Munich Re.

Just what would you consider significant?

The fact that 90% of the melting occurred when CO2 levels were below 300 and occurred before the year 1900 isn't significant?

Once again you state this. Once again, show the studies that show this. For you are repeating an obvious lie. 90% of the melting did not occur before 1900. Not for the Arctic Ice, not for the alpine glaciers.

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor Frankie Boy, stuck on stupid. How's that hollow moon doing, old chap?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I thought the concensus already established it as fact? Now the evidence gets stronger?

These are deranged and desperate people.

Concensus does not establish fact, merely that most of the active and leading figures in the field agree upon an established and compellingly supported understanding. Additional supporting evidence enhances and adds support to that understanding, in the same way that it does for every other area of science.

Then why do alarmists constantly point to concensus on AGW and call it a settled debate?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A 90% probability. WTF is that even suppose to mean? It's like a fucking weatherman "50% chance of rain today."

Gee, thanks, Cork.

When a weather man cites a 90% chance of rain for a given set of conditions, what he is saying is that in the past, when this same set of conditions have occurred, it has rained 90 times out of 100.

Science uses statistical terms when talking about probabilities in reference to confidence intervals. The IPCC uses a varient of this statistical terminology as explained in thier reports:
Chapter 2 of this report uses a related term ‘level of scientific understanding’ when describing uncertainties in different contributions to radiative forcing. This terminology is used for consistency with the Third Assessment Report, and the basis on which the authors have determined particular levels of scientific understanding uses a combination of approaches consistent with the uncertainty guidance note as explained in detail in Section 2.9.2 and Table 2.11.

The standard terms used in this report to define the likelihood of an outcome or result where this can be estimated probabilistically are:

Likelihood Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
Virtually certain > 99% probability
Extremely likely > 95% probability
Very likely > 90% probability
Likely > 66% probability
More likely than not > 50% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely < 33% probability
Very unlikely < 10% probability
Extremely unlikely < 5% probability
Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability


The terms ‘extremely likely’, ‘extremely unlikely’ and ‘more likely than not’ as defined above have been added to those given in the IPCC Uncertainty Guidance Note in order to provide a more specific assessment of aspects including attribution and radiative forcing.

Unless noted otherwise, values given in this report are assessed best estimates and their uncertainty ranges are 90% confidence intervals (i.e., there is an estimated 5% likelihood of the value being below the lower end of the range or above the upper end of the range).
Note that in some cases the nature of the constraints on a value, or other information available, may indicate an asymmetric distribution of the uncertainty range around a best estimate.

(excerpted from 1.6 The IPCC Assessments of Climate Change and Uncertainties - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science )

OH! So the IPCC is going off from the man made global warming of the past to establish their "probability".

That makes sense.

 

[Trakar]

When a weather man cites a 90% chance of rain for a given set of conditions, what he is saying is that in the past, when this same set of conditions have occurred, it has rained 90 times out of 100.

Science uses statistical terms when talking about probabilities in reference to confidence intervals. The IPCC uses a varient of this statistical terminology as explained in thier reports:...

OH! So the IPCC is going off from the man made global warming of the past to establish their "probability".

That makes sense.

If you cannot discern the distinctions between "a weatherman" use of language and "Science" use of language, you need more independent study and research before you are ready to participate in a reasoned and supported discussion of these topics. Of course, it is possible that connivance and disingenuity are more at the root of your "misunderstanding" than simple ignorance.