What the science says

[Muhammed]

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range, depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy.

Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.

Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.

Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.

Effective decision-making to limit climate change and its effects can be informed by a wide range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty.

Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts.

More at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

You are full of shit.

What the sience says is that we are warm-blooded mammals and therefore, by definition, we must warm our environment in order to survive.

You anti-human zealots are fucked in the head.

 

[jc456]

I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

I will go where science leads... Not where political whores tell me to go.. How is that Muslim out reach organization doing these days?

Silly Billy, you are a liar. You know that as does everyone else. The Scientific Societies, the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities state that AGW is real. Now who makes up those institutions? Scientists. And what do scientists study? Science. And what are you absolutely denying? Science.

You reject the research and findings of generations scientists to run with the rantings of obese junkies on the AM radio and fake English Lords. You reject the photographic evidence of what is happening in the cryosphere. You reject all the evidence gathered by government agencies over the whole world regarding land temperatures and sea level rise. In other words, you just flap yap without even bothering to understand any of the basics of science.

Can't you find any real data?

 

[Crick]

And... is that the ONLY thing your science says?

 

[Old Rocks]

For the umpteenth time. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!

This is precious coming from a science-denier who backs a premise built upon drawing correlations

Feel free to present a statement of mine that backs up your drivel.

Too much work right now. But I am sure others have that info at the ready

Good luck with that. Like most progressive silly people you are all long on prevarication and short on actual fact. You must be related to harry reid that paragon of lying so long as it furthers your purpose it's OK ethical behaviorism.

The facts are this OP, like 90% of the AGW bullshit, is based on correlation. Correlation that stopped 18+ years ago. Face it silly boy, you're the one who is the anti science denier.

Face it, you are a foolish old liar. Are you stating that the temperature has not risen in 18 years? In the face of two back to back record years, with a third in the offing?

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July 2016 is +0.39 deg. C, up a little from the June, 2016 value +0.34 deg. C (click for full size version):

UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2016: +0.39 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

That is not warming? LOL A linear fit is going to slope strongly upward from left to right.

 

[Old Rocks]

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range, depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy.

Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.

Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.

Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.

Effective decision-making to limit climate change and its effects can be informed by a wide range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty.

Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts.

More at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

For the umpteenth time. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!

For the umpteenth time, the causation is well understood. Basic physics. From Tyndall to Arrhenius. That you deny that, then claim to be a scientist, is one funny contradiction. The absorption spectra of GHG's has been well mapped for a long time now. And the AGU and GSA both have statements that state unequivocally that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

 

[Old Rocks]

Quite on the contrary, we have a pretty good understanding of many of the past climate fluctuations. And, yes, we have ruled out natural causes for the present rapid increase in temperatures. This site presents a very good layman discussion of this;

Global Warming: Man or Myth - Natural Causes of Climate Change

You didn't rule ou



They didn't rule out shit.
Heck it took them to last year to realize clouds cover Greenland

Really? Clouds cover Greenland all the time? Part of the time? Some of the time?

Have you any idea of what you are stating? Or do you just copy, blindly and without the least understanding, statements from wingnut publications?

 

[Crick]

For the umpteenth time. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!

Care to show us causation WITHOUT correlation?

 

[westwall]

For the umpteenth time. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!

Care to show us causation WITHOUT correlation?

Sheesh. Talk about a piss poor understanding of science...... Dude, you need to go back to school....


"Causation without correlation. It is a common misconception that correlation is required for causation. Let’s start with a simple example that reveals this to be a fallacy. Suppose the value of y is known to be caused by x. The true relationship between x and y is mediated by another factor, call it A, that takes values of +1 or -1 with equal probability. The true process relating x to y is y = Ax.

It is a simple matter to show that the correlation between x and y is zero. Perhaps the most intuitive way is to imagine many samples (observations) of x, y pairs. Over the sub-sample for which the pairs have the same sign (i.e. for which A happened to be +1) y=x and the correlation is 1. Over the sub-sample for which the pairs have the opposite signs (i.e. for which A happened to be -1) y=-x and the correlation is -1. Since A is +1 and -1 with equal probability, the contributions to the total correlation from the two sub-samples cancel, giving a total correlation of zero."


Causation without Correlation is Possible | The Incidental Economist

Strong causation can exist without any correlation: The strange case of the chain smokers, and a note about diet

Causation without Correlation is Possible | The Incidental Economist

"Now it is a well-known fact that correlation does not mean causation. What people are less familiar with is that causative relationships can exist when correlation is equal to zero. Putting it simply, correlation reveals nothing about causative relationships and is neither necessary nor sufficient for it."



Is there a good example of a causation without correlation

 

[westwall]

I'll go with the scientists who put a man on the moon, and who are helping to unlock the secrets of our universe

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

I will go where science leads... Not where political whores tell me to go.. How is that Muslim out reach organization doing these days?

Silly Billy, you are a liar. You know that as does everyone else. The Scientific Societies, the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities state that AGW is real. Now who makes up those institutions? Scientists. And what do scientists study? Science. And what are you absolutely denying? Science.

You reject the research and findings of generations scientists to run with the rantings of obese junkies on the AM radio and fake English Lords. You reject the photographic evidence of what is happening in the cryosphere. You reject all the evidence gathered by government agencies over the whole world regarding land temperatures and sea level rise. In other words, you just flap yap without even bothering to understand any of the basics of science.

Who cares other than you anti science denier types. Appeals to Authority are logical fallacy's, thus they are MEANINGLESS!

 

[SSDD]

For the umpteenth time. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!

This is precious coming from a science-denier who backs a premise built upon drawing correlations

Feel free to present a statement of mine that backs up your drivel.

Too much work right now. But I am sure others have that info at the ready

Too much work to back up a claim you made so casually?.....sounds much like the entirety of climate science.

 

[SSDD]

Look up: counter-intutive

and the go away, far, far away

Look up: appeal to authority.

Appeal to authority?

Linking to facts and experts is an appeal to authority?

You can't even use the English language correctly: An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.

The problem is that your "facts' aren't....and linking assumed facts to questionable experts is a problem.

 

[SSDD]

For the umpteenth time. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!

This is precious coming from a science-denier who backs a premise built upon drawing correlations

Feel free to present a statement of mine that backs up your drivel.

Too much work right now. But I am sure others have that info at the ready

Good luck with that. Like most progressive silly people you are all long on prevarication and short on actual fact. You must be related to harry reid that paragon of lying so long as it furthers your purpose it's OK ethical behaviorism.

The facts are this OP, like 90% of the AGW bullshit, is based on correlation. Correlation that stopped 18+ years ago. Face it silly boy, you're the one who is the anti science denier.

The all operate on the premise that the end justifies the means....even if they can't even begin to predict the end as evidenced by their very long track record of unintended consequences.

 

[SSDD]

Silly Billy, you are a liar. You know that as does everyone else. The Scientific Societies, the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities state that AGW is real. Now who makes up those institutions? Scientists. And what do scientists study? Science. And what are you absolutely denying? Science.

And yet, when asked, you can't provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the basic premise of AGW...what is going on in a field of science when all the experts agree that a hypothesis is correct, but can't provide any actual evidence at all to support their agreement?

 

[SSDD]

For the umpteenth time. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!

Care to show us causation WITHOUT correlation?

And that is what you call science?...no wonder you have been so completely duped....

 

[Crick]

Then us explicitly what a dupe I've been. Show us causation without correlation.

And try to keep in mind - as Westwall apparently can not - that the case crediting CO2 with warming is a great deal more than simple correlation.

And, to get back to basics, if the lot of you believe that CO2 is NOT responsible, what is?

And to get back to insanity, if the lot of you believe the world has NOT been getting warmer what is the source of the mountains of data from all over the world for many years now showing that it is?

And if anyone suggests a conspiracy, I will take that to mean you have nothing and have completely given up your side of the argument.

I find it amusing to hear you attempt to denigrate what thousands of scientists consider to be good science. You must be one smart motherfucker. Or really, really stupid.

 

[xband]

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.

Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.

Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Projections of greenhouse gas emissions vary over a wide range, depending on both socio-economic development and climate policy.

Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.

Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.

Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.

Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change. Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.

Effective decision-making to limit climate change and its effects can be informed by a wide range of analytical approaches for evaluating expected risks and benefits, recognizing the importance of governance, ethical dimensions, equity, value judgments, economic assessments and diverse perceptions and responses to risk and uncertainty.

Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts.

More at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

When pineapples and date palms are growing on Ellesmere Island, I will move up there and let the tropics bake.

 

[skookerasbil]

First of all..........nobody is caring! The "science" is having no impact outside of the little science world and the band of k00ks who are OCD with this stuff. That's just a fact........well documented in these pages.Three years after the question was posed to the AGW religious members in here, it still hasn't been answered: "Where is the science mattering in the real world?"

And oh...the data displayed in the charts posted on page 1 indicate insignificant warming.........graphs can be set upa million different ways. Isnt it funny how ALL the graphs displayed by the AGW OCD's display the sharpest incline..........when one squeezes the axis on these, anything is possible = ghey. If the graphs were displayed in proper context, they are very unremarkable.

 

[skookerasbil]

I love this forum.......without fail every day, I come in here and see every member of the religion having his head explode. These meatheads come in here year after year thinking they are going to win this debate in an internet forum yet they get consistently embarrassed.

Meanwhile, public interest in this stuff is at an all time low..........90% of the country could not care less!! And that is everything........if the public doesn't care, then essentially, all this "science" stuff is nothing more than a hobby. And the policy makers aren't giving a shit either.........for near 10 years now. Renewable energy still grows at a snails pace despite the perpetual bomb throwing by these phonies.

In 2016, lets face it........its all good if you are a skeptic.........

 

[skookerasbil]

Hysterical......and so spot on accurate. Scientists need to take a couple of years off from studying the climate and go to marketing school!!



Just not understood by the people in here who are the hyper-alarmists.......at the end of the day, the science just does not matter!!

 

[LaDexter]

that the case crediting CO2 with warming is a great deal more than simple correlation.

Indeed, it is more fudge than Willy Wonka could possibly imagine...