Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Have you ever considered Haig that the reason every scientific society is concerned about climate change caused by human activities is because they dont get their science from YouTube, WUWT, and Breibart.

For instance.....

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)


SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)

U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11


U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12


INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“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.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.


OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
U.S. agencies

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
 
Prof Philip Jones (UEA – CRU) was reported as saying this about the Pause, "there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995" despite a 7% increase in CO2 concentrations in that period.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair.

Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.

But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real".

Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance.

If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20.

Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.

"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.

"Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.

"It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."

I haven't seen an analysis for 1995-2011, 1995-2012 or 1995-2013 so I don't know if the trend is statistically significant over those periods. Neither, I strongly suspect, do you.
 
Last edited:
Looking for the answer to the question posed in my last post I found this useful graph here.



Edited to put the image in spoiler tags as it's a bit too big.
 
Last edited:
Have you ever considered Haig that the reason every scientific society is concerned about climate change caused by human activities is because they dont get their science from YouTube, WUWT, and Breibart.
Have you ever considered greybeard he who pays the piper calls the tune?

I haven't seen any convincing evidence that climate change caused by human activities is significant when compared to natural causes. Can you show proof that it IS?

We live in interesting times greybeard. Our Science shows us that in the latter part of 20th century (late 70's to late 90's) our Sun was at it's most active, with that came global warming.

But with a weaker solar cycle 23 that peak has passed confirmed with a much weaker than predicted solar cycle 24 and a much less active Sun and the Pause in global warming.

Sun's behavior baffles astronomers
"We're witnessing something unlike anything we've seen in 100 years," said David Hathaway of NASA's Marshalll Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

"Sunspots are areas of concentrated magnetic activity that appear as dark dots on the solar surface. The ebb and flow of the sun's magnetic activity, manifested in the appearance of sunspots, make up the solar cycle.

"Hathaway predicts that cycle 24 should reach its peak in mid-2013 at about half the size of the last three cycles. (Italics added.)

So as the Sun settles down towards a Grand Solar Minimum we also have the Earths magnetic field weakening and the North Magnetic pole accelerating towards Siberia.


The difference in location between magnetic north and true north is called the magnetic deviation; not only is the gap getting bigger, it is shifting at an increasing rate. Prior to 1994, it was estimated that the magnetic north pole was moving at about 10 km a year, but since 2001 this has increased to around 65 km a year.

Well greybeard I'm sure I haven't convinced you away from your authority figures that say WE are the main cause of climate change.

Fortunately, others aren't so gullible and many scientists are looking into how the Sun can cause global warming/climate change.

Papers such as this very long and detailed study SOLAR INFLUENCES ON CLIMATE are bringing to us a much better understanding of the Sun-Earth connection.
 
So Haig you hand wave away all those quotes from science bodies with a conspiracy theory ie "they are only saying that because someone is paying them to say it". Do you really believe that all these scientific bodies are taking backhanders to distort the truth? All of them? Even when Bush was president? Do you also believe in chem trails or that the moon landings were faked because those are just as believable?
You hand wave away what all those scientific bodies believe, and then post crap like that it all started with Thatcher paying scientists to prove that AGW is real. Anyone who knows the least thing about Maggie knows that is even more far fetched than chem trails or faked moon landings.
 
Last edited:
So Haig you hand wave away all those quotes from science bodies with a conspiracy theory ie "they are only saying that because someone is paying them to say it". Do you really believe that all these scientific bodies are taking backhanders to distort the truth? All of them? Even when Bush was president? Do you also believe in chem trails or that the moon landings were faked because those are just as believable?
You hand wave away what all those scientific bodies believe, and then post crap like that it all started with Thatcher paying scientists to prove that AGW is real. Anyone who knows the least thing about Maggie knows that is even more far fetched than chem trails or faked moon landings.
Nope greybeard I don't but science isn't about beliefs? Is it?

Show some hard facts that humans are the main cause of climate change and I will weigh them against the hard facts that we aren't.

Natural causes are in the driving seat as I read it.

I'm waiting :)
 
You can say that but the Pause is a highly significant reminder to us all that nature is in charge of our climate.
You thinking it’s important doesn’t make it statistically significant. You need 20-30 years worth of data to establish a statistically significant trend in global temperature.
Fair question and I’ll attempt as fair an answer...

None of this answers the question. What is the physical mechanism you believe links sunspots and global temperature.

It takes incredibly massive amounts of energy to warm the earth even a tiny amount, much more that the variation in TSI can account for. How do sunspots produce this energy and transmit it 90 million miles from the Sun to the Earth?
 
Prof Philip Jones (UEA – CRU) was reported as saying this about the Pause, "there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995" despite a 7% increase in CO2 concentrations in that period.

No.

He is saying that the data was insufficient to establish any trend, warming or “pause” from 1995 – 2011 (?) when the question was asked. The question itself was cherry picked because there was a warming trend that just barely failed statistical significance and a statically significant warming trend if you went back one more year to 1994.
 
Last edited:
Nope greybeard I don't but science isn't about beliefs? Is it?
Show some hard facts that humans are the main cause of climate change and I will weigh them against the hard facts that we aren't.

Natural causes are in the driving seat as I read it.

I'm waiting :)

So what did you mean when you said "Have you ever considered greybeard he who pays the piper calls the tune?"
As you can't defend that without resorting to an obvious conspiracy theory you have to come up with something else. As you have made an about turn now and admitted all these scientific bodies aren't complicit in some giant con then explain why they are all, every one of them, convinced by the evidence. Why is it you can take seriously every bit of guff that you read on the internet, from the dodgiest of sources, that supports your bias but you can just dismiss out of hand every scientific society in the world?
 
Last edited:
Nope greybeard I don't but science isn't about beliefs? Is it?

Show some hard facts that humans are the main cause of climate change and I will weigh them against the hard facts that we aren't.
Natural causes are in the driving seat as I read it.

I'm waiting :)

You could start here and read the Questions and answers on the right hand side of the page. This is from actual scientists which is where I prefer to get my science from. Not political sites, and people who think that the IPCC is part of a UN plot to bring in a world government.
 
He is saying that the data was insufficient to establish any trend, warming or “pause” from 1995 – 2011 (?) when the question was asked.
It was actually using 2009 data as I recall.

The question itself was cherry picked because there was a warming trend that just barely failed statistical significance and a statically significant warming trend if you went back one more year to 1994.
In the time-warp Haig occupies it will always remain true that there has been no significant warming for 15 years. And, quite often, there won't have been. What he definitely won't see is significant cooling over any period (if only because someone is being paid to keep it hidden from him).

For Haig we will forever be on the lip of the hand-drawn graph he trusts in, just at the plunging point after which our noses are going to get rubbed in it just you wait.
 
I missed this bit of regurgitation of climate science warmist guff from you Reality Check....snipped gibberish...
The regurgitation of denial of valid climate science (and the inanity of calling science "warmist") continues from you Haig :p!

The models are reliable and do predict the observations.
You should not demand the impossible feat of climate models predicting the current hiatus in global surface temperatures
Writing "The Pause is real..." is an ignorant statement because there has been no pause - there has been a reduction of the rate of increase!

The facts about the Sun are simple enough for any one to understand
  • The Sun's output has been constant for 35 years.
  • The Earth has warmed up over those 35 years.
  • Thus the Sun has not warmed the Earth fro the last 35 years :jaw-dropp!
Anything you cannot understand about that, Haig?

Fully explained with references to the scientific literature in the links inHaig (24 July 2014): It is not the Sun, Maunder Minimum will not stop GW![/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Haig: There has been no "pause" in global warming

You can say that but the Pause is ...
And you can say "pause" as many times as you like, Haig, but it does not mean that there is one except in news headlines and ignorant climate denier web sites.
The increase in heat content of the Earth (~90% in oceans) has actually accelerated in the last couple of decades.
There has been a decrease in the rate of global surface temperature warming. That is not a "pause".
What has global warming done since 1998?
The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.

A fuller description: Global warming not slowing - it's speeding up
The author emphasizes the idiocy of asserting that there is no warming lately when the record shows warming lately!
 
A Prof Philip Jones (UEA – CRU) was reported as saying this about the Pause, "there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995" despite a 7% increase in CO2 concentrations in that period.
You should learn some science so that you do not parrot the climate denier misinterpretations of that quote:
* It was not about your imaginary Pause, Haig!
* "statistically significant warming" is not that there is a pause - it is that there is not enough data to say if there was or was not warming.
* this was about global surface temperatures, not global warming.
Phil Jones and the meaning of 'statistically significant warming'
When you read Phil Jones' actual words, you see he's saying there is a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period.
This is his own calculation presumably using HADCRUT3 data from 1995 to 2010 however the HADCRUT3 dataset is known to be biased toward cooling since it has low coverage of the poles.

Then there is the lack of citation and quote mining - the next reply is
Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

And you continue with citing this paper, Haig which explicitly does not have the word pause in the title or abstract!
Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling

ETA: The authors have a strange statement: "annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century1, 2," but if you look at the references they are
Is the climate warming or cooling? - longer-term warming but expect constant periods of a decade or so with constant or even cooling.
Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced.
Mentioned in What has global warming done since 1998?
So the sources say the opposite of the authors statement!
 
Last edited:
Oh dear, Haig, citing a news article about a paper that you cannot even read because it is in another language while you ignore the science that is in English!
Haig (24 July 2014): It is not the Sun, Maunder Minimum will not stop GW!

What the reporter says about the paper agrees with the climate science - the Sun was the main driver of climate up to the Industrial Age when we really started pumping out CO2. But CO2 became the main driver of the climate several decades ago.
But then we have this reporter ignorant enough to be citing a press release on the climate denier Hockey Schtick blog!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom