“It was like really HOT, like 60 million years ago! Isn’t the climate always changing?”
Yes. There is natural variability in Earth’s climate but the current climate change is very unusual as it is not exclusively part of a natural cycle.
Natural factors include volcanic eruptions, aerosols and phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña (which cause warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean surface). Natural climate variations can lead to periods with little or no warming, both globally and regionally, and other periods with very rapid warming. However, there is an underlying trend of warming that is almost certainly caused by man’s activities.
Right, we're supposed to just accept the claim that this is not a naturally cause trend. Where is the supporting data? Still basing this claim on a narrow set of data limited to analysis of fluctuations of the current ice age? Why is pre-ice age data not included. Paleobotanical analysis of both MGT and atmospheric is equally valid to ice core data (in fact indications are that botanical analysis is more accurate than ice cores.) There is plenty of such data covering the periods prior to the current ice age. Why is that data excluded when supporting the "unnatural" conclusions?
”Aren’t all these changes down to the Sun and natural factors?”
No. Many factors contribute to climate change. Only when all the factors are considered can we explain the size and patterns of climate change over the last century.
Although some people claim that the Sun and cosmic rays are responsible for climate change, measured solar activity shows no significant change in the last few decades, while global temperatures have increased significantly. Since the Industrial Revolution, additional greenhouse gases have had about ten times the effect on climate as changes in the Sun’s output.
Much of the relatively small climate variability over the last 1,000 years, but before industrialisation, can be explained by changes in solar output and occasional cooling due to major volcanic eruptions. Since industrialisation, CO2 has increased significantly. We now know that man-made CO2 is the likely cause of most of the warming over the last 50 years.
Why do these claims ignore studies which indicate CO2 concentrations below 1000 ppmv do not significantly increase atmospheric heat retention? Why do they continue to ignore the well-known fact that in ALL prior cycles CO2 increases followed temperature increases, supporting a cause/effect relationship the exact opposite of the AGW conclusions?
”Right wing blogs tell me Climate scientists are LYING! Do climate scientists really agree about climate change? “
No. Many factors contribute to climate change. Only when all the factors are considered can we explain the size and patterns of climate change over the last century.
Although some people claim that the Sun and cosmic rays are responsible for climate change, measured solar activity shows no significant change in the last few decades, while global temperatures have increased significantly. Since the Industrial Revolution, additional greenhouse gases have had about ten times the effect on climate as changes in the Sun’s output.
Much of the relatively small climate variability over the last 1,000 years, but before industrialisation, can be explained by changes in solar output and occasional cooling due to major volcanic eruptions. Since industrialisation, CO2 has increased significantly. We now know that man-made CO2 is the likely cause of most of the warming over the last 50 years.
Repeating the same biased and unsupported bullshit for two completely different questions doesn't do any good.
Using your own OP bullshit as a reference? The only thing bigger than your ego is your continual obeisance to the mandated opinions of your political masters.
"I listen to the Glenn Beck show, and surely, the impact of human activity is small? !!”
No. Greenhouse gases are produced naturally and commercially. Both types influence climate change.
OR are influenced by climatic change. The cause-effect relationship has not been established. Only a correlation has been established, and that correlation is based on deliberately truncating available data to a specific time period.
All the greenhouse gases combined (the main ones being water vapour, CO2, methane and nitrous oxide) are only a tiny part of the atmosphere, making up less than 0.5%. Yet it is scientifically proven that these gases trap heat, keeping the planet 30 °C warmer than it would be otherwise and able to sustain life. Any changes in the levels of these gases, such as those recently brought about by human activity, will have a significant effect on global temperatures.
Water vapor is the biggest by far. Again, studies clearly show CO2 at low concentrations has negligible effect.
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...3e8b7b8a8b702b
Keeping the climate stable is important for the well-being of the Earth.
LOL This after admitting that the climate is anything BUT stable? See, this is where we start seeing the socio-political aspect of AGW. It's not about the science, it's about a political agenda.
But there is now very strong evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change.
Evidence which deliberately excludes paleo data that does not support the conclusion.
”I read on a rightwing blog that global warming has stopped! Has global warming now stopped?
No. The rise in global surface temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade since the mid-1970s. The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. Global warming does not mean that each year will necessarily be warmer than the last because of natural variability, but the long-term trend is for rising temperatures. The warmth of the last half century is unprecedented in, at least, the previous 1,300 years.
Unprecedented in the last 1300 years? And prior to that 1300 years? It's doubtful we were industrialized enough 1300 years ago to cause any global climate change, yet in your own words admit that the so-called "unprecedented" definition is compromised as recently as 1300 years? What about data from 850,000 years ago? 1000,000 years? Why does AGW ignore any data coming from climatic conditions outside their preconceive definition of normal - a definition based on an ICE AGE as opposed to the true global norrm of Earth's entire history?
And here you expose how you deliberately slant the Q&As with your own brain dead bias. Why did you feel the need to change the wording of the questions?
”Didn’t the International Panel on Climate Change LIE?!!! Isn’t the IPCC 2007 assesment TOTAL crap?!!
No. The IPCC findings in 2007, have subsequently been independently validated and corroborated my the United State’s premier scientific institutions, the Dutch government, and by preeminent British scientific institutions
Yes, the foxes defended the foxes guarding the hen house. No bias there. Data sets are still missing, or at best, unpublished. But, even setting aside the accusations of cooking their data sets, the question remains why they exclude data sets from periods earlier than 600,000 years. What is the justification for excluding data from earlier periods of time?
And again using your own OP as a reference. Ego knows no bounds.
”I think five investigations on Climate Gate(!) which vindicated the scientists are wrong! These five investigations are clearly LYING and COVERING UP for the scientists!”
Sadly, no one can help you, or prevent you from being a conspiracy theory nutjob, or a misinformed boob.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=676083&postcount=1
So, where is the data, the studies done by these panels? What methods did they use to repeat the studies being examined? Where are the publications of the studies done which verifies the IPCC data? All that has been released is assurances from these so-called investigative panels that the IPCC's data and conclusions are valid. How were these so-called investigations conducted? Did they gather years worth of data and make their own studies from it (ie: did they REPEAT the studies as is a legitimate part of scientific research)? OR did they read the IPCC written records and come to the conclusion that they agree with it all? ("uh, gee, Clem, looks good to me. So what if data sets are missing. The conclusions are what we're looking for.")
Is it a case of the foxes clearing the foxes that were guarding the hen house? Or was there actual scientific inquiry involved? The time frame does not allow for actual scientific inquiry to have taken place.(repeated years worth of study in a couple months?) So if it was not scientific inquiry that lead to these "panels" clearing IPCC, what DID they do besides simply agree IPCC?
