New study finds 99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't know if all the good guys are one side and all the bad guys are on the other. Though I have done a lot of research on both climate change and the politics involved it would be rather silly to say I know everything about all the players. Crappy scientists fudge stuff or fail at due diligence, fortunately they have to answer to the entire science community who typically bark incompetents or fraudsters down pretty quickly even if they support the 'cause'. I see it all the time. And sure there's alarmists, you usually find them in blogs... otherwise you're getting facts and if people find presenting facts as promoting hysteria, then we as a species are in a lot of trouble.

a reply to: Kali74

The fact that there are manipulators is enough for me to question everything.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Questioning everything isn't a bad thing.

originally posted by: Kali74
Questioning everything isn't a bad thing.

I agree.

Now, onto more pressing concerns like ice buckets, Satan and twerking.

a reply to: Phage

We are not seeing large changes in ocean currents. We are not seeing an increase in solar radiation. We are, however, seeing an increase in anthropogenic CO2. It is known that increasing CO2 leads to increased radiative forcing. It is known that increased radiative forcing must result in higher temperatures. It is known that such increase can lead to feedback effects, enhancing the anthropogenic effect.

No offense, but did you pull this reply straight out of your nether region? The astronomical cycles that are attributed to the glaciation and interglacial periods have not changed. We are currently in an interglacial period, exactly like the previous ones, exactly on schedule per the cycles. Hence the conditions that existed during the last 5 interglacials are present and accounted for.

Secondly...you say that there have been no changes in ocean currents. Except that the NOAA has shown measurable slowing in the North Atlantic current. This may be responsible for the recent growth in the arctic ice cap.

Since we still have a land mass that extends from the north to the South Pole, conditions with regards to currents have not changed in that regard either. Therefore, all conditions you mentioned are exactly as they were during the previous interglacials. The existence of a continuous land mass from north to south is the requirement for conditions to exist for an ice age. The periodicity of the interglacials is determined by astronomic causes (tilt, distance etc). We are in an interglacial period that satisfies all the requirements and we are not exceeding historical norms, regardless of doom monger's claims.

You are aware that co2's ability to trap heat is not a direct relationship as co2 levels increase, right? It's a logarithmic progression decreasing as co2 increases. It's not a case of double the co2 and double the amount of heat trapped. Not by a long shot.

The cause of the glacial to interglacial increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is now thought to be due to changes in ventilation of deep water at the ocean surface around Antarctica and the resulting effect on the global efficiency of the “biological pump”.6

The above mechanism for glacial to interglacial variation in carbon dioxide concentration is supported by the observation that the rise in carbon dioxide lags the temperature increase by some 800-1000 years—ruling out the possibility that rising carbon dioxide concentrations were responsible for terminating glacial periods. As a consequence, it is now generally believed that glacial periods are terminated by increased insolation in polar regions due to quasi-periodic variations in the Earth’s orbital parameters. And it is true that paleoclimatic archives show spectral components that match the frequencies of Earth’s orbital modulation.

Thanks to new calculations by a Dartmouth geochemist, scientists are now looking at the earth's climate history in a new light.
Mukul Sharma, Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth, examined existing sets of geophysical data and noticed something remarkable: the sun's magnetic activity is varying in 100,000-year cycles, a much longer time span than previously thought, and this solar activity, in turn, may likely cause the 100,000-year climate cycles on earth. This research helps scientists understand past climate trends and prepare for future ones.
Published in the June 10 issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters (Elsevier, volume 199, issues 3-4), Sharma's study combined data on the varying production rates of beryllium 10, an isotope found on earth produced when high-energy galactic cosmic rays bombard our atmosphere, and data on the past variations in the earth's magnetic field intensity. With this information, Sharma calculated variations in solar magnetic activity going back 200,000 years, and he noticed a pattern.
Over the last 1 million years, the earth's climate record has revealed a 100,000-year cycle oscillating between relatively cold and warm conditions, and Sharma's data on the sun's magnetic activity corresponded to the earth's ice age history.
"Surprisingly, it looks like solar activity is varying in longer time spans than we realized," says Sharma. "We knew about the shorter cycles of solar activity, so maybe these are just little cycles within a larger cycle. Even more surprising is the fact that the glacial and interglacial periods on earth during the last 200,000 years appear to be strongly linked to solar activity."
Sharma's calculations suggest that when the sun is magnetically more active, the earth experiences a warmer climate, and vice versa, when the sun is magnetically less active, there is a glacial period. Right now, the earth is in an interglacial period (in between ice ages) that began about 11,000 years ago, and as expected, this is also a time when the estimated solar activity appears to be high.
Beryllium 10 is useful for studying the geology from hundreds of thousands of years ago mainly because it has a half-life of about one and a half million years. In addition, there are two key factors that have affected beryllium 10 production over the last 200,000 years: the earth's magnetic field and the sun's magnetic activity. When there are high-intensity solar magnetic storms, more charged particles are interacting with cosmic rays, and less beryllium 10 is produced. Likewise, the earth's magnetic field changes the flux of cosmic rays into and out of the atmosphere.
Since the production rate of beryllium 10 and earth's magnetic field intensity are known for the last 200,000 years, Sharma could calculate solar magnetic activity for this time period.
"I took sets of existing, independent data and made new comparisons and calculations," says Sharma. Then he went a step further to make a connection with the history of ice ages by looking at oxygen isotopes in the oceans, which reveal the history of how much ice was at the poles and are therefore a measure of average global surface temperature.
"I compared the estimated past variations in the solar activity with those of the oxygen isotopes in the ocean. Although there is a strong relationship between solar activity and oxygen isotopic variations, it is too early to say exactly what is the mechanism though which the sun is influencing the terrestrial climate."
One explanation of the 100,000-year cycle was offered by the Milankovitch Theory of Ice Ages in the 1940s, which suggested that the cyclical variations in the earth's orbit around the sun result in the earth receiving varying amounts of solar radiation that, in turn, control the climate. This explanation is under dispute because the variations of the solar energy in relation to the changes in orbit are very small. Other current research focuses on past variations in the sun's irradiance, or heat intensity (as opposed to the magnetic activity).
Sharma notes that more analysis is needed to test his theory. "I've only looked at 200,000 years. My calculations need to be verified for a million years, for instance. Plus, regarding the current global warming debate, it still needs to be examined if the role of solar activity will exacerbate the rising temperatures that result from carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere."
This work was supported by Dartmouth College, the Max Planck Institute and by a grant from the National Science Foundation.

Sime, et al.16 have found that past interglacial climates were much warmer than previously thought. Their analysis of the data shows that the maximum interglacial temperatures over the past 340 kyr were between 6 oC and 10 oC above present day values. From Fig. 1, it can be seen that past interglacial carbon dioxide concentrations were not higher than that of the current interglacial, and therefore carbon dioxide could not have been responsible for this warming. In fact, the concentration of carbon dioxide that would be needed to produce a 6-10 oC rise in temperature above present day values exceeds the maximum (1000 p.p.m.v.) for the range of validity of the usual formula [∆F=α ln(C/C0)] used to calculate the forcing in response to such an increase.

The Earth’s magnetosphere blocks two similar forms of radiation: the solar wind and cosmic rays. This is why a weakening or strengthening magnetosphere plays a part is climate change. Over the last 150 years the earth's magnetosphere has been weakening as has the solar magnetic field.

It is generally understood that the variation in galactic cosmic ray flux is due to changes in the solar wind associated with solar activity. The sun emits electromagnetic radiation and energetic particles known as the solar wind. A rise in solar activity—as measured by the sun spot cycle—affects the solar wind and the inter-planetary magnetic field by driving matter and magnetic flux trapped in the plasma of the local interplanetary medium outward, thereby creating what is called the heliosphere and partially shielding this volume, which includes the earth, from galactic cosmic rays—a term used to distinguish them from solar cosmic rays, which have much less energy.
When solar activity decreases, with a consequent small decrease in irradiance, the number of galactic cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere increases as does the amount of low cloud cover. This increase in cloud cover results in an increase in the earth’s albedo, thereby lowering the average temperature. The sun’s 11 year cycle is therefore not only associated with small changes in irradiance, but also with changes in the solar wind, which in turn affect cloud cover by modulating the cosmic ray flux. This, it is argued, constitutes a strong positive feedback needed to explain the significant impact of small changes in solar activity on climate. Long-term changes in cloud albedo would be associated with long-term changes in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays.

Earth’s protective magnetic field has been weakening at a faster rate than expected, according to data from newly launched European Space Agency satellites. The finding may indicate that Earth’s poles will switch sooner than scientists thought.
It was previously thought that the field was weakening by about 5 percent each century, LiveScience reports, pointing to a flip in about 2,000 years. But the new data shows a much more dramatic weakening, at a pace of 5 percent per decade — 10 times faster than previously thought.
The new data come from a trio of satellites collectively known as Swarm, launched by the ESA in November. The measurements show a dramatic weakening over the Western hemisphere, with some strengthening in other areas, like the southern Indian Ocean, according to a release.

a reply to: bbracken677

From Fig. 1, it can be seen that past interglacial carbon dioxide concentrations were not higher than that of the current interglacial, and therefore carbon dioxide could not have been responsible for this warming.

So for some reason this means that CO2 is not causing the current warming?

Sharma notes that more analysis is needed to test his theory. "I've only looked at 200,000 years. My calculations need to be verified for a million years, for instance. Plus, regarding the current global warming debate, it still needs to be examined if the role of solar activity will exacerbate the rising temperatures that result from carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere."

www.dartmouth.edu...
You are supposed to provide the source of your external quotes. As well as providing your own comments. We are not seeing a 100,000 year trend here. We are seeing a rapid change.

When solar activity decreases, with a consequent small decrease in irradiance, the number of galactic cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere increases as does the amount of low cloud cover. This increase in cloud cover results in an increase in the earth’s albedo, thereby lowering the average temperature.

Another uncredited quote from you. The trouble is there has been a decline in solar activity since 1950 which means temperatures should have fallen, right? They didn't.
www.arrl.org...

a reply to: bbracken677

Secondly...you say that there have been no changes in ocean currents. Except that the NOAA has shown measurable slowing in the North Atlantic current. This may be responsible for the recent growth in the arctic ice cap.

I thought you were comparing the medieval warming period to the current climate. As you point out the slowing of the North Atlantic current (which could be well be due to a growing influx of fresh meltwater) could result in cooler regional temperatures.

As mentioned before, globally melting glaciers, coupled with rising ocean temperatures, could have catastrophic impacts on oceanic circulation in the future. Thermohaline Circulation mixes temperature and salinity, and regulates the density of ocean water.

sitemaker.umich.edu...

a reply to: Phage

Another uncredited quote from you. The trouble is there has been a decline in solar activity since 1950 which means temperatures should have fallen, right? They didn't.

No, but at the same time we have seen a decline in magnetic fields, both solar and earth's. No doubt that has offset the general decline in activity. Not to mention there are a multitude of other factors present.

I am working, so I grab what I can quickly and post it. All of the posts I have made have been from scientific papers and not tin-foil-hat websites owned by a tin foil hat wearing person.

The claims are not outrageous, not fringe and not unsupported by science.

Bottom line is: There are a host of phenomena that lead to the heating and cooling of the climate. As such, pinning everything on co2 is disingenuous, at best, and does not take into consideration other factors which play a bigger part than co2.

The fact that we are not outside the norms of previous interglacial periods brings, heavily, into question man's role in climate change. It's not like this has not happened in the past. The fact that at least 3 of the last 4 interglacial periods reached higher temp levels than today says much. Also the fact that as the ocean warms, more co2 is released and yet we still manage to swing from an interglacial to a glacial period should assert that co2 is not climate king as presented. Does this not look like co2 is being used to distort a picture?

As the southern ice coverage increases, so does albedo. Given, the southern affect of albedo is going to provide a lesser affect than northern, it is present. The question is: Is the increase in northern polar ice an anomaly or a reversal of the most recent trend?

a reply to: Phage

LOL we have so many mini threads going... I am losing my own "threads".

My memory is not what it used to be, so if I distracted myself into a change of subjects, so to speak, I apologize.

Not sure if this was posted. Haven't read all 16 pages. Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends to 17 Years 11 Months

Here is the link to one of the papers I have referenced:

Paper

a reply to: Bilk22

The pause will only be important if the trend of the last 100 years or so is reversed.

Short term relationships between co2 and temps not correlating is well documented and illustrates the point that other factors play a heavy part in climate change. Same lack of correlation has been shown in very long time frames. The correlation only shows in medium range (so to speak) time frames.

As I have stated previously co2 levels have been as high as 7000 ppm in the past, as opposed to today's less than 400 level. At levels of 4000 ppm and 7000 ppm conditions were still excellent for life. In fact, during those periods diversity was exceptional.

The pause also highlights difficulties with the IPCC climate change model.... a model that fails time, and time again to predict real world phenomena. The scientific method demands they stop promoting the model's results as factual, and that they take it back to the drawing board until it can make somewhat accurate predictions.

IF you want to do something about it, just plant a whole bunch of trees. Right Now. Take action. Help the environment. Grow some tree's that make oxegen so that your future children can breath fresh air and camp under a big tree. OH, wait a minute. That will never happen. People are lazy greeders that care nothing about their own environment. They just pollute and pollute and more pollute and HOPE someone else will fix the problem. Maybe this is what happened on Mars and the planet died. People use and abuse the environment until the planet can not keep up and slowly dies. Then the people of the planet finally wake up, but it is too late and they all die or move to another planet to start the vicious greeder cycle all over again. Plant TREEEEEEEEEEEES now. Plant them all over where ANY land is not used. Plant between or along side highways,ditches,fields, your yard, the neighbors yard,at buisnesses, i see alot of baren land on church property all the time. plant a tree there. Plant many trees. Plant some apple,orange trees. Plant trees around farmers crops, Plant tree's on school property. Plant them everywhere, don't even ask, just plant,plant,plant,plant now.

You earthling's do this to yourself all the time, then scratch your head wondering. WHAT HAPPENED. jEEES. Stupid human. Lets make a new model.

a reply to: cloaked4u

You will be happy to know that lumber and paper companies (such as Weyerhaeuser and International Paper) plant more trees than they harvest, year in and year out.