It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on multiple and partly independent lines of evidence from observed climate change indicate that there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely to be between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C. These assessments are consistent with the overall assessment in Chapter 12, where the inclusion of additional lines of evidence increases confidence in the assessed likely range for ECS.
originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: bbracken677- It’s proven physics that increasing greenhouse gases will enhance heat-trapping/radiative forcing in the atmosphere.
- Not only has this been proven in the lab, it’s also been physically observed by satellite and ground based measurements happening as expected in the real world.
originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: bbracken677Phage and a few others have taken the time to show the rising how we have concluded the rising CO2 is a direct result of man's addiction to burning fossil fuels.
No, you are misrepresenting what I wrote. I spent 10 years as a skeptic and researching the topic here and there over the years in my freetime. Had I devoted more time to this, or ended up finishing college for meteorology(i dropped out and joined the Navy) I would have been a skeptic for a much shorter time frame.
Are you not aware of the 40% increase of CO2 that we have observed? Where do you think the excess CO2 is coming from?
However according to a 2010 NASA article ‘Throughout the last three decades, the GISS surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade’. So, assuming the measurements in the paper you cited are correct then the increase in CO2 from 2000-2010 can only explain about 25% of decadal warming (i.e. 0.05C/0.2C).
I also don't know where you got 0.05K, or a surface warming of 0.037
since calculating a temperature increase from 0.2 W/m^2 using the greenhouse model linked above = a surface warming of 0.09K. So 0.09K/0.12K = 75%, not 18%.
This thread was set up to inform people about the well-established physics underlying man made climate change
intellectual dishonesty about 3500% increase in CO2 emissions versus what actually matters (concentration), and impossible expectations over radiative forcing and overall warming.
It’s funny, because the period 2000-2010 is usually the decade used by deniers to exclaim “there’s been no warming!”, since the trend during that time was *only* 0.12 °C:
So you can call others phonies, and stroke your ego all you want about mainstream science being wrong because the numbers don't add up to you - you've demonstrated time and time again it's your own intellectual dishonesty, and your very poor understanding of the physics and the math that's the actual problem here.
Climatologist: Obama peddling a non-issue in Alaska
Dr. Pat Michaels, director of the Center for The Study of Science at the Cato Institute, tells OneNewsNow the Alaskan temperature record is very instructive. Michaels: "If you'll look at the data at the University of Alaska climate center, you will see there was a sharp rise in temperature that occurred in ... one year [1976-77]," he states. "It's called the Great Pacific Climate Shift and [it shows] that there's no real change averaged over the state of Alaska since then."
"And the subtext is there is a lot of controversy and acrimony over NOAA changing the global temperature record in June," he explains. "They threw out 30 years of satellite data and substituted in data that was guaranteed to put warming in the recent decades that is not in any other temperature records."
Read more: www.climatedepot.com...
"So, when you get down to it, it has a very magical quality that way, and things with magical qualities tend to run with how you think science should be. If you can explain everything with one theory, it's probably not likely what's going on."
Even so, atmospheric scientists point to man's burning of fossil fuels as the principle driver of global warming or climate change.
"Putting more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through human activity does have an effect on the overall atmosphere and weather systems,” Knappenberger acknowledges. “But whether you can identify that effect and whether that effect rises above the natural noise to become significant in a way that we should worry about it is where the argument lies.
"I'm here to say that natural variability still plays a large role especially on local and regional spatial scales, more so than [does] global warming."
The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists
The graphic below comes via our friends at [un]skepticalscience, assuring us that while 97% of "climate scientists think that global warming is 'significantly' due to human activity," a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this "consensus" and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.
However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren't buying it.
The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result.
Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence. For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.
In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus. Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming. Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.
In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade. It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial.
Sorry mc_squared, but what you are advocating here is not ‘well-established’ physics, but only politically-correct pseudoscience based on speculative, unvalidated and unproven climate models that have been invented from scratch on glitzy state-of-art computers without reference to the actual behaviour of the real climate system.
On the contrary, it is you who doesn’t understand physics or what real science is mc_squared.
If you understood the first thing about physics you would not have needed to ask me how I calculated 0.037C from 0.2W/sq.m of radiative forcing, which would be easy to calculate for any student with a GCSE-level physics textbook.
ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation