Climate Change is here and man made

[malg]

I hope you weren't given millions to do that research ha ha I take it thats a personal opinion?

Just trying to find out if Damocles was still here. He must definitely have gone, as my post would have had him fucking seething!

 

[aguero93:20]

Just trying to find out if Damocles was still here. He must definitely have gone, as my post would have had him fucking seething!

He pops on every now and again.

 

[malg]

He pops on every now and again.

Ah right.

Anyway, climate change is a big fucking lie, bought into by the fucking yogurt knitting, sandal wearing freaks who voted Remain and wanted Clinton (Hillary to them) in.......

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

So we haven't been burning fossil fuels on an increasing level since the 1760s and on an industrial level since the early 19th century then? That's good to know, nothing to see here, move along.

What compelling evidence have you that anthropogenic CO2 was sufficient to influence Earth’s temperatures prior to 1950? Perhaps you should take it to these guys - might be a Nobel Prize for you.

NASA Earth Observatory: “The observed global warming of the past century occurred primarily in two distinct 20 year periods, from 1925 to 1944 and from 1978 to the present. While the latter warming is often attributed to a human-induced increase of greenhouse gases, causes of the earlier warming are less clear since this period precedes the time of strongest increases in human-induced greenhouse gas (radiative) forcing.”

NASA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory / Delworth et al., 2000: “Internal climate variability is primarily responsible for the early 20th century warming from 1904 to 1944 and the subsequent cooling from 1944 to 1976.”

Scripps / Ring et al., 2012: “There exist reasonable explanations, which are consistent with natural forcing contributing significantly to the warming from 1850 to 1950”.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

Hi JTU,
I'm not sure what that shows. It appears to show that over the last 50 years temperature has gone up (increase in industry in the BRICS countries presumably has an effect, as well as population increases), and at the start of the 20th century, temperatures went up (increase in industry/population presumably).

I shows NATURAL warming versus supposed man-made warming. Spot the difference if you can.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Just trying to find out if Damocles was still here. He must definitely have gone, as my post would have had him fucking seething!

ha ha ha - baited the hook to catch a pike and got a minnow - soz mate !!

 

[MillionMilesAway]

What compelling evidence have you that anthropogenic CO2 was sufficient to influence Earth’s temperatures prior to 1950? Perhaps you should take it to these guys - might be a Nobel Prize for you.

NASA Earth Observatory: “The observed global warming of the past century occurred primarily in two distinct 20 year periods, from 1925 to 1944 and from 1978 to the present. While the latter warming is often attributed to a human-induced increase of greenhouse gases, causes of the earlier warming are less clear since this period precedes the time of strongest increases in human-induced greenhouse gas (radiative) forcing.”

NASA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory / Delworth et al., 2000: “Internal climate variability is primarily responsible for the early 20th century warming from 1904 to 1944 and the subsequent cooling from 1944 to 1976.”

Scripps / Ring et al., 2012: “There exist reasonable explanations, which are consistent with natural forcing contributing significantly to the warming from 1850 to 1950”.

Your copying skills could do with work! The site you've copied those from attributes them correctly, you've slipped them all by one.

The NASA article says:
"Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans."

Delworth's quote (the one you've given to NASA) is the first line of the article. The next one is:
"Results from a set of six integrations of a coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model suggest that the warming of the early 20th century could have resulted from a combination of human-induced radiative forcing and an unusually large realization of internal multidecadal variability of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system"
"Thus, we demonstrate that an early 20th century warming, with a spatial and temporal structure similar to the observational record, can arise from a combination of internal variability of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system and humaninduced radiative forcing from GHG and sulfate aerosols."
So actually, it says that greenhouse gases (radiative forcing) are part of early 20th century warming, but not all of it (I'm unaware that anyone has claimed that human activity is the sole cause)

Ring is better (although the quote used is from Delworth), but excerpts quoted can be notoriously selective (cf Daily Mail, Sun, etc) and may lack context (as chippy did for one of mine yesterday). The last part of Ring's conclusion section finishes:
"In this study we have chosen simple methods in order to make our results more accessible to other scientists and the general public. Our findings have confirmed that human emissions are the main cause of the global warming over the past 150 years. Since human emissions are the cause of the global warming, reducing emissions will reduce the amount of warming in the future. We hope this study contributes to a public realization that emissions reductions are necessary to safeguard Earth’s climate."
That does seem quite clear to me.

 

[Chippy_boy]

but excerpts quoted can be notoriously selective (cf Daily Mail, Sun, etc) and may lack context (as chippy did for one of mine yesterday).

Nice try mate. Why don't you just show an atom of humility and say "OK, fair enough, I got that bit wrong". People would respect you for it, instead of thinking you were a smartarse.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Excerpting this:
"Providing more CO2 doesn't make plants grow faster or better. "

From this:
"Providing more CO2 doesn't make plants grow faster or better. That would only be the case if we were near the lower end of CO2 concentration. As it is, if one tree can only use 1 bottle of CO2, the second bottle of CO2 is not going to get used no matter how hard the tree tries - it's a rarity that anything would need all the excess, and so it builds up. "

removes the context in my eyes. It may not be perfectly worded (that I will accept) but the paragraph is not wrong.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

Your copying skills could do with work! The site you've copied those from attributes them correctly, you've slipped them all by one.

The NASA article says:
"Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans."

Which part of this didn't you understand?

What compelling evidence have you that anthropogenic CO2 was sufficient to influence Earth’s temperatures prior to 1950?