Thanks to the Danish Meteorological Institute, we have data on Arctic ice going back to 1893. While people around Spitzbergen in 1922 were surprised to find ice free water, today it is the norm.
#1, that paper explicitly accepts AGW as the cause of modern warming. #2, that paper deals specifically with warming in the Arctic, not globally.
Link please. - - - Updated - - - LOL, you talk of the Arctic then shift to something else. Now show anywhere I have said AGW does not exist. There is a difference between AGW and CAGW alarmism.
Maybe if you can explain how you reach that conclusion from what I wrote, I can tell you how you got it so terribly wrong.
Where they had direct measurements and where they extrapolated is clearly marked on each chart. How large do you think the error could be?
Oh, warming does exist, so did cooling from the 40's to the 70's. No telling what will happen next. I would be more interested in what triggers the glacial and interglacial periods. Those are certainly trigger points in past climate change. There are a number of hypothesis and periods that were close to the trigger but did not result in a change.
"The only variable which explains all of these is the increase in atmospheric CO2, and the only explanation for that is human emissions." The debate is about whether your certainty is justified.
Lol! I wrote wrote what I wrote Because I see AND UNDERSTAND what the science is saying. Deniers are people like jc456 or whatever, who thinks he can dispute CO2's status as a greenhouse gas. To be a denier, you have to posit a massive corrupt conspiracy among scientists, all of whom apparently want to destroy the world -- and their own professional lives -- to promote a lie. Y'all are delusional.
Between 1940 and 1970, global surface temperature declined by about .08°C or .026°C per decade. From 1910 to 1940 it increased about .4°C or .13°C per decade and from 1970 to 2000 it increased about .5°C or .17°C per decade. Since 2000, temperature has increased another .03°C per decade, which while less than the decadal average for the thirty years before, is still far from a decrease. Even the most ambitious theory put any glacial period a thousand years off, resulting in a cooling rate of about .08°C, far less than the warming rate we've experienced over the last century. Again, it's not the magnitude of any future temperature that is the problem, but rather the rate at which we get there.
Sorry, but a glacial period would be a much greater change the .08C. http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm
I note now this thread so forgive me if I bring to the attention of the participant something "old". Anyway, my approach, today, to the problem of Global Warming is different from the past [a note: in Europe environmentalism is less political oriented and despite I'm conservative I've been moderator of an environmentalist group, so that I know quite well the matter]. I tend to start from NASA summary of data [link:http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resource_center/23] The graph is quite clear and explicit, but pay attention to the extension of the curve. Some degrees [two, and now 1 above the mean]. Regionally this can mean even a refreshing effect [!]. For example in the Alpine region, while glaciers keep on withdrawing, here we are seeing quite cloudy and so fresh summers [since the higher percentage of water vapor in the air favor the formation of clouds]. Moreover, more heat means simply more energy and if atmospheric phenomenons become more violent [as here we note: twisters can happen also here now] the perception of the "weather" from a general perspective doesn't change that much for the individual. So, not it hasn't "stalled". Furthermore, we are doing something. In EU we are limiting pollution and greenhouse gasses, so we are acting ... some results have to be already visible ...
I don't dispute that cyanide is a poison either. However, I have serous doubt that the cyanide in an apple will kill me. Yet you believe that there is a massive oil industry funded misinformation conspiracy. Hypocracy they name raytri. And no there isn't some big conspiracy. There is a climate of fear and intimidation as made recent example by the witch hunt Dr. Lennart Bengtsson. You don't need a conspiracy you just need a culture of fear and intimidation. If someone as rewound as Dr. Bengtsson an be attacked what kind of message does that send to the rest of the community? Do you think that any young scientists is going to buck the establishment?
Some more interesting science. Earth's eccentricity is thought to be the cause of glacial and interglacial periods. Glacial periods once were only 41 thousand years long but lately have been about 100 thousand years long. Turns out that Earth's eccentricity can be hindcast to 50 million years. Here is a graph of the eccentricity where a researcher discovered there may be a 2.8 million year cycle. The vertical dotted line on the right is today and the one on the left about 3 million years ago. The little hook to the left of the right dotted line corresponds to the Younger Dryas event. http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5545
Er.... your series shows the earth is warming. The graph shows variations in temperature compared to the UAH baseline,. So that trendline indicates a consistent *warming* trend of about 0.25 C (i.e., temperatures since 2000 have been consistently about 0.25C warmer than the 30-year average). You also cherry picked your data series, choosing the RSS lower-troposphere data. The land-only measurements show greater warming, about 0.35C: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:2000/to:2015/plot/rss-land/from:2000/to:trend And if you take the UAH series (which uses the same data sources as RSS), you get a clear upward temperature trend, with variations increasing from about 0.1C to about 0.25C above the 30-year average: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2015/plot/uah/from:2000/to:trend And naturally, the longer the timeline, the clearer the warming trend: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12
Sorry, I thought from the first paragraph that it was obvious a cooling rate of .08°C was per decade, not total. While local temperatures can and do change abruptly, these changes are not reflected in global averages. Your source seems to correct themselves in the very next paragraph after the one you quoted.
Global averages are also misleading. For instance, the average at the poles are quite different than the averages at the equator. When the earth warms, it warms greater towards the poles than it does at the equator and visa versa for cooling.
Only because the levels have been shown to be too small to kill you. By contrast, humanity's contribution to greenhouse gasses has been well-documented -- and found to account for most if not all of the observed warming. I do? Where have I argued that? I have pointed out that nearly all the quasi-scientific sources of AGW deniers come from oil-funded organizations -- many of which, like the Heartland Institute, try to pretend to be research organizations while acting like advocacy organizations, which is the antithesis of dispassionate scientific study. But that hardly constitutes a massive conspiracy. There are so few deniers that it doesn't rate the label of "conspiracy", much less a "massive" one. Your claim requires thousands of scientists, research outfits and governmental organizations -- which together make up the overwhelming majority of everyone involved in climate research -- to all be using fear and intimidation to promulgate a lie. That's a conspiracy. Bengtsson had a paper rejected by a scientific journal. He then complained that his paper was rejected for political reasons -- even though he couldn't rebut the actual, WRITTEN comments explaining why his paper was rejected. He also ruined his own reputation by joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a known denier organization run by Nigel Lawson, an economist, who has been repeatedly smacked down in his efforts to cast doubt on AGW, particularly his widely derided (and scientifically trashed) book on the subject. Similarly, a geologist who joined the Flat Earth Society would be roundly derided and scorned, too. That's what happens when you do things that are scientifically indefensible. What's crazy is trying to argue that thousands of scientists are all using fear and intimidation to cover up a lie.
