Also, please indicate what percentage of the warming over the last 30 years you believe has been caused by human activity, if any.
-----------------------
1) The laws of quantum mechanics
2) The laws of thermodynamics
3) Real world evidence and observations
Total amount of warming caused by humans – somewhere between 110% and 140%. Not only have we caused warming but we’ve also offset the natural cooling that should have occurred and the manmade cooling/dimming as well.
If these cooling influences weren’t present then temps would have risen by about 0.7°C, as it is they’ve risen by 0.50993°C.
- - - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO SAGEBRUSH
Lying yet again I see. As a Christian I trust you seek forgiveness from the Lord each time you lie (that must keep you busy), for as Proverbs 12:22 says “Lying lips are abomination to the Lord”; He must be so disappointed with you.
For your information I have never stated that the snows on Kilimanjaro are melting due to global warming. Can you provide a link as to where I’ve stated that, no you can’t. In fact, I was probably the first person on Answers to state why the snows are melting when, six years ago, I pointed out it was “largely due to changes in the micro climates resulting from ecological and agricultural changes”.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
I notice that you and your fellow skeptics never make any attempt to address the irrefutable proof of the existence of global warming consequent to the laws of QM and thermodynamics. If you had anything at all, anything, then you would present it. Instead you make inane comments like “what does nuts and bolts have to do with the atmosphere”.
If you think QM and TD have nothing to do with the atmosphere then you’re seriously deluded and so lacking in basic scientific knowledge that it’s laughable. Then to illustrate your staggering ineptitude even further you claim in your comments to Elizabeth that CO2 isn’t even a greenhouse gas. You’re so blinded by your desperation to disprove global warming that you’re prepared to say or do just about anything, no matter how bizarre and outlandish.
Cognitive dissonance means that no matter how much contrary evidence is submitted a person who's mind is made up can never be swayed to accept objective reality. CO2 doesn't 'drive' warming, what it does is create a blanket of colorless and odorless gas that prevents a significant amount of incoming solar radiation from re-radiating back into space. Once that heat is trapped it has to go somewhere. Heat energy goes from a warm substance to a cooler substance. Atmospheric heat goes from a warm atmosphere to colder ice and sea water. The water warms and the ice melts. The scientifically collected data proves this point. Check with the data provided by the United States Navy to confirm. The atmosphere under this blanket of CO2 will warm slightly over time and this is what we see. Ice is melting and sea water is warming and becoming more acidic due the atmospheric CO2. That explains the low increase in atmospheric heating. The data, the science and the physics confirms all of the above.
We know that the excess CO2 comes from burning fossil fuel because these fuels are taxed so we know over time how much has been burned. Knowing how much has been burned tells us how much CO2 has been released per unit of fuel. We also know what amount of solar energy will be retained given a known concentration of atmospheric CO2. There are actually proven scientific formulas to determine this.
The argument that all of this has 'happened before' may be true, but it happened over 'geological time', not over a short 200 year historical time frame...the same time frame where the industrial use of fossil fuels has occurred. 286ppm in 1800...close to 400ppm of CO2 today... the exact amount you would expect given the total amount of fossil fuel burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. I hope this helps!
You mean other than the thousands of scientific papers on the subject, you talk of the "FAITH to be a Warmist." yet what do deniers, including yourself, try to counter this weight of scientific evidence with, blogs and hearsay, it laughable and you talk of faith.
As you are silly enough to try and use this point
"And of course, there is the problem that temperatures rise FIRST and only then does CO2 follow."
Lets look at that, this denier theory is in fact taking just part of a real scientific theory, that theory states that temperature rise is started by the Milankovitch cycles which in turn release Co2 as the planet warms, of course in the actual theory it's stated that this Co2 then also adds to the warming effect, but deniers leave that part out, of course the entire theory relates to just the cycles of the 2.5 million years after the period Antarctica froze when the balance in temp was small enough that the Milankovitch cycles could start such a swing in climate, it doesn't relate to earlier periods when Co2 alone caused warming but again deniers leave that out as well.
All this has been explained to deniers many times, that they continue to try and ignore it and just use a small part of the theory, is a fine guide to the nature of denial, and makes a bit of a joke of their sad attempts to claim they are skeptics.
As if to prove my point we have this from Tommy
"2012 was the coolest year world wide in 70 years......dump the myth...you look stupid"
Interesting, given that 2012 is actually listed as 10th warmest year in the modern record,
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201...
sadly the ones looking stupid are not really that hard to see (no matter how many thumbs up they give themselves)
Just look at Trevor: Ha! Ha!
1) The laws of quantum mechanics - what does nuts and bolts have to do with the atmosphere? Ha! Ha!
2) The laws of thermodynamics - these laws which he has spouted in the past and been shot down, proving he knows nothing about the subject.
3) Real world evidence and observations - Trevor stated on this site that the snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro were diminishing due to GW. It turned out that they were diminishing, not due to temperature, but to lack of precipitation. Tsk! Tsk! Real world experiences, indeed.
Like so many GW proponents, these 'scientists' base their rationalizing of AGW on false ideas and subjects which they demonstrably know nothing about.
Elizabeth, can the canned speeches by Al Gore and company, such as < We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Therefore, that CO2 will warm the planet provide all other factors remain the same. >CO2 is a greenhouse gas because your fellow greenies labeled it to scare the unwashed. There is no scientific evidence of it no matter how many times you say it.
For over a decade the earth's temperature has gone down. That is a fact that even James Hansen and Phil Jones have reluctantly had to admit. All this same time the CO2 level has increased. Your statement, thus, is unscientific and utter nonsense. Please refrain from inane statements like that in the future. Tell the truth.
Trevor: Regarding Kilimanjaro: Yes you did in answer to a question. And you summed it up by saying that you were a Climatologist and for person to ask you anytime when a question arose.
You have been caught red handed before. Now you are weaseling out of this. Trevor, trevor stick to the truth, It will be good for the soul.
Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74oC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 2 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (PDF)). More than half of this warming—about 0.72°F (0.4°C)—has occurred since 1979. Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most (about 1.26° F or 0.7o C since 1979), especially over the Northern Hemisphere.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as per
I think the single-most convincing evidence is that of isotope concentrations both from atmospheric sampling and from sequestration of carbon by plants. There is no doubt that much of the carbon dioxide increase we've observed since the 1950s is due to us burning fossil fuels. This is one of the most difficult pieces of evidence for skeptics to avoid acknowledging because there is virtually no alternative explanation that can account for those isotopes.
If you cannot explain the concentrations of specific isotopes of carbon, then you are forced to acknowledge that most of the CO2 rise we've observed over the past 60 years is due to the burning of fossil fuels. If you cannot explain that, then you are forced to concede that that CO2 rise must raise temperatures.
It is virtually impossible, in light of the isotope data, to argue that we are not responsible for the rise in CO2. It is virtually impossible to argue that that CO2 is entirely absorbed by the planet at a rate equal to its production if it is detectable in the atmosphere in growing concentrations. It is virtually impossible to argue that that CO2 is not increasing the global temperature of the planet since we know for certain that it is a greenhouse gas and is not being absorbed at a rate equal to its production.
There are only two ways of incorporating the isotope data with a view that disagrees with AGW. The first is to argue that there is no warming at all. One would then be forced to conceded that some process is negating the warming effect the laws of physics tell us should happen when we add CO2 to the atmosphere. This argument is completely contradictory to those of most skeptics since they tend to argue for a 'natural' cause that warms the planet rather than a 'natural' cause that cools the planet and counteracts the CO2. This would imply that if such a cooling process stopped, the planet would rapidly warm.
So the only way for skeptics to include the isotope data and still doubt AGW would be to argue that the CO2 rise IS warming the planet but this warming is insignificant next to a 'natural' cause. The problem is that, based on our CO2 measurements and based on the isotope data, we find that CO2 is perfectly capable of explaining our observations of temperature. What skeptics need to do is show what is wrong with those calculations. Proposing alternative explanations for the rise in temperatures is only half the battle - the bit the skeptics avoid acknowledging is that there has been no explanation as to why the CO2 we've produced cannot possibly be responsible for the warming.
Maxx: The argument that CO2 lags temperature is an old one that has been explained to you and other skeptics/deniers numerous times on this board. You choose not to listen and choose not to believe so you can continually push that tired old mantra out there repeatedly. It is a fact that additional CO2 we add to the atmosphere must warm the planet. You can't deny that, all you can really argue is that you don't believe that our contribution to warming via CO2 is significant. You can't deny we produce CO2 or that it is a greenhouse gas.
For me it is the reduction in wavelengths associated with CO2 at the top of the atmosphere, backed up by the Mauna Loa/ice core data, the change in C02 isotope ratios and. of course, the increase in Global average temperatures.
Essentially, this translates as: C02 is increasing; we are causing the increase; the increase is changing the Earth's energy balance; the planet is warming in response and will continue to do so until equilibrium is restored.
On your second point; I would say 110% for the same reason as given by Trevor.
I am totally amazed that all these supposedly clever people have been so indoctrinated, that they cant visualize CO2 not causing warming, are we causing rises in CO2 as Elizabeth says, of course, does that automatically mean we are warming the planet, not necessarily, if we understand the concept of diminishing returns of warming from CO2 we can see that we are not warming much at all, if fact I would say we are warming the planet more by us changing albedo, black top roads, heat islands, soot and so on.
I would say it is probably largely Mann-made. Without his hokey schtick, it would be pretty hard for alarmists to scare anyone.
Trevor makes one of the most ridiculous claims I have read in a long time. He suggests that it should be cooling but for our CO2 emissions. Bacheous has made the same vacuous claims. They show a desperate need to believe rather than an objective look at facts IMO.
Elizabeth is convinced that humans have been emitting CO2. Now there is a revelation.
http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/03...
We still don't know what the CO2 concentration would be without human emissions.
Here Dr. Spencer discusses the peculiarities of carbon isotopes not that Elizabeth would read it. She might need to sprinkle some green holy water on it first (blessed by Algore of course).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/sp...
I would say somewhere between 85%-99%. We never stopped making cars or drilling for oil. We also have not stopped driving cars. Most people own a car. They also say that CO2 or carbon dioxide is bad for the atmosphere. we breath out carbon dioxide and there are over 7 billion of us breathing out carbon dioxide every second of the day.
-----------------------
Also, please indicate what percentage of the warming over the last 30 years you believe has been caused by human activity, if any.
-----------------------
Cars and factories and the smoke they produce are solid proof of global warming.
When they built the pyramids in Egypt it was a lush green forest. Now it is a desert. Does that mean that the chariots caused the forest to turn into desert? The earth will continue to change due to solar flares, volcanoes and other natural acts of nature. We tend to forget that the earth is 2/3rds water. Doesn't that help to filter our air when it rains?
No human caused warming, is Trevor a full time comedian or just a part time joker ?
Tommy --
2012 was the 10th warmest year since 1880.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/2012-globa...
Your stupidity is no myth.
2012 was the coolest year world wide in 70 years......dump the myth...you look stupid
MSN news.
