But of course the term 'Climate Change' is a meaningless term because the climate has always changed. And of course ALL of the climate modes predicted WARMING --- not climate change. The Alarmists screeched GLOBAL WARMING for about 30 years. But now that the globe is no longer warming, they want to re-brand their SCAM the 'Climate Change." But all the models predicted WARMING, so Global Warming it is.
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Any list of references that includes 'skepticalscience' indicates that the provider is pushing a political agenda.
Sure:
A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years (Marcott et al 2013) - https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcot...
Global temperature evolution 1979–2010 (Foster et al, 2011) - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/...
Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments (Thackeray et al, 2010) - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11...
Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect (Schmidt et al, 2010) - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...
Evidence of recent causal decoupling between solar radiation and global temperature (Pasini et al, 2012) - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/...
A reconciled estimate of ice-sheet mass balance (Shepherd et al, 2012) - http://www.ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/erign...
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content (Balmaseda et al, 2013) - http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/we...
And so on. If you will notice most of the scientific journal articles Cyclops posts deal with past climate changes and paleoclimate and not with current climate trends, forcings or causes.
One of Cyclops papers goes against what he is attempting to express in his post.
"We conclude that there is little evidence for a systematic overestimation of the temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the CMIP5 ensemble." (Huber et al 2014)
Edit: Maxx he said academic. Not creation.com, foxnews, blogs and youtube videos.
The key definitional issue is to distinguish the natural cycles of climate change operating over tens of thousands to tens of millions of years, and modern man-made climate change that is significantly changing the climate over a scale of decades to a few centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
The best academic reference remains Spencer Weart's book Discovery of Global Warming, much of which is available on this site http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index... or in summary conclusion form here http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/... or as a timeline here
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
Top scientists have had consistent conclusions for over twenty years that the unusually rapid global climate change of the past century has been mostly human-caused, and for the past 10 years nearly all indications are that this is likely to have significantly negative long term consequences for the global economy. Fossil Fuel companies have often denied this science and Republican politicians in the U.S. have been adamant lately in espousing such anti-science denial. A range of anti-science con artists, pretending to be the "other side" of a scientific "debate" on whether anthropogenic climate change is a serious long term issue, are prevalent on-line. At Yahoo Answers there is no penalty for giving deliberately false answers, and the site is loaded with deniers-in-training trying to copy-paste such deception. Indeed half the "top ten" contributors in the category "global warming" are hard-core anti-science serial liars. It is advisable to do your own homework on this subject. Here are some further links:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes.
Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...
http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/qand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
For more on fossil fuel industry anti-science, see Source(s) below
Start with Wikipedia, they list references.
They are reasonable balanced.
The scientific definition of the term climate change is:
"A change in the statistical distribution of weather, over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years."
“natural causes are very likely to be [the] dominant” cause of climate change that took place in the twentieth and at the start of the twenty-first centuries."
Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled
Huber and Knutti 2014
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9...
Rotation of the Earth, solar activity and cosmic ray intensity
Barlyaeva et al. 2014
http://www.ann-geophys.net/32/761/2014/a...
On the relationship between global land-ocean temperature and various descriptors of solar-geomagnetic activity and climate
Wilson 2014
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=201400...
try google scholar and ignore denier propaganda blogs
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user...
