Only evidence that exists comes from fatally flawed computer climate models in some laboratory somewhere.
MTR: Fingerprint? How scientific! Can't explain it naturally, so it has to be man? You assume that you know everything about nature, which obviously you don't. If you did, you could program, or at least influence programming, climate models so they work accurately. That hasn't been accomplished yet.
A peer review by anonymous scientists? Are you kidding me? Do you know anything about science? How do you even know they are peers if they remain anonymous? Are they remaining anonymous because they are not proud of their work? Are they remaining anonymous because they really are political hacks? Please provide proof that they aren't.
In direct answer to your question: There is none. There never has been any. And I will make book that there never will be any.
Soon they will change the new name of "climate change" to "global cooling", but will still advocate the same policies of limitting human use of those things that make human life better and easier to maintain.
I give them about three years to be screaming at deniers (you know, those of us with brains) about how our cars are causing CO2 to reflect the warmth of the sun which leads to shorter growing seasons, etc.
The evidence is complicated and not easy to understand, especially by non-scientists. The RealClimate web site has the facts, but you will not find any quick and obvious answers there, because there are none. The whole thing is too small a change happening too slowly for anyone to have a gut feel about it. You just have to take the measurements (millions of them) over a period of at least a century, then trust your records and know some basic science.
A number of satellites measure the infrared spectrum of heat coming from Earth. They've found that CO2 is trapping more heat in the lower atmosphere.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v41...
There are also 'fingerprints' of man-made global warming that make it look different from warming caused by other things, like the Sun. One of these is a warming lower atmosphere (troposphere) and a cooling upper atmosphere (stratosphere). Real world measurements show this man-made 'fingerprint', and rule out natural causes as the major reason:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/43/17235
This is more convincing to me, as you will notice that my references are to scientific studies that have passed anonymous expert review.
EDIT: did you read the Harries paper? There are others by Griggs and Chen too. They show measurements directly showing the heat trapping effect of CO2 has got stronger. This has now been shown with 4 different satellite instruments: IRIS, IMG, HIRS and AIRS.
Energy imbalances get 'cancelled out' by Earth warming up so that it emits more to space. The 0.8 W m^-2 is what's left after Earth's warmed up by about 0.8-0.9 C over the past century. Total man-made forcing was about 1.5-2 W m^-2 over the period they calculated the imbalance, so somewhere between 0.7-1.2 W m^-2 had been 'cancelled out' by Earth warming up by about 0.9 C. Since doubling CO2 causes about 3.7 W m^-2 of extra heating, we can translate that into expected future warming (minus surprises like Arctic methane release) and it works out as 2.8-4.8 C global warming for a doubling of CO2. This is pretty similar to the climate response to things like volcanoes, solar activity, changes in Earth's orbit etc, see Knutti and Hegerl's 2008 paper.
Bad Wolf: by 'anonymous', the authors of the paper don't know who the reviewers are. You get back a list of comments and you're just told 'Reviewer #1 says:', 'Reviewer #2 says:' etc. The editors of the journal know who they are, and only those with sufficient credentials are invited to be reviewers.
Sagebrush: I'm aware of how science works. I've published a number of climate science papers and I've seen the review procedure from the other end too. There are several rules about who's invited to do the review. They must be an expert on the subject, have no strong relationships with any of the authors, and they do the review for free. In exchange, they get their own papers reviewed by others.
Either of you are welcome to submit a paper to a science journal and you might come to appreciate the generally high quality of the review process.
look at the sea ice in the north pole, oh wait there's hardly any left. CO2 emissions into the air doesn't just go away. A lot of it actually ends up into the oceans causing the acidity level to rise and warmer ocean temps. This is while a lot of the coral reefs are declining and why a lot of fish population are becoming endangered. The rest of the CO2 emissions that get caught into the atmosphere causing a green house effect is causing the rise in temps. (why there is no sea ice left)
The same place all the evidence went that shows the Earth is older than 6,000 years. Through one of your ears and out the other.
For others, just read the technical summary of AR5's draft. It covers the topic from a number of angles.
Maybe you could provide some real climate science produced by real climatologists proving it isn't human induced
Climate con. Al Gore and his mates in the UN want you to believe all this nonsense. It's socialism masquerading as environmentalism, pure and simple.
Temperatures are trending upwards over the years, but the only evidence they have is this gradual trend which currently stands at 0.61C above the established Global average temperature. They try to hide the current decline from February 1998 (14.87C) to October 2013 (14.61C) of 0.26C.
Everything is about the increase in temps and rarely anything about the decreases. Most people don't know that Global average temperatures dropped from March of 2002 to July 2004 by 0.50C. They also dropped 0.53C from October 2005 to January 2008. From March of 2010 to January 2012 they dropped 0.49C.
The IP CC would never divulge this information. They would be out of a job if they did.
These are the Global average temperature changes since January 1972 :
Jan ’72 to Feb ’73 +0.57C (14 months - 13.75C to 14.32C)
Feb ’73 to Feb ’74 -0.58C (13 months)
Feb ’74 to May ’77 +0.53C (3+ years)
May ’77 to July ’78 -0.44C (15 months)
July ’78 to Dec ’79 +0.60C (17 months)
Dec ’79 to Mar ’82 -0.49C
Mar ’82 to Jan ’83 +0.55C (10 months)
Jan ’83 to Dec ’84 -0.56C
Dec ’84 to Jan ’88 +0.60C (3+ years)
Jan ’88 to Nov ’88 -0.46C (10 months)
Nov ’88 to Mar ’90 +0.65C
Mar ’90 to Sep ’92 -0.75C
Sep ’92 to Feb ’95 +0.79C
Feb ’95 to Jan ’96 -0.51C
Jan ’96 to Feb ’98 +0.62C (14.25C to 14.87C)
As you can plainly see there are as many decreases in temperature as there are increases. These aren't small increases/decreases either. They are natural fluctuations of temperature. They just happen over time.
Here are more changes before January 1972 :
Jan 1880 to Feb ‘82 +0.39C (13.67C to 14.06C)
Feb ‘82 to Jan ‘85 -0.61C (3 years)
Jan ‘85 to Dec ‘85 +0.58C (11 months)
Dec ‘85 to Jan ‘87 -0.60C
Jan ‘87 to Feb ‘89 +0.74C
Feb ‘89 to Jan ‘93 -1.01C (4 years)
Jan ‘93 to July ‘93 +0.68C (6 months)
July ‘93 to Jan ‘95 -0.33C
Jan ‘95 to Oct ‘96 +0.53C
Oct ‘96 to Mar ‘98 -0.59C
Mar ‘98 to Nov ‘99 +0.62C
Nov ‘99 to Jan 1904 -0.72C (5 years)
Jan ‘04 to Apr ’06 +0.59C
Apr ’06 to Jan ’09 -0.59C
Jan ’09 to Jan ’14 +0.59C (5 years)
Jan ’14 to Dec ’16 -0.71C
Dec ’16 to Jul ’17 +0.49C (7 months)
July ’17 to Dec ’17 -0.47C (5 months)
Dec ’17 to Oct ’18 +0.62C (10 months)
Oct ’18 to Dec ’20 -0.39C
Dec ’20 to Jan ’21 +0.43C (1 month)
Jan ’21 to Feb ’22 -0.37C
Feb ’22 to Jan ’26 +0.59C (4 years)
Jan ’26 to Mar’27 -0.50C
Mar ’27 to Oct ’27 +0.37C (7 months)
Oct ’27 to Feb ’29 -0.55C
Feb ’29 to Nov ’30 +0.68C
Nov ’30 to Dec ’33 -0.56C
Dec ’33 to Feb ’35 +0.58C
Feb ’35 to Feb ’36 -0.50C (1 year)
Feb ’36 to Dec ’39 +0.73C
Dec ’39 to Jan ’40 -0.52C (1 month)
Jan ’40 to Jan ’44 +0.42C (4 years)
Jan ’44 to Dec ’46 -0.63C
Dec ’46 to Jan ’48 +0.44C
Jan ’48 to Feb ’51 -0.55C
Feb ’51 to Feb ’53 +0.63C
Feb ’53 to Mar ’55 -0.52C
Mar ’55 to Jan ’58 +0.69C
Jan ’58 to Mar ’60 -0.73C
Mar ’60 to Feb ’61 +0.54C (1 year)
Feb ’61 to Apr ’64 -0.49C
Apr ’64 to Mar ’68 +0.57C (4 years)
Mar ’68 to Jan ’72 -0.51C (14.26C to 13.75C)
This is the full accounting of mechanical measurements of land/ocean temperatures. This accounting shows how temperatures fluctuate over the years (13.67C in 1880 to 14.61C in October of 2013)
-----------------------
MTR -
I think you claim of anonymous expert review is enough to kill any credibility you may have had.
How does one verify the credentials of an "anonymous" person.
