A Town-Wide Response To Global Warming: Fill & Download for Free


Download the form

The Guide of finalizing A Town-Wide Response To Global Warming Online

If you are curious about Customize and create a A Town-Wide Response To Global Warming, here are the easy guide you need to follow:

  • Hit the "Get Form" Button on this page.
  • Wait in a petient way for the upload of your A Town-Wide Response To Global Warming.
  • You can erase, text, sign or highlight of your choice.
  • Click "Download" to download the materials.
Get Form

Download the form

A Revolutionary Tool to Edit and Create A Town-Wide Response To Global Warming

Edit or Convert Your A Town-Wide Response To Global Warming in Minutes

Get Form

Download the form

How to Easily Edit A Town-Wide Response To Global Warming Online

CocoDoc has made it easier for people to Customize their important documents through the online platform. They can easily Fill through their choices. To know the process of editing PDF document or application across the online platform, you need to follow these steps:

  • Open the official website of CocoDoc on their device's browser.
  • Hit "Edit PDF Online" button and Select the PDF file from the device without even logging in through an account.
  • Edit the PDF for free by using this toolbar.
  • Once done, they can save the document from the platform.
  • Once the document is edited using online website, you can download the document easily as what you want. CocoDoc ensures that you are provided with the best environment for implementing the PDF documents.

How to Edit and Download A Town-Wide Response To Global Warming on Windows

Windows users are very common throughout the world. They have met millions of applications that have offered them services in modifying PDF documents. However, they have always missed an important feature within these applications. CocoDoc intends to offer Windows users the ultimate experience of editing their documents across their online interface.

The steps of modifying a PDF document with CocoDoc is very simple. You need to follow these steps.

  • Choose and Install CocoDoc from your Windows Store.
  • Open the software to Select the PDF file from your Windows device and move toward editing the document.
  • Customize the PDF file with the appropriate toolkit appeared at CocoDoc.
  • Over completion, Hit "Download" to conserve the changes.

A Guide of Editing A Town-Wide Response To Global Warming on Mac

CocoDoc has brought an impressive solution for people who own a Mac. It has allowed them to have their documents edited quickly. Mac users can make a PDF fillable online for free with the help of the online platform provided by CocoDoc.

In order to learn the process of editing form with CocoDoc, you should look across the steps presented as follows:

  • Install CocoDoc on you Mac firstly.
  • Once the tool is opened, the user can upload their PDF file from the Mac with ease.
  • Drag and Drop the file, or choose file by mouse-clicking "Choose File" button and start editing.
  • save the file on your device.

Mac users can export their resulting files in various ways. Not only downloading and adding to cloud storage, but also sharing via email are also allowed by using CocoDoc.. They are provided with the opportunity of editting file through multiple methods without downloading any tool within their device.

A Guide of Editing A Town-Wide Response To Global Warming on G Suite

Google Workplace is a powerful platform that has connected officials of a single workplace in a unique manner. When allowing users to share file across the platform, they are interconnected in covering all major tasks that can be carried out within a physical workplace.

follow the steps to eidt A Town-Wide Response To Global Warming on G Suite

  • move toward Google Workspace Marketplace and Install CocoDoc add-on.
  • Select the file and Click on "Open with" in Google Drive.
  • Moving forward to edit the document with the CocoDoc present in the PDF editing window.
  • When the file is edited completely, share it through the platform.

PDF Editor FAQ

What are the causes of climate change?

CONTENTA little climate history lesson, and the basic, now trivial, physics behind AGW (anthropogenic global warming) school children and anyone else can reproduce with simple experiments and test and retest anytime, anywhere with simple tools. And how we know its our CO2 causing the warming.What the peer reviewed science says (and over 50 years of US presidents climate reports comes to the same conclusion)The Sun, cycles, ocean currents and internal variabilityWhy “climate has always changed” is a bad argument.All temperature data shows the same warming trend -and Mid-century cooling in the 20th Century: skeptics point to it and ask about it. What's the real story?Climate modelsThe Hockey stickIs GW causing more extreme weathers?The oil companies knew everythingConsensus update and how the IPCC work.Links to hot topic issuesLinksTakeways:2021 in Nature: “modern global temperature has exceeded annual levels over the past 12,000 years and probably approaches the warmth of the last interglacial period (128,000 to 115,000 years ago).”Every part of the world has warmed."We show that on the basis of a single day of globally observed temperature and moisture, we detect the fingerprint of externally driven climate change, and conclude that Earth as a whole is warming.Earth's climate doesn't change significantly without a change in factors capable of forcing it to change. More specifically, the Earth's climate only changes in response to warming or cooling forcings. No known natural forcing or natural cycle fits the fingerprints of observed warming except anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Scientists have evaluated all natural forcings and factors capable of driving the Earth's climate to change, including orbital (Milankovitch) forcings, and it is only when the anthropogenic forcing is included that the observed modern warming can be explained.Global mean temperature reconstructions over the Common EraFive climate change science misconceptions – debunkedMisinformation and lies are regularly used to undermine the science of climate change – here's how to see through the fog.https://theconversation.com/five-climate-change-science-misconceptions-debunked-122570It used to be natural cycles; Variations in the earths orbit and axial tilt, but now humans are dwarfing the natural forcings.Since Tyndall (1859) the absorption of CO2 has been measured not be climate scientists but by physicists and chemists in labs all over the world in precise detail. Measurements from space and on the Earth’s surface confirm that CO2 is absorbing more and more radiation.Axial tilt and orbit shape and The Milankovitch cycles only matters over spans of 10s to 100s of thousands of years. Orbital forcings have been negative for over 6,000 years. Now the changes are much faster than the natural forcings AND goes in the OPPOSITE direction to the cycles.Scientists have evaluated all natural forcings and factors capable of driving the Earth's climate to change using multiple lines of consilient and converging evidence, including the slow, long-term changes in the Earth’s movement around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles or orbital forcings), and it is only when the anthropogenic forcing is included that the observed and ongoing warming since 1750 can be explained.There has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been remotely as fast and extensive as in recent decades. The difference between the two is stark. By the mid-20th Century, global temperatures had exceeded those of at any point in the past 2,000 years and global temperatures have significantly warmed even more, since.Why Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the PlanetNASA:Global WarmingToday’s CO2 or temperature levels are not unique, but the speed of these changes have never been seen before. Changes that typically take millions of years are now happening in a century. Yes, the climate has changed before. But warming has never hit the entire planet at once the way it is now, new research shows.Did you know that carbon dioxide from human activity is increasing more than 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age?The evidence for climate change is compelling.When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.Experts Warn Climate Change Is Already Killing Way More People Than We RecordHere is the thing: Human caused climate changes is the abrupt u-turn in the OPPOSITE direction (red circle). If it was still a natural cycle, we would still be following the “green” trend towards the next ice age. AGW is the theory of why we are in the red circle, and not in the green circle.New research suggests Earth had been cooling for 6,500 consecutive years before humans began releasing CO2A new study has added to the overwhelming body of evidence that present global warming is a human-caused phenomenon. "Scientists say Earth had been cooling 6,500 years before industrialization - Climate & Capital MediaHere we see the moment when natural climate change became AGW! The moment climate was forced out of its natural Milankovitch cycle to head in the opposite direction:The climate hasn't changed much since we settled into towns, invented plumbing, and started calling ourselves civilized.Thus it’s dramatic how fast we left the stable temperatures that allowed the development of agriculture and human civilization to arise.When was the last time the planet had nearly 8 billion people burning fossil fuels warming the planet out of its natural cycles?Humans cannot survive prolonged exposure to certain combinations of heat and humidity. Humidity and heat extremes are on the verge of exceeding limits of human survivability, study finds.The carbon in the atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source, so that scientists can tell that fossil fuel emissions comprise the largest source of the increase since the pre-industrial era. The carbon from burning fossil fuels have a different isotope signal (radioactivity) than C02 coming from natural sources. It’s like DNA proof in a murder investigation.It’s basic physics: Extra carbon dioxide, extra greenhouse effect. Extra greenhouse effect, higher mean global temperature. The increase in CO2 from 280 ppm in 1880 to 408 ppm in 2019 is a 48% increase of Co2 (135/280 * 100) and 32.5% of the atmosphere CO2 is thus from humans ((135/415 * 100). Such an increase would naturally take thousands of years.As for the “common sense” scale argument that a very small part of something can’t have much of an effect on it, it only takes 0.1 grams of cyanide to kill an adult, which is about 0.0001% of your body weight. Compare this with carbon dioxide, which currently makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere and is a strong greenhouse gas. Meanwhile, nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere and yet is highly unreactive.Members of the National Academy of Sciences Publish Open Letter On Climate Change. Professor Granger Morgan joined 375 other members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, to publish an open letter meant to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change. Read it and decide for yourself.AGW is the explanation for the difference, the gap, between OBSERVED WARMING and NATURAL factors:What's Really Warming the World?Physics, chemistry, biology, geology, agriculture, ecology, oceanography, glaciology and more - all show that global warming is real and caused by human activity.A new set of studies, published today in the journals Nature and Nature Geoscience, describe these differences. The work shows that the period of years between the late 20th and early 21st century is the first time Earth's climate has changed on a planetary scale.”Human caused climate change is a side effect of burning fossil fuels. Industrialized nations were built with energy from fossil fuels, and this released enormous amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.The Earth has never been as closely monitored as today, especially with the help of satellites and advanced modern instruments, giving unprecedented amounts of high-quality data. This monitoring shows that the conditions that caused climate change in the past are absent today, except for the increases in greenhouse gases. The IPCC reports provide lists of peer reviewed papers on the global warming. Earth warming more quickly than thought, new climate models show.Yes, the climate has changed before. But warming has never hit the entire planet at once the way it is now, new research shows.Do you think there is a another explanation for global warming which just happen to have exactly the same characteristics as an increase of C02 and the other greenhouse gases?Planet Earth's Climate Change DashboardOur best estimate is that human activity is responsible for about 100% of observed long-term warming; between 93% to 123% of warming since 1950 is due to humans according to the US government's recent National Climate Assessment CSSR. https://t.co/6j9mq6gJ1x pic.twitter.com/5xh1GAXg1R— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) August 23, 2018Thus,We know that it’s not the sunWe know that it’s not Milankovitch cyclesWe know that it’s not volcanoesWe know that even when combined, natural causes cannot explain the current warmingWe know that CO2 traps heatWe know that increasing CO2 causes more heat to be trappedWe know that CO2 was largely responsible for past climate changesWe know that we have roughly doubled the CO2 in the atmosphereWe know that the earth is trapping more heat now than it used toWe know that including anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in the models is the only way to explain the current warming trend.Introduction.Everything in this answer is backed up by the best science available. You will see my arguments are 100% in tune with what the peer reviewed science and the scientific bodies says. Im linking to them all along.I will block trolls and spammers and the climate deniers.Michael Barnard's answer to Should rational Quora users engage with science deniers, or should they block and mute deniers, delete deniers' comments, and report or downvote deniers' questions and answers?ITS NOT ABOUT RECORD HIGHS OR RECORD THIS OR THATToday’s CO2 or temperature levels are not unique, but the speed of these changes have never been seen before. Changes that typically take millions of years are now happening in a century. Get it?The fact that CO2 levels and temperatures were higher millions of years ago is irrelevant to whether people living today will be negatively impacted by recent high levels.because,The effects of today's RAPID global warming are felt by societies and existing ecosystems adapted to the Holocene climate in OUR TIME - NOT the climate and CO2 levels that existed hundreds of thousand or millions of years ago which gave ecosystems time to adapt.Here are world known and verified Quora climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe:“When we look at all the natural causes today - changes in energy from the sun, orbital cycles, natural cycles like El Nino, volcanic and other geologic activity - each and every one of those natural causes has an alibi”. […]“The physics we use to understand the earth’s climate system is the same physics that explains how stoves, fridges, airplanes and more work. And most people don’t really have a problem with the physics of non-linear fluid dynamics and radiative transfer that have been well understood for decades, even centuries.”Watch to see how much different factors, both natural and industrial, contribute to global warming, based on findings from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space StudiesVideo: How global warming stacks up – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the PlanetThe worlds most famous natural historian Sir David Attenborough:IT’S THE HIGHEST CO2 LEVELS FOR 56 MILLION YEARS.Present day CO2 or temperature levels are not unique, but the speed of these changes have never been seen before. Changes that typically take millions of years are now happening in a century.C02, the Suns impact, and temperatures has followed each other always:Slide 20:http://www.searchanddiscovery.co...CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoichttp://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/P...https://stephenschneider.stanfor...THEN WE HUMANS DRAMATICLY CHANGED THE PATTERN:For 800,000 years before about the year 1850 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere varied between about 170 and 280 ppm. After 1850 that level started to rise due to anthropocene (man made) changes in our enclosed space ship planet system. That level is now about 414 ppm.This graph shows the huge 98 PPM spike in global CO2 since 1950. The next fastest spike of at least 98 PPM took more than 7500 years. No climate science exists that can explain this recent 98 PPM spike as any sort of natural cause.Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the PlanetOver Earth's history, there were times where atmospheric CO2 was higher than current levels. Intriguingly, the planet experienced widespread regions of glaciation during some of those periods. Does this contradict the warming effect of CO2?No, for one simple reason. CO2 is not the only driver of climate. To understand past climate, we need to include other forcings that drive climate.Also, before SUVs, volcanos and flood basalt events could release huge amounts of CO2.Atmospheric CO2: driversTotal human carbon dioxide emissions could match those of Earth's last major greenhouse warming event in fewer than five generations, new research finds. A new study finds humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate nine to 10 times higher than the greenhouse gas was emitted during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a global warming event that occurred roughly 56 million years ago.“In the past, when CO2 levels rose higher than they are today, it often happened over millions of years and the various forms of life on Earth were able to evolve and adapt. But there were a number of times when CO2 levels and temperatures rose as quickly as they have risen in the last 100 years. These changes had profound consequences leading to mass extinctions. For example, 252 million years ago there was a rapid rise in CO2 due to a series of volcano eruptions, and global temperatures rose 11 deg. C wiping out 95% of all species on Earth.The second-most severe mass extinction in Earth’s history may have been triggered by global warming. The discovery means that, for the first time, all of the largest known extinctions can be linked to a rapid rise in the planet’s temperature.All five of Earth's largest mass extinctions linked to global warmingEarth may be 140 years away from reaching carbon levels not seen in 56 million yearsFossil algae reveal 500 million years of climate change | Geology PageFuture climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years(The “cooling” trend from 1940 to 1970 was due to air pollution/aerosols masking the warming.)Rising Global Temperatures and CO2Global trends from measuring stations are consistent with proxy records of atmospheric CO2 content, including those from ice cores.Precisely measuring Co2 emissions using the OCO-3 satellite is paramount to addressing carbon and GHG buildup retaining heat and impacting our climate.“NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 (OCO-3), the agency's newest carbon dioxide-measuring mission to launch into space, has seen the light. From its perch on the International Space Station, OCO-3 captured its first glimpses of sunlight reflected by Earth's surface on June 25, 2019. Just weeks later, the OCO-3 team was able to make its first determinations of carbon dioxide and solar-induced fluorescence - the "glow" that plants emit from photosynthesis, a process that includes the capture of carbon from the atmosphere.”First Data from NASA's OCO-3 Mission: 'CO2, I See You' – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the PlanetTHE PLANET IS WARMING FAST:NASA"For people who had been paying attention to the data over the last year, the results were not surprising. With the mild La Niña conditions at the beginning of the year, expectations were that 2018 would come in slightly cooler than 2017 (and of course 2016), and so it proved.”https://data.giss.nasa.gov/giste...https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/Why do all our climate data start in 1880?United In ScienceLandmark United in Science report informs Climate Action SummitUpdate dayThe 10 Hottest Globalars on RecordFor 400 Months in a Row, the Earth Has Been Warmer Than 20th Century Average2019 in Review: Global Temperature RankingsSeptember 2019:Earth warming more quickly than thought, new climate models showBy 2100, average temperatures could rise 7.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels if carbon emissions continue unabated, separate models from two leading research centres in France showed.Earth warming more quickly than thought, new climate models showJune 2019:Study: NASA’s estimate of Earth's long-term temperature rise in recent decades is accurate to within less than a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, providing confidence that past and future research is correctly capturing rising surface temperatures.The study also confirms what researchers have been saying for some time now: that Earth's global temperature increase since 1880 – about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, or a little more than 1 degree Celsius – cannot be explained by any uncertainty or error in the data. Going forward, this assessment will give scientists the tools to explain their results with greater confidence.Summer 2019 was hottest on record for Northern HemisphereApril 2019:NASA confirms global warming trends, says 2015, 2016 and 2017 were hottest on recordThe various surface temperature records have been independently validated by complementary measurements from a NASA satellite with better spatial coverage and higher resolution (AIRS):"AIRS data complement GISTEMP because they are at a higher spatial resolution than GISTEMP, and have more complete global coverage.Both data sets demonstrate the earth's surface has been warming globally over this period, and that 2016, 2017, and 2015 have been the warmest years in the instrumental record, in that order.This is important because of the intense interest in the detail of how estimates of global and regional temperature change are constructed from surface temperature data, and how known imperfections in the raw data (due to station moves, gaps, instrument and practice changes, urban heat island effects) are handled.Links:May 2019 was the 4th hottest on record for the globeGraphic: Earth's temperature record – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the PlanetExplainer: How do scientists measure global temperature? | Carbon BriefNot convinced on the need for urgent climate action? Here's what happens to our planet between 1.5°C and 2°C of global warmingNew Studies Increase Confidence in NASA's Measure of Earth's Temperature – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet2018 fourth warmest year in continued warming trend, according to NASA, NOAA – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet2018 takes the podium as one of the hottest years on record. Let’s look deeper.Earth Had Its Fifth Warmest November; 2018 a Lock for 4th Warmest Year on Record by Dr. Jeff Masters | Category 6So far 2019 has set 35 records for heat and 2 for coldHeat records falling twice as often as cold ones, AP findsGlobal increase in record-breaking monthly-mean temperaturesNASA confirms global warming trends, says 2015, 2016 and 2017 were hottest on recordAll the global temperature records set so far in 2019https://phys.org/news/2019-04-na...https://iopscience.iop.org/ar…/1...It seems like the most common misunderstandings is to not see the distinctions:weather versus climate,short-term phenomena versus long-term trends,local measurements versus global averages.The focus on minor exceptions, ignoring the big picture.Climate, sometimes understood as the "average weather,” is defined as the measurement of the mean and variability of relevant quantities of certain variables (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) over a period of time, ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system."WE WILL CLEAR UP THOSE, BUT FIRST;THE TWO STONE COLD FACTS:CO2 happens to have a special feature naturally. It absorbs heat radiation very effectively. It has to do with the vibratory and rotational properties of the molecule itself. The structure of their molecules makes them especially effective at absorbing heat radiation while the major atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are essentially transparent to it. We can easily measure their properties in laboratories, and derive them from quantum physics. This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons.”The carbon in the atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source, so that scientists can tell that fossil fuel emissions comprise the largest source of the increase since the pre-industrial era. The carbon from burning fossil fuels have a different isotope signal (radioactivity) than C02 coming from natural sources. Its like a fingerprint. It’s like DNA proof in a murder investigation.That’s just how it is. Nature made that happen. That’s what basic physics tells us.A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON:How old is the climate science? It’s almost 200 years!Some aspects of the science of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s.Third rock from the Sun.In the 1820s Joseph Fourier calculated that an object the size of the Earth, and at its distance from the Sun, should be considerably colder than the planet actually is if warmed by only the effects of incoming solar radiation.There have to be something else giving us this habitable temperature.While other planets in Earth's solar system are either scorching hot or bitterly cold, Earth's surface has relatively mild, stable temperatures. Earth enjoys these temperatures because of its atmosphere, which is the thin layer of gases that cloak and protect the planet.“Without CO2 and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases ability to absorb infrared radiation, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse and throw the global climate into an ice-bound state. Without the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the mean temperature of the Earth would be down to -15 degrees Celsius (3 F) instead of + 15 degrees Celsius (60F).”RMetS JournalsFacebook1856:Eunice Newton Foote was an American scientist, inventor, and women's rights campaigner from Seneca Falls, New York. She was the first to define the greenhouse effect in her paper 'Circumstances affecting the heat of sun's rays' at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in 1856.Foote conducted a series of elegant experiments that demonstrated the interactions of the sun's rays on different gases.Of the gases she tested, Foote concluded that carbonic acid trapped the most heat, reaching a temperature of 125 F. Foote's work was the first description of what we know today as the Greenhouse effect.https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lady-scientist-helped-revolutionize-climate-science-didnt-get-credit-180961291/Why History Forgot the Woman Who Discovered the Cause of Global Warming“In her 1856 paper about the experiment, “Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun’s Rays,” she wrote that a cylinder with moist air became warmer than one with dry air. A cylinder filled with carbon dioxide warmed even more, and, once removed from the light, “it was many times as long in cooling.”She then reached a sweeping conclusion: “An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature.””Overlooked No More: Eunice Foote, Climate Scientist Lost to HistoryHappy 200th birthday to Eunice Foote, hidden climate science pioneer | NOAA Climate.gov1859:John Tyndall suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself.Tyndall 1861 - On the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours, and on the physical connexion of radiation, absorption, and conductionXXIII. On the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours, and on the physical connexion of radiation, absorption, and conduction.—The bakerian lecturehttp://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdfV. On the absorption and radiation of heat by gaseous matter.-Second memoirTyndall 1863 - On radiation through the earth's atmosphereXXVII. On radiation through the earth's atmospherehttps://survivingprogress.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/tyndall.pdfTyndall's climate message, 150 years on1896:Svante Arrhenius wrote a famous article in 1895 "on the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the earth"ON THE INFLUENCE OF CARBONIC ACID IN THE AIR UPON THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH on JSTORwhere he estimated climate sensitivity of CO2 to be around 3 degrees C. Based on works of Fourier, Angstrom, especially Tyndall and many others.Svante Arrhenius -We can"calculate estimates of the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide increase Earth's surface temperature through the Arrhenius effect, leading David Keeling to conclude that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are large enough to cause global warming"Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan-Boltzmann law), he formulated what he referred to as a 'rule'.Arrhenius’ work holds up well today:"We examine the mathematical quantifications of planetary energy budget developed by Svante Arrhenius (1859– 1927) and Guy Stewart Callendar (1898–1964) and construct an empirical approximation of the latter, which we show to be successful at retrospectively predicting global warming over the course of the twentieth century."http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/66238/7/1-s2.0-S0160932716300308-main.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2Mor85o4P4Q1WQxrcw6uv2hnGLY0WekQpHp4ro7uAjSrlI30mYKGxgIbk1900:Guy Callendar in 1938 on how the burning of fossile fuels will increase atmospheric temperatureRMetS Journalsthis issue has been settled so long ago that that it is basic scientific knowledge. you ca read it up in any chemistry book and any geophysics book all over the worldSummary by climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe:As the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, water vapour plays an essential role in the Earth’s climate.However, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled mostly by air temperature, rather than by emissions. For that reason, scientists consider it a feedback agent, rather than a forcing to climate change.Iain Stewart demonstrates a simple experiment that shows that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. Scene from BBC's 'Earth: The Climate Wars' documentary:First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface"the critical link between c02 concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect [...] and further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.”Science have known about the greenhouse effect for 200 years, and it has been possible to calculate how much it would amount to by making calculations on radiation spectra. Based on this, the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature increase has been calculated, and found that it is in good agreement with what you actually measure.Here they have managed to insert instruments "in the middle", and actually measure what happens to the spectra. It is a demanding exercise. IR spectrometers with very high accuracy are challenging to keep in operation, partly because they have to be cooled. But here they have managed it.Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010These graphs show carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at two locations on the Earth’s surface. The first graph shows CO2 radiative forcing measurements obtained at a research facility in Oklahoma. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (blue) increased from 2000 to the end of 2010, so did surface radiative forcing due to CO2 (orange), and both quantities have upward trends. This means the Earth absorbed more energy from solar radiation than it emitted as heat back to space. The seasonal fluctuations are caused by plant-based photosynthetic activity. The second graph shows similar upward trends at a research facility on the North Slope of Alaska. (Credit: Berkeley Lab)https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdfThe evolution of radiative forcing bar-chartsNASA Confirms Methane Spike Is Tied to Oil and GasRadiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing2. Anyone can take out their spectroscopes and see with their own eyes C02 traps heat that would otherwise escape into space. And again, its 200 years old science.“Spectroscopy is a method of detecting elements by looking at how electromagnetic radiation passes through them. Different elements have electrons in orbits at varying energy levels, and this affects the way they resonate. It's the reason why neon lights produce different colors depending on what gases we fill them with. It's also the way we're able to tell what proportions of hydrogen, helium, and other elements are in distant stars: the spectrum of light coming from them has peaks and valleys that are chemical fingerprints of exactly what gases are in them.”“The Earth's surface is warmed by the sun, and as a warm globe in space, the Earth itself emits that same heat right back out, as infrared radiation. If we go outside and point a spectrometer at the sky, we can see there are peaks and valleys in the infrared spectrum. Some wavelengths of heat fly right out into space unhindered, while other wavelengths are absorbed by the atmosphere, and that heat stays there, where we're able to detect its wavelength with our spectrometer. And exactly the same way as we're able to identify the elements in a distant star, we're able to identify exactly which greenhouse gases are trapping the Earth's radiative heat. This is how we were able to identify those five main gases. And this isn't new; we've understood this for 200 years. It's a direct measurement that anyone with a spectrometer can reproduce. Not a model, not a prediction, not a guess.”“Water vapor, which is the most prominent, defines the basic shape of the greenhouse spectrum. Most of the infrared radiation that escapes the Earth goes through a window left open by water vapor, which we call the infrared window. This window in the spectrum, which is pretty wide, is centered around a wavelength of about 10 µm (micrometers). At higher and lower wavelengths, water vapor absorbs much of the Earth's radiated heat, so the Earth has always relied on this open window in the spectrum to allow the excess heat to escape. One end of the infrared window is overlapped by CO2's absorption range, which is centered around 15 µm. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a sliding door which widens or narrows the infrared window. As CO2 increases, the infrared window is narrowed, less radiation escapes into space, and more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. At the other end of the infrared window, around 7.5 µm, methane has a similar effect, contributing about 1/4 as much warming as CO2.”“Spectroscopy is hard science. We don't have to model or predict. Simply by pointing our instruments at the sky, we can, right now, directly observe and identify the greenhouse gases, and measure exactly how much radiative energy the atmosphere is absorbing and keeping here on Earth. This direct, non-ambiguous spectroscopic reading is the "smoking gun" that proves the excess heat energy being trapped in our atmosphere is due to CO2.”[…] “Within that infrared window defined by water vapor, there is one big spike. It is the 15 µm range of CO2. This is explicit, unambiguous proof that the increased heat in our atmosphere is due to CO2. It has nothing to do with models or predictions; it is a direct observation, it is hard chemistry and basic physics, not guesswork or extrapolation.”“As we burn fossil fuels, the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the infrared window narrows, less heat radiates away from the Earth, and more heat goes into the Earth's system. These are simple, solid facts. Energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.”CO2 absorbs in a band centered at 15 microns, near the peak of Earth's blackbody radiation curve. We see the effects of it via direct measurements from satellites and ground based observatories.https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdfNear-infrared absorption spectroscopy of oxygen and nitrogen gas mixturesThe Simple Proof of Man-Made Global WarmingAtmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s TemperatureOn the causal structure between CO2 and global temperatureCarbon Dioxide Controls Earth's TemperatureStudies: atmospheric CO2 drives climate change ancient and modern.99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new studyFifth Assessment Report - Working Group IHOW DO WE KNOW ITS OUR CO2 CAUSING THE WARMING?Here’s how scientists know;The carbon in the atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source, so that scientists can tell that fossil fuel emissions comprise the largest source of the increase since the pre-industrial era.The carbon from burning fossil fuels have a different isotope signal (radioactivity) than C02 coming from natural sources. Its like a fingerprint. Its unique. It’s like DNA proof in a murder investigation.“We can carbon date the CO2 in the atmosphere, and tell exactly how much of it comes from humans burning fossil fuels. It's a direct measurement. It leaves no room for interpretation”.Global warming isn’t natural, and here’s how we knowOxygen isotopic signature of CO2 from combustion processesScienceDirectChanges in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 are also caused by other sources and sinks, but the changing isotopic signal due to CO2 from fossil fuel combustion can be resolved from the other components (Francey et al., 1995).http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/ralph/25_Partition.pdfCarbon has 3 isotopes. Carbon 12, 13 are stable. Carbon 14 decays with a half life of around 6000 years. Carbon 14 is constantly being created by the impact of cosmic rays on carbon atoms in the upper atmosphere. That Carbon 14 is then taken up by the natural life carbon cycle. It becomes part of life. Part of you.Coal was plant material. Oil was animal and plant material. When the plant or animal dies, it stops taking up new Carbon 14. The Carbon 14 in the dead plant or animal decays.Fossil fuels are millions of years old. All of the carbon 14 has decayed. Thus, when you burn fossil fuel and release the CO2 into the atmosphere, you only inject Carbon 12 and 13.If the ratio of Carbon 12 and 13 compared to Carbon 14 has changed over time, then cause can be attributed to effect. Easy to study past air. Bubbles in ice. When studied, the reduction in the ratio of Carbon 14 exactly matches the increase in burning of fossil fuels. The reduction in the ratio of Carbon 14 began when the industrial revolution started.What they find is the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 is relatively steady over much of the last two centuries. However, it starts to dramatically decrease in the latter half of the 20th Century. Increasing anthropogenic emissions of CO2 not only increased the levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration but also decreased the δ13 C composition of the atmosphere. Thus, the decrease in δ13 C is attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdfThis is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, that carbon burnt by humans is the source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. This is the Smoking Gun of Anthropogenic Global Warming. We, and we alone are responsible for the most rapid increase in global temperature ever recorded.How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?“The same elements (i.e. same number of protons in the nucleus) with different mass numbers (arising from the different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus) are called isotopes. Each carbon molecule has six protons in the nucleus, but there are many different isotopes with varying numbers of neutrons in the nucleus. Carbon isotopes from different sources are “lighter” (high negative value) or heavier (lower negative value). For example, carbon from ocean is the standard with a value of “0” while carbon from fossil fuels ranges from -20 to -32. While atmospheric carbon has an average value of -5 to -9, it is becoming “lighter” over time as carbon from fossil fuels become more abundant in the atmosphere.”Fortunately, corals provide a window further into the past. In Evidence for ocean acidification in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia (Wei et al 2009), the authors drilled a coral core from Arlington Reef, situated in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef. This enabled them to measure δ13C going back to 1800.Interpreting the carbon-14 signature of fossil fuel CO2 emissionshttps://skepticalscience.com/The-human-fingerprint-in-coral.htmlhttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c1d4/d59417490007e69c9517c3f7bbbbfc851d83.pdfTHE SUESS EFFECT:The Suess Effect is a term which has come to signify the decrease in THE CONCENTRATION OF 14C in atmospheric CO2 owing to admixture of CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. This term is here extended, as a concept, to the shifts in isotopic ratio of both 13C and 14C in any reservoir of the carbon cycle owing to anthropogenic activities.The Suess effect: 13Carbon-14Carbon interrelationsRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why do people believe CO2 emissions are a serious problem when they're now only a little over 400 parts per million of the atmosphere (0.04%)?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How long have we known about the greenhouse effect?BONUS:How could global warming accelerate if CO2 is 'logarithmic'?Scientists agree that the greenhouse effect is approximately logarithmic — which means that as we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, the effect of extra CO2 decreases.However, the IPCC projects that if we don't take steps to reduce our emissions, global warming won't just get worse, it will speed up:How could both facts be true?After zooming in, the logarithm doesn't make such a big difference: it's not far from a straight line. 560 ppm will probably take us well beyond the Paris target of 1.5°C, so the 280-560 range is key; we would be unwise to let our civilization go beyond 560.In summary:Although CO2 has less effect at higher CO2 concentrations, this "logarithmic effect" will be overpowered by these 4 factors if we don't switch to clean energy quickly:Exponential growth of energy usePast CO2 emissions that nature has not yet absorbedCarbon sink saturationCommitted warmingHow could global warming accelerate if CO2 is 'logarithmic'?If our C02 is increasing in the atmosphere, then we should see that the amount of IR leaving the planet has decreased over time, and that decrease should match the increase in CO2.That is, of course, exactly what satellite data show (Harries et al. 2001; Griggs and Harries 2007). The IR leaving the earth since the 70s has decreased, and that decrease matches the increase in CO2. This is a direct test of anthropogenic climate change and cannot be explained by anything other than our CO2 trapping heat.https://research-information.bristol.ac.uk/files/3006745/paper.pdfhttps://journals.ametsoc.org/doi...“The earth’s climate is constrained by well-known and elementary physical principles, such as energy balance, flow, and conservation. Greenhouse gases affect the atmospheric optical depth for infrared radiation, and increased opacity implies higher altitude from which earth’s equivalent bulk heat loss takes place. Such an increase is seen in the reanalyses, and the outgoing long-wave radiation has become more diffuse over time, consistent with an increased influence of greenhouse gases on the vertical energy flow from the surface to the top of the atmosphere.”https://link.springer.com/articl...“We have shown that longwave downward radiation flux increases at Earth's surface can be accurately measured, subdivided and explicitly explained and backed with model calculations as cloud-, temperature-, water vapour- and enhanced greenhouse gas radiative forcing effect. Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect.”http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/d...“The changes of the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) in clear-sky conditions have been calculated using High Resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder (HIRS) observations from 1979 to 2004.[...] The observed increase in GHE is shown to be inconsistent with the control ensemble, indicating that anthropogenic forcings are required to reproduce the observed changes in GHE. Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models.”http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/...Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010 (Feldman et al, 2015) - http://asl.umbc.edu/.../nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdfThese results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance." What these papers show is that the absorption properties of CO2 have been known for a long time. They have been tested in the laboratory. Measurements have been done pertaining to CO2's effect on heat retention in the atmosphere. Changes in the heat content in the atmosphere at related absorption frequencies due to increases of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been measured and recorded.BONUS 2:No saturation.There is no saturation of absorbed radiation so long as there are adjacent spectral regions to be filled by line broadening. The infrared atmospheric window just becomes more narrow. In addition, the saturation of specific lines opens up with increasing altitude. Adding more CO2 pushes that layer of opacity higher up in altitude. Radiation must escape to space from a greater height where the mean free path for photons allows energy to leak out. The thicker that opaque region, the longer it takes for radiation to reach the altitude where it can freely escape. Thus the layer and surface remain warmer for longer.2. WHAT THE BEST PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE AND MAIN SCIENTIFIC BODIES SAYS:From about 1880 our C02 emissions started to influence Climate changes , and after 1950, according to scientists, humans ARE the dominant cause of global warming.Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, the world’s most prestigious academy, founded by Abraham Lincoln, with over 200 Nobel Price winners among their members.This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the first of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.The 600 page report was created from input by scientists working at 13 different federal government agencies.“Based on extensive evidence … it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,”For the warming over the last century,“there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”Climate Science Special Report: Executive SummaryFourth National Climate Assessment: Executive Summary“Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}”.https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdfGlobal warming: why is IPCC report so certain about the influence of humans? | Dana Nuccitellihttps://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdfNASA:The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.Climate change evidence: How do we know?Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2): NASA's New Carbon CounterOCO-3 Ready to Extend NASA's Study of Carbon – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet)COPERNICUS:Average temperatures for 2017 were higher than climatological values for 1981-2010 over virtually all of Europe.Climate in 2017 - European temperatureTHINGS HAVE NOT CHANGED OVER THE LAST 50 YEARSClimate change: What 10 presidents have known50 YEARS OF US SCIENCE AND GOVERNMENTS AND PRESIDENTS COMES TO THE SAME CONCLUSION ON AGW:PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON’S 1965 “Restoring the Quality of our Environment report”.Fifty years ago: The White House knew all about climate changeOn November 5, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s White House released “Restoring the Quality of our Environment”, a report that described the impacts of climate change, and foretold dramatic Antarctic ice sheet loss, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.That 1965 White House report stated:“Carbon dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at the rate of 6 billion tons a year. By the year 2000 there will be about 25 percent more CO2 in our atmosphere than present. This will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur.”On the 50th anniversary of the White House report, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are indeed at 399 ppm: 25 percent over 1965 levels, exactly as predicted 50 years ago.http://ourchildrenstrust.org/sit...Scientists warned the President about global warming 50 years ago today | Dana Nuccitelli1970: Nixon founded the Environmental Protection Agency.1987: Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol (to ban ozone-depleting pollutants),Ronald Reagan’s 1989 EPA REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGEPage 28: http://bit.ly/2w8YMuVIn 1989,Pres. Ronald Reagan proposed creation of the U.S. Climate Change Research Program (USGCRP) to coordinate the research, monitoring, and assessment activities of more than a dozen federal government agencies an Departments. Pres. George H.W. Bush signed enabling legislation two years later. Trump and his Administration and Republicans in Congress are ignoring and denigrating three decades of scientific research and monitoring and systematically dismantling and bastardizing the USGCRP.George H W Bush introduce cap-and-trade (to deal with the acid rain problem).The Political History of Cap and TradeGEORGE W. BUSH 2001:“As we promote electricity and renewable energy, we will work to make our air cleaner. With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time. And we will provide market-based incentives, such as emissions trading, to help industry achieve the required reductions.”(George W. Bush)What might be surprising for you to learn, however, is that it wasn't Al Gore--but George W Bush--who made that statement in the run-up to the election. It was Bush who had committed to combat climate change through the regulation of carbon emissions.http://michaelmann.net/content/v...George W. Bush administration 2001 National Academies report:Committee on the Science of Climate ChangeDivision on Earth and Life StudiesNational Research Council“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.[…] Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century[….] The predicted warming of 3°C (5.4°F) by the end of the 21st century is consistent with the assumptions about how clouds and atmospheric relative humidity will react to global warming.The National Academies PressBonusNew Pentagon Report: “The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue”New Pentagon Report: “The effects of a changing climate are a national security issue”3. THE SUN, CYCLES, OCEAN CURRENTS AND INTERNAL VARIABILITYIf the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate, then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?NASA:To add to that, scientists have quantified the warming caused by human activities since preindustrial times and compared that to natural temperature forcings.Changes in the sun's output falling on the Earth from 1750-2011 are about 0.05 Watts/meter squared.By comparison, human activities from 1750-2011 warm the Earth by about 2.83 Watts/meter squared (AR5, WG1, Chapter 8, section 8.3.2, p. 676).What this means is that the warming driven by the GHGs coming from the human burning of fossil fuels since 1750 is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.What Is the Sun's Role in Climate Change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the PlanetClimate Science Special Report: Physical Drivers of Climate ChangeThe Sun can influence the Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over the past few decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of the Sun’s energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites and what they tell us is that there has been no upward trend in the amount of the Sun’s energy reaching Eart.A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface all the way up to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a build-up of heat-trapping gases near the surface of the Earth, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.”Is the Sun causing global warming? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the PlanetThe above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy received by the Earth (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious.The amount of solar energy received by the Earth has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century.TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD."According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.”Science magazine:"Don't blame the sun for recent global warming. A new analysis, based on historical data rather than computer simulations, shows that our star's role in climate change has been vastly overtaken by other factors, particularly the human-induced buildup of greenhouse gases."As for the other planets, Mercury has no atmosphere of significance nor has it sufficient axial tilt to generate seasons or to have a climate in as we enjoy it on Earth.Venus and Mars have atmospheres almost completely composed of carbon dioxide. At Venus' proximity to the Sun this resulted in strong enough greenhouse effect to render the surface uninhabitable. Coupled with almost no axial tilt, it also therefore has no perceptible seasons.Mars lacks an iron core sufficient enough to have protected its once-thick atmosphere, with the result that it lacks sufficient atmospheric pressure (and an ozone layer) for its greenhouse effect to maintain a habitable climate.Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are gas giants with no surface, so discussions of climates there are meaningless.LETS LOOK AT THE SATELLITES:Lower troposphere temperatures are increasing:The upper troposphere is cooling (ie less heat is escaping back into space).The higher up you go (into the stratosphere) – cooling is increasing:Images from Remote Sensing Systems Time Series Trend BrowserRemote Sensing SystemsThis phenomenon can only be attributed to the insulating effect of increasing greenhouse gases.Foster et al 2017 - Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years.”Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million yearsCYCLESNASA:“Milankovitch cycles can’t explain all climate change that’s occurred over the past 2.5 million years or so. And more importantly, they cannot account for the current period of rapid warming Earth has experienced since the pre-Industrial period (the period between 1850 and 1900), and particularly since the mid-20th Century. Scientists are confident Earth’s recent warming is primarily due to human activities — specifically, the direct input of carbon into Earth’s atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.So how do we know Milankovitch cycles aren’t to blame?First, Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries. Over the last 150 years, Milankovitch cycles have not changed the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth very much. In fact, NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat.Second, Milankovitch cycles are just one factor that may contribute to climate change, both past and present.Even for Ice Age cycles, changes in the extent of ice sheets and atmospheric carbon dioxide have played important roles in driving the degree of temperature fluctuations over the last several million years.The extent of ice sheets, for example, affects how much of the Sun’s incoming energy is reflected back to space, and in turn, Earth’s temperature.”Why Milankovitch Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet“We have constructed multiple of these models, and they consistently show that natural factors alone cannot explain the current warming (Stott et al. 2001; Meehl et al. 2004; Allen et al. 2006; Lean and Rind 2008; Imbers et al. 2014). In other words, including human greenhouse gas emissions in the models is the only way to get the models to match the observed warming. This is extremely clear evidence that the current warming is not entirely natural. To be clear, natural factors do play a role and are contributing, but human factors are extremely important, and most of the models show that they account for the majority of the warming.”Global warming isn’t natural, and here’s how we knowWe were in a cooling phase that was decreasing the global temperature by 0.1 C every 1,000 years. This stopped abruptly about 100 years ago when we started adding massive amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, causing a 1.15 C (2.07 F) per century increaseThe natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle.Natural vs. Modern ForcingMore:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How many ice ages have we had? How many temperate ages have we had?OCEAN CURRENTS“While year-to-year ups and downs are related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, we find that variability due to slow-acting ocean cycles is not necessary to explain the longer-term changes in the historical temperature record.”While the climate system continues to be influenced by short-term natural variability from El Niño and La Niña events, the idea that oceans have been driving the climate into colder or warmer periods for multiple decades in the past – and that they may do so in the future – is unlikely to be correct.Most of the complex global climate models strongly support the hypothesis that oceans have only limited ability to alter global temperatures on multidecadal timescales. This study provides a support for those model results.This means that we can expect future warming to be primarily driven by external forcing factors – such as human-caused greenhouse gas emissions – along with the variability associated with ENSO.”Guest post: Why natural cycles only play small role in rate of global warming | Carbon BriefIf global warming were caused by internal variability, we would expect to see heat shuffling around the climate system with no net build-up. Instead, scientists observe our climate system accumulating heat at a rate of more than four atomic bombs per second.Ocean currents is the hardest to evaluate. We know that ENSO significantly changes the Earth’s temperature, and so long-term ENSO-like variation is something we have to consider. However, nobody has yet put forth a viable mechanism or shown data that such a long-term cycle exists. In the absence of any evidence supporting it, we conclude that it’s likely internal variability is playing a minor role in today’s warming. Clearly, future research might cause us to re-examine this conclusion."it's just a natural cycle" isn't just a cop-out argument - it's something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what global warming was.Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cyclesNatural cycles can only move heat around, as heat exchange within the oceans or from the oceans to the atmosphere. But now we see adding of heat both in oceans and the atmosphere. So the adding of heat to the energy budget we see now must come from somewhere else than natural cycles.No credible study has suggested that ocean oscillations can account for the long-term trends. The key observation here is the increase in ocean heat content over the last half century (the figure below shows three estimates of the changes since 1955). This absolutely means that more energy has been coming into the system than leaving.http://www.realclimate.org/index...Now this presents a real problem for claims that ocean variability is the main driver. To see why, note that ocean dynamics changes only move energy around – to warm somewhere, they have to cool somewhere else. So posit an initial dynamic change of ocean circulation that warms the surface (and cools below or in other regions). To bring more energy into the system, that surface warming would have to cause the top-of-the-atmosphere radiation balance to change positively, but that would add to warming, amplifying the initial perturbation and leading to a runaway instability. There are really good reasons to think this is unphysical.Remember too that ocean heat content increases were a predicted consequence of GHG-driven warming well before the ocean data was clear enough to demonstrate it.Arctic sea-ice decline weakens the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulationhttps://www.nature.com/articles/...Measurement of Oceanic Heat Flowhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/sc...4. CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS CHANGED AND CO2 LEVELS WERE HIGHER IN THE PAST FALLACYThe earths climate “has constantly changed/it’s a natural cycle is a very bad argument.The weirdest part of the "climate has always changed" argument is it's presented as some sort of revelation that scientists hadn't considered.And , no surprise, it’s the number 1 myth about climate change.Full answer:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Considering that the Earth has always warmed and cooled naturally, do you believe that human actions are mainly responsible for present-day accelerated global warming? Why/why not?5 ALL TEMPERATURE DATA FROM OCEANS, LAND AND SATELLITES, SHOWS THE SAME WARMING TRENDAll temperature data available, including ocean data and satellite data, shows the same warming of 1.1 C (2.0 F) since about 1880.Here is the best known, the GISS data from NASA:https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/GISS measures the change in global surface temperatures relative to average temperatures from 1951 to 1980. GISS data show global average temperatures in 2017 rose 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 1951-1980 mean. According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C). That would put the planet's average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C).What Is Earth's Average Temperature?From the Berkeley Earth page:Berkeley Earth has examined 16 million monthly average temperature observations from 43,000 weather stations...The weather station data is combined with sea surface temperature data from the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre (HadSST). This ocean data is based on 355 million measurements collected by ships and buoys, including 12 million observations obtained in 2017.HERE ARE DATA FOR EUROPE:Global and European temperatureTwo long-term ocean-only temp series (with 95% conf. intervals) shows the same trend as weather stations and satellite data:http://www.realclimate.org/index...Monitoring Global and U.S. Temperatures at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental InformationIsolated satellite data shows same trend as weather stations and ocean data:RSS: This is from their home page:http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_...Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.18 degrees Kelvin per decade (0,17 C / 0.32 degrees F per decade).Remote Sensing SystemsResearchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998UAH SATELLITE DATA:For a long time the UAH satellite data showed less warming than all the other data, but this was due to a bug in the system. When this calibration error was fixed, the data showed the same warming as the other data.Satellite measurements of the troposphere confirm warming trend, data shows | Carbon BriefWhat trend do the UAH data show now? Lets go to the UAH home page:The University of Alabama in Huntsvillehttps://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2019/April2019/GTR_201904Apr_1.pdfTheir trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.RSS AND UAH SATELLITE DATA TOGETHER:Interactive GraphsSATELLITE DATA ARE NOT MORE ACCURATE.Satellites don't measure temperatures, they measure brightness.Brightness is converted to temperatures via computer models.The satellite record has 5 times the inaccuracy of the surface temperature record.Satellites measure the brightness of the troposphere, thousands of feet in the air (where planes fly).The surface temperature record measures the temperature at the surface, where people live.Since satellites technically measure neither temperature nor the surface (where people live), it’s safe to say that ground thermometers are more accurate than satellite measurements.Which measurement is more accurate: taking Earth’s surface temperature from the ground or from space? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the PlanetEXPLAINED BY SENIOR SCIENTIST FOR RSS SATELLITE DATA, CARL MEARS.Even a Koch-brothers funded study confirmed the temperature data:"Berkeley Earth was founded in early 2010 with the goal of addressing the major concerns of skeptics regarding global warming and the land surface temperature record"True, until BEST independently validated the surface temperature network, upon which "skeptics" renounced it, including nominal BEST scientist Judith Curry.Here's their temperature record from 1850 to present, with comparisons to other temperature records, showing that the warming of the Earth continues, unabated, unpaused and un-hiatused:http://berkeleyearth.org/…/2019/01/ComparisonFigure_2018.pngFrequently Asked Questions - Berkeley EarthWhat happens if we put the temperature data onto each other?LETS ADD JAPANESE DATA:It’s A Match: Satellite and Ground Measurements Agree on Warming)Database where you can check temperatures;OpenClimateDataPrototypeThe 5 most known temp data, when compared, fits like hand in glove:Explainer: how surface and satellite temperature records compare | Carbon BriefPick any nation of the world and check to see if their mets have a similar temperature trend to the global GISS temperature trend from NASA.BONUS:Mid-century cooling in the 20th Century: skeptics point to it and ask about it. What's the real story?Early 20th Century warming (1910-1940) was about one-third caused by human activities. The rest of that was a combination of natural factors.“climate scientists have had a difficult time explaining exactly what caused a warming event in the early 20th century, between about 1910 and 1945. “[…] The new study, published in the Journal of Climate, tackles the discrepancy in part by addressing an issue with ocean temperature data during the second world war, when measurements were more often made from warmer engine room intakes than from buckets lowered over the side of ships. This has resulted in a bias, inflating estimated surface temperatures in the early-to-mid 1940s. The new study removed this bias by focusing on temperatures along continental and island coastlines.[…]They found that the 0.4C warming from 1910 to 1945 could be accounted for by 0.2C warming from human greenhouse gases offset by 0.08C cooling from human aerosol pollution, 0.2C warming from natural factors (mostly a quiet period for volcanic activity plus a small contribution from increased solar activity), and a bit of natural variability plus some remaining uncertainty in the data.A Limited Role for Unforced Internal Variability in Twentieth-Century WarmingLets go on beyond 1945:Starting in the war years (1940) and continuing through the 1970s, sulfate aerosol emissions (which act to reflect incoming sunlight, cooling the Earth’s surface) combined with natural cooling held daytime temperatures flat, despite increasing CO2 and other GHG emissions from human activities.Since 1950, the authors found that the 0.8C temperature rise is due to 1.2C warming from greenhouse gases offset by 0.3C cooling from human aerosol pollution and 0.1C cooling from volcanoes and the sun.However, during this time nighttime low temperatures continued to increase, a hallmark confirmation of the combined effects of increases in GHG emissions from human activities coupled with sulfate aerosol emissions from industrial activities (the explosions during WW2 and the post-war reconstruction boom in industrial activities).These findings are important because they improve global surface temperature estimates, explain the causes of the early-20th century warming, and reaffirm that as the IPCC concluded in 2013, humans are responsible for all of the rapid global heating since 1950.”By the end of the 1970s, the cleaning of the air due to the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970 (which limited sulfate aerosol emissions from industry), coupled with the significant increase in CO2 emissions from human activities combined to drive global surface temperatures upwards.Humans and volcanoes caused nearly all of global heating in past 140 yearsHistorical Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 1850-2000: Methods and Results (Technical Report)Perturbation of the northern hemisphere radiative balance by backscattering from anthropogenic sulfate aerosolsImpact of global dimming and brightening on global warmingPerturbation of the northern hemisphere radiative balance by backscattering from anthropogenic sulfate aerosolsClean Air Act Requirements and HistorySince 1980 alone, annual global CO2 emissions have doubled:CO₂ and other Greenhouse Gas EmissionsAs a result, global temperatures spiked, with the rise ongoing still today, unabated.BONUS 2.THE “PAUSE” THAT NEVER WASYou will see climate deniers recycling this graph everywhere. Its the mother of all cherry picks:Here is the area its picked from:The bigger picture:Missing Arctic data was part of the problem. In the end, the idea of a pause, often cited by climate policy opponents, didn’t hold up to statistical testing.The 1998 year was also an super strong El Nino year and temperatures would always flat out a bit after that. One explanation for the "slowdown" in global warming is that a prolonged La Niña-like cooling of eastern Pacific surface waters has helped to offset the global rise in temperatures from greenhouse gases.New science in december 2018:Michael E. Mann"The 'pause' in global warming in historical context: (II). Comparing models to observations" | New article in Environmental Research Letters (IOP Publishing) by Stephan Lewandowsky, Stefan Rahmstorf, Naomi Oreskes, myself & others: http://iopscience.iop.org/art…/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf372/metaThat Global Warming Hiatus? It Never Happened. Two New Studies Explain Why.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Have climate deniers finally accepted that the 'pause' never happened? One never hears them mention it these days.Bonus:Global warming is an increase of the planets mean temperature, but there will always be local places that are colder or warmer than the mean.One reason for this is that heat moves around with the winds and ocean currents, warming one region while cooling another, but these regional effects might not cause a significant change in the global average temperature.A second reason is that local feedbacks, such as changes in snow or vegetation cover that affect how a region reflects or absorbs sunlight, can cause large local temperature changes that are not mirrored in the global average.We therefore cannot rely on any single location as being representative of global temperature change."With global warming you don't see a gradual warming from one year to the next," said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo."It's more like a staircase. You trot along with nothing much happening for 10 years and then suddenly you have a jump and things never go back to the previous level again."Surface temperature is only one indicator of climate change," he said. "Looking at the total energy stored by the climate system or multiple indicators--glacier melting, water vapor in the atmosphere, snow cover, and so on -- may be more useful than looking at surface temperature alone."https://www.sciencedaily.com/rel...https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator500.gifWe should RATHER talk about a "global energy surplus". Our C02 emissions wont show as an increase in global surface temperatures EVERY year.Some might use these “pauses” to claim that global warming have stopped or that C02 is not causing global warming. But there is still more energy absorbed in the climate system than energy emitted even during these “pauses”.6. CLIMATE MODELS : PREDICTIONS HAVE BEEN VERY ACCURATE:" the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate."Factcheck: Climate models have not 'exaggerated' global warmingLatest nov 2019:"According to the research published today, almost every peer-reviewed climate model of human-caused global temperature rise dating back to 1970 lines up with the warming we see today.“In scientific terms, we'd say there's no bias,” the paper’s co-author Henri Drake, a PhD candidate at MIT, told me over the phone. “Once we accounted for the differences in CO2 emissions, 14 of the 17 models we analyzed were consistent with current observations.”“Taken together,” he added, “these climate models have always been quantitatively accurate.”Climate models have been correct for literally 40 yearsHausfather et al 2019Evaluating the performance of past climate model projectionsHere are some actual predictions from Global Climate Models all of which have proven correct:- That the Earth would warm, and about how fast, and about how much(Arrhenius 1896, Callendar 1938, Plass 1956, Sawyer 1972,Broecker 1975; validated by Crowley 2000, Philipona et al 2004,Evans and Puckrin 2006, Lean and Rind 2008, Mann et al. 2008, etc)- That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures(Arrhenius 1896; validated by Dai et al. 1999, Sherwood et al. 2005, etc)- That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures(Arrhenius 1896, Manabe and Stouffer 1980, Rind et al 1989; validated by Balling et al 1999, Volodin and Galin 1999, Crozier2003, etc)- Polar amplification (that temperatures increase more as you move toward the poles)(Arrhenius 1896, Manabe and Stouffer 1980; validated by Polyakov et al 2001, Holland and Bitz 2003, etc)- That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic(Arrhenius 1896, Manabe and Stouffer 1980; validated by Doran et al 2002, Comiso 2003, Turner et al 2007, etc)- That the Earth’s troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool(Manabe and Wetherald 1967, Manabe and Stouffer 1980; validated by Ramaswamy et al. 1996, 2006, De F. Forster et al 1999, Langematz et al 2003, Vinnikov and Grody 2003, Fu et al 2004, Thompson and Solomon 2005, etc)- The near constancy of relative humidity on global average(Manabe and Wetherall 1967; validated by Minschwaner and Dessler 2004, Soden et al 2005, Gettelman and Fu 2008, etc)- Scientists made a retrodiction (a model prediction based on established physics) for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence for those times; better paleo evidence showed the models were right(Rind and Peteet 1985; validated by Farreral et al 1999, Melanda et al 2005, etc)- The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics(Vonder Haar 1986; validated by Lubin 1994, etc)- That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase(Bakun 1990; validated by Goes et al 2005, McGregor et al 2007, etc)- The magnitude (0.3 C) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption(Hansen et al 1992; validated by Hansen et al 1996, Soden et al 2002, etc)- The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO(Lau et al 1996; validated by Soden 2000, Dessler and Wong 2009, etc)- The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude(Thuburn and Craig 1997, Kushner et al 2001; validated by Santer et al 2003, Seidel and Randel 2006, etc)- The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole(Fyfe et al 1999, Kushner et al 2001, Sexton 2001; validated by Thompson and Solomon 2002, etc)- The expansion of the Hadley cells(Quan et al 2002; validated by Fu et al 2006, Hu and Fu 2007, etc)- They predicted a trend significantly different in amount and different in nature from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data which showed that surface temperatures were more accurate and reliable than UAH temperature data.(Christy et al 2003; validated by Santer et al 2003, Mears and Wentz 2005, Santer et al 2005, Sherwood et al 2005, etc)- The poleward movement of storm tracks(Trenberth and Stepaniak 2003; validated by Yin 2005, etc)Climate Models - OSS FoundationRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How accurate have climate change predictions been in the past?7. THE “HOCKEY STICK” IS STRONGER THAN EVERWhat is the “Hockey Stick?Scientists use proxies (sediments, ice cores, tree rings, corals, stalagmites, pollen or historical documents and measurements etc) to discover the climates of the past.Hockey stick graphs present the global or hemispherical mean temperature record of the past 500 to 2000 years as shown by quantitative climate reconstructions based on climate proxy records. These reconstructions have consistently shown a slow long term cooling trend changing into relatively rapid warming in the 20th century, with the instrumental temperature record by 2000 exceeding earlier temperatures.Hockey stick graph - Wikipediahttps://www.nature.com/articles/...Its affirmed by US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)It’s confirmed and improved by the all the most comprehensive studies done on the matter (+ ca 200 other studies).New paleo-science further improves the Stick.NAS are one of the most respectable scientific academies and holds a very strong position world wide and in the US, all the way back since it was co-founded by Abraham Lincoln. As of 2016, the National Academy of Sciences includes about 2,350 members and 450 foreign associates. Approximately 200 members have won a Nobel Prize.National Academy of Sciences - Wikipedia (National Academy of Sciences - Wikipedia)LATEST MAY 2020:MANN is now a member of The National Academy of Sciences.2020 NAS ElectionThe National Academy of Science wrote a book on the topic, confirming Mann's claims.Excerpt:"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.”You can read it here:Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 YearsAnd now we have... enough “hockey sticks” for a team:38 referenced reconstructions confirming Mann's claims:Enough hockey sticks for a team2019:"Twenty years have passed, and the hockey stick has stood up against the firestorm of criticism it elicited. Most of that was from people with no background in science."Unique climate change has no natural cause – Physics WorldNo evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common EraNew paleo-science further improves and makes the “stick” stronger:A new set of studies, published today in the journals Nature and Nature Geoscience, describe these differences. The work shows that the period of years between the late 20th and early 21st century is the first time Earth's climate has changed on a planetary scale.”“we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures 5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.”The 20th century was the hottest in nearly 2,000 yearsStefan Rahmstorf on TwitterThe Hockey Stick at 20LET’S LOOK AT THE 4 MAIN STUDIES SUPPORTING THE STICK:78 researchers from 24 countries, together with many other colleagues, worked for seven years in the PAGES 2k project on the new climate reconstruction. “2k” stands for the last 2000 years, while PAGES stands for the Past Global Changes program launched in 1991. Recently, their new study was published in Nature Geoscience.It is based on 511 climate archives from around the world, from sediments, ice cores, tree rings, corals, stalagmites, pollen or historical documents and measurements. All data are freely available.Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey StickContinental-scale temperature variability during the past two millenniaA global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common EraConsistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common EraIPPC 2007:Climate Change 2007 (AR4)2. Planet Earth is warmer than it has been for at least 2,000 years, according to a study that took its temperature from 692 different “natural thermometers” on every continent and ocean on the planet.The database gathers 692 records from 648 locations, including all continental regions and major ocean basins.The records are from trees, ice, sediment, corals, speleothems, documentary evidence, and other archives. They range in length from 50 to 2000 years, with a median of 547 years, while temporal resolution ranges from biweekly to centennial.The world is hotter than it has been for at least 2,000 yearsA global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common EraIPPC 2013:IPCC bruker Hockeykølla hele veien og mye i siste rapport:Michael E. Mann:The IPCC has, in fact, actually strengthened its conclusions regarding the exceptional nature of modern warmth in the new report. A highlighted box in the "summary for policy-makers" states the following (emphasis mine):In the northern Hemisphere, the period 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1,400 years (medium confidence).The new IPCC climate change report makes deniers overheat | Michael Mannhttps://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdfIPCC Fifth Assessment Report3. Researchers reconstructed temperatures from fossil pollen collected from 642 lake or pond sites across North America -- including water bodies in Wyoming -- and Europe.[...]The reconstructions indicate that evidence of periods that were significantly warmer than the last decade were limited to a few areas of the North Atlantic that were probably unusual globally. Shuman says results determined that the last decade was roughly 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer today than it was 11,000 years ago. Additionally, the decade was at least one-half degree Fahrenheit warmer today than the warmest periods of that 11,000-year time frame, even counting for uncertainties, Shuman says.Most of last 11,000 years cooler than past decade in North America, EuropeReconciling divergent trends and millennial variations in Holocene temperatures4. A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Yearshttps://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott%20et%20al.,%202013,%20Science.pdfMann lecture on the “Stick”:BONUS:The "hockeystick" data IS available here:Michael E. Mann (Michael E. Mann)BONUS 2:Michael E. Mann is winning all the lawsuits.8. IS GW CAUSING MORE EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS?“Human-caused climate change has “intensified” patterns of extreme rainfall and drought across the globe, a new study finds.There is a detectable “human fingerprint” on decreasing rainfall over the US, central Asia and southern Africa, according to the results. It is also detectable on increasing rainfall in the Sahel region of Africa, India and the Caribbean.In addition to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, aerosols released by human pollution and large volcanic eruptions have also been “major contributing agents” to global drought patterns through the industrial era, the research says.The findings “tackle the problem of identifying the human influence of drought patterns across the world”, a climate scientist tells Carbon Brief.”Scientists discover new ‘human fingerprint’ on global drought patternsMore fires:Wildfires have spread dramatically—and some forests may not recoverMore hurricanes:40 Years of Data Confirm Hurricanes Are Getting Stronger. Climate Models Were RightMore record high temperatures than low:Climate Signals | Record High Temps vs. Record Low Temps2020 More Extreme HeatMore ice melt:NASA Satellites Reveal Major Shifts in Global Freshwater"We reconstruct the strength of ENSO variations over the last 7,000 years...we find that ENSO variability over the last five decades is ~25% stronger than during the preindustrial.Our results provide empirical support for recent climate model projections showing an intensification of ENSO extremes under greenhouse forcing."Grothe et al 2019 - Enhanced El Niño‐Southern Oscillation variability in recent decadesEnhanced El Niño‐Southern Oscillation variability in recent decadesThere is a major distinction most people miss.Takeaways:Climate change do not create bad weather, extreme weather or natural disasters, but climate change exacerbate them. Because of climate change there is an increase in more loaded extreme weathers which strengthen faster. This was as predicted by scientists.Harvey was the wettest tropical cyclone on record in the United StatesList of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States - Wikipedia)The resulting floods inundated hundreds of thousands of homes, which displaced more than 30,000 people and prompted more than 17,000 rescues.Stronger hurricanes:Hurricane Harvey - WikipediaNumber of Category 4 and 5 Hurricanes Has Doubled Over the Past 35 YearsPowerful hurricanes strengthen faster now than 30 years agoFull answer:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is there a correlation between the increase in the natural hazard events to the climate change?9. THE OIL AND COAL COMPANIES KNEW IT ALLExxon Mobil Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson testified under oath on the witness stand that the company knew for years how human-caused climate change was a significant threat to the world:"We knew, we knew it was a real issue," Tillerson said. "We knew it was a serious issue and we knew it was one that's going to be with us now, forevermore, and it's not something that was just suddenly going to disappear off of our concern list because it is going to be with us for certainly well beyond my lifetime."'We knew': Ex oil boss says climate change 'with us forevermore'ExxonMobil’s four decades of climate science research | ExxonMobilExxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years AgoExxon: The Road Not TakenThis is the first empirical comparison of Exxon Mobil’s internal and peer-reviewed research with its public statements on climate change. It’s pretty clear that their strategy was the same as tobacco’s. Delay looked to them as a smart business choice, and it may well have been.IN 1982,EXXON SCIENTIST PROJECTED CARBON DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE ATMOSPHERE. (CREDIT: EXXON VIA INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS)Exxon predicted in 1982 exactly how high global carbon emissions would be todayAccording to a graph displaying the “growth of atmospheric CO2 and average global temperature increase” over time, the company expected that, by 2020, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would reach roughly 400 to 420 ppm. This month’s measurement of 415 ppm is right within the expected curve Exxon projected under its “21st Century Study-High Growth scenario.”Not only did Exxon predict the rise in emissions, it also understood how severe the consequences would be.“At the high end, some scientists suggest there could be considerable adverse impact including the flooding of some coastal land masses as a result of a rise in sea level due to melting of the Antarctic ice sheet,” it continued, stating this would only take place centuries after temperatures warmed by 3 degrees Celsius.”https://insideclimatenews.org/si...Exxon Confirmed Global Warming Consensus in 1982 with In-House Climate ModelsSHELL OIL KNEW IT TO:Shell Knew Fossil Fuels Created Climate Change Risks Back in 1980s, Internal Documents ShowShell Oil even made a stark AGW warning movie in 1991. 15 YEARS BEFORE AL GORE.In A 1991 Film, Shell Oil Issued A Stark Warning About Climate ChangeCO2's role in global warming has been on the oil industry's radar since the 1950'sRemarkably, CO2's role in global warming has been on the oil industry's radar since the 1950's:Half a century of dither and denial – a climate crisis timelineOn its 100th birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warmingEarly oil industry knowledge of CO2 and global warmingSmoke & Fumes"A new report shows conclusively that the coal industry was aware of the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels as far back as 1966—and, like other sectors of the fossil fuel industry with knowledge of the consequences of their business model, did next to nothing about it. "In August, Chris Cherry, a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, salvaged a large volume from a stack of vintage journals that a fellow faculty member was about to toss out. He was drawn to a 1966 copy of the industry publication Mining Congress Journal;his father-in-law had been in the industry and he thought it might be an interesting memento.Cherry flipped it open to a passage from James R. Garvey, who was the president of Bituminous Coal Research Inc., a now-defunct coal mining and processing research organization.“There is evidence that the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere is increasing rapidly as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels,” wrote Garvey. “If the future rate of increase continues as it is at the present, it has been predicted that, because the CO2 envelope reduces radiation, the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere will increase and that vast changes in the climates of the earth will result.”“Such changes in temperature will cause melting of the polar icecaps, which, in turn, would result in the inundation of many coastal cities, including New York and London,” he continued.”Coal Knew, TooUnearthed journal reveals coal industry KNEW about climate change as far back as 1966 - BrainBored.comCoal Knew Too: Explosive Report Shows Industry Was Aware of Climate Threat as Far Back as 19662019:MORE AND MORE OIL COMPANIES AGREES ON AGW AND WORKS TO REDUCE GAS EMISSIONS.Its over.Climate change skeptics have outlived their usefulness to the fossil fuel industry.Climate deniers are like those japanese soldiers who was unaware that the war had ended 60 years ago.GCI is a voluntary, CEO-led initiative which aims to lead the industry response to climate change. Launched in 2014, OGCI is currently made up of ten oil and gas companies that pool expert knowledge and collaborate on action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Oil and Gas Climate InitiativeEven the oil giants can now foresee the end of the gasoline age10. CONSENSUS UPDATE:“The consensus did not arise from a vote or a gathering. It speaks to the evidence. They came to a consensus based upon multiple independent lines of evidence converged to support AGW.”Human caused climate changes has been verified by almost every nation-state today in some form; why is everyone standing behind it? Because the science is easily attainable and verified – and supported by 99% of climate scientists, with the rest having no single, coherent and verified an alternative theory. You can check the data and the science right now if you want to.Evidence for man-made global warming hits ‘gold standard’:Scientists are 99.9999 percent sure humans caused climate changeGlobal warming is settled science, but what does that mean?Every scientific body, org and institution of the world, every National Academy of Sciences of the world, every government, over 99% of the peer reviewed papers + most oil companies ALL agree on AGW theory.The following are 198 scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:List of Worldwide Scientific OrganizationsScientific consensus: Earth's climate is warmingMembers of the National Academy of Sciences Publish Open Letter On Climate ChangeProfessor Granger Morgan joined 375 other members of the National Academy of Sciences, including 30 Nobel laureates, to publish an open letter meant to draw attention to the serious risks of climate change.Read it and decide for yourself:Members of the National Academy of Sciences Publish Open Letter On Climate Change - Engineering and Public Policy - College of Engineering - Carnegie Mellon UniversityOn the final day of the at the 65th Nobel Laureate Meeting, 36 Nobel laureates signed the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change, an emphatic appeal for climate protection, stating that “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions” In the months thereafter, 35 additional laureates joined the group of supporters of the declaration.As of February 2016, a total of 76 Nobel laureates endorse the Mainau Declaration 2015.Latest nov 2019:"'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts""there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades"https://www.theguardian.com/…/scientific-consensus-on-human…Neukom et al 2019 - No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common EraNo evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions,” said Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London.Many studies confirms the 97% + consensus:Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.Jo, det store flertallet av verdens klimaforskere er enige om at mennesket påvirker klimaetBONUS:The smear attack on the 97% Cook et al debunked.Just because a paper on natural science does not mention or “confirm” the planet is a globe, this does not mean natural scientists thinks the planet is flat.Also, very few papers in physics research confirms gravity. This does not mean that gravity theory is weak among physicists.The point is that not all studies on climate matters are necessarily about climate change, and whether or not it’s man-made. Thus, is not natural to count such studies in if you do a survey on how many papers supports the AGW theory. You need to look at the papers which is addressing the particular question.“What the Cook et al. paper did was examine 11,944 abstracts from papers that were published from 1991 to 2011 that included the words “global climate change” or “global warming” in their abstract. What they found after analysing these abstracts is that among those that expressed a position on global warming, 97% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.The researchers broke their meta-analysis into two parts. In the first part, they used their own methodology to categorize the population of abstracts. In the second phase, they actually reached out to the authors of the papers themselves, asking them directly whether their paper endorsed the consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Both the third-party and self-rated methods returned a figure in excess of 97%.Thus,They […] contacted 8,547 authors to ask if they could rate their own papers and got 1,200 responses, which meant that 2,142 papers were also rated by their authors on their endorsement level. The results for this again found that 97% of the selected papers stated that humans are causing global warming.That is, the second phase of the study served as a check on their own methodology, and ended up validating their result.This was done to determine that there wasn’t any sort of inherent problem in the rating system used and this seems to indicate that.97% Climate consensus ‘denial’: the debunkers again not debunked - Real SkepticRebutting Climate Denial, One Source at a TimeON THE CONSENSUS:In actuality, the science of AGW is apolitical, being based on credible evidence and physics. The denial of climate science, is based on no credible evidence and no physics, and is all-political. It’s the Denial for profir movement who is activist and political , not the science of climate science.In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.Consilience - WikipediaThe research gives us very unequivocally and clear data from a number of scientific fields, which, individually and together, come to the same conclusion: since the 1950s, humans ARE the main cause of nearly all of climate change. These are not forecasts, hints or models. These are OBSERVED data from pollen, rings, ice cores, corals, glaciers, polar ice melt, sea level rise, ocean temperatures, ecological changes, the CO2 level in the atmosphere, the indisputable temperature rise globally.Thus,The consensus did not arise from a vote or a gathering. It speaks to the evidence. They came to a consensus based upon multiple independent lines of evidence converged to support AGW.Scientists are working on the details and are improving the knowledge database every day. New finding and corrections are happening on a daily basis. This is science at work, it doesn’t mean the main theory is wrong.“Science is never 100% settled - science is about narrowing uncertainty. Different areas of science are understood with varying degrees of certainty. For example, we have a lower understanding of the effect of aerosols while we have a high understanding of the warming effect of carbon dioxide. Poorly understood aspects of climate change do not change the fact that a great deal of climate science is well understood.”The scientific method does not produce, nor is meant to produce, absolute truths and knowledge, but increased knowledge.Such is the case - and so it must be - in climate research as for all other research. Major theories are generally always based on a large amount of smaller scientific findings. Because these little discoveries are made through the implementation of the scientific method, they makes the major scientific theories so robust and credible. In other words, there are infinite many filters, tests, corrections and objections until one gets a conclusion.That humans contribute most to climate change with our C02 emissions is such a conclusion.“Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.The theory of gravity is not “settled” either, but it will be regarded as settled until we see apples falling upwards.The opinion of any single individual scientist is irrelevant. Consensus matters in science. You will find individual scientist who dispute Einsteins Theory of General Relativity and that’s fine. That’s how science works, but the consensus holds until the evidence convinces otherwise.“deniers perceive the spectrum of scientific agreement as divided into two unequal parts: perfect consensus and no consensus at all. Any departure from 100 percent agreement is categorized as a lack of agreement, which is misinterpreted as indicating fundamental controversy in the field.”[…] climate change skeptics jump from the realization that we do not completely understand all climate-related variables to the inference that we have no reliable knowledge at all.The thinking error at the root of science denialNirvana fallacy:Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and discounting or even dismissing the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard. Ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason.Nirvana FallacyHOW DO THE IPCC WORK?When the IPCC publishes its reports, it is based on a review of all relevant scientific work published in the peer-reviewed journals. There are thousands of articles.These are summarized in comprehensive reports which are then sent on a public hearing.About 3,000 experts and authorities from over 100 countries participate in the work. In addition, anyone who wants it can register and provide input.In other words, this is not an echo chamber. On the contrary, great emphasis has been placed on openness and involvement of different voices, across geography, social sectors and over time. During the preparation of the fifth report, 142,631 comments were received. The senders are everything from researchers via interested lay people to climate skeptics. The IPCC is committed to assessing and responding to all input. Both comments and answers will remain openly available afterwards on the IPCC Working Group I website.The skeptics say that the results must be double-checked and uncertainty must be narrowed before measures are to be implemented. This sounds reasonable enough - but when scientific results are presented to policy makers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quadruple-checked.When climate skeptics point out that individual studies show that climate change is not man-made, it is thus works that have already been taken up and evaluated against the rest of the literature. On the contrary, repeated criticism has made the knowledge tested from countless angles, with the result that the main conclusions have become more robust.Climate knowledge has improved.If climate skeptics nevertheless want to make studies that aim to disprove what has been stated, they have, in line with all other researchers, the opportunity to compete for research assignments and publish their findings in scientific publications.And for the sake of clearify:One (1) study, a new hypothesis, is not proof of anything. New hypotheses must be able to be recreated by others through new experiments, which may confirm them. Or improve them. Or reject them. It is only when there are many, often hundreds of studies that support each other and improve each other and converge to the same result, that we can talk about new knowledge.It is precisely such studies that form the basis of the IPCC's collection. This is knowledge that has withstood the test of time. Which has been tested and retested hundreds, if not thousands of times with the same result. When someone comes up with a study that claims, for example, that C02 can't explain the warming we're seeing today, it's like trying to replace a stone, at the bottom of a complete pyramid, with a new stone that simply can't fit because then the pyramid would not be finished in the first place. Such studies are immediately pulverized by the overwhelming body of evidence that states that CO2 causes heating.Studies that fail testing and filtering through The Scientific Method remain alone, a hypothesis rejected by better science. You cannot overlook the 99.99% other studies that find a different conclusion.It goes without saying that there will not be many "major revolutionary discoveries" in the physical sciences. Climate science is a physical science that has been filtered through the Scientific Method for nearly 200 years. The basic physics behind the greenhouse effect is very well understood. New discoveries and improvements will of course come where there are still unanswered questions, such as the role of aerosols in the climate system.So no, the skeptical papers are not overlooked or censored or their authors frozen out by the IPCC or others. These papers just simply do not measure up.The brutal truth:“The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.“It's a lot easier for someone to claim they've been suppressed than to admit that maybe they can't find the scientific evidence to support their political ideology that requires them to reject climate solutions and, to be consistent, 150 years of solid, peer-reviewed science, too.”“But over the last 10 years, at least 38 papers were published in peer-reviewed journals, each claiming various reasons why climate wasn't changing, or if it was, it wasn't humans, or it wasn't bad. They weren't suppressed. They're out there, where anyone can find them.”“So we took those papers and - thanks to the superhuman efforts of my colleague Rasmus Benestad - recalculated all their analyses. From scratch.”“And you know what we found?“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus.”Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawedHere’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | Dana NuccitelliNordmann avslørte klimaskeptikernes feilSUMMARY:“There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming, Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.”“For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. (Creationists have the same problem overturning evolutionary theory.) This they have not done.”What any opponent to the science needs to do to refute AGW is to prove one or more of the following:Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not absorb infra red radiation.Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are not increasing dramatically.Increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are not due to human activities.There are natural sources to the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that supersede the human contribution.Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong11. Links to hot topic issues:A history lesson - The Greenhouse effectRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How long have we known about the greenhouse effect?The climate has always changed and it’s a natural cycle babble:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Considering that the Earth has always warmed and cooled naturally, do you believe that human actions are mainly responsible for present-day accelerated global warming? Why/why not?Science fundingRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is scientific research generally more funded by government or the private sector?The “It’s a leftist hoax” nonsense:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to For those that believe climate change is a conspiracy, what is the expected gain of those who created or promulgated the conspiracy?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to The right wing believes that global warming is a hoax put on by the left. What do they believe is the left wing's motive?Who gains from funding the denial machine movement?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Who gains from funding the climate change denial movement?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to For those that believe climate change is a conspiracy, what is the expected gain of those who created or promulgated the conspiracy?It’s the Sun and Cosmic rays stupid:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is the following claim true: High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds? What does it mean for us during the upcoming Grand Minimum that is known to increase cosmic ray?The Grand Solar Minimun and next Ice age nonsense:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why are some scientists so confident that a solar minimum won't have much of an effect Earth due to man-made global warming?The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why are the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age ignored in mainstream stories about climate change today?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What was the cause of the Roman warming period since industry was nil compared to today?The “climate has changed before” and ice ages explained:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How many ice ages have we had? How many temperate ages have we had?The what lags what explained::Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Does the CO2 level rise precede or follow the temperature rise?For climate models and climate sensitivity:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How accurate have climate change predictions been in the past?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why have the IPCC removed the following statement from the record: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible."?For C02s bad effect on plant life:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why does the increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have ill effects on life?For AGW and extreme weathers:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is there a correlation between the increase in the natural hazard events to the climate change?For the “pause” there never was:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Climate-change skeptics keep claiming global temperatures have not gone up in the last 17 years, while advocates constantly claim global temperatures are still on a rapid upward trajectory. Who is telling the truth?On wind turbines:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Do wind turbines really kill 1000s of birds?For sea level rise:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is the sea levels on all oceans rising?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to When confronted with the fact that sea levels have been rising since the last ice age, they call me a troll. Why?Global warming effect on oceans:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How does global warming affect the oceans?Why people dont believe in CC:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why are some reasons for why people don’t believe in climate change?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Have you learned anything from participating in the climate change debate?Why do some christians deny climate change?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why do some Christians deny global warming?On carbon taxes:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is a carbon tax good or bad?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is anyone worried that carbon taxes will punish the lower & middle classes while failing to have any impact on the climate?The French riot nonsense debunked:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Are global warming activists disappointed that Macron suspended the fuel tax after riots in Paris? Do you still believe fuel taxes will have any effect on the climate?On the record low polar ice:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Which glaciers are significantly retreating due to global warming?Polar Bears and global warmingRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why has the news on Polar Bears dried up? They were the poster child of global warming.The 70s cooling myth debunked:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What happened to the new Ice Age that the scientists predicted in the 1970s? Now they say we have a global warming. Which is true, and how do we know?The Al Gore fallacies:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How well have Al Gore’s global warming predictions held up over the years?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How much has Al Gore’s wealth increased since he became an advocate for man made, global warming/climate change awareness?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why is Al Gore mocked for his teaching about climate change?Smear campaigns debunks:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What was the fallout of the Climate change e-mail scandal?The Global warming / Climate change schtick.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why is 'Climate change' apparently acceptable whereas 'Global warming' isn't?Volcanos:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How much volcanoe eruptions contribute to global warming?The 3-4% myth:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Human activity is responsible for 3% of CO2. How is it possible that 3% has more influence than 97%?The Heartland fake experts:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Are there any prominent and well-respected scientists who do not believe in climate change?The only scientists caught cheating on climate science matters are all contrarians:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What are some of the worst cases of academic fraud? What can we do to prevent this?The catastrophic straw man:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why does everyone believe that global catastrophic risk also known as end of the world is real but it's not?That idiot Oregon petition debunked:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Would 31,000+ scientists signing a petition rejecting climate change as unscientific, be considered a consensus?The overpopulation myth:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is climate change/global warming the by-product of overpopulation?Polar Vortex.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What is causing the polar vortex 2019?The 12 years nonsense.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims that "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change". What do you think about this claim?The 2nd law and Henrys law explained:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What is the relationship between thermodynamic and greenhouse effect?11. LINKS:[1] The Keeling Curve[2] U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014 | US EPA[3] U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI): Introduction[4] Global Carbon Project : Homepage[5] 2016 was the hottest year on record[6] Global Climate Report - Annual 2016[7] Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets[8] U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI): Introduction[9] Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Temperature | US EPA[10] National Snow and Ice Data Center[11] West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster[12] Current State of the Sea Ice Cover[13] PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis[14] https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/...[15] CU Sea Level Research Group[16] Global Average Absolute Sea Level Change, 1880-2014[17] Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v4[18] Sea Surface Temperature[19] Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature | US EPA[20] The National Academies PressLINKS TO THE PEER REVIEWED PAPERS:The Database of Environmental Change • Independent intelligence on the what's influencing environmental change world-wide, and the implications.General papers on AGWPapers on climate science historyPapers on climate sensitivity estimatesQUALITY SCIENCE SOURCES:Forside - CICEROBjerknessenteret for klimaforskninghttp://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...State of the ClimateAR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014Homepage | CopernicusA Science & News OrganizationRealClimateA Science & News OrganizationHome | Carbon BriefScience news and science articles from New Scientisthttps://www.met.no/vaer-og-klima/kl...Climate NewsHomeSCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: Homehttp://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index...https://www.skepticalscience.com/Welcome to the Royal Society | Royal SocietyQuality controlled blogs:Global WarmingDeSmogHotWhopperOpen MindThe Dake PageWhat'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.Wott's Up With That?the Climate Denier ListClimate Denial Crock of the WeekDebunking Denialism | Fighting pseudoscience and quackery with reason and evidence.MORE:ScienceDirectCO₂ and other Greenhouse Gas Emissionshttps://www.c2es.org/facts-figures/international-emissions/historicalhttps://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdfThe Keeling CurveRising Global Temperatures and CO2the consensus projecthttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/War_on_Sciencehttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_beforeJo, det store flertallet av verdens klimaforskere er enige om at mennesket påvirker klimaetScientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming"some websites are instructive either as examples to follow or in highlighting key arguments...Skeptical Science reflects the views of an international group of technically minded individuals who look critically at climate-change scepticism"https://www.nature.com/news/why-researchers-should-resolve-to-engage-in-2017-1.21236https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/?fbclid=IwAR2hfDwrTBtwZj18g3J9Sdwq-uZVOnp56tHoD0HJFSkuYHGtXwsTr4qXw7AI will block trolls and spammers and the climate deniers.Michael Barnard's answer to Should rational Quora users engage with science deniers, or should they block and mute deniers, delete deniers' comments, and report or downvote deniers' questions and answers?

What is it like to be a professor at Berkeley?

For the right person, it is the best job in the world. Half of my time is spent teaching, and not only is that a joy (for some of us!) but it tends to polish my knowledge and understanding of elementary physics. That has proven important for my changes in research. I created a new course "Physics for Future Presidents" that was ultimately voted by the students to be the "best class on campus."A professor at a research university is expected to spend half of his/her time in research. Having tenure, I get to work on whatever I want. I regard that as a responsibility, not as an honor; I feel I should work on projects that people without tenure could not. So, for example, I moved from particle physics to astrophysics (I created a cosmic microwave project and a supernova search project, at times when they were not being widely pursued); I created research projects in geophysics (causes of the Earth's spin flip); invented a better way to obtain radiocarbon dates; and recently moved into the study of global warming and air pollution (at a time when no other physics professor at Berkeley was working in those fields). Without tenure, I never could have moved so radically from one field to another.Not every Berkeley professor takes tenure as a responsibility. But my mentor, Luis Alvarez, did -- and I feel that I am following his example. Only in a job like this can I really have freedom to pursue research (and new teaching ideas) in ways that I consider best.Professor of Physics at Berkeley Charles Townes, now 99 years old, was told by his dean and by his Department Chair when he was at Columbia University to abandon his (they thought) wasteful research on his maser/laser idea. He told them he wouldn't; he had tenure and could decide himself. And the result, of course, was the laser and all the wonderful things it does. Just another example that inspires me.Tenure should not be expected; it should be granted carefully, only to those who the University thinks would be better off if they were completely in charge of their own direction. It is not a reward; it is not a privilege; it is a responsibility.

Is global warming a hoax?

John Tyndall proved in 1859 that several gases trapped heat in the atmosphere. CO2 was one, and we've raised the level enough to produce the impacts we are now seeing."During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW."Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous"2016 was the hottest year in 137 years of record keeping and the third year in a row to take the number one slot, a mark of how much the world has warmed over the last century because of human activities" states NASA and NOAA2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record"Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001."http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/And from the World Meteorological Organization:http://www.wmo.int/media/content/record-global-temperatures-and-high-impact-weather-and-climate-extremeU.S. military statements:DoD Releases Report on Security Implications of Climate Changehttp://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdfhttp://web.ornl.gov/sci/knowledgediscovery/Langley/docs/Langley_Air_Force_Base2.pd"We see the rising sea levels and flooding events,” said Capt. Dean VanderLey, who oversees Navy infrastructure in the mid-Atlantic region. “We have a responsibility to prepare for the future. We don’t have the luxury of just burying our heads in the sand.” W.J. Hennigan, Los Angeles Times, Nov 11, 2016Here's another 197 legitimate science organizations worldwide who write about it: List of OrganizationsThe Kiribati People Battle Sea Level Rise [Slide Show]Rising SeasSea Level RiseInfographic: Sea Level Rise and Global WarmingStudy: Sea level rise is accelerating worldwideGlobal Climate Change http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7535/full/nature14093.htmlScientists: Global Sea Level Rise Happening, UnavoidableOn Thursday, U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced a new report revealing that three-quarters of 276 national parks are experiencing an earlier onset of spring. Half of the parks studied are experiencing “extreme” early springs.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/climate-change-national-parks-early-spring/Arctic areas are now experiencing dramatic weather change:Arctic Challenges"Melting Permafrost Could Affect Weather Worldwide"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/melting-permafrost-could-affect-weather-worldwide/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_ENGYSUS_NEWShttps://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.htmlhttp://climate.nasa.gov/news/958/http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/ArcticMatters.pdfExxon Arctic Drilling Benefitting From Global Warming: Oil Company Denied Climate Change Science While Factoring It Into Arctic Operations, Report Showshttp://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global-ice-viewer/#/37,000 underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in ArcticCountries have recently reported record temperatures, such as Iran's 129 degrees:It was 129 degrees in Iran Thursday, which is one of the Earth's hottest temperatures ever recordedIndia recorded 124 degrees: "India recorded its highest-ever temperature on Thursday when the heat in the town of Phalodi, in the western state of Rajasthan, shot up to a burning 51 degrees Celsius (123.8 degrees Fahrenheit)."India records its highest ever temperatureIndia 2016, 330 million people have extreme water shortage, and it will get far worse:https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/apr/27/india-drought-migrants-heagd-to-cities-in-desperate-search-for-waterVery soon, there are going to be approaching well over 1.7 billion people on this planet with no water."The Hindu Kush, Karakoram, and Himalaya (HKKH) mountain ranges feed the most important Asian river systems, providing water to about 1.5 billion people."Snowpack Changes in the Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalaya from CMIP5 Global Climate Models and:"Since the mid-1970s, the area covered by glaciers in Peru’s Cordillera de Vilcanota range has nearly halved"https://www.newscientist.com/article/2108455-ancient-andes-glaciers-have-lost-half-their-ice-in-just-40-years/"In 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age, there were an estimated 150 glaciers in the area that is now Glacier Park. By 1968, these had been reduced to around 50. Today the number of glaciers in the park is 25, and this is occurring worldwide":Glacier National Park (U.S. National Park Service)"During the PETM [time period] temperatures rose by as much as 8 °C (over 14F) and geological evidence suggests that the effect on Earth’s life was tremendous. Massive extinction events ensued both on land and in the seas, accompanied by massive mammal migration to northern, friendlier climates. Polar ice melted completely and sea levels rose dramatically all around the globe, with effects being felt for at least 200,000 years." "even with these changes, many researchers believe today's man-made changes surpass anything we’ve seen during PETM. As a result, the consequences will also be more dramatic. Just earlier this year, a study led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii found that humans are now pumping carbon into the atmosphere 10 times faster than whatever natural forces drove the PETM." The key thoughts here are that many researchers believe that our changes from AGW will result in even more severe climate change than occurred then. We're apparently going to commit suicide instead of making a serious attempt to change.http://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/collision-petm-climate-change-14102016/?utm_source=ZME+Science+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b903ab3882-ZME_Science_Daily3_6_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3b5aad2288-b903ab3882-242599825&ct=t(ZME_Science_Daily11_8_2014)"one-fifth to half of the airborne CO2 released by human industry so far and in the next 100 years will still be present in the atmosphere by the year 3000. Combine CO2 persistence with the inertia of seas and it can mean sea level rise might go on at least 10 or more millennia—the unimaginable." "adding 5 degrees F of warming is very imaginable, given current trends of increasing CO2. So it is reasonable to imagine seas 60 feet higher. That would render all of Florida a memory, almost all of New York City, much of the Eastern seaboard, parts of the Western U.S. and Gulf Coasts"https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/exposed-the-climate-fallacy-of-2100/?WT.mc_id=SA_ENGYSUS_20161020

Why Do Our Customer Select Us

easy to navigate & fill in the forms that I use for our business

Justin Miller