Ocean Dynamics And Prediction Oceanography: Fill & Download for Free

Get to know your Bat Facts.He’s a fan of The Clashhe’s spawned the most dark worlds in the Multiversedescribed as perfect by some peopleconsistently has kept track of his own painholds the rank of “esquire”He has a net worth of $30 Trillion and is the 2nd richest man in DC (behind Aquaman)—->Noah Heraman's answer to Who are the top 5 richest comic book characters in both Marvel and DC?He’s documented as the greatest tactician on the planethe’s the 2nd smartest man in DCBeing a comic book peak human he’s stronger than the strongest man alive and faster than the fastest man alivefor strength the worlds greatest bench press record as of 2020, was set by American Julius Maddox at 349 kg (770 lb). The current world equipped record (with shirt) is held by Will Barotti, at 501 kg (1,105 lb).Batman doubles that weight lifting over 2000lbs.—->Ezra Eastling's answer to Physically, how strong is Batman?for speed, the fastest anyone has run is about 27½ miles per hour, a speed reached (briefly) by sprinter Usain Bolt (WHOSE THE FASTEST MAN IN THE WORLD) just after the midpoint of his world-record 100-meter dash in 2009. This speed limit probably is not imposed by the strength of our bones and tendons.according to this Batman can do much better.He was once placed in a never ending gauntlet during his world wide training regimen, where he fought in a pit for 28 hours and the gauntlet stopped when everybody was too afraid to even face himhe has mastered all fighting arts/combat forms and was once dubbed the worlds most skilled combatanthe has perfect knowledge in all things except pop culturehe’s gone over a day without sleephe knows 463 ways to incapacitate someone without drawing bloodhe has a will power that even Green Lantern envyshe’s an expert in all scientific disciplines includingAbnormal Psychology – study of unusual patterns of behavior, emotion and thoughtAcoustics – science of soundAerobiology – study of airborne organismsAerodynamics – dynamics of gases; science of movement in a flow of air or gasAeronautics – study of navigation through air or spaceAerospace Engineering-development of aircraft and spacecraftAgrobiology – study of plant nutrition; soil yieldsAgronomics – study of productivity of landAnesthesiology – study of anestheticAnalytical Chemistry – study and use of instruments and methods to separate, identify, and quantify matterAnatomy – study of the structure of the bodyAnthropology – study of human culturesApplied Physics- study of physics to solve human problemsArachnology – study of arachnidsArchaeology – study of human material remainsAstrobotany – study of plants in spaceAstrogeology – study of extraterrestrial geologyAstronomy – study of celestial bodiesAstrophysics – study of behaviour of interstellar matterAtlantean BiologyAvionics – science of electronic devices for aircraftAxiology – science of the ultimate nature of valueBibliotics – study of documents to determine authenticityBiology – study of lifeBiochemistry – study of chemical processes within and relating to living organismBioengineering - study of biology and engineering to produce economically viable productsBiometrics – study of biological measurement for security purposesBionomics – study of organisms interacting in their environmentsBiophysics - study of biological phenomenaBotany – study of plantsCardiology – study of the heartCartography – science of making maps and globesCell Biology – study of the different structures and functions of both eukaryote and prokaryote cellsChaology – study of chaos or chaos theoryChemical EngineeringChemistry – study of properties and behaviours of substancesChronobiology – study of biological rhythmsChronology - study of timeClimatology – study of climateCosmology – study of the universeCriminology – study of crime; criminalsCryobiology – study of life under cold conditionsCryptology – study of codesDemography – study of populationDermatology – study of skinDiplomatics – science of deciphering ancient writings and textsEcology – study of environmentEconomics – study of material wealth (production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services)Egyptology – study of ancient EgyptElectrical Engineering - study, design and application of equipment, devices and systems which use electricity, electronics, and electromagnetism.Electrochemistry – study of relations between electricity and chemicalsEnergetics – study of energy under transformationEntomology – study of insectsEpidemiology – study of diseases; epidemicsEpistemology – study of grounds of knowledgeEscapology – study of freeing oneself from constraintsEthnology – study of culturesEthology – study of natural or biological characterEtymology – study of origins of wordsExobiology – study of extraterrestrial lifeFinance – science or study of money managementForensic Science - application of science to criminal justiceGenealogy – study of descent of familiesGeography – study of surface of the earth and its inhabitantsGeology – study of the rocks of a planetGeotechnics – study of increasing habitability of the earthGerontology - study of the social, cultural, psychological, cognitive, and biological aspects of ageing.Glaciology – study of ice ages and glaciationGynecology – study of women’s physiologyHarmonics – study of musical acousticsHelioseismology – study of sun's interior by observing its surface oscillationsHematology – study of bloodHeredity – study of passing of traits from parents to offspringHierology – science of sacred mattersHorology – science of time measurementHorticulture – study of gardeningHydrobiology – study of aquatic organismsHydrodynamics – study of movement in liquidsHydro Kinetics – study of motion of fluidsHygienics – study of sanitation; healthIconography – study of drawing symbolsIconology – study of icons; symbolsIdeology – science of ideas; system of ideas used to justify behaviorInter-dimensional TransportationInterstellar TransportationKinematics – study of motionKinesiology – study of human movement and postureKinetics – study of forces producing or changing motionKryptonian BiologyKryptonian MythologyLexicology – study of words and their meaningsLinguistics – study of languageMagnetics – study of magnetismMammalogy – study of mammalsMarine Biology– Study of the Oceans EcosystemMartian BiologyMartian MythologyMathematics – study of magnitude, number, and formsMechanics – study of action of force onMechanical Engineering - design, construction, and use of machinesMetallurgy – study of alloying and treating metalsMetaphysics – study of principles of nature and thoughtMetapsychology – study of nature of the mindMeteorology – study of weatherMicro-Anatomy – study of microscopic tissuesMicrobiology – study of microscopic organismsMycology - study of fungiMythology – study of myths; fables; talesNanotechnology – manipulation of matter on an atomic, molecular, and supramolecular scaleNeurobiology – study of anatomy of the nervous system Neurochemistry - study of the effect of neurochemicals on the nervous systemNeurology – study of nervous systemNeuropsychology – study of relation between brain and behavior Neuroscience - study of the nervous systemNew God MythologyNoology – science of the intellect Norse MythologyOceanography – study of oceansOphthalmology – study of eye diseasesOptics – study of lightOptometry – science of examining the eyesPaleontology – study of fossilsParapsychology – study of unexplained mental phenomenaPathology – study of diseasePharmacology – study of drugsPhilosophy – science of knowledge or wisdomPhysics – study of properties of matter and energyPhysiology – study of processes of lifePodiatry – study and treatment of disorders of the foot; chiropodyPolitical Science - study of government systemsPsychology – study of mindPyrotechnics – study of combustion through fire or explosionsQuantum Chemistry - application of quantum mechanics in physical models and experiments of chemical systems.Quantum Computing - study of quantum computationQuantum Mechanics – a fundamental theory in physics which describes nature at the smallest scales of energy levels of atoms and subatomic particles.Quantum Physics - study of quantum theoryRadiochemistry – study of ordinary chemical reactions under radioactive circumstancesRadiology – study of X-rays and their medical applicationsRheology – science of the deformation or flow of matterRheumatology – study of rheumatismRobotics – deals with the designing, construction, and operation of robots.Seismology – study of earthquakesSemantics – study of meaningSerology – study of serumsSociobiology – study of biological basis of human behaviourSociology – study of society Spectroscopy - study of the interaction between matter and electromagnetic radiationStatics – study of bodies and forces in equilibriumSupramolecular Chemistry – study of the chemistry of assembled molecular sub-unitsSyntax – study of sentence structureSystematics – study of the diversification of living forms, both past and presentTaxonomy - classification of biological organismsTectonics – science of structure of objects, buildings and landformsTemporal Manipulation/Navigation - study of time travelThanatology – study of death and its customsTheoretical Physics - employment of mathematical abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomenaThermodynamics – study of relation of heat to motionTopology – study of places and their natural featuresToxicology – study of poisonsTypography – art of printing or using typeUrology – study of urine; urinary tractVirology – study of virusesWorld History - study of world historyZoology – study of animalsHe has mastered every single weapon in the worldHe has been considered MetaAnd as for other interesting facts on Batman.Sources:—->Ezra Eastling's answer to What is something Batman can do that Superman can't?—->Biographicalfor more interesting Bat-Fax:—->20 Mind-Blowing Facts Didn't Know About Batman | Batman, Happy friends, Calvin and hobbes—->17 Batman Facts You (Probably) Didn't Know - IGNmake sure to share your thoughts and opinions down in the comments section, as well as like, share, thank, and upvote this answer if you appreciate this answer.if you didn’t.and until next time guys.take care.

Before we start I researched all of this extensively and if you have beef with the answer, check the comments. I probably already explained to someone else.Superman can’t fluently read, write, and understand: English, French, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Mandarin, Cantonese, Filipino, Korean, Arabic, Turkish, Polish, German, Latin, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Hebrew, Thai, Vietnamese, Swedish, Swahili, Tibetan, Eskimo, Farsi, Romani, Hindi, Ancient Greek, Themiscyrian(Greek dialect), Kryptonian, Atlantean and loads of others. Also understands ASL and Morse code.Superman doesn’t have a 300+ IQ. Bruce Wayne does not have a 192–210 IQ. STOP READING FANDOM!!!!! Don’t try to belittle this point. You’ll see me repeatedly bringing up characters that people have generally accepted as more intelligent than Batman to put his real intelligence into perspective. If, at the end of this answer, you recall/believe that any of the smartest people in the real world such as Ainan Celeste Cawley purported, IQ of 263, Terence Tao, IQ of 230, Christopher Hirata, IQ of 225, Kim Ung-Yong, IQ of 210, Sho Yano, IQ of 200, Evangelos Katsioulis, IQ of 198, Christopher Langan, IQ of 195–210, and Garry Kasparov, IQ of 194, are capable of at least 10% of the feats on this list accomplished by Batman, I’ll accept his IQ as 194–263. That being said, he made his own version of a Mother-Box called Son Box(which is potentially 6th-Dimensional) that can read hearts and rewrite someones entire being cell by cell. A Mother-Box is a 4th-Dimensional sentient hyper-computer (possessing Knowledge Projection, Gravity Manipulation, Emotional Control, Telepathy, Health Manipulation, Boom-Tube Generation, Machine Animation/Control/Evolution, Life Support, and Matter/Energy Manipulation) designed to assist and inform 4th-Dimensional deities, whose understanding and mastery of science is so advanced that we comprehend it as magic. Much more sophisticated than a love-feeling A.I. like J.A.R.V.I.S. Batman’s tech rewrites a being cell by cell, meanwhile Reed Richards struggles to revert Ben Grimm back into his human form time and again.Also Reed Richards does NOT have an IQ of 267. If you still believed that up until I mentioned it, you have not the credence nor the perception nor the contextual awareness to refute any of my claims. In the comic where that was written: 1. It was Ultimate Reed a.k.a. the Maker, in question and 2. It said he had a 267 IQ at age 16. Divide 267 by 16 and you get 16.6875. Take that times 18 which is the age most would agree your development significantly slows intellectually, physically, and mentally and you get 300.375, meaning the writer was hoping you would catch on to what he intended Ultimate Reeds IQ to be: 300. Given that 616 Reed seemed to be easily more intelligent than The Maker, we’ll put him at 300+.Bruce Wayne conceived the Hellbat Armor, which was made of a material that needed to be FORGED IN THE SUN(core temps of 27 million°F/ 15 Million°C) and managed to strike hard enough to draw blood from Darkseid without yielding(and go toe-to-toe with a Kryptonian-like being without Kryptonite or red solar radiation).a feat that most likely supersedes the power of adamantium and vibranium, considering the likelihood of Wolverine and Black Panther being completely incinerated upon entering the core of the sun. Then there’s the Insider Suit, which he created to scope out the state of Gotham in his absence.The suit could mimic Superman’s heat vison, the concussive blast of Green Lantern’s ring, had a lasso that issued an electric charge and doubled as a lie detector, had an invisibility mode akin to Martian Manhunter, possessed flight, could tap into the speed force for enhanced speed, and could teleport via Justice League systems(that he created).He also created the Son Box suit out of the aforementioned Son Box, capable of injuring 6th-Dimensional entities and built with the 6th-Dimensional version of Superman in mind.This is in comparison to Tony Stark’s likely most powerful armors(he did NOT create the GodKiller, he merely commandeered it): the Mark 51 (an amalgam of the EndoSym, Bleeding Edge, Hulkbuster, and all other armors ever created)and the Iron All-Father Armor made for Odinand Reeds crowning armor: the Anti-Galactus Armorall of which could, at their very best, hold their own against 4th-Dimensional beings, nothing greater. I want to point out the fact that Bruce RARELY ever builds a specialized suit or armor, yet, whenever he does, they seem to effortlessly eclipse the bulk of Tony’s armored arsenal. Not to mention the Justice Buster that was capable of taking on the entire Justice League(Superman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Aquaman, Green Lantern) or every suit on this list plus the Dark Knight suit that is capable of not only drawing blood from Superman, but of killing him too. All the while I’ve never seen a suit of armor from ANY Marvel character take on the likes of Sentry or Blue Marvel(Superman clones). This is simply to highlight the natural aptitude of Bruce Wayne. All too often you hear “Tony’s smarter than Bruce”, “Reed is smarter than Bruce”, but look at the evidence: battle armors are Tony’s forte and it took him 50+ years to create these crowning achievements that Bruce Wayne topped on a whim simply because he felt like personally attending to the downfall of a villain. Another example of his intellect: a middle aged Reed Richards once created life, but it was single celled and only lived for a few seconds:While a 15 year old Lex Luthor created protoplasmic life that terrorized an entire town until a young Clark Kent stopped it. 15!!!And guess who routinely outthinks Lex Luthor? Guess who noticed something that Brainic 5 missed?Imgur Guess who regularly out-processes solar powered Kryptonians, Martians, and Flash’s, all of whom think at faster than light speeds? Who has created a never ending supply of clones of himself for Gotham?Who built an artificial version of Alfred that instantly had the indistinguishable mental and emotional dimensions of a human without needing years to evolve to that point like J.A.R.V.I.S.? Who created an A.I. that was capable of all of this(Respect Brother EYE and the OMACs (DC, Post Crisis))? You know who.He also: Created shrinking tech, easily making him Hank Pyms equal in engineering. Imgur; Built a time machine Imgur3. Superman isn’t a master of ALL forms of martial arts(225+, not 127).4. Superman is not an Omnidisciplinary Scientist (expert knowledge in all scientific disciplines, i.e., Bruce Wayne, Reed Richards, Lex Luthor, Victor von Doom, Brainiac, The High Evolutionary, possibly: T’Challa, Tony Stark, Bruce Banner, Thanos, Darkseid, Galactus, Mister Terrific, potentially Lunella Lafayette, Valeria Richards, and Damian Wayne[heavily underestimated as well]) nor does he have verifiable Ph.D level expertise in at least 160 scientific disciplines. I personally investigated.Abnormal Psychology – study of unusual patterns of behavior, emotion and thoughtAcoustics – science of soundAerobiology – study of airborne organismsAerodynamics – dynamics of gases; science of movement in a flow of air or gasAeronautics – study of navigation through air or spaceAerospace Engineering-development of aircraft and spacecraftAgrobiology – study of plant nutrition; soil yieldsAgronomics – study of productivity of landAnesthesiology – study of anestheticAnalytical Chemistry – study and use of instruments and methods to separate, identify, and quantify matterAnatomy – study of the structure of the bodyAnthropology – study of human culturesApplied Physics- study of physics to solve human problemsArachnology – study of arachnidsArchaeology – study of human material remainsAstrobotany – study of plants in spaceAstrogeology – study of extraterrestrial geologyAstronomy – study of celestial bodiesAstrophysics – study of behaviour of interstellar matterAtlantean BiologyAvionics – science of electronic devices for aircraftAxiology – science of the ultimate nature of valueBibliotics – study of documents to determine authenticityBiology – study of lifeBiochemistry – study of chemical processes within and relating to living organismBioengineering - study of biology and engineering to produce economically viable productsBiometrics – study of biological measurement for security purposesBionomics – study of organisms interacting in their environmentsBiophysics - study of biological phenomenaBotany – study of plantsCardiology – study of the heartCartography – science of making maps and globesCell Biology – study of the different structures and functions of both eukaryote and prokaryote cellsChaology – study of chaos or chaos theoryChemical EngineeringChemistry – study of properties and behaviours of substancesChronobiology – study of biological rhythmsChronology - study of timeClimatology – study of climateCosmology – study of the universeCriminology – study of crime; criminalsCryobiology – study of life under cold conditionsCryptology – study of codesDemography – study of populationDermatology – study of skinDiplomatics – science of deciphering ancient writings and textsEcology – study of environmentEconomics – study of material wealth (production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services)Egyptology – study of ancient EgyptElectrical Engineering - study, design and application of equipment, devices and systems which use electricity, electronics, and electromagnetism.Electrochemistry – study of relations between electricity and chemicalsEnergetics – study of energy under transformationEntomology – study of insectsEpidemiology – study of diseases; epidemicsEpistemology – study of grounds of knowledgeEscapology – study of freeing oneself from constraintsEthnology – study of culturesEthology – study of natural or biological characterEtymology – study of origins of wordsExobiology – study of extraterrestrial lifeFinance – science or study of money managementForensic Science - application of science to criminal justiceGenealogy – study of descent of familiesGeography – study of surface of the earth and its inhabitantsGeology – study of the rocks of a planetGeotechnics – study of increasing habitability of the earthGerontology - study of the social, cultural, psychological, cognitive, and biological aspects of ageing.Glaciology – study of ice ages and glaciationGynecology – study of women’s physiologyHarmonics – study of musical acousticsHelioseismology – study of sun's interior by observing its surface oscillationsHematology – study of bloodHeredity – study of passing of traits from parents to offspringHierology – science of sacred mattersHorology – science of time measurementHorticulture – study of gardeningHydrobiology – study of aquatic organismsHydrodynamics – study of movement in liquidsHydro Kinetics – study of motion of fluidsHygienics – study of sanitation; healthIconography – study of drawing symbolsIconology – study of icons; symbolsIdeology – science of ideas; system of ideas used to justify behaviorInter-dimensional TransportationInterstellar TransportationKinematics – study of motionKinesiology – study of human movement and postureKinetics – study of forces producing or changing motionKryptonian BiologyKryptonian MythologyLexicology – study of words and their meaningsLinguistics – study of languageMagnetics – study of magnetismMammalogy – study of mammalsMarine Biology– Study of the Oceans EcosystemMartian BiologyMartian MythologyMathematics – study of magnitude, number, and formsMechanics – study of action of force onMechanical Engineering - design, construction, and use of machinesMetallurgy – study of alloying and treating metalsMetaphysics – study of principles of nature and thoughtMetapsychology – study of nature of the mindMeteorology – study of weatherMicro-Anatomy – study of microscopic tissuesMicrobiology – study of microscopic organismsMycology - study of fungiMythology – study of myths; fables; talesNanotechnology – manipulation of matter on an atomic, molecular, and supramolecular scaleNeurobiology – study of anatomy of the nervous system Neurochemistry - study of the effect of neurochemicals on the nervous systemNeurology – study of nervous systemNeuropsychology – study of relation between brain and behavior Neuroscience - study of the nervous systemNew God MythologyNoology – science of the intellect Norse MythologyOceanography – study of oceansOphthalmology – study of eye diseasesOptics – study of lightOptometry – science of examining the eyesPaleontology – study of fossilsParapsychology – study of unexplained mental phenomenaPathology – study of diseasePharmacology – study of drugsPhilosophy – science of knowledge or wisdomPhysics – study of properties of matter and energyPhysiology – study of processes of lifePodiatry – study and treatment of disorders of the foot; chiropodyPolitical Science - study of government systemsPsychology – study of mindPyrotechnics – study of combustion through fire or explosionsQuantum Chemistry - application of quantum mechanics in physical models and experiments of chemical systems.Quantum Computing - study of quantum computationQuantum Mechanics – a fundamental theory in physics which describes nature at the smallest scales of energy levels of atoms and subatomic particles.Quantum Physics - study of quantum theoryRadiochemistry – study of ordinary chemical reactions under radioactive circumstancesRadiology – study of X-rays and their medical applicationsRheology – science of the deformation or flow of matterRheumatology – study of rheumatismRobotics – deals with the designing, construction, and operation of robots.Seismology – study of earthquakesSemantics – study of meaningSerology – study of serumsSociobiology – study of biological basis of human behaviourSociology – study of society Spectroscopy - study of the interaction between matter and electromagnetic radiationStatics – study of bodies and forces in equilibriumSupramolecular Chemistry – study of the chemistry of assembled molecular sub-unitsSyntax – study of sentence structureSystematics – study of the diversification of living forms, both past and presentTaxonomy - classification of biological organismsTectonics – science of structure of objects, buildings and landformsTemporal Manipulation/Navigation - study of time travelThanatology – study of death and its customsTheoretical Physics - employment of mathematical abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomenaThermodynamics – study of relation of heat to motionTopology – study of places and their natural featuresToxicology – study of poisonsTypography – art of printing or using typeUrology – study of urine; urinary tractVirology – study of virusesWorld History - study of world historyZoology – study of animals

Short answer:When the planet is rapidly warming in a time when all natural factors says it should be cooling, you know something else is going on. 1 C temperature rise since 1900 is 20 times faster than when the planet came out of the last ice age. In the same period the atmospheric C02 has increased from 280 ppm up to 408 ppm (45%) because of our C02 emissions. Which means 31,4% of the atmosphere C02 is ours (128/408*100). This rise in C02 would normally take thousands of years. No natural climate changes can work this fast. So we KNOW something else is going on.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.Longer answer:“According to natural factors, we should be cooling right now, not warming. So they can’t be responsible for our current warming trend.”Climate changes we have now are 20 times faster than the climate changes we had when leaving the last ice age. No natural changes can do this.The changes are in the OPPOSITE direction to the slow cooling trend we were on. The planet should still be cooling. But we are rapidly warming.“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”.Its basic physics which follows the same principles as other laws of nature.“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.” (World known and verified Quora climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe.)The effects of today's 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 millions of years ago.The moment when natural climate change became AGW! The huge blue spike to the right. It’s that obvious.WE have changed the natural slow cooling trend. If it was “climate has always changed” and natural cycles, BOTH C02 LEVELS AND TEMPERATURE SHOULD GO DOWN NOW!!Nature does what it does. Extra carbon dioxide, extra greenhouse effect. Extra greenhouse effect, higher mean global temperature.Its not hard to spot the change of pattern;This studyClimate variations analyzed five million years back in timeshows that the interglacial periods, like the one we are in now, are ALWAYS stable. So the rapid warming we see now in the OPPOSITE direction to the natural slow cooling trend, is very very unnatural. It got human fingerprints all over it.The Hockey Stick:The 10 Hottest Global Years on RecordFor 400 Months in a Row, the Earth Has Been Warmer Than 20th Century AverageLast four years are 'world's hottest'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?The other factors can’t make all the check marks: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.CONTENTThe simple basic physics behind AGW (anthropogenic global warming)What the peer reviewed science saysThe Sun and internal variabilityAll temperature data shows the same warming trendThe Hockey stickConsensus updateLinks to hot topic answersLinksLets explain AGW in a few simple steps using only school science: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.1856: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 effect1859: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.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.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.That’s just how it is. Nature made that happen. That’s what basic physics tells us. This have been known since 1856.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 instead of + 15 degrees Celsius.It’s so trivial 5th graders can demonstrate Greenhouse effect at home: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.Roger 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?https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdfIain Stewart demonstrates a simple experiment that shows that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. Scene from BBC's 'Earth: The Climate Wars' documentary:2. 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.”https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdfThe Simple Proof of Man-Made Global Warming3. HOW DO WE KNOW ITS OUR CO2 CAUSING THE WARMING?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.How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?Global warming isn’t natural, and here’s how we knowThe carbon from burning fossil fuels have a different isotope signal (radioactivity) than C02 coming from natural sources. Its like a fingerprint. Its unique.Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2): NASA's New Carbon CounterHere’s how scientists know.“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”.“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.https://skepticalscience.com/The-human-fingerprint-in-coral.htmlhttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c1d4/d59417490007e69c9517c3f7bbbbfc851d83.pdfWhat 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.The Suess Effect is a term which has come to signify the decrease in 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 interrelationsChanges 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.pdfAdditional 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.pdfICE CORE DATA TELLS US TODAYS CO2 PPM IS THE HIGHEST FOR NEARLY 3 MILLION YEARS.“Scientists working in the Allen Hills region of Antarctica have drilled the oldest ice core ever. Dating back an estimated 2.7 million years, this ice sample is more than 1.5 million years older than any other previously recovered and the data garnered from the sample offers a rich insight into the climate of the planet millions of years ago.”“The discovery has revealed that 2.7 million years ago, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were less than 300 parts per million. This is slightly lower than some other fossil records have previously indicated, and some climate scientists have theorized that this low level of atmospheric CO2 could have been the trigger for subsequent ice ages. In comparison, our globe recently officially passed the threshold of 400 parts per million for the first time in 3.6 million years.”Oldest ice-core ever drilled dates back 2.7 million years2.7-million-year-old ice core pulled from AntarcticaFor the last 800,000 years, average global CO2 levels fluctuated between about 170 ppm and 280 ppm. Once humans started to burn fossil fuels in the industrial era, things changed rapidly.Only in the industrial era has the number risen above 300 ppm. The concentration first crept above 400 ppm in 2013, and continues to climb.Climate change evidence: How do we know?Scientists debate the last time CO2 levels were this high. It might have happened during the Pliocene era, between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, when sea levels were at least 60 to 80 feet higher than today. It may have been in the Miocene, 10 to 14 million years ago, when seas were more than 100 feet higher than now.The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t ExistIn our 800,000-year record, it took about 1,000 years for CO2 levels to increase by 35 ppm. We're currently averaging an increase of more than 2 ppm per year, meaning that we could hit an average of 500 ppm within the next 45 years, if not sooner.It’s like DNA proof in a murder investigation.The Keeling CurveC02 ppm in 1850: 280CO2 ppm in 2018: 409409 - 280 = 129( 129 / 280 ) * 100 = 46 %That’s a 46% increase of C02 because of us, which means 31,5% of the atmosphere C02 is from humans.(129 / 409 ) *100=31,5%Studies: atmospheric CO2 concentration drives climate changeOn the causal structure between CO2 and global temperatureStudies: atmospheric CO2 drives climate change ancient and modern.99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study2. WHAT THE BEST PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE 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?FACT CHECK: Does an 'Increase' in Arctic and Greenland Ice Cast Doubt on the Reality of Global Warming?COPERNICUS:Average temperatures for 2017 were higher than climatological values for 1981-2010 over virtually all of Europe.Climate in 2017 - European temperatureCAUSATION: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.”Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science BasisThe worlds most famous natural historian Sir David Attenborough:THINGS HAVE NOT CHANGED OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS50 YEARS OF US SCIENCE AND GOVERNMENTS AND PRESIDENTS COMES TO THE SAME CONCLUSION ON AGW:Trump's 2018 National Climate Assessment. ️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 SummaryRonald Reagan’s 1989 EPA REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGEPage 28: http://bit.ly/2w8YMuVPRESIDENT 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 Nuccitelli3. THE SUN 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?If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere.That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. A very clear human fingerprint.Lower troposphere temperatures are increasing:Images from Remote Sensing Systems Time Series Trend BrowserThe upper troposphere is cooling (ie less heat is escaping back into space).The higher up you go (into the stratosphere) – cooling is increasing:This phenomenon can only be attributed to the insulating effect of increasing greenhouse gases.If increased solar radiation (or other external source) was to blame for increasing temperatures, then the upper parts of our atmosphere should show increases in temperature, rather than cooling.Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). 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.”"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."Not Much Warming Under the SunGlobal warming isn’t natural, and here’s how we knowWe are not in an ice age.Here’s Why We’re Not Living in an Ice Age (And Why That Matters for the Future)Internal variabilityis 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.php/archives/2017/04/judy-currys-attribution-non-argument/#comment-677575Now 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/nclimate3353?foxtrotcallback=trueMeasurement of Oceanic Heat Flowhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0076695X08606006Summary: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 trendBoth the timing and magnitude of today’s warming are well-explained by greenhouse gases.This is why scientists conclude that humans are likely responsible for most of the warming of the last few decades. Greenhouse gases provide a reasonable explanation for the warming, while no other factor can explain the entire warming.The signals are coming from the planet itself:There are OBSERVED data from pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glaciers withdrawal, polar ice melting, sea level rise, ocean temperature, ecological changes, Co2 levels in the atmosphere, the undeniable temperature increase globally.Professor Kerry Emanuel has been known for his "Show me the data!" approach to climate science. In this talk, he will present a long term, evidence-driven view of Earth's climate change, culminating in a discussion of current risks and implications.Professor Emanuel is an award-winning meteorologist and climate scientist and the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. His research focuses on tropical meteorology and climate, with a specialty in hurricane physics. Emanuel has a PhD from MIT, has been a faculty member since 1981 and has served as the Director of the Center for Meteorology and Physical Oceanography and the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate. He is co-founder of the MIT Lorenz Center, which fosters creative approaches to fundamental science devoted to understanding how climate works. He was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Influential People who Shape Our World in 2006. In 2007, he was elected as a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. He is an author of over 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers and two books, including What We Know about Climate Change, recently hailed by the NY Times as "... the single best thing written about climate change for a general audience."4 ALL TEMPERATURE DATA 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.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 is the best known, the GISS data from NASA:GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)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...Isolated satellite data shows same trend as weather stations and ocean data:RSS: This is from their home page:http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_...UAH SATELLITE DATA:http://www.drroyspencer.com/late...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 BriefMajor correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998What trend do the UAH data show now? Lets go to the UAH home page:The University of Alabama in Huntsvillehttps://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climat...Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.In the same period, NOAA data shows a trend of 0.10 C per decade!Climate at a GlanceSATELLITE 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.EXPLAINED BY SENIOR SCIENTIST FOR RSS SATELLITE DATA, CARL MEARS.Even a Koch-brothers funded study confirmed the temperature data:https://www.theguardian.com/scie...https://www.forbes.com/sites/ale...What happens if we put the temperature data onto each other?The 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. THE “PAUSE” THAT NEVER WASNew science just 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.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.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Have climate deniers finally accepted that the 'pause' never happened? One never hears them mention it these days.5 THE “HOCKEY STICK”5 reasons why Michael E.Manns "hockeystick" is here to stay:1. Its affirmed by US National Academy of Sciences (NAS2. It’s confirmed and improved by the 4 most comprehensive studies done on the matter (+ ca 150 other studies).1. Its affirmed by US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)https://www.nature.com/articles/4411032a.pdf?origin=ppubThey are one of the most respectable scientific academies and hold 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)Since then the “Hockey Stick” is confirmed and improved by the 4 most comprehensive studies done on the matter:2. 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 Stick (Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick)Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia (Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia)IPPC 2007:Climate Change 2007 (AR4)3. 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 years (The world is hotter than it has been for at least 2,000 years)A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era (A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era)IPPC 2013:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report4. 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, Europe)Reconciling divergent trends and millennial variations in Holocene temperatures(Reconciling divergent trends and millennial variations in Holocene temperatures)5. A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Yearshttps://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott%20et%20al.,%202013,%20Science.pdfBONUS:The "hockeystick" data IS available here:Michael E. Mann (Michael E. Mann)6. CONSENSUS UPDATE:The 97 % is old news. Why is it even higher now?There are two main reasons for this:Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawedWhat about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? 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.“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."“If any of the contrarians were a modern-day Galileo, he would present a theory that’s supported by the scientific evidence and that’s not based on methodological errors.Why Climate Skeptics Are WrongMORE 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.http://oilandgasclimateinitiative.com/Every scientific body, org and institution of the world, every National Academy of Sciences of the world, over 99% of the peer reviewed papers + most oil companies ALL agree that AGW theory is a fact. And everything is supported by the principles of basic physics!List of Worldwide Scientific OrganizationsON THE CONSENSUS:“there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. “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. Scientists come to a consensus after a convergence of evidence leaves no significant doubt about a result. It happens a lot in science. There is a consensus that the speed of light is the universe's speed limit. Scientists didn't vote on that or gather to agree and find evidence to support that agreement.They came to a consensus after the research from multiple independent lines of evidence converged. The same process has taken place in climate science. Scientists didn't vote on the validity of AGW or come together and agree before the evidence came in. They came to a consensus based upon multiple independent lines of evidence converged to support AGW. The consensus among scientists is real, it is not based on popularity or voting, it is based on a convergence of multiple independent lines of scientific evidence.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.The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked.Climate change has been verified by almost every nation-state today in some form; if it was a conspiracy by one group, then why is everyone standing behind it? Because the science is easily attainable and verified – and supported by 97% 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.“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.”Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong7. Links to hot topic answers:A history lesson - The Greenhouse effectRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How long have we known about the greenhouse effect?Science fundingRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is scientific research generally more funded by government or the private sector?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?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 Who lags who? C02 or temperature? Have you heard of the correct "It's both" alternative?For climate models and climate sensitivity:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why are the predictions made by mathematical models of complex systems above criticism or debate in Climate Change science only?For C02s bad effect on plant life:https://www.quora.com/share/How-soon-will-we-feel-the-effects-of-global-warming-and-how-will-it-influence-our-day-to-day-lives-1?ch=10&share=9dc5a44cFor 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 When confronted with the fact that sea levels have been rising since the last ice age, they call me a troll. Why?Global warmings 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?On carbon taxes: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?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 fallacy: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?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 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?Why do some christians deny climate change?https://www.quora.com/share/Why-do-some-Christians-deny-global-warming-6?ch=10&share=8f353837Polar Vortex.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What is causing the polar vortex 2019?The 2nd law and Henrys law explained:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What is the relationship between thermodynamic and greenhouse effect?8. 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 PressScienceDirectCO₂ 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_before