And every science organization in the world.
Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
97%, 97%, 97% over and over again.... FC squawks like a retarded parrot.
From NASA http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system â including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons â are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007)5
AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeâs fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earthâs physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the worldâs climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
USNAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12
INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
âWarming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.â13
âMost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.â14
*IPCC defines âvery likelyâ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.
OTHER RESOURCES
List of worldwide scientific organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
A Better Answer to Climate Change Is Hidden in the Clouds
http://news.yahoo.com/better-answer-climate-change-hidden-clouds-154200500.html
Climate scientists are studying a bewildering array of changes taking place in the air, on land and in the sea. But where should they concentrate their efforts? First and foremost, it seems, are clouds. Better understanding of how clouds affect global warming, and how airborne particles affect cloud formation, is one of three gaps in knowledge that could most improve predictions of how extensively and quickly Earthâs climate will change.
So say three experts who played a major role in writing the latest climate assessment report published in late September by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They spoke as a group at the American Geophysical Unionâs annual fall meeting being held this week in San Francisco. Considering that climate deniers are constantly accusing IPCC scientists of not having airtight data, it took some guts for the experts to identify gaps in knowledge. But they said the gaps do not undermine prevailing climate predictions, which have become increasingly thorough for two decades. Filling the gaps, they said, would further enhance the forecasts. In that sense, the experts are calling for scientists to do what scientists always strive to do: learn, then figure out what more needs to be discovered, and go find it.
The climate effect of clouds, especially low clouds, is still a bit of a mystery, said Olivier Boucher, from the Pierre Simon Laplace Institute in Paris, who was the lead author of the IPCC report chapter on clouds and aerosols (airborne particles). âLow-level clouds are the wild cardâ in many atmospheric models, he noted. And they are changing. For example, low clouds seem to be migrating toward the north and south poles, where they have less affect on blocking incoming heat from the sun and in absorbing heat radiated from the Earth. Scientists also do not have a good handle on whether low clouds are getting thicker, if they are holding more water vapor, or if the dwindling of Arctic sea ice is leading to more or less cloud formation.
(more at above url)
http://news.yahoo.com/better-answer-climate-change-hidden-clouds-154200500.html
Climate scientists are studying a bewildering array of changes taking place in the air, on land and in the sea. But where should they concentrate their efforts? First and foremost, it seems, are clouds. Better understanding of how clouds affect global warming, and how airborne particles affect cloud formation, is one of three gaps in knowledge that could most improve predictions of how extensively and quickly Earthâs climate will change.
So say three experts who played a major role in writing the latest climate assessment report published in late September by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They spoke as a group at the American Geophysical Unionâs annual fall meeting being held this week in San Francisco. Considering that climate deniers are constantly accusing IPCC scientists of not having airtight data, it took some guts for the experts to identify gaps in knowledge. But they said the gaps do not undermine prevailing climate predictions, which have become increasingly thorough for two decades. Filling the gaps, they said, would further enhance the forecasts. In that sense, the experts are calling for scientists to do what scientists always strive to do: learn, then figure out what more needs to be discovered, and go find it.
The climate effect of clouds, especially low clouds, is still a bit of a mystery, said Olivier Boucher, from the Pierre Simon Laplace Institute in Paris, who was the lead author of the IPCC report chapter on clouds and aerosols (airborne particles). âLow-level clouds are the wild cardâ in many atmospheric models, he noted. And they are changing. For example, low clouds seem to be migrating toward the north and south poles, where they have less affect on blocking incoming heat from the sun and in absorbing heat radiated from the Earth. Scientists also do not have a good handle on whether low clouds are getting thicker, if they are holding more water vapor, or if the dwindling of Arctic sea ice is leading to more or less cloud formation.
(more at above url)
If you think Global Warming is bad now, you should have been around during the times of ancient Rome...
Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval times
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/
If you think the Earth is hot now, try wearing plate armor in the Middle Ages.
A Swedish study found that the planet was warmer in ancient Roman times and the Middle Ages than today, challenging the mainstream idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main drivers of global warming.
The study, by scientist Leif Kullman, analyzed 455 âradiocarbon-dated mega-fossilsâ in the Scandes mountains and found that tree lines for different species of trees were higher during the Roman and Medieval times than they are today. Not only that, but the temperatures were higher as well.
âHistorical tree line positions are viewed in relation to early 21st century equivalents, and indicate that tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4,800 years,â Kullman found. âPrior to that, the pine tree line (and summer temperatures) was consistently higher than present, as it was also during the Roman and Medieval periods.â
Kullman also wrote that âsummer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum may have been 2.3°C higher than present.â The âHolocene thermal optimum was a warm period that occurred between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago. This warm period was followed by a gradual cooling period.â
According to Kullman, the temperature spikes were during the Roman and Medieval warming periods âwere succeeded by a distinct tree line/temperature dip, broadly corresponding to the Little Ice Age.â
For many years now, there was an alleged scientific consensus that the Earth was warming due to humans releasing greenhouse gases into the air â primarily through burning fossil fuels. However, temperatures stopped rising after 1998, leaving scientists scrambling to find an explanation to the hiatus in warming.
Increasingly, scientists are looking away from human causes and looking at solar activity and natural climate variability for explanations of why the planet warms and cools.
âAll other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,â Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the Los Angeles Times. âHowever, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.â
The Kullman study points to mounting evidence that climate is largely out of human control, as humans were not burning large amounts fossil fuels during Roman and Medieval times.
Some scientists have pointed to solar activity as the predictor of where global temperatures are headed. Researchers have pointed to falling sunspot activity as evidence that the planet will cool off in the coming decades.
âBy looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, [Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University] has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years,â the BBC reports. âFollowing analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.â
Others have looked to natural climate systems for explanations for answers to the 15-year pause in global warming.
A study by Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama, Huntsville found that about half the warming that occurred since the 1970s can be attributed to El Niño weather events, which had a warming effect on the planet.
The Pacific Oceanâs natural warming and cooling cycles last about 30 years, with La Niña cooling being dominant from the 1950s to the 1970s and El Niño warming events dominating late 1970s to the late 1990s. Spencer suggests that the world may be in a La Niña cooling period.
Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval times
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/
If you think the Earth is hot now, try wearing plate armor in the Middle Ages.
A Swedish study found that the planet was warmer in ancient Roman times and the Middle Ages than today, challenging the mainstream idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main drivers of global warming.
The study, by scientist Leif Kullman, analyzed 455 âradiocarbon-dated mega-fossilsâ in the Scandes mountains and found that tree lines for different species of trees were higher during the Roman and Medieval times than they are today. Not only that, but the temperatures were higher as well.
âHistorical tree line positions are viewed in relation to early 21st century equivalents, and indicate that tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4,800 years,â Kullman found. âPrior to that, the pine tree line (and summer temperatures) was consistently higher than present, as it was also during the Roman and Medieval periods.â
Kullman also wrote that âsummer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum may have been 2.3°C higher than present.â The âHolocene thermal optimum was a warm period that occurred between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago. This warm period was followed by a gradual cooling period.â
According to Kullman, the temperature spikes were during the Roman and Medieval warming periods âwere succeeded by a distinct tree line/temperature dip, broadly corresponding to the Little Ice Age.â
For many years now, there was an alleged scientific consensus that the Earth was warming due to humans releasing greenhouse gases into the air â primarily through burning fossil fuels. However, temperatures stopped rising after 1998, leaving scientists scrambling to find an explanation to the hiatus in warming.
Increasingly, scientists are looking away from human causes and looking at solar activity and natural climate variability for explanations of why the planet warms and cools.
âAll other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,â Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the Los Angeles Times. âHowever, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.â
The Kullman study points to mounting evidence that climate is largely out of human control, as humans were not burning large amounts fossil fuels during Roman and Medieval times.
Some scientists have pointed to solar activity as the predictor of where global temperatures are headed. Researchers have pointed to falling sunspot activity as evidence that the planet will cool off in the coming decades.
âBy looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, [Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University] has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years,â the BBC reports. âFollowing analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.â
Others have looked to natural climate systems for explanations for answers to the 15-year pause in global warming.
A study by Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama, Huntsville found that about half the warming that occurred since the 1970s can be attributed to El Niño weather events, which had a warming effect on the planet.
The Pacific Oceanâs natural warming and cooling cycles last about 30 years, with La Niña cooling being dominant from the 1950s to the 1970s and El Niño warming events dominating late 1970s to the late 1990s. Spencer suggests that the world may be in a La Niña cooling period.
Thanks again for the good example of the kind of crap "science" peddled on Twats up wit dat. The fact that you think it is at all valid is also further proof of just how fucked up you are.
Whether is crap science or not... its far more that what you have.
once again what proof do you have that co2 causes warming on earth.
you going to produce the slanted chart again or a few bought off organizations or a survey of 75 agw nutters... which has been debunked.
we know you certainly won't produce science... because the data shows temperature leads co2.
once again what proof do you have that co2 causes warming on earth.
you going to produce the slanted chart again or a few bought off organizations or a survey of 75 agw nutters... which has been debunked.
we know you certainly won't produce science... because the data shows temperature leads co2.