Republican NASA chief appointed by Trump fully accepts dominant human role in global warming

[TJustice]

By the way when you read the rest of the article in Wikipedia you see that the "experts" seem to be blaming the divergence on the idea the trees are not longer working.

Hence the reason why the article I posted above is so interesting. If you take out man made changes to the raw data you get a record that matches the proxies.

 

[Poindexter]

By the way when you read the rest of the article in Wikipedia you see that the "experts" seem to be blaming the divergence on the idea the trees are not longer working.

The trees must be ignorant cons who don't believe in global warming I mean climate change

 

[futurecurrents]

By the way when you read the rest of the article in Wikipedia you see that the "experts" seem to be blaming the divergence on the idea the trees are not longer working.

Hence the reason why the article I posted above is so interesting. If you take out man made changes to the raw data you get a record that matches the proxies.

No you are confused and deluded by right wing propaganda. The divergence "problem" is well known and accounted for. That's why no publishing climate scientist denies the hockey stick chart or the fact of man made global warming.

The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.



Besides, you DO know that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas right?

What would you expct to happen here with regard to temps?

You also know that the earth's ice is also melting

 

[piezoe]

Besides, you DO know that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas right?

It's not actually. Water vapor is the only significant green house gas on Earth.

The Fourth National Climate Assessment (USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.) is a summary review of the current state of climate research. It illustrates the chaotic state of current climate studies.

The executive summary reflects this chaos in its useless and self evident opening sentence:

"The climate of the United States is strongly connected to the changing global climate. "​

The climate is changing. Thus the report acknowledges something that has been occurring for the last nine billion years and there is no reason to think it will not continue to occur for the next nine billion. What we would like to know is whether human activity is affecting the rate of climate change; in what direction, and to what extent. Climate modeling has not contributed anything of value toward answering that question, and it is doubtful it will, unless of course there is a breakthrough in our ability to model chaotic, multivariable systems. Other studies have, however, contributed to our understanding; yet we are still far away from the answers we seek. Let the research continue, and perhaps one day we will know the answers.

Sadly. the executive summary is silent where an important contribution to scientific progress might have been made. The summary misses the opportunity to call for less political interference.

 

[TJustice]

When scientists explain to you that they did comprehensive study and found ocean impacted instrument stations show warming but ocean sheltered instrument stations show no warming.

You have a choice...

Read the paper and determine whether you should critique their methods or conclusions.

or

You can be a moron and call science propaganda without any thought for the legitimacy of the science involved.

You always choose the later.


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0958305X18756670?journalCode=eaea

Temperature data 1900–2010 from meteorological stations across the world have been analyzed and it has been found that all land areas generally have two different valid temperature trends. Coastal stations and hill stations facing ocean winds are normally more warm-trended than the valley stations that are sheltered from dominant oceans winds.

Thus, we found that in any area with variation in the topography, we can divide the stations into the more warm trended ocean air-affected stations, and the more cold-trended ocean air-sheltered stations. We find that the distinction between ocean air-affected and ocean air-sheltered stations can be used to identify the influence of the oceans on land surface. We can then use this knowledge as a tool to better study climate variability on the land surface without the moderating effects of the ocean.

We find a lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature data – with less impact of ocean temperature trends – after 1950. The lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.

No you are confused and deluded by right wing propaganda. The divergence "problem" is well known and accounted for. That's why no publishing climate scientist denies the hockey stick chart or the fact of man made global warming.

The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.



Besides, you DO know that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas right?

What would you expct to happen here with regard to temps?

You also know that the earth's ice is also melting

These charts look different because the instrument record is not replacing the proxy records over the last 50 years or so. These are the proxy charts being allowed to speak until the present.


http://notrickszone.com/2018/05/03/...rd-that-closely-aligns-with-paleo-proxy-data/

A global-scale instrumental temperature record that has not been contaminated by (a) artificial urban heat (asphalt, machines, industrial waste heat, etc.), (b) ocean-air affected biases (detailed herein), or (c) artificial adjustments to past data that uniformly serve to cool the past and warm the present ....

[/QUOTE]

 

[futurecurrents]

It's not actually. Water vapor is the only significant green house gas on Earth.

The Fourth National Climate Assessment (USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.) is a summary review of the current state of climate research. It illustrates the chaotic state of current climate studies.

The executive summary reflects this chaos in its useless and self evident opening sentence:

"The climate of the United States is strongly connected to the changing global climate. "​

The climate is changing. Thus the report acknowledges something that has been occurring for the last nine billion years and there is no reason to think it will not continue to occur for the next nine billion. What we would like to know is whether human activity is affecting the rate of climate change; in what direction, and to what extent. Climate modeling has not contributed anything of value toward answering that question, and it is doubtful it will, unless of course there is a breakthrough in our ability to model chaotic, multivariable systems. Other studies have, however, contributed to our understanding; yet we are still far away from the answers we seek. Let the research continue, and perhaps one day we will know the answers.

Sadly. the executive summary is silent where an important contribution to scientific progress might have been made. The summary misses the opportunity to call for less political interference.

Complete horsehit.

CO2 is the most important factor in controlling the earth's temps.

That's why this is happening.

Anyone can google this. Even you piehole.


I would post a link but it would not matter. Your intellectual honesty is non-existent.

 

[futurecurrents]

When scientists explain to you that they did comprehensive study and found ocean impacted instrument stations show warming but ocean sheltered instrument stations show no warming.

You have a choice...

Read the paper and determine whether you should critique their methods or conclusions.

or

You can be a moron and call science propaganda without any thought for the legitimacy of the science involved.

You always choose the later.


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0958305X18756670?journalCode=eaea

Temperature data 1900–2010 from meteorological stations across the world have been analyzed and it has been found that all land areas generally have two different valid temperature trends. Coastal stations and hill stations facing ocean winds are normally more warm-trended than the valley stations that are sheltered from dominant oceans winds.

Thus, we found that in any area with variation in the topography, we can divide the stations into the more warm trended ocean air-affected stations, and the more cold-trended ocean air-sheltered stations. We find that the distinction between ocean air-affected and ocean air-sheltered stations can be used to identify the influence of the oceans on land surface. We can then use this knowledge as a tool to better study climate variability on the land surface without the moderating effects of the ocean.

We find a lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature data – with less impact of ocean temperature trends – after 1950. The lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.






These charts look different because the instrument record is not replacing the proxy records over the last 50 years or so. These are the proxy charts being allowed to speak until the present.


http://notrickszone.com/2018/05/03/...rd-that-closely-aligns-with-paleo-proxy-data/

A global-scale instrumental temperature record that has not been contaminated by (a) artificial urban heat (asphalt, machines, industrial waste heat, etc.), (b) ocean-air affected biases (detailed herein), or (c) artificial adjustments to past data that uniformly serve to cool the past and warm the present ....

[/QUOTE]



But yet NO expert on earth denies man made global warming. Gee, you must be smarter than all of them.

 

[TJustice]

There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers which find warming is mostly caused by the sun, moon or tides.

So while most scientists would never state man made co2 is doing nothing (science starts with skepticism not denial) there are thousands of scientists who take skeptical positions with respect to man made CO2.

 

[piezoe]

NO expert on earth denies man made global warming.

That's technically correct. But plenty of experts believe the role of man is uncertain, and some experts believe the role of man in affecting climate is insignificant. No scientific hypothesis can be considered established fact until there is virtually 100% agreement among experts in the field.

When an hypothesis, which is what anthropomorphic global warming is, becomes universally accepted among experts it becomes theory. Whether a theory is true is totally irrelevant. We can not use pure reason to tell how the natural world and its universe works. We must rely on observation and our models built upon observation. These models allow us to correctly predict what will happen given a specific set of circumstances. A scientific theory is fundamentally the specification of a model. When an observation is made that does not agree with the model, either the observation is wrong or the model is defective. In the latter case we extend our observations and try to develop a better model.

The anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis can not be considered a theory until one can accurately predict global temperature using data from man's activity on Earth. Only a brief reflection should convince even the dullest person that it's unlikely we will ever be able to do that unless man's activity dominates other non-predictable features affecting climate.

A far easier task is to eliminate certain factors as important. Carbon dioxide concentration below levels well above its current trace levels has been ruled out as a significantly contributing factor. The Hansen hypothesis, which specifically predicts that rising CO2 at its current levels will cause significant temperature rise, has been thoroughly disproved. The hypothesis is wrong and must be rejected. No model shows a rise in temperature from increasing CO2 in the amounts currently observable unless there is overall positive feedback. A number of recent studies have concluded that the overall feedback to rising temperature is negative, not positive. Feedback must be positive for the Hansen hypothesis to be valid. When temperature rises, the Earths atmosphere responds so as to decrease the extent of the rise; not to accelerate it, as positive feedback would!

 

[futurecurrents]

There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers which find warming is mostly caused by the sun, moon or tides.

So while most scientists would never state man made co2 is doing nothing (science starts with skepticism not denial) there are thousands of scientists who take skeptical positions with respect to man made CO2.

No, no publishing climate scientist denies man made global warming
The consensus is 100%.