New study finds 99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Climate change is here to stay. Whether man continues to exist or not.

Most of the claims the "global warming/climate change" artists use to support their pet theory (bad man! bad man!) are not based on sound science. Physicists in particular scream bloody murder over some of the "so called" science these people are employing to support their claims. Not to mention the outright lies (can anyone say hockey stick graph?) and misrepresentations of data.

The notion of the "greenhouse effect" originates from a long-ago misconception about how glass greenhouses work, thus the family name this "effect" goes by. It was believed that glass blocked the passage of "dark radiation" (infrared) and kept storing energetic photons inside it. Once those photons had accumulated enough power to overcome the glass barrier, radiative equilibrium was achieved. So this is the scenario: sunlight enters, heat is generated and dark light is emitted. This dark light is amplified because of the blockage and finally exits at the same magnitude as the entering sunlight. But only after the light "trapped" inside has raised the greenhouse's temperature. Since the barrier will keep raising the temperature until the barrier is broken, increasing the barrier's strength will get you any amount of internal heat you want. (If only that were true ...)

It is 19th century poppycock. And here’s a telltale sign of it: Why do you always see a "layer of greenhouse gases" depicted overhead in illustrations about the “greenhouse effect”, when in fact these molecules are at their densest concentration right at your feet?

There are a host of deceptions in play, deceptions that a physicist can, will and has shot down. Bad science is bad science.

The IPCC cannot even follow the scientific method, which is form a hypothesis, test the hypothesis against observed phenomena and if it does not match, then you go back to the drawing board. They climate change model is defective. It is supposed to be able to predict 100 years into the future and yet somehow has failed miserably to predict 10 years into the future. Has failed to predict growing ice in Antarctica and has failed to predict the growth of the ice cap in the north as well.

I mean, anyone with half a brain should know you have to include solar activity in any climate model!! Right?

Somehow they manage to get along without including solar activity. Without including the waning strength of our magnetosphere.

Let me just point out one minor aspect: At approximately the same time the industrial revolution began the earth's magnetic field began weakening. It has weakened 15% since then... So, solar activity and the inability to block certain radiation has absolutely nothing to do with climate! Oh...wait...

One other tiny little tidbit: During the Paleozoic era, co2 levels were multiples of times greater than today's level. During the carboniferous co2 levels dropped to a level very similar to what we see today.

Let's see, common knowledge (IPCC logic) would say that apparently the climate during the Paleozoic had to have been much hotter than today, and that during the Carboniferous period, it must have approached a similar climate as what we see today.

Wrongo! During the Paleozoic temps were very similar to those we experience today. During the end of the Carboniferous period, when one might suspect similar climate conditions as we see today, again the answer is: WRONGO!

In fact, during the last 600 million years only once has the co2 levels been as low as during "modern" times (ie: during man's time on earth). CO2 has been as high as 7000 ppm whereas we are talking about, what, approaching 400 ppm today?

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example: During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today -- 4400 ppm.

Ooops!? Ice age? 4400 ppm co2? How can that be??

We are being lied to, that is how that can be.

Given the established co2 levels ... what does this say about Al Gore's "A Convenient Lie"? err I mean "Inconvenient Truth" .. remember what he said about current co2 levels approaching all time records? Lies...he invented the internet so I am pretty sure he could have fact checked a critical component of his mockumentary.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

New study finds 99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

For those few that are finding it hard to understand the percentage and how that translates it means there is one chance in 100,000 that man hasn't contributed to the warming trend.

Just thought I should explain that a little given some of the replies so far.

For the extreme optimist thats not bad. It is far better odds than say hitting the lottery.

You are assuming the 99.99999% is an accurate number. I can prove that the amount of co2 attributed to man is being misrepresented intentionally. Therefore the % listed is wrongo and your conclusion based on wrongo data is also wrongo by definition. (I like using wrongo in a sentence! Gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling... the word dastardly yields the same result when I use it in a sentence! )

a reply to: kx12x

Nice chart... watch the Carbon Credit Government Paid Global Warming Alarmist try to debunk it with more million dollar globalists funded money to push the Global Warming propaganda.

a reply to: amfirst1

Agreed. Big Al has had his azz handed to him big time. No wonder the guy has been decidedly quiet lately. I wonder if his movie is being released on VHS or Beta Max....

a reply to: tothetenthpower

How can anthropogenic CO2 be the number 1 contributing factor to surface global temperature increase when in the Troposphere water vapor constitutes around 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect? It makes no sense whatsoever, the Troposphere is the atmospheric layer where all surface weather occurs and which affects surface temperatures.

In a warming world water vapor increases naturally, just look at the different water vapor content on the tropics at about 4%, and the content at the poles at 1% and take in context the temperature differences between those areas. Since the tropics are closer to the Sun the atmosphere in the tropics contains much higher levels of water vapor which in turn cause more warming to occur.

That study is not only biased, but is plainly wrong. Do you have any idea how many scientists have come forward to denounce the AGW claim?

To me this study only shows desperation on the part of whomever published it.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: tothetenthpower

How can anthropogenic CO2 be the number 1 contributing factor to surface global temperature increase when in the Troposphere water vapor constitutes around 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect? It makes no sense whatsoever, the Troposphere is the atmospheric layer where all surface weather occurs and which affects surface temperatures

You don't understand enough of the physics. The greenhouse effect from water vapor is a response, not a driver, because it is in statistical equilibrium with the enormous amount of water in the oceans. (And it's not 95-98% of the greenhouse effect.) One of the primary influences is of course the temperature, and the dynamics of water is of course critical to the climate sensitivity to changes in radiative forcing, and this has been a primary subject of climatology since, well, the beginning of the field. Humans are responsible for the change in radiative forcing over the last few decades. The change from humans is of course much smaller than the total amount of greenhouse effect from all sources---without it, Earth would be a white frozen snowball with no exposed land or sea and no life other than meager microbes.

That study is not only biased, but is plainly wrong. Do you have any idea how many scientists have come forward to denounce the AGW claim?

How many of them actually work on the problem professionally? Even the most extreme of the climate "skeptics" with any shred of legitimacy (Richard Lindzen) acknowledges the physics of greenhouse warming from increased anthropogenic carbon dioxide and other gases, he just thinks that the climate sensitivity will be lower than the mainstream estimates. He has put forth various proposals over the years and they've been proven wrong.

To me this study only shows desperation on the part of whomever published it.

You mean Science one of the two top scientific journals on the planet?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Not only that, but their methodology for determining man's contribution to rising co2 is flawed as well.

Emissions of CO2 from coal, gas and oil combustion and land clearing have 13C/12C isotopic ratios that are less than those in atmospheric CO2, and each carries a signature related to its source. Thus, as shown in Prentice et al. (2001), when CO2 from fossil fuel combustion enters the atmosphere, the 13C/12C isotopic ratio in atmospheric CO2 decreases at a predictable rate consistent with emissions of CO2 from fossil origin.

So, in other words, c13 are mainly from man made sources.

For any reader that might be unfamiliar with isotopes, a brief explanation is in order. Carbon occurs in three types of atoms: 99% is the most common 12C with six protons and six neutrons in its nucleus, 1% is the slightly heavier 13C with six protons and seven neutrons, and the third isotope, 14C with six protons and eight neutrons, accounts for only 0.0000000001% of carbon atoms. It is unstable with a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years and, although it is essential for determining the age of organic matter, it plays no further part in our story. All carbon isotopes are chemically identical, they differ only in weight.

So... 1% is supposedly coming from man. There are 2 problems here. 1 is that omg! 1% of the rising co2 is from man? (co2 does not persist in nature...we are not talking about lead here). The 2nd problem is their claim that c13 comes from prehistoric plants is also wrong.

However, when different isotopes are involved in biochemical reactions, it is quite common for a “bias” against heavier atoms to come into evidence. One might consider the following analogy: if a rational worker were presented with a pile of stones and told nothing more but to carry half of them up a flight of steps, it is likely that he or she would be “biased” against the heavier stones and that the new pile would contain more smaller stones than the average of the original heap.
Prentice et al. (2001) relies on measurements that clearly show such a “bias” in plants. Specifically, bodies of plants with C3- type metabolisms contain (on average) 99.12% 12C carbon and 0.88% 13C, as compared to the atmospheric ratio of 99% 12C vs. 1% 13C. Prehistoric giant ferns and other plants that carbonized over eons into coal had a C3-type metabolism and therefore combustion of coal introduces CO2 into the atmosphere that contains 0.12% less of the 13C isotope; therefore, if present in sufficient quantities, this would eventually decrease the atmospheric concentration of 13C below 1%. Prentice et al. (2001) makes the claim that such a decrease in atmospheric content of the 13C isotope has in fact been recorded in the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements from 1980 to 2005, and that therefore this must be due to human emissions of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels.

However, there is a problem. C3-type plants are not extinct; in fact, they make up 95% of the mass of all current plant life!

So...decomposing plants contribute c12 and c13 to the atmosphere. Ergo, one can safely conclude that of the 1% that is blamed on man, less than that is actually attributable to man.

So, we should alter our way of living to correct a less than 1% contribution?

a reply to: mbkennel

In the open atmosphere, the so-called GHGs actually work to increase the scattering of any solar heat, quite the opposite of what we are led to believe. Imagine an actual greenhouse with low humidity and another one with high humidity (any difference in level will prove the point). Actual experiments have proven that a greenhouse with lower humidity takes less energy to heat. This is obvious as water vapor, a celebrated GHG, in reacting to energy warms up but then dissipates this energy to the air that's holding it - quite the opposite of what we are led to believe, heat is not “trapped” – it is dissipated. Carbon dioxide reacts in the same way to water vapor and dissipates any acquired energy. See below for further information about absorption.
Carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas; it does not absorb infrared or near-infrared in a way that a sponge absorbs water and it does not transmit visible light - it is transparent to visible light.

Next, if you like, we can discuss the application of the laws of thermodynamics and how they disprove GHG claims... or we can discuss the science of gas pressures vs temperature and how that applies to our atmosphere, using scientific formula to show that regardless of co2 content, temperature variants to not reflect a greenhouse effect. Funny, but the same can be shown regarding temperatures found in other the atmospheres in other planets. The numbers, which reflect measurements of the phenomena, show that co2 content (or methane for that matter) are irrelevant.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I'm in the same boat that you are, with regard to understanding global warming.

So, here's another article on ATS that you might like to consider. www.abovetopsecret.com...

As you can see, we have the usual two diametrically opposed sets of information about one situation. So how is anyone supposed to decide where they stand?

Any considered ideas, ATS'ers, about how to determine the truth?

a reply to: mbkennel

If co2 is the GHG that it is supposed to be, then why do co2 levels and temperatures only show a correlation over an intermediate period of prehistory, and yet when you look at shorter periods, or longer periods the correlation disappears entirely? And I do mean: Entirely

a reply to: tothetenthpower

I was willing to read and consider there facts but when I red "we developed a statistical model" there article became like all others, some one's model to support THERE theory .

How long will it take for these people to be outed and admit to false data like most Gore lackies' with there statistical models ??

The average sea level pressure is around 1013 mbar. If you live at a higher altitude the pressure will be less. Your barometer at 100 m above sea level will read about 12 mbar less. Pressure is a direct measurement of how much atmospheric mass there is above your head per square meter. The ideal gas law can be written PV = RT where P is the pressure (Pascal), V is the volume (m3), R is the gas constant (Joule/K) and T is the average temperature (over some days). Let us now calculate the temperature in a 1 m3 volume at any height. Hence T = P/R, T is proportional to P and P is known from observation to decrease with increasing altitude. It follows that the average T has to decrease with altitude. This decrease from the surface to the average infrared emission altitude around 4000 m is 33oC. It will be about the same even if we increase greenhouse gases by 100%. This is a consequence of the ideal gas law, a natural law which politicians cannot change, but unscrupulous scientists can twist.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Except, if they are real scientists, then they would not care about opinion - only fact. You can bemoan numbers saying what people want them to say all you wish, but 2+2=4. Land-bound ice is melting. Sea levels are rising.

I don't care how popular my posts are. I only care about the truth, and I will certainly admit when I am wrong. Some people don't care about the truth, though.

There are reasons I do not engage with some individuals because quite frankly it isn't worth the time nor will it change opinions. Time is too precious a thing to waste on rebutting slander and strawmen, especially when so many reading this thread appear to support such behavior.

Hence, my disinterest in continuing to post in this thread (well, that and injuring myself). A whole slew of folks don't really care about the truth.

While I do enshrine the truth, I am only one individual amongst many in this vast world. I might shout the truth or try to shame those who besmirch it into listening. Yet, if the truth is not cared for, then quite frankly, what is the point?

Nothing is going to be done. The world will grow warmer. Seas will continue to rise. Lots and lots of people will die.

For those of us who will probably be around in the 2030s - it's going to get rather a lot worse, between the climate changing, water crises, and cheap energy going away. But who am I to speak up? Sometimes the truth hurts, so it's not wanted.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Greven

but scientists love to prove other scientists wrong.

Which means they will lie like dogs on rugs to get big money.

Especially when the U.N. is throwing the party (and throwing the bones).

I bet some might even get carbon credit options !!!!

Now that you've made such a claim, why don't you go bring us some funding numbers?
Oh, and to be fair and balanced, perhaps look into the funding of opposition groups as well?

originally posted by: pikestaff
Strange how the earth is being warmd by humans, yet the Antarctic sea ice is at its highest its ever been since humans stated taking notice of it, North America and Europe both having good awefull winters lately, NO discernible increase in average global temperature for the last 16 years, Who is paying those researchers?
As for CO2, at less that one half of one percent of the atmosphere, just how can it have any effect on the other ninety nine and a half percent (well, just over half a percent) of the atmosphere?

Yeah uh, that's not a good thing. It means nothing beyond more land ice going into the ocean. Worse, global sea ice is on a declining trend, as well. And no, those two things do not conflict - the northern hemisphere is on a steep decline while the southern hemisphere is experiencing a marginal increase.

9 of the last 16 years were the hottest ever recorded - so hot that they are statistically significant in the measured temperature record. 1981 was the hottest year on record until tied in 1987 and exceeded in 1988. 1998 was the hottest year on record until it was tied in 2002 and exceeded in 2005. 2005 was the hottest year on record until it was exceeded in 2010.

Here I'll italicize these exceptional years from that source, bear this in mind for the next bit:
1979 +0.12º C
1980 +0.22º C
1981 +0.28º C
1982 +0.08º C
1983 +0.27º C
1984 +0.12º C
1985 +0.08º C
1986 +0.14º C
1987 +0.28º C
1988 +0.35º C
1989 +0.24º C
1990 +0.39º C
1991 +0.37º C
1992 +0.18º C
1993 +0.20º C
1994 +0.28º C
1995 +0.42º C
1996 +0.32º C
1997 +0.45º C
1998 +0.61º C
1999 +0.40º C
2000 +0.40º C
2001 +0.52º C
2002 +0.61º C
2003 +0.60º C
2004 +0.51º C
2005 +0.65º C
2006 +0.59º C
2007 +0.62º C
2008 +0.49º C
2009 +0.59º C
2010 +0.66º C
2011 +0.54º C
2012 +0.57º C
2013 +0.59º C

Get the picture yet? Lemme help you out. Use this tool and pick a starting date. Nobody has complained about the source, so even if you might complain about the site, it's an invalid complaint. I'll save you some time, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

There are 8 data sets: GISTEMP, BEST, RSS, NOAA (land/ocean), NOAA (land), UAH, HadCRUT4, HadCRUT4 hybrid.
1979 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
...
1996 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
1997 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1998 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
1999 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2000 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS.
2001 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2002 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2003 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2004 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except RSS, HadCRUT4, and NOAA (land/ocean).
2005 through 2013 shows warming only in UAH.
2006 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except HadCRUT4, NOAA (land), and BEST.
2007 through 2013 shows warming in every data set except NOAA (land) and BEST.
2008 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2009 through 2013 shows warming only in NOAA (land) and BEST.
2010 through 2013 shows warming in no data set.
2011 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.
2012 through 2013 shows warming in every data set.

Now, I hope you will understand why people pick specific dates and why the trends on such limited data sets can be shown various ways. Picking exceptionally hot years - especially those closer to the end of the trend - will produce no trend to speak of, such as 2005 or 2010.

Any wee little patch in the insulation of our atmosphere - like the tiny percentage of CO2 increasing - can cause the increase of much worse greenhouse gasses through heating, foremost amongst those being water vapor. More heat leads to more water vapor. More water vapor leads to more heat.

originally posted by: quodlibet
Maybe there's a built-in, self-correcting mechanism that makes the planet eventually go over to the opposite extreme in order to cool it off, so that we might find ourselves in a new ice age in the next few years, and everybody will have to move close to the equator and settle down in the narrow Warm Belt. Since there will be fewer resources, including space, this will lead to terrible wars, the Ice Age Wars. Then the ETs will use their heat rays and melt the ice sheets, and many will worship them as gods, the Fire Gods who saved the world from the Big Freeze.

Could be.

Maybe as ice all melts, water continues to accumulate more nearer the equator than the poles. Maybe such a shift in mass would cause the Earth's orbit to change.

Oh, since this was mentioned:

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
First of all, humans are BY FAR, not the largest source of CO2 in this warming period. I suggest you brush up on your carbon cycle reading.

Humans emit roughly 29 billion tons of CO2 per year.
Oceans emit roughly 330 billions tons of CO2 per year.
Plants emit roughly 200 billion tons of CO2 per year.
Plants perspire roughly 200 billion tons of CO2 per year.

Billions of tones == gigatonnes.
Humans emit more than 29 gigatonnes of CO2 annually, so close.

It's also worth mentioning this fact:
Oh, and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is increasing at a rate of about 18.8 gigatonnes of CO2 annually.

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: kx12x

Nice chart... watch the Carbon Credit Government Paid Global Warming Alarmist try to debunk it with more million dollar globalists funded money to push the Global Warming propaganda.

That chart was debunked on the very next page.

It is bogus - or at the generous, very least "present day" is before 1950.

a reply to: bbracken677

It's the radiative properties of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which are important, not the heat capacity in analogy terrestrial greenhouse, that's not relevant.

The physics of the greenhouse effect is that infrared emitted from the Earth which would otherwise be all radiated back to space is absorbed by greenhouse gases and then re-emitted isotropically in all directions, half of which intersect the Earth again. As a consequence the equilibrium temperature is higher than it would be otherwise.

It is true that the analogy to a terrestrial greenhouse for gardeners is weak.