New study finds 99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Good catch Tenth. There is a lot to ponder in that article and I found the video was easy to understand.

I am sure the naysayers will come out of the woodwork over the claim but that happens on every climate article. Even if the article claimed it was 100% it wouldn't make some re-examine their beliefs. Oh well... I gave up on them already and got tired of addressing their misconceptions with links to factual data. They never look it over anyway if they had any real interest in the matter they would have easily found the info themselves while they came to their conclusions.

Eh... I am sure this study will be subject of much conversation here and many other places.

99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

The earth have been warming since the last iceage.

Humans may cause 20 to 30% of this. but no where near 99.999%.

but its a play on statements to use this 99.9995 percent and claim that there is no non human causes and only 0.001% non human caused

lightning caused forest fires and volcanoes put more then 0.001% of the CO2 into the air.

AND THAT DOES NOT EVEN ACCOUNT FOR THE WORSE GREENHOUSE GAS METHANE FROM ROTTING WOOD AND OTHER NATURAL ORGANIC SOURCES.

you idiots changed the climate with a couple coal and nuke plants?

1400 mil car engines?

oh yeah, thanks science.

can't wait for God to fix it.

Bombshell for the Koch haters....

They are in the anti-pollution business !!

Koch Chemical Technology Groups


[ And rumor has it they have a coal plant filter system !!!!

Wait till that gets announced and saves the coal industry !!!! ]

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Well, after a page and a half of the same old debunked myths... I'm done reading and for now just respond to you. In order for the climate to change (both cooler and warmer), there needs to be a catalyst. There are numerous candidate catalysts. A giant meteor can crash into the earth sending up megatons of dust and causing cooling. The earth doing its thing flying around the sun in a sometimes circular, sometimes elliptical orbit causes what most people refer to as cooling warming cycles... this is what people can't see beyond.

During earths orbital forcing of climate change to a warm period (we are supposed to be in a mild cooling by the way, with our orbit) CO2 and other greenhouse gasses can be released from it's stores such as ocean or peat, gather in the atmosphere and amplify the orbital warming. But that doesn't always happen either, sometimes the GHG's (greenhouse gasses) are so well stored that they stay put and don't amplify the orbital warming. GHG's do what they do (bounce back heat from the sun that was reflected off earth that would normally escape into space) regardless of how they got there (us or natural release).

It's not the sun either. The sun hasn't changed enough despite it's own cycle, to explain the level of temperature increase. The answer is in our atmosphere and no the solar system is not heating up, nor is every other planet. If Neptune was warming imagine how hot we would have to be first. The sun radiates heat, so think of it like a space heater, if my foot is directly in front of the heater and you're ten feet away and hot, my foot would be literally burning.

So it's not orbit and it's not the sun. Volcanoes? Volcanoes emit 65-319 million tons of CO2/yr humans emit 29 BILLION tons of CO2/yr. So not that either.

The study is correct, it didn't need to be done because it was already known and accepted by science and no they don't get rich off grant money or supporting this supposed agenda.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Maybe you should look up what they are doing when they are homogenizing the data. It's not fudging the numbers to favor their position. It's done in the opposite direction (bringing the numbers down) to compensate for things like urban heat islands etc...

Here is a post I made in an old ATS thread that contains the graphs for temps based upon Vostock ice core samples going back hundreds of thousands of years. IT clearly demonstrates a cyclic pattern of warming and cooling cycles.

ATS Thread: Global Warming Slowdown Is Not Good News



And another.......closeup view of the past 12,000 years up to the year 2004.


References:
Actual Vostock Data Set (go to thread post for link to the actual data if you like)
Citation:
Petit, J.R., et al., 2001,
Vostok Ice Core Data for 420,000 Years, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center
for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2001-076.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.)

five-nines-fine:

999.99 (five nines fine) The purest type of gold currently produced;

Maybe it's also the purest level of BS currently produces. LOL

But seriously, did they need to do another study to prove their point?

Nowadays most people appear to accept the fact that we are experiencing climate change. That's a move in the right direction. But there is still a lot of doubt in some people's minds with respect to the anthropogenic nature of climate change. And one more study is not going to change their minds.

If anthropogenic climate change is occurring, we would have to completely stop emitting CO2 into the environment immediately in order to avoid reaching the so-called tipping point. And that's not going to happen.

We're going to reach the tipping point anyway, if that limit hasn't already been reached. We're already seeing some of the positive feedback effects from warming: glacial ice melt and release of methane from the permafrost.

If climate change is due to natural variability, these natural cycles tend to last centuries!

So, the answer to climate change is to prepare for the effects. That means different activities for different regions:

• Massive building projects to move water from wet areas to arid regions.
  
• Relocate population centers away from the coasts.
  
• Build additional infrastructure in coastal areas to mitigate the effects of more powerful storms.
  
• Strengthen existing infrastructural components to accommodate the expected weather extremes.
  
• Implement projects to supplement heating and cooling systems to meet the additional requirements.
  

But, we're not going to do that either. So, what we will wind up doing in the end is bending over and kissing our collective a$$ goodbye.




Dex

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Maybe you should look up what they are doing when they are homogenizing the data. It's not fudging the numbers to favor their position. It's done in the opposite direction (bringing the numbers down) to compensate for things like urban heat islands etc...

Rather than try to pull a "don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain", perhaps you should think more about what it means to flatten data, or what happens when you average an average? I happen to know exactly what they are removing, and it isn't heat islands.

Can you say with absolute certainty why the data is removed?

No, you cannot in most cases.

Let's take a closer look at Mauna Loa as just one example, which is the backbone of CO2 data used in most global circulation models (GCMs) because it uses observation and direct measurements:

The selection process is designed to filter out any influence of nearby emissions, or removals, of CO2 such as caused by the vegetation on the island of Hawaii, and likewise emissions from the volcanic crater of Mauna Loa. We require low variability within each hour and between successive hourly averages, as well as a degree of persistence of the likely valid "background" hours between successive days.

Source

So we want to measure CO2, but we don't want to include ANY variability that is because of plant vegetation or volcanic emissions or anything else?

... because those variables that contribute to CO2 couldn't possibly have anything to do with CO2 levels anywhere else on the planet, and are completely irrelevant I suppose? Let's look a little closer at the details of homogenizing, that you ironically think I need to take a closer look at...

In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve ("outliers") are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur. These hours are indicated by an “A” flag in the hourly data file, and by the purple color in Figure 2, also indicated as “spline” in the legend.

Source

So if the CO2 levels fluctuate beyond a specific deviation, for whatever the reason, it is excluded. It doesn't matter the reason. Since it's at the top of a volcano, in the middle of the ocean, I'm going to go with the "heat island" exclusion not being one of the reasons. Are you OK with excluding data without knowing why?

So what if the temperature can swing in two directions by 50 degrees one day every month... by your reasoning, you would be ok with not knowing why the 50 degree increase or decrease happens 12 times a year, and would be OK excluding it from the yearly average, because it would "skew" the results? and didn't "fit" with the rest of the average results?

This is just one example of how data that COULD be relevant is thrown out without any understanding or investigation into WHY. There is no excuse for that, and it's being used in just about every opportunity to put a square peg into a round hole in climate models.

You don't have to support my position or anyone else's, but don't take data at face value just because it's in a pretty graph. Go get the raw data, look at it yourself.

You'll see that the only data "compensation" that is happening is to back-fill data to fit into a desired outcome. If you wanted accurate data, you wouldn't truncate it, smooth it, exclude parts of it or try to "compensate" for anything... the data would speak for itself.

It's funny.... of all the posts in the thread to reply to after telling the OP you were only going to respond to theirs, you pick me to fire shots at... I wonder why?

I must have left a loving impression.

~Namaste

99.999%,really?


www.bostonglobe.com...

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: tothetenthpower

The study is correct, it didn't need to be done because it was already known and accepted by science and no they don't get rich off grant money or supporting this supposed agenda.

The study is correct? Says who?

Let me guess, the same 97% of scientists who believe humans are the cause of global warming?

You do realize that they are claiming to be able to accurately predict what the climate would have been over the last 100 years? AND... that they are saying with 99.999% certainty that the planet would have cooled off more times / more frequently had it not been for humans? That's a pretty bold stance to take, contrary to even the smallest amount of skepticism.

So far, I don't think anyone else in this entire thread has supported the claims in that paper, so the only thing that is 99.999% certain is the uncertain future of climate science.

~Namaste

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
I will not even give the link the time of day - because I know the study is flawed.

Until the day comes that they can explain why every planet in our solar system is heating up, and how humans are responsible - then I'll give credence to this type of study.

They aren't. This is yet another example of the deniers cherry picking data to match their belief then regurgitating, like you have, as if it's some unarguable "fact".

originally posted by: xuenchen
Bombshell for the Koch haters....

They are in the anti-pollution business !!

Koch Chemical Technology Groups


[ And rumor has it they have a coal plant filter system !!!!

Wait till that gets announced and saves the coal industry !!!! ]

They also own political propaganda organizations. Have you seen how effective they are?

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Don't flatter yourself. Your post warranted debunking. The reason they filter out other sources of CO2 in the Mauna Lao data is because they are trying to count man made CO2. It would be dishonest to count all local sources of CO2 in that case wouldn't it? If they didn't filter local sources they would be able to state that mans contribution was much higher. You're twisting honest practices of science and making it out to be sinister, knowing full well that most on this site will gobble it up because herp derp Al Gore.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

It's not a bold stance to take, a kindergarten student can figure it out. By our orbital precession, axial tilt and eccentricity we should be in a mildly cooling phase, the sun has been relatively the same, and no other source of CO2 in this warming period has been larger than humans... take us out of the equation and you get cooling.

a reply to: Sunwolf

99.999% confidence that man is responsible for >50% of the warming... not all of it.

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?

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.

originally posted by: amazing
Those that want to tell us that our air pollution is causing no harm and telling us that we don't need more fuel efficient cars and going against solar power or other renewables. And that side would be big oil, coal, natural gas, the fracking industry and older car manufacturers. That's a lot of money being thrown around to scientists with an agenda. What about that money?

Could you point out who and where anyone has said we don't need more fuel efficient cars and less pollution? I have seen lots of things in my life, but that, I have not seen.

a reply to: pikestaff

The current increase in Antarctic sea ice is not a good sign no matter how much climate trolls tell you it is. The reasons for the increase are, more fresh water which freezes at higher temps than salt water and the fresh water is melt from the shelves. That melt also carries chunks of ice to the sea and increases calving.