Plethora of Links on Global Warming

Hello ATS, I thought I would stop in with a group of links that are piled into a document entitled "Science of Climate Change in 24 Steps".

It walks through a complete set of studies that show a thought process that proves that climate change exists, and goes on to prove that the climate change we are experiencing is man made.

This all started when I watched a video by "It's ok to be smart" outlining why there are people who still don't believe in climate change, and wanted to to pass this information on to those who would hopefully help pass it on.


Unfortunately a few of the links have been 404ed, as the doc. is over a year old.

I have taken and outlined the introductions to each study so you have a little information about what each link contains.

There are also several links in the studies for those who wish to do extra reading.

For those of you who only want to watch a short video VERY briefly describing all of this it's here:



Science of Climate Change in 24 Steps

~70% of solar energy that hits Earth is absorbed and re-emitted, some of it trapped by greenhouse gases

Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now
large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of
global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition.
These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy
use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are
also important.
source

CO2 levels have increased 40% since Industrial Revolution

The latest analysis of observations from the WMO Global
Atmosphere Watch (GAW) Programme shows that the globally
averaged mole fractions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) reached new highs in 2013
source

Solar activity and temperature show opposite trends in recent decades

Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
source

The lower atmosphere is warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling

We perform a multimodel detection and attribution study with
climate model simulation output and satellite-based measurements
of tropospheric and stratospheric temperature change. We use
simulation output from 20 climate models participating in phase 5
of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project.
source

Humans have added 2,000 gigatons of CO2 to atmosphere since 1870, and 40% has stayed there

Here we describe data sets and a
methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based
on the combination of a range of data, algorithms, statistics and model estimates and their interpretation by a
broad scientific community.
source

CO2 levels havent been this high (>400 ppm) since before humans existed

The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.
source

Carbon isotopes tell us that increased CO2 is coming from burning fossil fuels

Unlike 14C, the amount of 13C or 12C in an artifact does not change over time since both 13C and 12C are stable isotopes. In other words, they do not decay. Because they are stable isotopes, a 13C atom will always remain a 13C atom, and the same is true for 12C.
source

Volcanoes are not the source of modern climate change

Carbon dioxide constitutes approximately 0.04% of the air in the Earth's atmosphere. In an average year, volcanoes release between about 180 and 440 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. When this colorless, odorless gas is emitted from volcanoes, it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly and is not life threatening. However, because cold carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air it can flow into in low-lying areas where it can reach much higher concentrations in certain, very stable atmospheric conditions. This can pose serious risks to people and animals. Breathing air with more than 3% CO2 can quickly lead to headaches, dizziness, increased heart rate and difficulty breathing.
source

Carbon sinks and carbon sources are out of balance

source

Methane and nitrous oxide are increasing (also due to human activities)

This section provides information on emissions and removals of the main greenhouse gases to and from the atmosphere.
source

Climate models are unable to replicate warming trend unless man-made CO2 is taken into account

There are two major questions in climate modeling - can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800s - both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account.
source

There were twice as many record highs as record lows in 2000's and past three decades were warmest since 1850

This figure shows the annual values of the U.S. Heat Wave Index from 1895 to 2014. These data cover the contiguous 48 states.
source

The past 30 years is likely the warmest in eight centuries

source

NOTE: This link provides studies from the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, giving their 2013 and 2014 reviews.

Oceans abosrb 90% of Earth's heat

The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming.
source

Sea levels have risen ~8 inches since 1901, and are rising 0.1 inches per year

source

NOTE: This link provides a set of charts that visualize the the rise of the of sea level until 2050

Sea levels rise due to thermal expansion of water

Yes, there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting.
source

Melting ice on land contributes to sea level rise (not melting sea ice)

There are two warnings about melting ice and rising oceans: one is by land, the other, by sea. But it’s ice sheets on land, not icebergs in the ocean, that are the biggest contributors to sea level rise.
source

Oceans could hit pH 7.8 in 100 years

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning coal in large quantities, the world’s ocean water has gradually become more acidic. Like global warming, this phenomenon, which is known as ocean acidification, is a direct consequence of increasing levels of carbon dioxide (C - See more at: www.whoi.edu...
www.whoi.edu...

Melting sea ice increases heat absorbed by oceans, which causes a feed-forward cycle

The Arctic sea ice retreat has been one of the most dramatic climate changes in recent decades. Nearly 50 y ago it was predicted that a darkening of the Arctic associated with disappearing ice would be a consequence of global warming. Using satellite measurements, this analysis directly quantifies how much the Arctic as viewed from space has darkened in response to the recent sea ice retreat. We find that this decline has caused 6.4 ± 0.9 W/m2 of radiative heating since 1979, considerably larger than expectations from models and recent less direct estimates. Averaged globally, this albedo change is equivalent to 25% of the direct forcing from CO2 during the past 30 y.
sorce

Hope everyone enjoys this information, helps to spread it around, and helps to deny the ignorance surrounding climate change.

Sorry OP, but I dont think any evidence will change the mind of the deniers. It is the same aevolution, no matter how much hard evidence you lie on the table, the evolution-denialists will not accept. I have long ago stopped trying to convince the deniers.

a reply to: Hellhound604

It is unfortunately too often a true story. It's just one of those things I can't walk away from without at the very least doing my best to spread the information around. I refuse to let idiocy defeat me, guess I'm just stubborn like that.

Follow the money.

If it was all true and London will be under 100ft sea water by next year (rofl), then why are the top rich people not spending a cent on saving the planet when, if it is all true, they are all going to drown along with the poor people very soon.

Or maybe the elite wanted to cover the entire planet in radiation (Fukushima - Pacific Ocean) by making the sea level rise and cover all land masses.

If the top elite don't give a sh!t, why should the poor give a toss for planet Earth when the elite are about to launch tactical nukes throughout Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia anyway ?

a reply to: Rapha

Get as fast a lot of money before we enter a new ice age and save our own a$$

Rising sea-level is just the effect of glacial isostasy(last ice age)
Glaciers have been retreating since the last little ice age, nothing to do with humans carbon print/industrial revolution.

Al Gore is a big joke as is the IPCC.

It's all about the money and the bling bling bada boom boom

You may put me into the denier category. My reasons are very simple. I believe that the initial science as presented by Michael Mann to the UN's IPCC was flawed and couldn't be duplicated by other scientists. His research(hockey stick chart) was accepted out of hand by the IPCC because it gave them a narrative for "global warming" in the early 1990s. Michael Mann refused to supply other scientists with his data used to conclude his findings and was eventually taken to court to see the methodology he used. They found his conclusions were made by using data and excluding other data that gave the results that the IPCC wanted.

The 97% of scientists agree on climate change. One is the change supported by the IPCC and leftist democrats is this country. The other change is a natural occurring event which is the change that 97% agree.

In 1995, Al Gore proclaimed that all the polar bears on the north pole and south pole would be dead. He said, the ice would melt and the bears would drown by 2013. Being Vice President he brought NASA officials showing satellite photos of the poles with receding ice. They made a very convincing argument albeit false. Al Gore went on the start the "Chicago Carbon Credit Exchange" where companies would pay him to use carbon based fuels.

By 2013, the ice has not melted and the bears on the North Pole were thriving. Sadly, there is no bears left in the Antarctic. Strangely, there was never bears there. NASA was showing pictures of receding ice in the Arctic taken in August and the Antarctic in December. This was due to a natural event called summer.

Obama declared the science on global climate change as "proven". A declaration of "proven" is not science and doesn't finalize anything.

During the Paris Accords people like Al Gore, Leonardo Dicaprio, Barack Obama and many other world leaders flew their private jets many miles burning huge amounts of "carbon based fuels" just to discus "proclaimed" not "proven" science.

Why do I disbelieve? The people pushing climate change have lied, used disinformation, pseudoscience, scare tactics and scams to convince us of global warming, climate change or global cooling.

If you believe in this "declared pseudoscience" I have some property west of Tampa for sale at a bargain price.

Well, there's Obama's Clean Power Plan. His plan to lower CO2 emissions, which sounds great, but I don't think he took into consideration the effect it will have on industrial companies i.e mining, O&G, equipment suppliers, etc.

Solar activity and temperature show opposite trends in recent decades
Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

I think clouds are are possible candidate for explaining the recent warming. They often seem to get neglected.

Basic for AGW scientists shopping list, global temperatures stats over the last couple hundred years...do we have that? Yessiree, good! Right chaps let's do some compiling, throw in a couple of tree rings for the 'missing bits'
Sounds good doesn't it, scientists doing science with that treasure trove of temperature stats...except for one thing, NOBODY seems to be too bothered as to how accurate those doggone stats are/were in the first place, how much has changed over a couple of centuries...blah, blah, blah blah...in case they get a headache.
Now we get a tube on Youtube, telling us how we think, in an attempt to prick our guilty consciences Lol! then tells us the science is there, it's indisputable, yet I don't think he mentions 'Weather Station' once? Funny geezer Eh!
Here's a couple of those 'Weather Stations,'

Radcliffe Observatory, United Kingdom, weather station since 1767, over to the extreme right, college buildings. Background, walled garden, housing infrastructure/urbanization, in the middle a space heater for a marquee.. a bit different then in 1767?




Here's a cracker, University of Arizona campus weather station,
Sited on concrete, heat reflecting aggregate on the floor of the enclosure, vehicles in close proximity, siting does not even meet the NOAA standard, which is reproduced on the UoA webpage? You can go on with this stuff indefinitely all over the US.

originally posted by: Hellhound604
Sorry OP, but I dont think any evidence will change the mind of the deniers. It is the same aevolution, no matter how much hard evidence you lie on the table, the evolution-denialists will not accept. I have long ago stopped trying to convince the deniers.

Who are the deniers? There is no scientist in the world who denies climate change.
Evolution-denialists, what does that have to do with the climate change debate?

a reply to: smurfy

absolutely true and no-one is mentioning that!
A populated area or urbanization is not a place to put your sensors if you want to measure temperature changes. It's just unscientific to add those observations to ice-core data or ocean core samples that go back thousands of years untouched by human intervention.
No wonder the temperature is rising.
If you take the data from the GRIP(Greenland icecore) project for example, it clearly shows the temperature is in a small cooling trend for almost 8000 years.
Same goes for co2 which is just a tiny part of the atmosphere and it's ridicule to say co2 drives the temperature or climate change.

Just look at the graph, it says so much things doesn't it

400ppm so we should be where by now, +8C?

a reply to: Rapha

How about the fact that those who become rich are mostly self centered individuals?

Some simple math will tell you both when and where the tidal rise will happen. It's not like the entirety of all land on earth will just disappear one day as everyone on the planet drowns, that's simply ridiculous.

If you took the time to look at the links you would realize that the sea levels would rise by 6-16 inches in the next 35 years.

a reply to: buddah6

I will never deny that there are those who will use climate change for there own selfish gain. Selfish people will always lie. It is a constant recurrence within human history, but you cannot use that as evidence that the information provided by scientists is not accurate.

As far as initial science is concerned you could look towards Svante Arrhenius. He was one of the first to predict that global warming could be a man made thing in 1896, almost a full one hundred years before Micheal Mann.

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.source

As for your belief that global warming is "declared pseudo science" I implore you to read through some of the studies in the OP, and not simply post why you don`t believe in science.

As for your property, you should make it somewhere other than the state that will be underwater in 60 years......

originally posted by: Hellhound604
Sorry OP, but I dont think any evidence will change the mind of the deniers. It is the same aevolution, no matter how much hard evidence you lie on the table, the evolution-denialists will not accept. I have long ago stopped trying to convince the deniers.

When reading topics like this one all over the internet I am always left wondering who the different factions are. For example who are the “Deniers” you refer too?

I find one of the biggest problems in discussing issues related to the environment and climate change is that everyone treats the topic as Black and White; in all discussions there is MY SIDE and MY OPPOSITION and all arguments brought to the debate inevitably degrade into labeling the opposition and then dismissing them based on that label.

Getting back to the example of the “deniers” … again who are these people? What are they denying?

Do all sceptics of the “Man Made Climate Change” theory belong to this group of “deniers”?

Or are you really just referring to the very small (if not loud) minority of people who reject the scientific method on the subject all together (like the small group of religious people who disagree with evolution)?


To not put words into your mouth let me use the answer I gather from the guy in the glasses from the OP video. He ladled his first video “Why [SOME] people don’t believe in climate science”. For me this title tells me a lot about where this guy is ‘starting’ his argument; and I am assuming he would agree with my first definition of “deniers” rather than my second.

Let me explain this. Why is he making a video about “Why [SOME] people don’t believe in climate science”? that is such a far reaching and all-encompassing title that any arguments about the subject are all most irrelevant. For example; if I put a barometer on top of my house and measure the air pressure for a few days I am effectively partaking in “clement science”. Humans have been using “clement science” since they started standing erect and I doubt there are really any people on this face of the earth who “don’t believe in clement science”.

Now I am sure what the Glasses Guy is really talking about is “Man Made Global Climate Change” – which would make spending time on a video relevant because the topic has been narrowed to a more manageable size. But than if he’s topic is “Man Made Global Change” why did he label his video “Why [SOME] people don’t believe in clement science”?

To me the answer is clear; he has been indoctrinated into the MY SIDE vs MY OPPOSITION level of debating; one of his motives in making this video is to paint anyone who might take issue with his conclusions about “Man Made Global Climate Change” into people who don’t believe in a rudimentary aspect of human life. It’s easy to ridicule the latter; only the most dense would take issue with the whole of Climate Science (which again includes putting a thermometer on your windowsill). It’s harder to ridicule sceptics (of all levels) of “Man Made Global Climate Change”.

Unfortunately; despite the pedestal we put scientists on in our society; the scientific community is fraught with this type of politicking. Add to that the group think that permeates the scientific community it’s hard not to be at least a little bit skeptical of such a politicized topic as “Man Made Global Climate Change”. But to label all skeptics as “Deniers” or as people who “don’t believe in climate science” seems to be childish to me.

To round out my argument:
To find evidence of the “Scientific community fraught with politicking” one need only to investigate Pharmaceuticals and Drug trials. There is plenty of evidence where Scientists publish favorably outcomes far far far far more than negative outcomes. Negative outcomes are ignored as a matter of course because negative outcomes don’t bring in the money. And even more sinister there is plenty of evidence where some Scientists manipulate their data ether to ignore damaging information about a particular drug or to prove that a particular drug is more effective than it really is.

To find evidence of the “Scientific community being susceptible to group think” investigate the Piltdown Man Hoax. In its time (over 40 years) the fossilized remains labeled “Piltdown Man” was considered the earliest human ancestor and was revered by paleontologists and evolutionists. The “IN” crowd of scientist feverishly ridiculed any opposition to the Piltdown Man authenticity and several more important (and real) anthropological discovers where dismissed.

originally posted by: openeyeswideshut
If you took the time to look at the links you would realize that the sea levels would rise by 6-16 inches in the next 35 years.

Sea level has got at least 100ft to rise before it even reaches the same level that it was at during the last major ice-age melt-off.

The whole of southern England is one big river delta where the cliffs are earth filled with pebbles created by glaciation.

Remember how Al Gore stated that all ice would have melted by 2014 !!!

Did you ever see the doom porn UK New Statesman magazine in 1984 that showed a picture of the Houses of Parliament, London surrounded by 100ft of water and Washington DC covered in desert sand dunes ? The magazine title said 2010

Go ahead, sell every asset you own and give it to the scientists to stop climate change. Now why has everything gone silent !!!

a reply to: Rapha

Yes because the media loves a good exaggerated scare story and in the 70's we were meant to have an ice age coming. Every winter they warn of snowmeggadon and in the summer it's deadly heatwaves.

The elite aren't worried because they can afford to live higher above sea level if/when it becomes an issue.

originally posted by: johnb
a reply to: Rapha

The elite aren't worried because they can afford to live higher above sea level if/when it becomes an issue.

and you can't?

originally posted by: openeyeswideshut
a reply to: buddah6

I will never deny that there are those who will use climate change for there own selfish gain. Selfish people will always lie. It is a constant recurrence within human history, but you cannot use that as evidence that the information provided by scientists is not accurate.

As far as initial science is concerned you could look towards Svante Arrhenius. He was one of the first to predict that global warming could be a man made thing in 1896, almost a full one hundred years before Micheal Mann.

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.source

As for your belief that global warming is "declared pseudo science" I implore you to read through some of the studies in the OP, and not simply post why you don`t believe in science.

As for your property, you should make it somewhere other than the state that will be underwater in 60 years......

There is two types of global warming! I believe in the natural warm/cooling cycles as does 97% of the environmental scientists. The Michael Mann/IPCC man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience and a false premise.

To be a proven theory you must be able to duplicate the conclusions. Many scientists found that Michael Mann's methodology was not accepted scientific methods. His algorithms used were flawed as well. When other scientists informed the IPCC of their findings the phrase "global warming" was changed to "climate change". The IPCC never would admit that their whole premise was false. Global cooling, global warming or climate change was political cash cow for the IPCC and they weren't going to stop the push.

Most of the charts must be put into context and are subject to interpretation. They are not conclusive by themselves alone. NASA claims CO2 levels are very high at 400 ppb today and for the most part that's true. BUT they don't say that was a normal level 10k years ago before industrialization. It comes down to believing that man was responsible for CO2 levels back then. Either it's a science or what you believe.

a reply to: Rapha

Standard denial argument. Ignore the scientific argument and talk about Al Gore (a politician) instead...

@OP: Great thread, but it's calibur arguments like this guy's that show that no amount of evidence is going to convince them. Their bias says nope, so there you have it, and they clearly aren't looking to challenge their worldview.