elliot

But in 08 0bama said that the raise in the oceans would slow because he was elected.

Just think how high they would have been if he weren't elected.

You misunderstood.

He said the BS levels would not rise if he were elected again.

He lied.

If Obama walked on water--you'd point at him, sneering: "See! Obama can't swim!"

...for now

And this has what to do with Sea Levels?

Bigots will be bigots I guess and never pass up a chance to prove it.

Well if there is one thing we can count on it is the UN will provide an unbiased, factual, report on issues concerning the well being of Earths inhabitants. Never have to worry about some hidden agenda with this august body.

Elliot - you havent proven he's wrong.

it's entirely possible, from a historical perspective - looking back 30 years from now, that we'll say "thats when the oceans rise began to slow"...

are you psychic...do you know that this will not be the case?

I imagine though, you're not the sort capable of critical thinking skills...much less understanding things take time, they dont happen in an instant.

the oceans didnt begin rising yesterday, ya know.

An Independent study reveals the U.N. is now ready to impose a "The World Carbon Emissions Tax Treaty", in addition to:

• The Law of the Seas Treaty
• The World Financial Transactions Tax Treaty
• The World Cigarette Tax Treaty
• The World Internet Usage Tax Treaty
• The World Small Arms Treaty
• And last but not least, The World Religious Hate Crime Treaty

Proceeds will be redistributed to "poor, underdeveloped" Nations via the U.N.'s financial terrorist institutions of IMF, G-7, G-8, and G-20.

What does any of this have to do with Obama? The President knows this, and he has done about as much as the conservatives would let him, although we all wish he would push harder.

But the science is still the science. Politics doesn't change that.

Science has been wrong before.

Of course science can be wrong, but that doesn't mean you can assume it IS wrong just because you want it to be.

I wonder how many more millions Al Gore is making on this report?

Why is it past Presidents and those around and behind them have supported some of these UN laws and treaties and it takes our representatives to stop these UN NEW WORLD ORDER rulings that will hurt mostly the U.S. and its non-elite citizens????? Watch out if your representative is in violation of the LOGAN ACT and has contact with the Bilderbergers,the Trilateralist or similar groups pushing for a NEW WORLD ORDER.

But in 08 0bama said that the raise in the oceans would slow because he was elected

Yeah, but unfortunately all the republicans could say was no!

IF YOU GUYS BELIEVE THIS ARTICLE you are deceived!

THERE IS NO SEA LEVEL RISE!!!

the sea floor is sinking from all the weight of the glacier melt going on.... hence all the earthquakes...

look up Post Glacial Rebound Effect.

PLEASE!

Any good ideas on how to cool the sun? I still think that is the major problem to earth warming.

Why cause we had Ice ages that melted and then reformed a few times before man ever started burning fossil flues. F$%King explain this before you blame burning fossil flues.

"Post Glacial Rebound Effect", aka isostatic rebound, is a real thing, but its only happening in certain areas of the globe that were recently (in geologic terms) covered by thick ice sheets. Places like Greenland and Norway are indeed rising in elevation by as much as a couple centimeters a year, far outpacing the sea level rise that is occurring at the same time.

LOL, @Jonathan-1728701. So you believe the scientists who've documented and measured Post Glacial Rebound Effect, but assume they're too stupid to factor those measurements into their predictions.

Nice try. Go find another straw man.

Quoting Wikipedia: In addition to the addition of melted ice water from glaciers and ice sheets, recent sea level changes are also affected by the thermal expansion of sea water due to global warming, sea level change due to deglaciation of the last Ice Age (postglacial sea level change), deformation of the land and ocean floor and other factors.

If 95% of doctors told you you had a cancer that needed to be removed right away, would you listen to them?

When 95% of scientists tell you that global warming is real, is at least partially caused by human activity, and needs to be dealt with right away, why don't you listen?

partially caused by human

Give me a number 99% or just .001% partially is so vague it is useless in this warming question

Well Jonathan, post glacial rebound affect has to do with the land under the glaciers, it has nothing to do with the sea floor. As the weight of the glacier decreases, the land under the glacier rises due to less weight on _that— piece of land. Earthquakes are caused by movement of tectonic plates, and are not caused by either post glacial rebound or sea level rise. Look it up.

And if the Faux trolls had read the article in lieu of just the reference to the 'UN' in the article title, they would have found the report was by Stefan Rahmstorf, a researcher at Germany's
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Heaven forbid that the Faux trolls would even attempt to read scientific studies that discuss climate change for fear that it might change their uninformed opinion.

Doomed

"Post Glacial Rebound Effect", aka isostatic rebound, is a real thing, but its only happening in certain areas of the globe that were recently (in geologic terms) covered by thick ice sheets. Places like Greenland and Norway are indeed rising in elevation by as much as a couple centimeters a year, far outpacing the sea level rise that is occurring at the same time.

That is correct. Oddly though, as Greenland rises the etire North American continent tips like a plate and Louisiana sinks even more than can be accounted for by rising sea levels.

Sea level has been rising for the last 12,000 years. Humans are at least partially responsible for this.

The media seems to think that carbon-dioxide is the only greenhouse gas, but unfortunately that is not true. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas. Methane is produced from raising livestock, garbage dumps and from human sewage.

If human population continues to increase at the same rate, we will inevitably have an increase in total greenhouse gas emissions even if we completely stopped using fossil fuels.

Quo

Bigotry is not necessarily racist. Look up the definition.

There are many who wish to discredit science, mostly for religious or veiled religious/political motives which assumes a perfect world, because of perfection in religion. Dump that stupid idea, and then you can get somewhere. Look at the recent earth from the standpoint of gravity. The earth isn't a perfect sphere. The earth hasn't been viewed as a perfect sphere for decades, but it was closer to a perfect sphere than the recent gravity topography earth. Density of material affects the transmission of let's just say "sound waves". Density affects tides, which affect coastal erosion.

The nickel/iron "highest density" core of the earth, isn't a perfect sphere exactly centered in a perfect sphere shaped earth, around which revolves a perfectly shaped dense moon which cause the tides. The weight of glacier ice can depress the surface locally because the crust of the earth which is solid, floats on a plastic interior. When the weight of glacier ice is removed, the crust can rise, but it doesn't mean the entire crust of the earth has to rise. The crust can rise in Sweden, for instance, but doesn't have to rise via this mechanism on the Ivory Coast.

So just forgo the concept of "perfection". Scientists aren't perfect, and they recognize that ideas once considered valid might change as more data comes in and better theories arise to accommodate this new information. It's people of religious and political persuasions who want to diminish the significance of science so their own ideas don't get tossed into the trash bins of history known as failed concepts.

flnobody

Just think how high they would have been if he weren't elected.

I'm "guessing" the increase would've been EXACTLY the same......

Jonathan,

So if the sea floor is sinking, why is the water level rising? If the land rises, (rebound effect), and this causes the sea floor to sink, that just creates a larger volume of space for the water. That would mean lowered sea levels.

The rebound effect is real, but it is about massive weight concentrated in a specific localized area. Per unit volume, ice weighs less than water, but the melted ice gets distributed across a far larger surface area than it was originally concentrated in. But the compression and lowering of the land and the later rebound takes a long time to occur. In theory, the total weight of the entire outer crust, remains relatively constant and eventually the added water weight in the oceans will exert more compressive weight on the sea floor, however the relative increase per unit area that the additional volume is contained in, is very small. Additionally you need to consider that the weight of a land mass is greater than the weight of water of equal volume.

You can theorize that over enough time things will begin to equalize, but it isn't so simple and it sure isn't something that happens suddenly. You also need to consider that under enormous weight pressing down causing a land mass to sink, what will also happen is that at the margins where that land mass solid crust meets the molten viscous mantle, pressure will be higher and temperatures along with that. In all likelihood, some of the former solid crust may become viscous again which can then move to help equalize pressures. All these changes are relatively small and take thousands of years to occur. But ice changing to water happens pretty fast and that water has a far lower viscosity that the molten mantle. So it moves far faster. The oceans then will rise far faster than the sea floor will sink in response to the weight.

You also need to realize that where we see evidence of the rebound effect occuring today, such as in upper North America, are coming back from long ago glaciers that were miles thick and have been gone for many thousands of years. In Antartica, the mean ice thickness is about 6,000 feet with some areas as much as 15,000 feet thick. When that ice melts, the rise in sea level will happen very quickly, but the rebound will take a very long time to come back. Even when it rebounds "completely" the volume returning will be nothing like the volume of additional water spread out in the oceans.

wildcatwest

If human population continues to increase at the same rate, we will inevitably have an increase in total greenhouse gas emissions even if we completely stopped using fossil fuels.

Sssshhhhhhhh! Stop saying that or the liberals will want to install fart-o-meters on everyone and we will have to get regular intestinal gas inspections!

Speaking of the UN and wingnuts (right wing idiots)......

The other day I was at Airgas getting a welding hood and
some welding rod when I just happen to overhear a number of wingnuts talking
about the election. They claimed that Romney had won the popular vote by over
20,000,000 votes. Well you know me, I can’t just sit quietly by an allow
wingnuts to spout nonsense without speaking up, so I politely said “that’s the
biggest bunch of bull@!$%# I’ve heard in my entire life, Obama won the popular
vote by 2,000,000.” Another gentleman on the other side of the store said “that’s
what I thought.” The wingnuts started trying to puff their chests out to look
bigger like most scared animals do, so I just shook my head and started to walk
off when the wingnut who was working the counter hollered “you mark words, in 6
months Osama Obama will have United Nations troops marching down our streets
going door to door confiscating our guns!”. Another one quickly added “ThatS
for certain, and I will give it to them, BULLETS FIRST!”. I laughed out loud as I walked out the door
without buying anything, I gave my business to Industrial supply instead.

But just to ease the minds of any wingnuts out there who are
concerned about United Nations troops marching through our streets six months
from now I did a bit of research. The United Nations has only 95,000 troops as
compared to our 1.4 million active duty troops, 1.4 million reserves and
800,000 uniformed police officers. The United Nations has no reserves, their
troops come for 110 different countries, most of which are our allies. The UN
has no Air Force, no Navy, no ICBM’s, just ground troops that are spread fairly
thin throughout the world. So the idea that the United Nations could invade the
most militarily powerful country on the face of the earth is beyond ludicrous.

@deprogrammer

I don't think logical thinking is their strong suit if they could believe in conspiracy theories like that to begin with.

Why can't people just realize that this is happening and it is not something we can throw money at to make it go away? Considering that the majority of our population lives in coastal areas, isn't it time to think about getting a plan together? New York was warned for years that they needed to shore things up. Are we going to keep spending billions on clean-up and have lives lost or are we going to spend money to shore up the infrastructure? It is not about "green" energy, though we do need to develop alternative energy solutions. We are beyond the point of making a difference. It is all about damage control.

What do we have to lose by developing renewable sources of energy and developing solar sources of energy. If a large number of homes in the southern US were to install solar panels on their roofs for electricity and hot water the amount of carbon based energy would be greatly reduced. How would that be a negative? It might even make the oil producing nations that use our money to fight us become more dependent on us instead the other way around.

the more i read comments on these threads, the more i am convinced that Mother Earth will be better off once humans are extinct.

That's right, on weekends Obama gets out there and personally turns sea water back into ice. Worship your Pharoah, for he is your king and god now.

Golly, WalkWithMe, and here I thought he was just the president.

I sometimes wonder what manner of world you reactionary conservatives inhabit. Your ideas seem so totally out of tune with reality.

BTW: the article was about evidence of a changing climate. Very little to do with Obama, who is just another politician. He'll be gone in 4 years.

Speaking of the UN and wingnuts (right wing idiots)......

Nicely said, deprogrammer. you got my vote.

But just to be clear, there are certainly wingnuts on the left too. It is part of the human condition that some see dire threats where no such danger exists, and paradoxically, ignore very real dangers that are [perhaps] lapping at their doors.

You really need to talk to your grandparents. They will tell you this is not the first time we have experienced above average temps. You're problem is you have a very limited frame of reference because that better justifies your goofy assertions and makes you not feel such so foolish buying into all this hype.

Wait a few years and get back to us on who was being foolish.

The weather we are experiencing is not simply "warming" itself. We are experiencing a phase of "extreme" weather.

My wife and I grew up in the 70's, and have lived all our life in MA. A few years back we started talking about the extreme weather we had as kids, from Blizzards in the winter to brutal heat waves with drought. We were saying it is weird that we don't see that weather in a cluster anymore. What happened within the next three years? Record breaking all time snowfalls in winter. Droughts & Heat the next summer bad even the lawns with sprinklers died. The next winter was the warmest on record, and the least snowfall on record.

What am I getting at? Yes, STexan is right. Most people under 40 have very limited experience with these so called "new" weather patterns.

My God, you are so stupid. It's never been this hot in November in Texas. This summer will bring thousands of deaths in Texas. It's never been this hot in November. It should be freezing right now. And, it's not. It is 70 and 80 in some places, and that is insane. I almost died, driving home without AC one summer in 110 heat. I just barely made it home and drank water to survive. Many will die if their AC goes out. Your babies will be cooked dead in the summer heat to come. Pray for us.

Give it up, Rooster. Those who don't want to see it won't, even if you shove every piece of empirical evidence and scientific modeling under their noses. You'd think climate scientists were incapable of taking into account previous climate changes and were only basing their predictions on the past few years of human history instead of being able to extrapolate planetwide data from core samples going back millions of years.

But no, people with no scientific training are obviously more intelligent and have a better grasp on this issue than those who have studied it for decades. Those of us stupid enough to listen to the educated deserve what we get.

Roosterboy - The average low in Texas in November hasn't even reached freezing since at least 1980. Not that I'm arguing whether or not the climate is warming but at least use factual data.

http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Texas/temperature-november.php

@roosterboy

What a sad little knee jerk reaction troll you are. Really, calling someone "stupid" is all your tiny and whiny brain can come up with?

Oh how did humans survive for 100,000 years without A/C??? OH NOOOOOES!!!

And if you believe you are "all gonna die" in Texas, then you should stop being "stupid" and move...

@AG99

And those "studies" are frequently redacted for error, or for downright blatant cooking of the numbers... but Libtards like to ignore those facts.

Sorry, we are not all simple rubes, I am a college educated science major - and EVERY set of data can be manipulated if not downright fabricated. This goes for both sides of the fence, to believe otherwise is just lying.

WalkWithMe: You call me a Libtard and then have the nerve to take Rooster to task for calling someone stupid? Pot, meet kettle.

As for manipulating data, of course it can be manipulated. It's also peer-reviewed, which leads to some corrections. None of it has proved to be completely fabricated and the vast majority supports the general consensus on climate warming. There's a reason deniers are in the minority; even some former skeptics are starting to switch sides. Follow the money and it's easy to see who benefits from the status quo.

And yes, I was a science major, too.

What studies have been recanted? What studies have shown that the Earth is not warming? The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of global warming. It is literally a score of "absolutely every piece of empirical evidence ever collected on the subject" to "I don't believe you".

@AG99

When did I call YOU a "Libtard"? Please stop inventing drama.

hell,

the subject of this vine is peer reviewed science and not likely to be redacted due to error. If you didn't flunk out of college science, you should understand the peer review process and the competitive environment that scientists work in. This study corroborates what other studies have found, that IPCC's estimates tend to underpredict. You have absolutely no basis for assuming that this report is flawed, aside from your obvious conservative political ideology.

WalkWithMe: You're right. I read it wrong. I apologize.

duplicate

See how propaganda works? They made up stories about the data a couple of years ago and no matter how many times it's shown that the data was not cooked and the scientific method is explained to them they still come back with the nonsense. Walk is just one of those people who will not listen to the truth and will repeat the rights discredited stories over and over.

Propaganda and advertising work!

@Joe Mota

I assume all reports are flawed. As an engineer I routinely massage data to meet whatever corporate demands. I do have to admit I got a "C-" in Chem II, but I doubt molecular structure has anything to do with this :p

And you should always expect a strong and possibly zealous argument from the other side, when people are all jumping on the "the end is nigh" bandwagon... it hasn't gotten any more convincing since the 60's... and I'm still waiting for when "mother nature bites back".

In response to those discussing the month of November and record setting weather; I don't live in Texas and I'm not even 30 yet so I won't use my own experience to make judgments on the weather occurring there now or in the past, but here is what government records contain for Dallas:

Novermber 1, 2012: 87F, tied the all-time record.

Noevember 2, 2012: 87F, beat the all-time record by 1F.

That's it for records set in November, if choosing Dallas was a mistake and I should have chosen another part of Texas, please tell me a zip code and I will find that data also.

Fact: the earth has been warming since the last ice age, and continues to get "warmer"

now, feel free to dispute that with all sorts of data...but you're just going to look foolish. if the earth hasnt been warming since the last ice age, we'd all still be covered in ice.

as for the currrent weather, I have little doubt that what we are experiencing is mostly natural.

but I also am pretty confident the things we do matter too.

The drought we experienced last year...I dont know if it was as bad, worse, or not even close to the one that caused the dust bowl...but we do know that the farming practices back then had a lot to do with the dust bowl being the dust bowl.

we're smarter than that, supposedly, but I still think most people will do things to their own financial betterment, at the peril of everyone else...

and so maybe it wont be like the dust bowl, but it'll be something caused by man - in combination with whatever earth is doing on her own.

we just dont know how to help ourselves, we suck at being proactive, and think it's more beneficial to bitch about "is this all caused by man" than to simply look at we we can prove we are causing...

massive deforestation to start...

and if you dont think that doesnt impact ANYTHING, see the dust bowl.

"Fact: the earth has been warming since the last ice age, and continues to get "warmer""

Actually, that is completely wrong, but what do you care?

Fact: 20 - 30 years age they told us we were beginning a new ice age. Which is it? I still have my parka and snow boots, do I need to get a speedo?

phillip, "they" told us no such thing. A few scientists speculated about ice ages because there had been a mild cooling trend, but more scientists still believed that increasing CO2 would win out in the end; and now we know they were right.

Jessica-1170252 -- Really good post! Great point about massive deforestation too!

I have said this before, and I will say it again, that we as a species need to grow up and graduate from kindergarten! Here's what we need to learn that we should have learned in kindergarten: 1.) If you make a mess, you clean it up (are you listening, corporations? That applies to you too, or did you not graduate from kindergarten yet?) 2.) Be kind and considerate of others, treat them like you want to be treated, and help others. 3.) Do the best you can each day. Work hard and sincerely, and take a short recess every once in a while to recharge, and take good care of yourself. 4.) Don't lie or cheat. Tell the truth. 5.) Take good care of your things and respect other peoples things. 6.) Save up for a rainy day. Yes, this applies to both individual people, corporations, and governments.

Unfortunately, our species as a whole seems to be unable to learn these few lessons. Those who do learn those lessons have a better chance to survive the changes that climate change is bringing, and to be able to truly rebuild a better civilization. Quite candidly, whether climate change is man made or not, does not excuse us from our responsibility to take the best care of our planet as we are able. And to deny our part in the contamination of our environment is to invite disaster for our species, as well as other species that we have impacted. However, the earth will survive in one way or the other--with us as a wiser species or without us. I am hoping that we survive as a wiser species, but I'm not counting on governments or corporations to help in that, so in keeping with Kindergarten rule #6, my way of saving up for a rainy day is to prepare as best I can.

There is nothing like an article about climate change to bring right wing boneheads out of the woodwork to flaunt their ignorance and stupidity. Cases in point: Jonathan and Phillipqb above:

As an engineer I routinely massage data to meet whatever corporate demands.

Sure hope you're not designing any bridges I have to drive over!

Walk

"As an engineer I routinely massage data to meet whatever corporate demands."

Remind me not to hire you and not to buy anything from the company you work for. You should be fired. I have been an engineer for more than 40 years and as one being proud of my profession, I would fire you in a second if I heard you did that in anything I was responsible for.

Your politics therefore don't surprise me...not one bit!

Fact: the earth has been warming since the last ice age, and continues to get "warmer"

This has been the truth for a very long time. People refuse to admit it though.

A long long time ago the Earth was a much warmer place with a CO2 concentration more the three times greater then it is now (ohh noes we're all going to die!!). The Earth went through a period of great bio-diversity the like of which hasn't been seen since then. Dinosaurs did not drive SUV's nor did they operate factories. Following this was a period of extremely low temperatures that also had lower CO2 content (yay better right?). What followed was mass extinction and great hardship and death. urrently CO2 levels on earth are rather low for plant life, their basically starving. CO2 is plant food, it's been demonstrated for a long time that plants grow better and faster in higher concentrations of CO2, guess what eats plants.

Anyhow, anyone who thinks climatologists are "scientists" is kinda clueless. Climatology is a soft science, in the same category as psychology, anthropology and marine biology. It exists in the purely theoretical world and doesn't involve experimentation just statistics. Climatologists basically gather data produced by other scientists and then put it through a theoretical model to predict results. Currently no climate model actually works, none of them, when fed historical data, actually predict known historical conditions (the little ice age and medivil warming period are particularly annoying as they've broken every model to date). You should be looking at climatologists the same way you look at economists, psychologists and anthropologists. Their individuals taking large amounts of data and trying to sift through it to find trends and patterns. They are often only partially right and sometimes flat wrong.

Which brings me to another note, THE SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED. Anyone who ever, at any point in time, mentions the words "consensus" or "settled" as an argument for AGW theory should immediately be shown the door. In the early 20th century the speed of light in a vacuum was determined to be the absolute highest velocity that one could move at. This is a cornerstone of modern nuclear physics and quantum mechanics. Yet even today there are still scientists looking for a way past that barrier. That is what makes science into what it is, the constant challenging of accepted norms and beliefs. People believed the world was flat, and they were proved wrong. People believed that the earth was the center of the universe, they too were proved wrong. People believed manned flight was impossible, they were also proved wrong. "Accepted" Science is constantly being proved wrong, the results is a constant evolving of our understanding of the universe and the laws therein. How in the sam hell does the new soft science "Climatology" get a pass at this centuries old concept? How is it that climatologists expect to never be doubted and to have their word take as truth when every other scientists in the world is constantly being doubted.

Anyways, if you really wanted to know who the upper atmosphere works do not ask a climatologists. Instead find an Aerologist, the people who actually study the workings of that region of our planet. They were the first to call bullsh!t at the climatologists models regarding CO2 and positive feedback looks. CO2 is a minor trace greenhouse gas that absorbs a limited range of IR radiation. The dominate greenhouse gas is H2O vapor, basically clouds. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is known and is nowhere near as high as the Climatologists have made it out to be.

Walk

"As an engineer I routinely massage data to meet whatever corporate demands."

Remind me not to hire you and not to buy anything from the company you work for. You should be fired. I have been an engineer for more than 40 years and as one being proud of my profession, I would fire you in a second if I heard you did that in anything I was responsible for.

Your politics therefore don't surprise me...not one bit!

And I bet your a genius, billionaire, playboy philanthropist too right.

The wonders of anonymous postings on the Internet.

theotherguy

No, just an engineer who is very proud of my profession. I'm a good engineer. A genius? I doubt it. Not a billionaire and not a playboy. And I certainly resent your offensive accusation. The wonders of posting on the internet when you don't have to be accountable for being obnoxious.

By the way, your long winded argument is totally baseless. Climatologists are indeed scientists and they are not "soft" scientists. You clearly don't understand the definition (psychologists are soft scientists). And you clearly don;t understand the scientific method. Although you will probably accuse me of lying, I have authored or co-authored nearly 100 papers, mostly in semiconductor materials science and lately in nanotechnology. Believe me or not, I will state categorically that I DO understand the scientific method, and your ramblings have little to do with the reality of it. The only thing you said that makes sense is that it is never completely settled, and that's the way it's supposed to be.

Your claim that "Aerologists" have denied climatology is nothing more than a thinly veiled lie.

CO2 is NOT a minor trace gas. It is present at ~0.05% and is responsible for.......trees. Where do you think trees get their carbon to make wood, from the ground? They get it from the air, and that alone should prove to you that it is not a trace gas. If you knew what you were talking about, you might make sense, but alas.

Again the right just shows how wrong it is!

Next you'll claim to be a doctor too.

minor trace gas

0.3%

Aerologists have disagreed with the AGW theory. Specifically the parts where various groups try to use positive feedback loops to enhance the effect of CO2 something which has been known for a very long time.

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169

Very good explanation of exactly how the earth is warmed.

Comes down to this, the CO2 effect in the atmosphere is already saturated and has been for decades. Adding more CO2 will not increase the total energy radiated downward but instead lower the point of saturation. Instead of the main band being saturated at 5km it would instead be saturated at 3km from the surface for example. AGW theory tries to get around this by saying that the higher local temperatures would cause the ocean to evaporate more and thus increase atmospheric H2O, the dominate contributor to the greenhouse effect. Basically more CO2 = more H2O = more CO2 = more H2O = Venus atmosphere and we all die (more C2O is created by less ocean mass to absorb it).

It's that last part that Aerologists are screaming about. While H2O is a greenhouse gas, all H2O is not equal. H2O vapor formations in the upper atmosphere actually cool the earth not warm it. This is because they reflect sunlight back away from the planet before it's had a chance to contribute to the total solar energy input. It's only lower altitude H2O formations that serve to keep IR radiation in. This upper atmosphere cloud effect has been experimentally proven, as has the IR saturation of CO2 at lower concentrations.

CO2 absorption is logarithmic not linear and has a point upon which absolutely no more IR will be absorbed in the main band. Side bands account for ~5% of the effect so doubling those will have a ~0.13C effect on average temperature.

Yet you never hear news stories discuss that side of the argument. That the people responsible for modeling and studying the upper atmosphere don't agree with the mechanics used by the Climatologist groups.

And regardless of how you feel, "Climatology" is a soft science and has been since it's inception. Chances are you don't even know the difference between the two. Let me give you some help, it revolves around empirical experimentation vs statistical analysis. Climatologists can not build a planet to experimentally verify their theory's, just like Psychologists can not build a human mind to verify theirs. They must instead rely on others to provide them with hard data and then sift through all that data in in attempt to make a bigger model / understanding out of it.

The longest running sea-level measurements are recorded at Amsterdam, in the Netherlands, beginning in 1700.^[38] Since 1850, the rise averaged 1.5 mm/year (about 0.060")...

Records dating from 1843 Australian data taken by an amateur meteorologist at the Port Arthur convict settlement, when merged with data recorded by modern tide gauges, indicated sea level rise of about 1 mm a year (about 0.040").^[39]

Global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year from 1950 to 2009 and at a satellite-measured average rate of about 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009,^[5] an increase on earlier estimates.^[6]

This satellite-measurement accuracy is still in question due to their very short data period and the many other factors that influence these measurements. Most satellite data is verified by direct measurements, prior to its adoption as FACT...

The IPCC projections were based on a decade long Pacific Island study that started during the end of a major typhoon cycle. This contributed to a abnormal depression in the start of the Pacific Sea Level data base...

If you do not understand how these data bases are constructed and what effects the sea level measurements. ie - Continental rebound, tectonic plate movements, atmospheric conditions, limited numbers of data points/periods covered, etc...

Ferrosynthesis-3490482,

When was the FIRST - Climatology Degree issued??? The world's first climatology degree (Bachelor of Science (Climatology)) was offered by the University of Southern Queensland in Australia with the first enrollments in 2001. They are now being offered on-line... Ha! Ha!

Why does the GRACE satallite measurments, establish their base data on measurments that have an accepted 20% error rate for isostatic adjustment. The "best" model (NASA) we recommend is now based on Paulson et al (2007), with an uncertainty of +/- 20%. Then claim to be able to make an accuracy of better than 1/10,000% in its measurments???

For a indepth study on the increasing sea levels and how the different data bases (GRACE, Argo, satellite altimetry, etc) are combined... see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818108001343

Another problem is that AGW theory requires a the committal of a logical fallacy. Correlation does not equal causation. Physics and thermodynamics can predict that doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels will raise the average global temperature 1C under most optimal assumptions, and as little as .3C in least optimal circumstances. AGW theory requires doubling of CO2 to raise temperatures by 2.5 to 4.5C, how it accomplishes this is unverified and largely unknown.

It's how they came about that number that is the most troubling. It was a case of at X year we measured Y temperature and Z CO2 levels. On a different year A we measures B temperature and C CO2 levels. As year A was higher then year X, Temperature B and CO2 density C were both higher then Temperature Y and density Z, therefor CO2 must raise Temperature by W amount regardless of what physics says. The results of that calculation have made it into every AGW model created to date and always with it being assumed to be a correct premise. Even when that number is 200~300%+ what it should be and when we have historical data that shows the earth at 2000+ ppm CO2 (700%+ what is today) and the results were a temperature that was not inline with their calculation.

Also the AGW folks treat CO2 amounts under ~280 (pre-industrial) by a different model then CO2 amounts over 280 (post-industrial) as though somehow passing through 280ppm the laws of physics change.

The other guy

No I am not a physician, but I do have PhD.

Since I am unwilling to reveal my real identity due to fear of people like you, you will have to take my word for it.

And you are quite wrong about CO2 saturation. The CO2 level is determined in part by the biosphere. It is a balance with O2 etc. We have 21% O2 because more O2 and things would burn too fast and less O2 means that the CO2 will be eaten by photosynthesis. Until the plants get to ~ 21%. The excess CO2 has actually already been observed to enhance plant growth.

Your definition of soft science is right, but your assessment of climatology is not. By your definition astronomy and astrophysics would be "soft" sciences. They are not.

And you had better learn the definition of theory before you denigrate that as well.

Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to continue with this mental masturbation, I have some real things to do. Educating the right is a hopeless cause.

It is very evident that the US is dropping rapidly in Education rankings and very soon, we will be on the bottom of the World's List. At present, several States have re-written their Textbooks, especially History, for their School Systems. Now, apparently, the Sciences have met a similar fate.

@Ferrosynthesis-3490482

More bulvine scatology.

You can't even get your basic physics right which pretty much discredits your entire claim to being an engineer. CO2 has three bands that it absorbs IR radiation on, the primary band is the 15um range which has already been demonstrated to be saturated at 220 PPM. Adding more CO2 only lowers the point of saturation to close to the ground, it doesn't allow for more IR radiation to be radiated. The two other side bands are not saturated and will increase IR reflection as the density of CO2 increases. Those two sidebands represent approx 5% of CO2's energy transmission capability and adding more there yields smaller and smaller results. CO2 is logarithmic not linear, each additional molecule of CO2 makes less of a contribution then the previous molecule and the plateau point of it's effect is around 220PPM.

AGW theory requires that we make the assumption that something "magical" and wholly unproven is happening to create a positive feedback loop wherein that small 1C increase by doubling CO2 after 280PPM (but not before) yields an increase in H2O vapor which creates the spiraling hockystick of doom. Empirical studies have demonstrated that doesn't actually happen, and thus AGW theory was then adjusted again to state that clouds were not involved (clouds actually create a downward forcing in response to an increase in CO2).

Now you can get pissy, angry and stamp you feet all you want, but most of AGW theory has been wholly and soundly disproved. Not only that, but most of what's on the media is purely BS. Average global temperatures haven't risen by any statistically significant amount for the past 16 years. The change has been calculated to be +1.5C with a error band of +/- 3C. That means the range is -1.5C to +2.5C, basically their not even sure if it's gotten colder or warmer on average in the past 16 years. And yet during this time CO2 density in the atmosphere has gone WAY beyond the "point of no return" where AGW theory predicts the world will turn into a fireball.

And for your information, Astronomy is a soft science. Astrophysics was a soft science until Einstein and is largely still considered one. They rely on statistical information to make predictions and mathematical models of how the universe works, aka "the standard model". This model is constantly being updated and changed and currently has a big gaping hole in it with regards to "Dark Energy". That hole signals that our understanding and therefor the model is wrong and needs a great amount of further research.

At least the astrophysicists are willing to admit there is a hole in their theory's and want to do more research on it. The Climatologists just go Jedi and say "this isn't the hole your looking for, the science is settled" and skip over any and all discrepancies in their theory.

I can keep going at you all day long. You rely on a bunch of junk pop-sci to keep yourself informed, makes you sound great to most people but has a horrible lack of understanding of basic physics.

Here more for you, though you'll just sweep it aside and do more hand waiving.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

Report from the UK's own Met and CRU (the guys who invented global warming as a political weapon).

Average warming is 0.2C since 1997, +/- 0.3C at a 95% confidence interval. Leave you with an error band of -0.1C to +0.5C, which is statistically considered a null-hypothesis and would be discarded in any other field.

Another thing not often mentioned is all those "doom and gloom" scenarios are done using the data from the IPCC AR4 report which is from ~1960 to ~2000 during a 22 year warming trend (1975 ~ 1997). Everything after projected after that is assuming that warming trend continued and didn't include actual real satellite measurements. That model has since largely been discarded yet is still used by many groups to measure "sea ice melt" and other disaster scenarios.

The other guy

No No No

What you meant to say is that at 220 ppm the amount of radiation that can be absorbed is saturated. If you increase the CO2 the amount of radiation that is absorbed will be correspondingly increased. You seem to believe that if you increase the CO2 content no more will be absorbed. That is categorically incorrect and defies the laws of simple physics.

Where you are confused is that you saw the word logarithmic, but you misinterpreted it. What is true is that the distance that the radiation has to go through to get absorbed is logarithmic, but that's just a function of a random capture model. You double the CO2 concentration you double the radiation.

I would like some references as it took me some time to find the article you misinterpreted.

Nice try, though!

Drink more water and don't use so much TP. If your toilet still overflows, move to higher ground. Good luck my friend.

wow i don't think dingleb has ever given anything other than false information. Ray, do not run away from the problem becuase obviously such a small problem isn't worth moving into a new home for, just call your landlord and have him look at it or get a plumber to check it out if you think it's a real serious issue. either way things like this happen all the time and the main thing is to not overreact

LitterHater: They're both joking.

There goes Hater again. Saving the world, one constipated home owner at a time, and one poached antelope at a time. Go buy yourself some tube socks son, you earned 'em.

Wow - how'd you know I was constipated??!!

Ray M

You are clearly full of s#!t to make such a comment!

It's poop again!

Sinking into what? The molten core of the earth? Please explain your concept in more scientific terms... or give it up. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't happening. That's called denial.

break: De Nile is in Egypt.

@breakmyrustycage

I guess you didn't go to high school. It's called "Plate Tectonics". So much for Liberals being smarter than conservatives...

BTW: Soundgarden was a half rate completely overrated band back then, and just plain sad now with that pathetic reunion album.

break, you cracked me up with your idiocy. You probably also believe that bald people are simply taller than their hair.

I'm not trying to scare anyone and I recognize the fact that the verdict still isn't in on the cause and outcome of climate change, but if I stick to just facts I can say that the continental shelves are sinking and raising in different parts of the world and the ocean is rising. Scientists and governments are aware of it and it is tracked, they are also aware of the the ocean rising. Read the article about Sweden from yesterday, their continental shelf is rising and so is the ocean, if they can measure ocean rising against a continental shelf rising, then obviously the ocean is rising too.

Continental shelves don't sink. They're a thick area in the plates, formed by lighter mineral materials than the oceanic plates. When continental shelves collide with other continental shelves, they create vast mountain ranges, and when they collide with oceanic plates, they create subduction zones, and the continental plates end up on top. Oceanic plates do sink, but only when subducted under a continental shelf.

Both continental and oceanic plates remain on top of the mantle, and are incapable of sinking in (although the oceanic plates melt when they are subducted). Much like an ice cube in a cup of water, they remain floating at the surface, because they are less dense.

@WalkWithMeInHell, I don't think "Plate Tectonics" means what you think it means. It's generally better to know how something works before you try to use it to bolster an argument.

@hwilson

Whatever, so your life involves the esoteric minutiae of geology (oh wait, is "geology" the wrong term too?). Does that get you lots of chicks? I hope it at least pays well?

The point is he made a kneejerk statement that sounded like continental shift was voodoo.

Now that you are done correcting me, you can feel better about your possibly obscure degree.

The crust of the earth isn't floating in a bath tub. When plates sink, they displace the molten rock beneath them, which is forced to the surface as lava to form more crust. And none of this has any impact on water levels. The only way ocean levels rise is if there is a) less area for it to cover, which would require the Earth actually lose mass, or b) more water is added to the ocean.

Sinking into what?

Subduction zones. hwilson is correct. I had a dual major chemistry/geology.

It would be almost impossible for the ocean levels and surface temperatures to remain constant. The one constant about the earth as well as life in general is CHANGE. Don't believe me?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Based on Ice core data, the earth has undergone many cycles of warm and cool temperatures which do coinside with CO2 levels in the last several hudreds of thousand years. There is also evidence of periods of increased solar activity coinsiding with core samples showing changing temperatures.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

To sink tons of money into this "global warming" scam is akin to trying to stop "global brightening" on a 24 hr scale.......and the only person that will EVER benefit from this is Al Gore. He's made millions off this, and to think we will be taxing energy because of this flawed science is a travesty.

riverboy

it doesn't work. If some place is sinking due to plate tectonics and other has to be rising. It's a zero sum game.

Perhaps Walk should return to high school himself or at least speak intelligently before denigrating other's comments.

And what is an obscure degree? You hate those more educated or smarter than you? You villify those who actually might know what they're talking about?

Keep proving how wrong the right is!

@toxic

Don't try rational on them. They want to think whatever "green" products they buy will have an impact. Many of these green, or carbon footprint friendly, consumer goods are not much different than the standard ones a company might make already.

A few years back my company adopted RoHS and a bunch of other materials global eco restrictions. The only reason we adopted them was because the raw materials already started coming that way from the factory. What do we do here? Slap a green label with a leaf and market the product as something "new", and charge all new customers 5% more! - even though the only cost incurred was for marketing materials. Charging people more without doing anything, and having them pay for saying "please let me" with a big dumb smile on their face. Actually, I should start appreciating the eco-wannabees because they are actually raising the profit margins of corporations everywhere and improving my 401k.

I am not worried about pollution destroying the earth, Godzilla already defeated the Smog Monster in 1972

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla_vs._Hedorah

More specific please, what doesn't work? Not sure I get what you are saying, but it appears as if you are saying they never sink or raise? Did you read the article yesterday? Because if what I stated doesn't work you may have some new information for every scientist in Sweden.

Oh wait I think I get what you're saying Ferro, you misunderstood my post. I'm not argueing the ocean is rising because of tetonic plates. Sweden's land mass is raising due to tetonic plate movements, it is a fact, it is studied, it is not disputed. But even with the land rising, so is the ocean, so if the ocean is still rising in a spot where the land is rising, then STexan's theory is disproven. That's what I was saying.

Toxicdude,

Using Al Gore in any discussion of "global" warming just shows your political leanings, nothing more. Probably comes from listening to the likes of Limbaugh or watching too much Fox news. There are thousands of scientists around the planet studying this issue that not only have not heard of Al Gore, they could really give a schitt less who he is. And they are all reporting the same facts. The planet is warming. The methane deposits are beginning to break loose, the oceans are rising, we have in short time reached historic levels of atmospheric CO2. You can sit there and fantasize about Al Gore's "scam" all you want to. It is really stupid to even include him in this discussion.

Riverboy

I thought you were talking about the whole earth, that the seas weren't rising because the land was sinking. That's what doesn't work. Locally anything just about can happen. Yup I misinterpreted.

I'm acquainted with a middle-aged guy in New Jersey that believes that global warming is a contrived conspiracy amongst, as he put it, "socialist liberal college professors," and "tree-hugging environmentalist hippies."

I haven't heard from him ever since his friends in New York said his beachfront home got dashed to pieces, due to Superstorm Sandy.

Don't try rational on them. They want to think whatever "green" products they buy will have an impact. Many of these green, or carbon footprint friendly, consumer goods are not much different than the standard ones a company might make already.

Actually many "green" products tend to cause more total pollution then their counterparts. Typically due to the extraction / production methods required to create them.

Take "electric / hybrid" cars as a prime example. Those care have two very unique components, the battery and the high torque electric motors. Now in order to produce those two components you need a f*ck ton of rare earth elements. The only economic way to get those is by strip mining a mountain range and chemically processing the ore to extract the minute amounts of them. Their called rare earth elements because they rarely found grouped together in the crust and typically only occur in small quantities spread around. The results form their extraction is a ton of pollution and an entire area devastated. The primary place for the extraction process is China, and only because the lack of environmental laws makes the extraction process economical.

So next time you see a smug econut driving a hybrid / "green" car, feel free to walk up and accuse them of destroying mountains in China. It's more total pollution, it's just hidden where they don't have to see it.

Many of these green, or carbon footprint friendly, consumer goods are not much different than the standard ones a company might make already.

My company had switched from using solvents to clean product to "green" technology. I was recently asked to test samples before and after the cleaning process that demonstrated that the green cleaning technology did absolutely nothing.

I think I saw that Godzilla movie back in the day on the Creature Double Feature.....gottta love the Japanese culture.

Not sure I get what you are saying

The subduction zone off the coast of California offsets the Mid Atlantic Ridge where the ocean is expanding. With plate techtonics there is balance. Watch next time when a volcano erupts somewhere on the edge of these massive pieces of the Earth's crust there will be an earthquake somewhere else.

Using Al Gore in any discussion of "global" warming just shows your political leanings, nothing more.

Dude, I earned a living thanks to Al Gore and the Clean Air Act years ago, but here he is just finding a way to get wealthy, nothing more.

No.

No. The only thing we wanted from Obama this time around, was for him not to be the other guy. The Democraps could have run the Puillsbury Doughboy and we'de have voted for him.

Back to the article. Of couse the sea is rising faster than expected. We saw satelite photos showing that the glaciers are melting faster than expected, three months ago. This is not exactly a surprise.

Sea level rise would be a surprise to right wing boneheads if they believed it, but they don't. The oil companies, Fox News, and right wing hate radio have told them that global warming is a hoax, so of course they believe it's a hoax. Their simple minds are unable to grasp that they are being lied to.

Beg to differ, Styro. Las Vegas is in a drought -- year 12. Yes, this year was a wetter year than the past 11, but that doesn't mean it's over. We still push to conserve water as much as possible, for a combination of being in the desert and low rainfalls. Until we have multiple years in a row of wetter than average (yearly average is 4.25") rain, we're not out of it. This past summer was extremely hot -- as in hotter than average -- and now it's 72 when it's supposed to be 60. Having been from the mid-atlantic, I've seen how the weather has changed -- more blizzards, more drought periods and now add in Superstorm Sandy.

One would have to be blind not to see that climate change is here and we must do what we can before it's too late.

Yes there is a drought, at one point this year I think it was 61% of the counties in the U.S. had declared a state of emergency due to drought. But that being said this is not the worst drought we've had, in the 1930's there were droughts so bad that we were experiencing massive dust storms as if we were a middle eastern country. Google image the pictures of the dust storms, it's pretty weird to think we were experiencing that in the U.S.

A good friend of mine lives in Phoenix--they experienced several Haboobs (not sure I spelled that correctly--it's a middle eastern term for a massive dust storm) there last year....

Riverboy,

The dust bowl of the thirties wasn't from hot weather. It was caused by soil errosion, due to the farmers having to stop rotating their crops with hemp, when the the FEDs made marijuana illegal, so the prohibition agents, who had the investigatory goods on all the boozehound lawmakers, would be able to keep their jobs, after alcohol was reinstated.

Love your nick, did you vote for Romney?

If not, you will see change,..for the worse.

Oh, and I always have one question to ask the tree huggers.

If we stopped using all forms of petrochemicals and CFC's etc. THIS MINUTE would it stop what is happening now?

No.

viewer,

So, you're the kind of genius that doesn't bother turning off the tap and/or pulling the plug of your overflowing bathtub, because there is already a cup and a half of water on the floor?

Global climate change would likely result in much less precipitation in most of the US, but also a drop in winter temperature. Initially the overall temperature increase will make for (on average) warmer winters, but as water cycling changes, snowfall should increase.

In other words, go per event for now, but you'll want to transition to the monthly in a few decades.

Rj, if you are suggesting that anybody is trying to predict the weather, you are wrong.

Just pay him by the month to shovel snow or mow and rake the lawn both. Then you're covered either way.

Weather and climate are apples and oranges. You can't predict out more than a couple of weeks weather, but climate scientists have a strong understanding of the climate. AGW is not up for debate. It was resolved 40 years ago. Got to love the deniers.

Otay, and you point is?

This is all part of a normal cycle the mother occasionally goes through.

And it cannot be reversed.

Deal with it.

Point? Point is you have no point other than to "deal with it".

Funny, that is my point exactly, that it is not and has not been dealt with. And is proving now to be too late to reverse course because those with vested interests and the power to have taken/offered another path greedily refused to, and will continue to hve your attitude withouth actually "dealing " with it.

Mypodt is in response to those here denying it's reality and current effects already taking a toll.

Hopefully, you are smart enough to see the nose on your own face. And your grandkids' and my own's fate as the tipping point goes bye bye.

Speaking of bye bye, bye bye!

Time to crack open a beer! This debate isn't going anywhere fast.

Peace Out.

And all that oil is a drop into the proverbial ocean that is the atmosphere. Now if we were to keep burning them for a hundred years or so the atmospheric CO2 level might be closer to what it was during prehistoric times when plants grew much faster and bigger then they do now and the earth was only a few C degrees warmer. A few centuries later and we might actually start to do some damage.

AGW theory says that we will destroy our work in the next 5 ~ 10 years. Of course they said the exact same thing in the early 90's, which would make us nearly 20 years past the "point of no return". Somehow we're not thought and there as been "no statistically significant warming over the past 15 years". That's from one of the hear priests of the AGW faith btw, he had to admit that on camera during an interview.

No, theory doesn't say that we'll destroy our world within 10 years, but it does say that sea level could rise 3 feet in the next century, which would have serious consequences for coastal areas. A few plants may grow faster, but others may not due to more extremes of heat, precipitation and drought. Also, only one year during the 1990s (1998) was as warm as it is now, and then only because of a very strong El Nino.

No, theory doesn't say that we'll destroy our world within 10 years, but it does say that sea level could rise 3 feet in the next century, which would have serious consequences for coastal areas. A few plants may grow faster, but others may not due to more extremes of heat, precipitation and drought. Also, only one year during the 1990s (1998) was as warm as it is now, and then only because of a very strong El Nino.

Incorrect.

The original prediction in the late 90's / early 21st century was that by 2100 the oceans would rise 20 feet and was considered "conservative". The real estimate was 24 feet. Al'Gore even got on a crane to "demonstrate" how high that was.

Since then AGW theory has been paired down into a predicted 7 inch rise by 2100 and only by assuming the worlds oil consumption continues growing at current pace.

That last part is important because it's not based on consumption at current amounts but rather the increase in consumption staying the same throughout a 90 year period. The primary drivers for the current increase's are the development of two major sources of world population, China and India. Those countries will not be "developing" nations for 90 years, China is already seeing a slow down in its development and will plateau off around 2120 along with India. This also doesn't account for newer nuclear technologies which have been coming to market in the past decades. Replacing many coal fired plants (largest source of the worlds energy) with fewer Nuclear plants will dramatically lower that number.

Finally, "the oceans are rising" relies on large ice deposits melting which in turn relies on average temperatures going up by much more then they currently are. There has been no statistically significant rise in global average temperature for the past 16 years. Doesn't get more blatant then that. The oceans will rise, the will fall. Their has been times on this planet were there was no frozen polar ice (and biodiversity thrived btw), there have also been times when people could walk from Asia to the North America across vast ice sheets. The world came very close to the extinction of all life during that time.

Not more, just in different places.

Sure, and if a frog had wings he might not bump his ass when he jumps.

You cannot stop the current trend and you will NEVER get developing countries to stop, "developing".

Like I said before, it cannot be reversed, so deal with it.

By that logic,

Your car is speeding towards dead man's curve at 65 miles per hour. Historically, dead man's curve has always been there, you can't do anthing about that. So, might as well floor it.

Den O'synn

You need to start living without any technology at ALL starting TOMMORROW or you are a hypocrite. Oh, and just to let you know, people in the "old days" burned ALOT more wood on a daily basis than we burn today, so even doing things the "old way" wouldn't work as we would have even more smoke in the air and even less trees on the ground.

You people are a bunch of quackers... completely useless senseless quackers...

We are entering a NATURAL warming cycle. 

No, we're not.

Just out of curiosity, Fred, what makes you think you know more than the 90%+ of professional climatologists who agree that it's NOT natural?

And please, tell us why you think so without changing the subject or tossing around stupid accusations and catchphrases, OK?

Fred, the ozone hole is still there. Yes, the seasons affect it but so does the CFC's, which stay up there for decades and so are still affecting it. There was no BS from the scientists on that issue either.

Few posters? Are you getting your science from posters or scientists?

"97–98% of the most published climate researchers state humans are responsible for global warming."---"Expert credibility in climate change". Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H.Schneider (2010). Proc. National Academy of Sciences. USA 107 (27): 12107–9.

"In a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists, 97.4% state that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."---"Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). EOS 90 (3): 22–23.

Yeah the same respected scientists who sent out e-mails stating that their crap was fuzzy and they all needed

to stick together to keep funding continued.

Oh, you huggers thought we forgot?

Nahhh.

@Viewer_Ready

The scientists in the emails said no such thing. Climate-change deniers have completely twisted the emails and took everything out of context.

Eight different committees have investigated the email controversy including House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Independent Climate Change Review, International Science Assessment Panel, Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Department of Commerce. None found any evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

"A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories."--Nature

Yes, you misread it. The 3.2 observed was also per year.

you misread.

rose by 3.2 millimeters (0.1 inch) a year from 1993 to 2011

"If you think that we can create more heat than the sun"

Nobody has ever suggested that. EVER.

Not sure where you get your information from. PMOD data shows total solar irradiance is lower today than it was in 1960 which dispels the myth that global warming is due to the sun.

pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

When every scientific body in the world is telling you the same thing with not a single major scientific body in opposition but you can't determine what's scientifically accurate, then there's no hope for you.

SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids

Yes, more heat than usual is reaching the Earth from the Sun. Green house gasses don't affect that. Green hous gasses keep the heat from radiating back into space.

"Usually solar minimums occur about every eleven years and last a year or so, but the most recent minimum persisted more than two years longer than normal, making it the longest minimum recorded during the satellite era. The fact that we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about the climate system, but it's worth noting because this provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming,"

Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann, 2011: Earth's energy imbalance and implications. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics,11, 13421-13449, doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

It isn't the Sun....

It wasn't the sun in 2008. This is 2012. Today's Sunspot number is 76. There have been no sunspotless days in over a year. Add that to even more greenhouse gasses than in 2008. Of couse the ice is melting faster than predicted.

Though I see the Cycles of the sun as a "potential" cause/contributor.. I agree with Michael (FM)... What it does show with the graph how the predictable "cycle" continues.. I'm just saying the earth has the same Cycles and that explain most if not all the data to date... Now let me preface my argument with this.. Man can have a "direct" affect on the planet by:

Pollution/contamination (oil spills, improper waste disposal, littering)

Activities (Logging causing topsoil erosion or reduced animal habitats), Over farming (Dust Bowl)

We DO need to ensure clean water, responsible farming, foresting and proper disposals... but that has nothing to do with global warming.. energy (pun intended) will be better spent on what I aforementioned for we can do those NOW with IMMEDIATE affects, not on "climate change"... a huge waste of money and time with no real benefit to mankind not this lifetime and (possibly) the next.

The future: I got a car that can go 50mpg... but still use fossil fuels and a carbon tax and .... a smarter cell phone... great (sheesh).

Den, if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all
layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface
is bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we are seeing a cooling
of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night. Nice try though.

violence in weather has increased year after year since 1980. there was also an increase from approx 1910 to 1940 but it didnt get this bad. if you are a denier you can easily say the weather is cyclic. but its not that simple. unless or until this 'cycle' trends back down, i'd say you better plan for more and more nasty weather in the future.

Yes, it's all a conspiracy aimed just at you.

It's aimed at everyone the blue-bloods want to rule over and it's a conspiracy fact.

I want a little place uphill from Gore's beach house. It should become a nice little reef for my grandchildren to snorkel on.

good idea, dick dave.