Sea level rise is accelerating

Again, thanks for showing your complete knowledge of climate science. Have you made it out of grade school yet? I think you might find more education exciting.

 

Hi, Hoosier. See how NY is suing? When Hillary gets elected, even though I was for Trump, the USDOJ is gonna guess what!?



And YOU are hanging and slamming and cramming and such. Any idea why? It's called MENS REA CULPA.

2016 could be your year! Expect and receive.

 

So the idiot greenies found a sympathetic ear from one State when they could get no traction from Federal Judges. Big deal. They don't even have any 'smoking gun' because this is a fishing expedition planned well in advance by some fairly crazy people like Naomi Oreskes that thinks your pets will die because of global warming.

Do you really think that courts are qualified to determine science that is far from 'settled'? Harassment has been the hallmark of the crazy greenies from targeting scientists through Congress that don't toe the line to calling for the abuse of the RICO statutes to go after inconvenient scientists.

 

Says the obvious grade school dropout who doesn't know how to tie his own shoes yet.

You are a sad victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which causes you to make the braindead assumption that you know more about science than all of the world's real PhD scientists. LOL.

I know that I am not a climate scientist, but I AM smart and knowledgeable enough to trust science and to trust the virtually unanimous testimony of the world's climate scientists, backed by the overwhelming support and affirmation of the rest of the world scientific community....as reflected in the scientific literature and summed up here...Scientific opinion on climate change

 

I know, that's all you have when you don't have a rational argument or facts. Thanks for the demo.

 

Your own posts fully demonstrate my points about your retarded rejection of science.

 

Yes, reading the science is rejecting it and childish name calling is true science. I get it.

 

You apparently "get" nothing and you have very obviously never read any of the actual science produced by the real working, publishing climate scientists.

As I already pointed out, try reading this....

Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
* Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points.

 

Wiki boy strikes again. Now go out and try some actual science instead of opinion.

 

LOLOLOL.....you just reject and deny any 'actual science', no matter what the source.....you wouldn't know 'actual science' if it bit you.

But go ahead, you denier cult dupe, read this...

An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)

The following is an AMS Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.

Background

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901?2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects.

Globally averaged sea level has risen by about 17 cm (7 inches) in the 20th century, with the rise accelerating since the early 1990s. Close to half of the sea level rise observed since the 1970s has been caused by water expansion due to increases in ocean temperatures. Sea level is also rising due to melting from continental glaciers and from ice sheets on both Greenland and Antarctica. Locally, sea level changes can depend also on other factors such as slowly rising or falling land, which results in some local sea level changes much larger or smaller than the global average. Even small rises in sea level in coastal zones are expected to lead to potentially severe impacts, especially in small island nations and in other regions that experience storm surges associated with vigorous weather systems.

Why is climate changing?

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.

Water vapor also is an important atmospheric greenhouse gas. Unlike other greenhouse gases, however, the concentration of water vapor depends on atmospheric temperature and is controlled by the global climate system through its hydrological cycle of evaporation-condensation-precipitation. Water vapor is highly variable in space and time with a short lifetime, because of weather variability. Observations indicate an increase in globally averaged water vapor in the atmosphere in recent decades, at a rate consistent with the response produced by climate models that simulate human-induced increases in greenhouse gases. This increase in water vapor also strengthens the greenhouse effect, amplifying the impact of human-induced increases in other greenhouse gases.

Human activity also affects climate through changes in the number and physical properties of tiny solid particles and liquid droplets in the atmosphere, known collectively as atmospheric aerosols. Examples of aerosols include dust, sea salt, and sulfates from air pollution. Aerosols have a variety of climate effects. They absorb and redirect solar energy from the sun and thermal energy emitted by Earth, emit energy themselves, and modify the ability of clouds to reflect sunlight and to produce precipitation. Aerosols can both strengthen and weaken greenhouse warming, depending on their characteristics. Most aerosols originating from human activity act to cool the planet and so partly counteract greenhouse gas warming effects. Aerosols lofted into the stratosphere [between about 13 km (8 miles) and 50 km (30 miles) altitude above the surface] by occasional large sulfur-rich volcanic eruptions can reduce global surface temperature for several years. By contrast, carbon soot from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels warms the planet, so that decreases in soot would reduce warming. Aerosols have lifetimes in the troposphere [at altitudes up to approximately 13 km (8 miles) from the surface in the middle latitudes] on the order of one week, much shorter than that of most greenhouse gases, and their prevalence and properties can vary widely by region.

Land surface changes can also affect the surface exchanges of water and energy with the atmosphere. Humans alter land surface characteristics by carrying out irrigation, removing and introducing forests, changing vegetative land cover through agriculture, and building cities and reservoirs. These changes can have significant effects on local-to-regional climate patterns, which adds up to a small impact on the global energy balance as well.

How can climate change be projected into the future?

Factors that have altered climate throughout history, both human (such as human emission of greenhouse gases) and natural (such as variation of the Sun’s energy emission, the Earth’s orbit about the Sun, and volcanic eruptions), will continue to alter climate in the future. Climate projections for decades into the future are made using complex numerical models of the climate system that account for changes in the flow of energy into and out of the Earth system on time scales much longer than the predictability limit (of about two weeks) for individual weather systems. The difference between weather and climate is critically important in considering predictability. Climate is potentially predictable for much longer time scales than weather for several reasons. One reason is that climate can be meaningfully characterized by seasonal-to-decadal averages and other statistical measures, and the averaged weather is more predictable than individual weather events. A helpful analogy in this regard is that population averages of human mortality are predictable while life spans of individuals are not. A second reason is that climate involves physical systems and processes with long time scales, including the oceans and snow and ice, while weather largely involves atmospheric phenomena (e.g., thunderstorms, intense snow storms) with short time scales. A third reason is that climate can be affected by slowly changing factors such as human-induced changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere, which alter the natural greenhouse effect.

Climate models simulate the important aspects of climate and climate change based on fundamental physical laws of motion, thermodynamics, and radiative transfer. These models report on how climate would change in response to several specific “scenarios” for future greenhouse gas emission possibilities. Future climate change projections have uncertainties that occur for several reasons -- because of differences among models, because long-term predictions of natural variations (e.g., volcanic eruptions and El Niño events) are not possible, and because it is not known exactly how greenhouse gas emissions will evolve in future decades. Future emissions will depend on global social and economic development, and on the extent and impact of activities designed to reduce greenhouse gas and black carbon emissions.

Changes in the means and extremes of temperature and precipitation in response to increasing greenhouse gases can be projected over decades to centuries into the future, even though the timing of individual weather events cannot be predicted on this time scale. Because it would take many years for observations to verify whether a future climate projection is correct, researchers establish confidence in these projections by using historical and paleoclimate evidence and through careful study of observations of the causal chain between energy flow changes and climate-pattern responses. A valuable demonstration of the validity of current climate models is that when they include all known natural and human-induced factors that influence the global atmosphere on a large scale, the models reproduce many important aspects of observed changes of the 20th-century climate, including (1) global, continental, and subcontinental mean and extreme temperatures, (2) Arctic sea ice extent, (3) the latitudinal distribution of precipitation, and (4) extreme precipitation frequency.

Model limitations include inadequate representations of some important processes and details. For example, a typical climate model does not yet treat fully the complex dynamical, radiative, and microphysical processes involved in the evolution of a cloud or the spatially variable nature of soil moisture, or the atmospheric interactions with the biosphere. Nevertheless, in spite of these limitations, climate models have demonstrated skill in reproducing past climates, and they agree on the broad direction of future climate.

How is the climate expected to change in the future?

Future warming of the climate is inevitable for many years due to the greenhouse gases already added to the atmosphere and the heat that has been taken up by the oceans. Amelioration might be possible through devising and implementing environmentally responsible geoengineering approaches, such as capture and storage measures to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. However, the potential risks of geoengineering may be quite large, and more study of the topic (including other environmental consequences) is needed. The subject of geoengineering is outside the scope of this statement (for more information see AMS Statement on Geoengineering).

In general, many of the climate-system trends observed in recent decades are projected to continue. Those projections, and others in this section, are largely based on simulations conducted with climate models, and assume that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will continue to increase due to human activity. Global efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions have been unsuccessful so far. However, were future technologies and policies able to achieve a rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions -- an approach termed “mitigation” -- this would greatly lessen future global warming and its impacts.

Confidence in the projections is higher for temperature than for other climate elements such as precipitation, and higher at the global and continental scales than for the regional and local scales. The model projections show that the largest warming will occur in northern polar regions, over land areas, and in the winter season, consistent with observed trends.

In the 21st century, global sea level also will continue to rise although the rise will not be uniform at all locations. With its large mass and high capacity for heat storage, the ocean will continue to slowly warm and thus thermally expand for several centuries. Model simulations project about 27 cm (10 inches) to 71 cm (28 inches) of global sea level rise due to thermal expansion and melting of ice in the 21st century. Moreover, paleoclimatic observations and ice-sheet modeling indicate that melting of the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets will eventually cause global sea level to rise several additional meters by 2500 if warming continues at its present rate beyond the 21st century.

Atmospheric water content will increase globally, consistent with warmer temperatures, and consequently the global hydrological cycle will continue to accelerate. For many areas, model simulations suggest there will be a tendency towards more intense rain and snow events separated by longer periods without precipitation. However, changes in precipitation patterns are expected to differ considerably by region and by season. In some regions, the accelerated hydrological cycle will likely reinforce existing patterns of precipitation, leading to more severe droughts and floods. Further poleward, the greater warming at high latitudes and over land likely will change the large-scale atmospheric circulation, leading to significant regional shifts in precipitation patterns. For example, the model simulations suggest that precipitation will increase in the far northern parts of North America, and decrease in the southwest and south-central United States where more droughts will occur.

Climate-model simulations further project that heavy precipitation events will continue to become more intense and frequent, leading to increased precipitation totals from the strongest storms. This projection has important implications for water-resource management and flood control. The simulations also indicate the likelihood of longer dry spells between precipitation events in the subtropics and lower-middle latitudes, with shorter dry spells projected for higher latitudes where mean precipitation is expected to increase. Continued warming also implies a reduction of winter snow accumulations in favor of rain in many places, and thus a reduced spring snowpack. Rivers now fed by snowmelt will experience earlier spring peaks and reduced warm-season flows. Widespread retreat of mountain glaciers is expected to eventually lead to reduced dry season flows for glacier-fed rivers. Drought is projected to increase over Africa, Europe, and much of the North American continental interior, and particularly the southwest United States. However, natural variations in world ocean conditions at decadal scale, such as those in the North Pacific and North Atlantic basins, could offset or enhance such changes in the next few decades. For the longer term, paleoclimatic observations suggest that droughts lasting decades are possible and that these prolonged droughts could occur with little warning.

Weather patterns will continue to vary from day to day and from season to season, but the frequency of particular patterns and extreme weather and climate events may change as a result of global warming. Model simulations project an increased proportion of global hurricanes that are in the strongest categories, namely 4 and 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale, although the total counts of hurricanes may not change or may even decrease. Some regional variations in these trends are possible. Simulations also indicate that midlatitude storm tracks will shift poleward. Interannual variations of important large-scale climate conditions (such as El Niño and La Niña) will also continue to occur, but there may be changes in their intensity, frequency, and other characteristics, resulting in different responses by the atmosphere. Heat waves and cold snaps and their associated weather conditions will continue to occur, but proportionately more extreme warm periods and fewer cold periods are expected. Indeed, what many people traditionally consider a cold wave is already changing toward less severe conditions. Frost days (those with minimum temperature below freezing) will be fewer and growing seasons longer. Drier conditions in summer, such as those anticipated for the southern United States and southern Europe, are expected to contribute to more severe episodes of extreme heat. Critical thresholds of daily maximum temperature, above which ecosystems and crop systems (e.g., food crops such as rice, corn, and wheat) suffer increasingly severe damage, are likely to be exceeded more frequently.

The Earth system is highly interconnected and complex, with many processes and feedbacks that only slowly are becoming understood. In particular, the carbon cycle remains a large source of uncertainty for the projection of future climate. It is unclear if the land biosphere and oceans will be able to continue taking up carbon at their current rate into the future. One unknown is whether soil and vegetation will become a global source rather than a sink of carbon as the planet warms. Another unknown is the amount of methane that will be released due to high-latitude warming. There are indications that large regions of the permafrost in parts of Alaska and other northern polar areas are already thawing, with the potential to release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere beyond those being directly added by human activity. The portion of the increased CO2 release that is absorbed by the world ocean is making the ocean more acidic, with negative implications for shell- and skeleton-forming organisms and more generally for ocean ecosystems. These processes are only now being quantified by observation and introduced into climate models, and more research is required to fully understand their potential impacts. As impacts of climate change are of regional and local nature, more research is also required to improve climate projections at local and regional scales, and for weather and climate extremes in particular.

Final remarks

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.

[This statement is considered in force until August 2017 unless superseded by a new statement issued by the AMS Council before this date.]

 

What is the problem with closing down coal-fired energy plants? Obviously there exists electrical power as the coal power plants close. In my county it is required that 30% of the energy be generated from alternative sources and the rates have been decreasing...sounds like a win to me.

Precisely how is the US electrical grid in jeopardy?

Each of those coal-fired power plants have the option to scrub their emissions...what's wrong with this option? And don't say 'cost' without providing a cost-per-consumer.

Of course the entire world is not going to improve their fossil fuel emissions especially when a few billion of them are clueless about the science. So what? What others do should not determine what we do. There are a host of solid reasons to move towards alternative energy sources that have nothing to do with global climate change.

BTW; The cheapest and easiest energy to generate in your 3rd world areas is solar and wind.

Global climate change is absolutely based on observations! Temperatures are rising, ice is melting, etc. which are all observations. Potential outcomes of the changes we are observing today are based on science including modeling.

Who cares if the danger threshold is 1 degree, or 2 degrees, or 10 degrees? Fact is as average global temperatures increase there are direct outcomes from this. Just because you can't fathom anything going on at a 1 degree rise does not mean we won't see issues with a 2 degree rise.

"In recent years, the relationship between hurricanes and climate change has become a source of public interest, significant scientific debate, and a focus for current research. The potential relationship between hurricanes and climate change has great implications for society, especially in coastal regions affected by these extreme storms. Recent scientific evidence suggests that hurricane intensity may be increasing due to warmer tropical sea surface temperature (SST), but the connection to Atlantic hurricane frequency is less conclusive."


Polar Bear results from long-term studies show:

Canada's Western Hudson Bay population: has experienced a 22% decline or greater since the early 1980s, directly related to longer ice-free seasons on Hudson Bay during this same time frame.
Southern Beaufort Sea population along the northern coast of Alaska and western Canada: plunged by about 40% over a 10-year study period from 2001-2010, dropping from about 1500 bears to 900 bears before stabilizing.
Baffin Bay population, shared by Greenland and Canada: at risk from both significant sea ice loss and likely overharvesting in recent times. An updated population estimated is expected in late 2015.

Arctic sea ice extent for October 2015 averaged 7.72 million square kilometers (2.98 million square miles), the sixth lowest October in the satellite record. This is 1.19 million square kilometers (460,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 950,000 square kilometers (367,000 square miles) above the record low monthly average for October that occurred in 2007.

I can see climate and weather changes in the past 10-15 years where I live, work and play. I know with absolute certainty that there are things I do that contributes to the pollution of Earth. We have made a few changes at our expense to do better and we have room for further improvement. No one is forcing us to do better...we just feel good about doing our share. Sure I can use your thinking and say to my self that some other idiot across the planet is polluting enough to cancel out the reductions I have made so why bother? Or I can stay on my path of trying to do better knowing that across the world global climate change and it's potential issues are becoming common dialogue, while many nations are creating new policy, many people are being proactive. I prefer being proactive rather than sticking my head in the sand...and as a voter and contributor to my society, I will demand that we try to do better than we are doing...

 

And screw the poor. Who do you think pays for the increased costs force by government?

Environmentalists, EPA Force The 200th US Coal Plant To Retire

Since hurricane Sandy, tell us all about the increased hurricanes?

You are assuming that any warming is cause by man but scientists cannot tell you how much is natural so it is a moot point since that defies logic that they can tell you how much is caused by man and on top of that 2/3 of the CO2 increase attributed to man that the IPCC outlines has happened during the hiatus.

You will always see the climate change, change is the only constant in climate. With that said, what is the optimum CO2? What is the optimum temperature? Do you realize that the meeting in Paris, if everyone did what they said, would reduce the increase in temperature by around .05 C? That isn't even beyond statistical uncertainty but it will cost you, the taxpayer to do virtually nothing.

Hubris, 'save the world types' and environmentalists are in charge. It is time that some rational thought be put into this.

 

Just more ignorant retarded drivel, as usual with your posts. Scientists know quite well how much of the current abrupt global warming is being caused by mankind's activities......essentially, ALL OF IT!!!

The Earth was in a long slow cooling trend for the last 5000 years, caused by small variations in the Earth's orbit and axial tilt, until the Industrial Revolution started the world on a path of burning increasingly massive quantities of fossil fuels and wide-spread deforestation, which resulted in a 43% increase (so far) in atmospheric CO2 levels. This reversed the cooling trend and has heated the Earth by more in the last century than it had cooled in the preceding 5000 years. The Earth's average global temperature is poised to increase by between 2 and 10 degrees F. by the end of the century. If it turns out to be on the low end, it is merely devastating; if temperatures increase to the high end, large parts of the Earth would become uninhabitable by humans and we would lose most of the current species we share the planet with. The human race could go extinct too, if we are really unlucky with this very dangerous situation.

Global temperatures hung a U-turn in 1900, reversing a 5,000-year chill-down
Until recently, orbital changes were driving us toward the next ice age.
ARS Technica
by John Timmer
Mar 7 2013
(excerpts)
To provide a broader perspective on our climate, a team of researchers has reconstructed its history for the entire Holocene, the period that started with the end of the last ice age. The record shows that the Holocene temperatures largely followed the orbital forcings, peaking over 6,000 years ago and then gradually falling until roughly 1900. That's when the temperatures experienced a sudden reverse, going from among the coldest of the entire period to the warmest in less than a century. The Earth's orbit and axis undergo cyclical changes, called Milankovitch cycles after the astronomer who first recognized them. These cycles cause changes to the amount and distribution of sunlight that strikes the Earth, changes that can raise or lower the average temperature of the planet. The result is what's called an "orbital forcing," which can drive long-term climate changes. Another very obvious thing in the record is that our planet has (up until recently) been in a 5,000-year-old cooling trend. You will sometimes see people arguing that we've been warming since the end of the last ice age, but this simply isn't an accurate depiction of the data. Orbital forcings and temperatures did rise sharply at the end of the ice age, but they then remained relatively stable for about 5,000 years at about 0.6°C above the temperature of the last 1,500 years. Orbital forcings would have peaked about 9,000 years ago, and temperatures seem to have had a small peak about seven thousand years ago. But a steady decline started about 5,000 years ago, and it accelerated within the last thousand years, with a sharper drop associated with the period we call the Little Ice age. As a whole, this decline took the Earth down by about 0.7°C, dropping it below the average temperature of the last 1,500 years.

The picture up to 1900 is consistent with the estimates that the best of the Holocene was behind us and we were cooling towards an inevitable re-glaciation. The authors calculate that the decade from 1900-1910 was cooler than more than 95 percent of all the other decades in the Holocene. But things pretty much ended there. As in the hockey stick reconstructions of the recent climate, this one shows a dramatic upswing in the century just past. Although the most recent decade (2000-2009) isn't the warmest of the Holocene, it's not too far off. The authors estimate that it was warmer than 82 percent of the decades of the last 12,000 years. "Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend," the authors conclude. And based on records of things like solar output, ocean currents, and volcanic eruptions, there's little indication of anything other than greenhouse gasses that could have caused this sort of reversal.

 

Ignorance is bliss. You must be very happy. Actually, the reverse happened over 400 years ago after the Little Ice Age, which is pretty well known, but that my be too long ago for some to comprehend so some think that history started in 1900, which, BTW, isn't when the IPCC contributes man made warming starting. So keep on mixing up your facts to suit your belief, but science will still win out.

 

LOLOLOL.....science has won out ....and it says you're nuts.

 

You don't have a clue what is going on in the science so stay happy!

 

LOLOLOLOL.....you are truly hilarious.......and incredibly clueless and ignorant....worse than just 'ignorant' actually, you are filled to the brim with misinformation, fossil fuel industry propaganda and deliberate lies.

Every bit of deranged denier cult pseudo-science and fraudulent misinformation that you've posted has been debunked by the actual scientific facts. Like in posts #113, 110, 108, 104, 93, 89, 62.....

You are a denier cult troll, blowing smoke out your ass.

 

Tsk, tsk. So full of venom and so shy of facts. Believe what you want but you have yet to make any argument other than opinion and playground insults.

 

Oh, but I have, with massive amounts of hard science. You are just too retarded and brainwashed by your cult of of reality denial to be able to see it. You are a deranged denier, and this post is just another example of that.

 

You obviously live in a heavily biased, closed-minded, and self-serving realm.

You dream up crap like 'screw the poor' yet you are incapable of quantifying these types of remarks.

Government today is mostly funded by corporations and the wealthy....who do you think funds the government?

Never said anything about 'increased hurricanes' whatever this means? The article said intensity is growing while frequency remains the same.

You need to place your automobile and yourself in a closed garage, open all the windows, put on some nice radio music, turn on the motor and let it idle, then sit back and enjoy the experience for a few hours. ACCORDING TO YOU, there is absolutely nothing dangerous about doing this exercise...please share your experience?

If you could possibly fathom that across the world, 24/7, that these same emissions are spewed by literally billions of fossil fuel machines! Where do you believe all these emissions are going? Earth has an atmosphere and these emissions remain within the atmosphere. Yes it's a big atmosphere but so is the 24/7 pollution over decades of time and the effect on our atmosphere is undeniable! Another thing you cannot fathom is that lots of things on Earth are 'greatly' effected by 1-2 degree F. changes in temperature and because of the enormous systems we have it's a slow and building process. You remain of the mentality that if global climate change is not slapping you in your forehead then it's not happening...this is arrogance and ignorance.

Lastly, this is my final post with you on this thread, not because you are 100% biased but because you are closed minded, self-serving, and it serves neither of us...

 

Yeah, it is called reality. Calculations have been done for the costs of the environmentalists wet dream of controlling the temperature and it ain't pretty and civilizations have always expanded in warmer weather, more arable land, more rain, etc..

 

Nope! It's called the dumbass denial of reality by ideological driven, anti-science, clueless rightwingnut retards.

Ignorant denier cult twaddle. The cost of doing nothing to deal with the climate change crisis is thousands of times as much as the costs of dealing with it.

The tropical regions, currently inhabited by billions of people, would become uninhabitable by humans by the end of the century under the 'business as usual' scenario that you wacked out crazy denier cult dingbats are still pushing for.

Unchecked Warming To Dust-Bowlify Southwest, Central Plains, Amazon, Europe For Centuries

 

I do like the fact that you spout off nonsense and think it is fact.

 

I find it hilarious that you spout off nonsense and think it is fact.

Of course, my posts are backed up with scientific evidence and yours are backed up with only your own ignorance-filled hot air.

That's why you are a troll.

 

So far all you post is opinion. You probably don't even know that all of this alarmism comes environmentalists and from models which are not fact.

BTW: Here is a list of things blamed on global warming.