1) Fossil fuel signature in air and coral.
2) Less heat escaping out into space.
3) The Ocean warming pattern.
4) Nights warming faster than days.
5) More heat is returning to earth.
6) Winter warming faster.
7) Cooling upper atmosphere.
Thinking about No. 4 and perhaps 5, nights warming faster than days is an indication of GHG increased warming. Many climate skeptics argue that the Sun is the cause of our increased planetary warming but surely a signature of solar warming would be the opposite and days would warm faster than nights?
Anyway, all these 'finger prints' seem well supported by empirical evidence and research and most were predicted to happen as a result of AGW BEFORE they were detected. It is also worth noting that none rely on computer modelling which seems to be a catch all reason for many to reject the science.
"Many climate skeptics argue that the Sun is the cause of our increased planetary warming but surely a signature of solar warming would be the opposite and days would warm faster than nights?"
ReplyDeleteCorrect, it would.
There's no evidence that the sun is causing the observed post 1975 warming.
The penultimate graphic is one of the most telling. Take the issue out of the thorny AGW field: If you had a business and the red and blue trace were profit(red) and loss(blue) you'd look at that graph and conclude that something went wrong in the last 6th part of the time series.
Any reasonably intelligent person can see that.
However some are so locked up in cognitive dissonance that they would look at that graph and claim nothing odd was happening after the 1970s. They'd also thrash about trying more and more abstruse new models of solar/climate influence to apply after the 1970s.
All because they have deeply held beliefs that conflict with what the evidence shows.
Goons, the lot of them.
Chris.
This is a similar post I made on Sciencefile but with the graphics.
ReplyDeleteYes I do wonder how Skeptics would explain nights warming faster than days. This is a big hole to fill in any alternative theory to AGW.
What seems to happen in cases like this is that these 'Goons' look for ways to dismiss the data, claim incompetence from the scientists and this eventually spirals down into some sort of 'only in it for the funding' or conspiracy theory.
Exactly.
ReplyDeleteIt's also interesting that there's no single alternate theory and that any two goons subscribing to their own mutually incompatible theories don't stop to pick holes in the other's theory. They just unite under the anti-science banner.
Even without having read the science I could use the lack of substance in the goon position to decide that they have no substantive position.
Thanks for the post.
Chris.
"They just unite under the anti-science banner."
ReplyDeleteThere is the attitude of a Denier...of Scientific Method. Unproven ideas give rise to competing theories and hypotheses, to the point where the plethora can seem ridiculous. Being united is not a function of science, but of Religion, which you purportedly decry.
But....we are told the science is settled ! Huh. And that's how you know it's a lie.
Which is not to say I won't use your post - as it is at least clear in its ideas. What do I mean ?
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2010/03/climate.html
"But....we are told the science is settled !"
ReplyDeleteWho is doing the telling? I see this statement from science deniers all the time, used as if such a statement can be used to disregard the science its self but when asked no one has ever managed to point out any climatologists who have made such a final statement.
The nearest I know is from an early IPCC report (2004?) where it states something like man's influence on the climate has been unequivocally detected.
With all the research since and with some recent research detecting links to specific weather events it is more supported than ever.
The link to your own site is very interesting. It gives a fairly good definition of what a genuine skeptic actually is, thought I'm a bit puzzled by the words, "The genuine skeptic has a mind that’s large enough to accommodate states between “proven” and “false.”". Nothing is ever proven in science. Even gravity or germs causing disease are just unproven theories.
But after stating what a sceptic is, it then seems to suggest a skeptic shouldn’t accept any science simply on the basis of ‘we need more study’ which with science is always going to be the case. So we go from sceptic to science denial in one paragraph.
But what does worry me about your link is the mention that a 'New study affirms natural climate change'.
Setting aside that Dr. Rao isn't a climatologist and doesn't appear to have published anything since the early 70s, and that his study appeared in 'Current Science' that states "All articles published in Current Science, ... are deemed to reflect the individual views of the authors and not the official points of view, either of the Current Science Association or of the Indian Academy of Sciences”, so is unlikely to be toughly peer reviewed.
Setting all that aside, even if this was a credible peer reviewed research paper, you have treated the conclusion that ‘solar variations and cosmic rays account for 40 percent of the world’s recent global warming’ as a fact’.
Genuine scepticism looks at all the evidence so a genuine sceptic would have compared this study along side the many others that show that solar variations and cosmic rays have had little overall impact in recent global warming and being a rational thinker would have concluded that the weight of scientific is most likely to be the truth. Your own link misses any true sceptical balance.
coach outlet store
ReplyDeletesupreme clothing
nike air max 97
moncler
air max 97
adidas gazelle sale
goyard handbags
hermes belt
fila shoes
curry shoes