What causes climate change

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You can see here with the graphs.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

[muon2]

I toured the large BP research facility near me last month. Their introductory presentation clearly stated that BP believes that human-induced climate change is real and driven by greenhouse gas emissions. Stops included labs working on research on techniques to minimize carbon emissions from their refineries.

It's hard to understand the debate when one of the largest carbon-producers in the world acknowledges the science. It reminds me of the debate over the ozone hole in the 1980's. The big CFC producers weren't on board initially, but recognized the science before the political class did.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I toured the large BP research facility near me last month. Their introductory presentation clearly stated that BP believes that human-induced climate change is real and driven by greenhouse gas emissions. Stops included labs working on research on techniques to minimize carbon emissions from their refineries.

It's hard to understand the debate when one of the largest carbon-producers in the world acknowledges the science. It reminds me of the debate over the ozone hole in the 1980's. The big CFC producers weren't on board initially, but recognized the science before the political class did.

Ok, so some of it is human-induced.  What percentage?  How much of it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.  That's the crux of the anti-climate changers - sure humans cause it but it's not the leading cause.

[muon2]

I toured the large BP research facility near me last month. Their introductory presentation clearly stated that BP believes that human-induced climate change is real and driven by greenhouse gas emissions. Stops included labs working on research on techniques to minimize carbon emissions from their refineries.

It's hard to understand the debate when one of the largest carbon-producers in the world acknowledges the science. It reminds me of the debate over the ozone hole in the 1980's. The big CFC producers weren't on board initially, but recognized the science before the political class did.

Ok, so some of it is human-induced.  What percentage?  How much of it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.  That's the crux of the anti-climate changers - sure humans cause it but it's not the leading cause.

Individual annual fluctuations have only a small contribution from humans. When one looks at the short term, solar cycles and volcanoes can create noticeable effects. However, those natural fluctuations average out over a span of decades and don't account for much long term change. The human effects are slow and cumulative. The net change over the last 100 years can best be explained by human causes contributing over 2/3 (and likely more) of the observed effects.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I toured the large BP research facility near me last month. Their introductory presentation clearly stated that BP believes that human-induced climate change is real and driven by greenhouse gas emissions. Stops included labs working on research on techniques to minimize carbon emissions from their refineries.

It's hard to understand the debate when one of the largest carbon-producers in the world acknowledges the science. It reminds me of the debate over the ozone hole in the 1980's. The big CFC producers weren't on board initially, but recognized the science before the political class did.

Ok, so some of it is human-induced.  What percentage?  How much of it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.  That's the crux of the anti-climate changers - sure humans cause it but it's not the leading cause.

Individual annual fluctuations have only a small contribution from humans. When one looks at the short term, solar cycles and volcanoes can create noticeable effects. However, those natural fluctuations average out over a span of decades and don't account for much long term change. The human effects are slow and cumulative. The net change over the last 100 years can best be explained by human causes contributing over 2/3 (and likely more) of the observed effects.

I bet the anti-climate changers flood you with mail. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

I toured the large BP research facility near me last month. Their introductory presentation clearly stated that BP believes that human-induced climate change is real and driven by greenhouse gas emissions. Stops included labs working on research on techniques to minimize carbon emissions from their refineries.

It's hard to understand the debate when one of the largest carbon-producers in the world acknowledges the science. It reminds me of the debate over the ozone hole in the 1980's. The big CFC producers weren't on board initially, but recognized the science before the political class did.

Ok, so some of it is human-induced.  What percentage?  How much of it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.  That's the crux of the anti-climate changers - sure humans cause it but it's not the leading cause.

The consensus is "at least half of warming since 1950". 

At least that's the official line when people cite the "consensus of climate scientists".

Basically Bloomberg is showing climate science as it was in 2005.  And Jfern has been parroting the same stuff since 2005.

There is lots of debate on the effects of solar activity, aerosols, and volcanic eruptions on our climate (the latest science points to solar activity being a bigger player than previously thought and aerosols and volcanic eruptions being smaller players than originally thought... both of these newer scientific findings would reduce the greenhouse gas component as would using objective adjusted satellite data that doesn't have nearly the issues that the adjusted surface temperature data has.. like assuming temperatures for the entire Arctic.)

This is an example of a NASA GISS global temperature anomaly map that extends single weather recording stations outward 250km.  As you can see, vast chunks of the globe including all of the Arctic (where warming is supposedly occurring the most), Antarctic, northern Canada, Greenland, the vast majority of Africa, the Amazon, and extensive areas of western and central Asia have no weather station coverage.



So what they do is a parlor trick... they extend the stations to 1200km.  That's right... a weather station assumes the weather 1200km away.  And in the Arctic, for example, that means a small handful of stations on the fringes of the Arctic are extrapolated to cover the whole Arctic ocean.

Then when they do "reanalysis" to fill in missing data in the past... they just plug in the expected temperatures based partially on the nearest weather stations available... but mostly making up temperatures that fit with the established global temperature pattern (which was determined without those areas in the first place).

This is not to discount that warming has taken place.  It has.  And the Arctic has warmed faster than the globe as a whole.  But the satellite data which measures the entire global surface only goes back to 1979.  And that data shows substantially less warming during the 1979-present period than the surface data which is diverging from the satellite data more each time they adjust them.

[Extrabase500]

"Climate Change" is natural and is just a scam to pay carbon taxes to al gore. look at the kyoto protocol TOTAL scam ONLY the west has to make reductions and AGENDA 21 the biggest de-industrialization scam and Global warming isint even real. However their are legitmite environmental issues we should be worried about like GMO, animals going extinct and the fact that theirs mass pollution/garbage in the ocean. Al Gore is a total liar and fraud who just wants to shut down your power he dosint care about the earth.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I toured the large BP research facility near me last month. Their introductory presentation clearly stated that BP believes that human-induced climate change is real and driven by greenhouse gas emissions. Stops included labs working on research on techniques to minimize carbon emissions from their refineries.

It's hard to understand the debate when one of the largest carbon-producers in the world acknowledges the science. It reminds me of the debate over the ozone hole in the 1980's. The big CFC producers weren't on board initially, but recognized the science before the political class did.

Ok, so some of it is human-induced.  What percentage?  How much of it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.  That's the crux of the anti-climate changers - sure humans cause it but it's not the leading cause.

You could try clicking on the link. As it shows, greenhouse gases are responsible for more than 100% of the warming, but other factors, most notably aerosols, cancel part of them out.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I toured the large BP research facility near me last month. Their introductory presentation clearly stated that BP believes that human-induced climate change is real and driven by greenhouse gas emissions. Stops included labs working on research on techniques to minimize carbon emissions from their refineries.

It's hard to understand the debate when one of the largest carbon-producers in the world acknowledges the science. It reminds me of the debate over the ozone hole in the 1980's. The big CFC producers weren't on board initially, but recognized the science before the political class did.

Ok, so some of it is human-induced.  What percentage?  How much of it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.  That's the crux of the anti-climate changers - sure humans cause it but it's not the leading cause.

You could try clicking on the link. As it shows, greenhouse gases are responsible for more than 100% of the warming, but other factors, most notably aerosols, cancel part of them out.

I prefer asking muon2, whose opinion I value.  If he believes it, then I need to re-think it.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

An at least as relevant question could be:

What causes people change?

I fear that scientific argumentation, and even cute logos won't be enough...

Welcome to one of the less ecological Western countries!

The last one, that kinda failed, happened in maybe the most ecological country in the world though, thus you never know...

But still it's not as if few hundreds of people who are not sure why they are here speaking in the name of 7 billions of others who are not sure that all of this really matters would have much impact on anything, would it??

Well, apparently it's the biggest international meeting ever organized, so yeah, it would: huge traffic jam in Paris forecoming!

Would look gadget but fancy and anyhow more relevant that the next one would be something like a 'Skype COP'.

Humans like gadgets, don't they?