Tarder might be right. If you consider all the known objects in the universe, and plot them on the Kelvin scale, then a 2 or 3 degree bump to Earth's average surface temperature is nothing!
Can't google what us unknown, even to your so-called "climate scientists" futurecurrents... that's why their forecasts suck. Maybe your mommy can explain that to you when she changes your diaper.
Oh please rectum... you didn't even know about thermohaline circulation and how it could be affected by melting ice and impact the climate until I schooled you on it. Go back to your beach in Orlando, not-so-great pretender.
Piezoe... I am impressed with how succinctly and how clearly you explained the debate. I have read a lot of papers and a lot of websites... and few have ever explained the issues that well. "your dwarfed by not net sentence" was truly noteworthy and you reiteration of what Salby's findings was also well done. But, that does not mean you are not a pre fascist bastard when you support even bigger leftist govt and a jackbooted IRS.
A certain Professor Murry Salby has become the toast of the denialosphere after a talk in which he gives academic CPR to the long-flatlined myth that natural sources account for the recent rise in CO2 concentrations. Along the way he revisits other "skeptical" golden oldies, arguing that CO2 has a short residence time, and slipping in the old non sequitur that human CO2 emissions are a small fraction of the "emissions" from natural sources. Despite the fact that these points have been more or less done to death, despite the fact that there is no publication to refer to (one is promised soon) and no slides from the talk (an inexplicable and frankly dodgy omission) Salby has been everywhere. The Mothership. Jo Novo's virtual antiscience coffee klatsch (come to think, she's entertaining. Added to the denier blogroll.) Judith Curry, most bizarrely, gave it a quickly infamous "Wow." This is happening because for all their noise about the nobility of dissent from the consensus and the folly of appeals to authority, deniers recognize the tremendous importance of scientific credentials in determining credibility on scientific matters. And so when a professor who has published climate science arrives on the scene and says something "skeptical," it doesn't matter if his evidence is alien telepathic communications or Egyptian hieroglyphs he has discovered in his mash potatoes. He is instantly a star. Which is fine -- we should be more interested in what climate scientists have to say about climate science than the ill-informed amateurs that form most of a "skeptic's" daily caloric requirement of misinformation. But the hypocrisy is thick. If they are so easily seduced by an argument with literally nothing to support it but the speaker's identity as a climate scientist, how can they justify ignoring the vast majority of climate scientists who are telling them AGW is real and dangerous? http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2011/08/ignoring-salby-apology.html
Murry's two biggest "wrongs" out of many If I had to pick one giant flaw in Murry's nonsense I'd find it hard to choose between the following two: Denying the science of the greenhouse effect: His topsy turvy "temperature-induced" claim - he doesn't attempt to explain what has caused earth to warm up. He hasn't mentioned the greenhouse effect. He glosses over the fact that it's the increase in greenhouse gases that have "induced" the temperature. He's putting the cart before the horse. Disappearing fossil fuel carbon by magic: His feeble attempt to avoid the fact that burning fossil fuels have added hugely to the carbon in the short term carbon cycle. We've shifted carbon that's been lying dormant underground, sequestered by the long term carbon cycle, and moved it into the air and the oceans and the biosphere. He points to the irrefutable evidence that the carbon in the air is from plant sources, consistent with the burning of fossil fuels - and then rejects the evidence for no reason at all. In the WUWT comments it's been pointed out that Murry fails with ice cores, too. I didn't bother looking into that aspect but they are probably right. He's failed everything else. From the WUWT comments A smattering of comments from WUWT - for your entertainment (archived here). Greg Goodman says something sensible (for a change): November 23, 2013 at 5:55 am I really wonder when Salby is going to publish something (even just an internet article) where we can properly asses what heâs got to say. C. Monktonâs snapshots of Salbyâs presentation ⦠itâs all getting rather farcical. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/denier-weirdness-defending-indefensible.html
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2 AAAS emblem American Association for the Advancement of Science "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3 ACS emblem American Chemical Society "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 AGU emblem American Geophysical Union "Humanâinduced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5 AMA emblem American Medical Association "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeâs fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6 AMS emblem American Meteorological Society "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." (2012)7 APS emblem American Physical Society "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earthâs physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8 GSA emblem The Geological Society of America "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouseâgas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9 SCIENCE ACADEMIES International academies: Joint statement "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the worldâs climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10 USNAS emblem U.S. National Academy of Sciences "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11 U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES USGCRP emblem U.S. Global Change Research Program "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12 INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES IPCC emblem Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change âWarming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.â13 âMost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.â14 *IPCC defines âvery likelyâ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.