The global climate is currently heating at a rate greater than any recorded history.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/epica_temperature.png

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/proxy-based_temperature_reconstruction.png


Its not so much the temperature levels which justify my opinions, rather its the rate the temperature is increasing.

During historical warming periods the temperature increased at a rate of .8-1.4 ddC per thousand years.

In the last 100 years the RECORDED average temperature has increased .7 dgC

This is 5-10 times faster than has been recorded at ANY time in the past.

Given that instead of a since the system is heating up at a speed an order of magnitude greater than any in all of history, maybe something slightly different is happening.


Derived from.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html




The only plausible driver for a temperature increase at this rate is GHG's.

https://skepticalscience.com/images/Greenhouse_Spectrum.gif
The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm





Three totally separate peer reviewed articles, supporting two clear concise statements.

Please note, all these papers are based on empirical data.

dear Huc,

I suggest you read the Ice Age thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603948/1080#1080

It's getting colder not hotter.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 10:02pm:

dear Huc, I suggest you read the Ice Age thread: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603948/1080#1080 It's getting colder not hotter.

As usual Bobby; you are upside down and back to front.

Yeah, Pho Huc believes in the Michael E Mann hockeystick.

I believe data, until superior data is presented.

Present data or shut up Lee ;)

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2016 at 11:53pm:

I believe data, until superior data is presented.

The only data is for a period of less than 150 years. The rest is proxy with attendant error bars. Any long term graph will have sharp spikes lost, if of short duration.

Matched by the fastest rate of denial on record by denizen lee devoid of fact.

lee wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 8:33pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 22nd, 2016 at 11:53pm: I believe data, until superior data is presented. The only data is for a period of less than 150 years. The rest is proxy with attendant error bars. Any long term graph will have sharp spikes lost, if of short duration.

Thats a very long winded way of stating that no, You do not have anything better.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 9:49pm:

Thats a very long winded way of stating that no, You do not have anything better.

The onus is on the proposer to overturn the null hypothesis. You don't understand do you?

"The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

Oh ,no. Those global model that don't work well. That don't model clouds well, that don't model water vapour well, that don't hindcast well; but somehow they come to a valid conclusion.

"The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual."

ibid

Unusual? Not unprecedented? :D :D :D

So what is your null proposal?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 11:11pm:

So what is your null proposal?

It is not MY "null hypothesis". The null hypothesis is natural variation.

I guess its a bastard hypothesis then  ;D

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 11:23pm:

I guess its a bastard hypothesis then  ;D

perhaps you would like to read this?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/03/did-james-hansen-unwittingly-prove-the-null-hypothesis-of-agw/

You know of James Hansen, father of AGW?

or this-

"This essay addresses Trenberth’s statement that ‘Given that global warming is ‘‘unequivocal’’, and is ‘‘very likely’’ due to human activities to quote t he 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.’ We examine how the concept of a null hypothesis is being used implicitly and explicitly in the scientific and policy debate on climate change, in the context of scientific hypothesis testing, as a framework for ‘burden of proof’ arguments and policy deliberations, and metaphorically in the context of a polemic. "

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.141/pdf

From the preview of the article. Note Kevin Trenberth wants to overturn the null hypothesis, and it hasn't been. Therefore the null hypothesis is still natural variation.

Judith Curry is a lukewarmist, which doesn't suit the CAGW crowd.

So sad you don't seem to research. Other than look at papers with which you agree.

Commonly known as confirmation bias.

You may have noticed that I do repeatedly ask you for papers that disagree with my stated position.

If you post it I will shut up.


Its not my fault I can't find evidence to support your argument when you can't provide any evidence supporting your argument either!

lee wrote on Dec 24^th, 2016 at 2:45pm:

[quote author=deepideas link=1482406731/11#11 date=1482499429]I From the preview of the article. Note Kevin Trenberth wants to overturn the null hypothesis, and it hasn't been. Therefore the null hypothesis is still natural variation.

Oh-i'm sorry the the world council of null hypothesis definitions isn't going to change there mind. Hilariously, arguing with me about this fine philosophical point is the closest you have ever been to actually supporting your position.

I can't grant you the point however because the paper your paper was actually written in support of my position, and wasn't written because of any actual scientific reason but more so for the sole purpose of removing this very argument from the denialists repertoire.   
The fact that there was no change as a result of this speak more to the inertia of scientific opinion, and also indicates that scientists have found the evidence supporting global warming while operating in a transparent open framework.

I do appreciate you posting a real paper(even if it is another one supporting AGW)
it's good to actually talk about something with some real thought behind it !

Wonderful graphs -
you would think there were thermometers all around the world 800,000 years ago.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html



http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/epica_temperature.png

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/proxy-based_temperature_reconstruction.png

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 24^th, 2016 at 7:26pm:

I can't grant you the point however

You don't have the power to grant anything. ;)

Only number plates ;D

That said, getting someone else to grant you a point is the reason you debate.

If you don't agree with this why do you bother posting?

Tell me Mr Pho Hoc,

how come there were thermometers accurate to 0.1 degrees around 800,000 years ago?

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:57pm:

Only number plates

Are you inside making them?

Bobby. wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:11pm:

Tell me Mr Pho Hoc, how come there were thermometers accurate to 0.1 degrees around 800,000 years ago?

Because there was a secret race of intelligent beings who also burned hydrocarbons. They kept very detailed records about all there climatic variations.(before it heated up and became extinct)
This is why the present rate of warming is not unprecedented, and just another part of the natural long term cycle.
Ask Lee-he has the evidence to back this up  :)

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:22pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 6:57pm: Only number plates Are you inside making them?

I run a car club 8-)

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:34pm:

I run a car club

Getaway cars? ;)

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:32pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:11pm: Tell me Mr Pho Hoc, how come there were thermometers accurate to 0.1 degrees around 800,000 years ago? Because there was a secret race of intelligent beings who also burned hydrocarbons. They kept very detailed records about all there climatic variations.(before it heated up and became extinct) This is why the present rate of warming is not unprecedented, and just another part of the natural long term cycle. Ask Lee-he has the evidence to back this up  :)

Can you back up your graph with some sense?

( instead of nonsense. )

There is a link on top of the graphs.

Its a peer reviewed paper that shows how the graphs were generated, who did the work and what their data sources and methodology was.

I don't want to dumb down a peer reviewed paper because that's how you get Lee involved.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:48pm:

There is a link on top of the graphs. Its a peer reviewed paper that shows how the graphs were generated, who did the work and what their data sources and methodology was. I don't want to dumb down a peer reviewed paper because that's how you get Lee involved.

Yes I read the links & they explained nothing.

Booby only understands videos, especially lying videos by a charlatan and paid propagandist for fossil fuel interests.

Of course, Booby doesn’t really understand the videos, he just knows there is a nice authority figure (to Booby) telling him things. Mostly lies but Booby tries not to let the lies, even when pointed out to him, upset his wordless adoration of the charlatan.