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






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.


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.

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


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

I believe data, until superior data is presented.

Present data or shut up Lee

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

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



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?

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



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

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



perhaps you would like to read this?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/03/did-james-hansen-unwittingly-prove-the-nu...

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.

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


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 !