"Did the coal miners canary just flutter?"

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...s-warming.html

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.


It will be interesting see the direction Mars and Earths ice caps take. But as we hear some people already have their made up who to blame

Your own article casts doubt on Abdussamatov's study on page 2.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Hottest on record where? Because over here we're preparing for record cold and snow

Local != global, this is a basic thing about climate change, that you don't know that doesn't surprise me one bit.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

The article also says this:

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

Also, NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study — That's Exactly What They Did

[August]

"Might"
"It seems"
"If"
"I don't think"

For a "settled science" there is a lot of doubt in the language that they're using. I think it's because they know that if Human Caused global warming is actually real then it's not going to be something anyone can do anything about short of a population reducing war or other calamity. We certainly don't have an affordable replacement for fossil fuels yet.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by August

"Might"
"It seems"
"If"
"I don't think"

For a "settled science" there is a lot of doubt in the language that they're using. I think it's because they know that if Human Caused global warming is actually real then it's not going to be something anyone can do anything about short of a population reducing war or other calamity. We certainly don't have an affordable replacement for fossil fuels yet.

But if we're speaking of outlying planets in our solar system. Its pretty much settle science the warming and cooling of those planets is a naturally occurring phenomena. Here on earth however it doesn't appear much funding goes towards understanding how those same forces work on our planet. For some odd reason its presumed the warming trend is man made. And if you dare think outside the box you get things written about you like "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007]. God forbid if anyone interferes with the mainstream's funding. Now politicians have found it very convenient and certainly advantageous to promote the perception its man made.

Reminds me back when I was a child when the almighty main stream scientific opinion 'just knew' the universe was static and eternal. You could have lost tenure or at the least been made the butt of jokes by your peers had you believed it had a beginning. I remember when science said the story written by some desert sheep herders three thousand years ago of it having a beginning was just a bed story to help children sleep at night.

[razark]

Other planets also show warming trends. How does the rate of warming on those planets compare to the rate of warming on this one? How does the rate of the current warming trend on Earth compare to previous warming and cooling trends?

[vienna]

One thing those other planets don't have: life forms or, at least life forms capable of producing variable artificial impact on the planets' environment on a very mass scale; comparing an uninhabited or lifeless planet to Earth is like comparing an empty house to a very full occupied house: the variables, conditions, and interactions/reactions are missing in the unoccupied house...






<O>

[mapuc]

This is my belief

This Global Warming would have happened whatever the human have been here or not, the only thing we, the human, can be accused of, is having kickstartet this Global Warming sooner than expected.

That is what I believe

Markus

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by mapuc

This is my belief

This Global Warming would have happened whatever the human have been here or not, the only thing we, the human, can be accused of, is having kickstartet this Global Warming sooner than expected.

That is what I believe

Markus

That's exactly the point!

The rate of change would have been gradual enough, that nature and what civilization would be here, would have had time to adapt appropriately. With Human induced climate change, we've induced a change that is happening so rapidly (and it's just beginning) that we won't be able to adapt in time or at a reasonable cost.

That's even assuming we would have hit the temps we are going to.

[Rockstar]

Looking at University of Alabama Satellite Lower Atmosphere graph for the last 34 years and the NASA GISS Mean Monthly Surface Temperature Anomaly graph for the last 17 years. It appears Global Warming stopped in the late 1990s or early 2000s.
So, we had Global cooling in 1970's, global warming in the 80's soon revised to climate change in the 90's. Now with temperatures seemingly pointing towards a cooling period I expect any day now like the seasons the main scientific consensus of the world will change once again and declare it "climate disruption" as they pat themselves on the back for saving the world from global warming

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

But if we're speaking of outlying planets in our solar system. Its pretty much settle science the warming and cooling of those planets is a naturally occurring phenomena.

No, it isn't "settled" since we don't know. There simply is not enough data to know even how much the outer planets warm and cool during a planetary year. The best guess atm is that it is natural, since we have no reason to think it is otherwise.

Here on earth however it doesn't appear much funding goes towards understanding how those same forces work on our planet. For some odd reason its presumed the warming trend is man made.

Of course there's research on how Earth's climate works and what natural causes change it, that's why we now can say with high certainty that human CO2 emissions are affecting the climate.

And if you dare think outside the box you get things written about you like "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].

He gets called out because his findings are simply not supported by evidence.

From the same article: Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

God forbid if anyone interferes with the mainstream's funding. Now politicians have found it very convenient and certainly advantageous to promote the perception its man made.

Again with the funding. Can you actually show any numbers to back this claim? Preferably globally, since the science is done around the world not just in the US.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Looking at University of Alabama Satellite Lower Atmosphere graph for the last 34 years and the NASA GISS Mean Monthly Surface Temperature Anomaly graph for the last 17 years. It appears Global Warming stopped in the late 1990s or early 2000s.
So, we had Global cooling in 1970's, global warming in the 80's soon revised to climate change in the 90's. Now with temperatures seemingly pointing towards a cooling period I expect any day now like the seasons the main scientific consensus of the world will change once again and declare it "climate disruption" as they pat themselves on the back for saving the world from global warming

No need to post the graphs or anything.

Here, let me help you.

UAH6.0, from 1980 to present shows warming:


GISTEMP, from 2000 shows warming:


Even the skeptic Dr.Roy Spencer shows on his site (which you have linked to in this thread) that the UAH6.0 data shows warming from 1979:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by razark

Other planets also show warming trends. How does the rate of warming on those planets compare to the rate of warming on this one? How does the rate of the current warming trend on Earth compare to previous warming and cooling trends?

"Other planets". Which, exactly?
None of the "other planets" at least within the solar system have an atmosphere like the earth, and i have not heard about planets at Alpha Centauri or wherever that show any trend, because we plain cannot observe it.

The rate and expecially speed of the recent earth's global warming cannot be compared to anything that happened before. Ice and geological strata give hints, but even in the past's badest time with a dying out of around 95 percent of earth's creatures, the warming took some ten thousand years to happen. The effect after this however took some 100 million years to vanish and get back to former moderate temperatures, and the deserts finally disappearing.
Before the effect set in, there was however a worldwide sinking of temperatures, because clouds of evaporated H2O blocked the sunlight for some time. However atmospheric gases of all kinds also evoparate into space, so after this had happened..

[razark]

Originally Posted by Catfish

"Other planets". Which, exactly?

Sorry, I thought I had included the quote I was replying to:

Originally Posted by Rockstar

But if we're speaking of outlying planets in our solar system. Its pretty much settle science the warming and cooling of those planets is a naturally occurring phenomena.

There was no specific mention of which planets were involved. For the sake of argument, I accepted the claim and moved on to look at the implications.

Originally Posted by Catfish

None of the "other planets" at least within the solar system have an atmosphere like the earth...

Which is another reason the comparison was somewhat useless.

Originally Posted by Catfish

...the warming took some ten thousand years to happen. The effect after this however took some 100 million years to vanish and get back to former moderate temperatures, and the deserts finally disappearing.

Hence my point on how this current trend compared to previous, naturally occurring changes. We're seeing in decades what once took centuries or millennia to occur.

[Catfish]

Hi Razark,
i am sorry, i completely misunderstood your post
I seem to get allergic towards certain topics

[Red Devil]

I was always a global warming sceptic, but it is actually happening. What is causing it is the food for thought. Many scientists claim its a natural progression of Mother Natures greater scheme. A few blame humans. Personally it is a mixture of both. Apparently we are entering the 6th age of extinction, which will take a few millennia of years to take effect but will happen. Humans can forget star travel unless we all abandon religious idiocy and work together, yeah right! We wont survive long enough. Anyway, in 1 billion years the earth will become uninhabitable anyway as the sun begins its billion or so years expansion.

So when we have gone, who or what is going to take over? My bet is either cats or octopuses. both have a supreme intelligence.

Anyway, the planet is warming, fact. More and more glaciers are being recorded as arriving at breaking point and going into our oceans, both north and south, watched by sats and NASA aircraft. A recent one that drifted off the south pole was the size of the country of Wales!! A consequence of global warming is more frequent hurricanes. These are caused when seas become too warm, the water evaporates and becomes water vapour/cloud which, propelled by the earths rotation, make them spin and forms thunder clouds, which become spinning hurricanes and the energy and heat is carries away and dumped on land, the sea then retuns to its equilibrium, for the time being .................. in the north, the ice is not staying as ice for as long as it should, and a direct consequence is that polar bears are having to look at land to survive!!

And have you noticed, hurricane frequency is already increasing on both numbers and power? so there you have it

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by razark

Other planets also show warming trends. How does the rate of warming on those planets compare to the rate of warming on this one? How does the rate of the current warming trend on Earth compare to previous warming and cooling trends?

Do tell.