Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.



Term Lookup



Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming

Posted on 20 January 2012 by dana1981



HvA 50 years



A Quick Look at the Various Effects on Global Temperature








Tett et al. (2000)



Meehl et al. (2004)



Stone et al. (2007)



Lean and Rind (2008)



Stott et al. (2010)



Huber and Knutti (2011)



Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)




Gillett et al. (2012)



Human-Caused Global Warming Consensus





50-65 years







1 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 74 out of 74:

  1. muoncounter#49: I have checked 2 links you had mentioned, and all records point ultimately lead to [Ramaswamy et al., 2001 - you claimed as "Chapter 6 of the 2001 TAR, which is somewhat out of date" -] only, which starts with the assumption. . I think starting with assumption, no one, yes no one need to prove the assumption, but safely can use the "circularity" logic as mentioned in #38
    0 0
  2. Patonomics: “Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate system, expressed as computer codes and run on powerful computers. One source of confidence in models comes from the fact that model fundamentals are based on established physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, along with a wealth of observations.” Source: “Frequently Asked Question 8.1: How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?”, Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis, UN IPPC Click here to access this document,
    0 0
  3. DSL#50: I do not claim to be Climate Scientist or Climate Professional and neither likely to be one in near future. I am looking for support if someone already validate in a form "any science validate itself non-confusingly (with out circular logic to depend)". I have my own profession to look after. My present interest is to check only if there are substantial Deterministic validation or not. I am not going to read and read in litterateurs and compete with those who are into full time Climate Scientist as their job. After reading your comments I recall about, Italian physicist Galileo Galilei, when he questioned traditional wisdom of majority, it infuriated the majority who are connected by consensus with "strong theoretical evidence" based on assumptions! I hope I have not infuriate you. That is not my intention or remotely target and I positively hope you do not have similar target either. I like your philosophical response for a needed scientific Validity on curiosity. I am not sure if someone might have better understanding about science with your philosophical response!
    0 0
  4. patonomics#52: Concepts of radiative forcing pre-date the IPCC report of 2001. Keep in mind that IPCC documents are merely reviews of the state of the science at the time of issue - the basic research was done by others. See for example Hansen et al 1997. The only thing circular here is your persistent conviction that you and you alone are correct. You've been referred to numerous reference documents; the evidence for the theory that you're trying to dispute is readily available.
    0 0
  5. John Hartz#53: I strongly expect it ("Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate system") should be like that, so I could not comprehend why none could produce cause and effect relationship equation as yet in this forum (contrary I am getting everything other than that equation). In establishing science, scientist first publish a research article clearly depicting their formula, their all assumptions and then validate to claim why their equation is deterministic. But what I get so far is not that clarity but pointer towards some models, which when it old is not good enough, but new models are better. You may agree mostly people get Nobel Prize after scientific community can validate their science over decades, can anyone explain why in AGW of CS (Climate Science), old models need not to be validated, telling its outdated, but all people are expected to BELIEVE in current models (that's not validated conclusively and only evolving, and still expected to think science of AGW is deterministic)?
    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Models are not the topic of this thread,  For a further discussion of those, see either the How do Climate Models Work? thread or the Models are unreliable thread.  Please continue any discussion of models there, not here.

    Furthermore, this thread is A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming.  Discussion of the philosophy of science on this thread have now run their course.  As no meaningful fruit has arisen, it is now off-topic on this thread and subsequent pursuit of this topic will receive further, more severe moderation.

  6. Patonomics - I have read your comments so far on this thread - your philosophy seems rooted in the Sophists of the ancient Greeks (although I mean the modern definition of sophistry). Also - if you are now invoking the (false) equivalence of climate "Skeptics" with Galileo (being a skeptic of an earth-centric universe) - there are two problems - 1) the entire body of science has had over 500 years to mature and expand - so basic misunderstandings, like the role of CO2 in the climate are very, very rare. Indeed, can you point to 3 cases of a basic misunderstanding about science that happened in the entire 20th century? and 2) Galileo himself built his theories upon two pillars - the body of science and his own observations. Both the body of science and observations now support the AGW theory (indeed even those vaunted 3% disagree dramatically on questions of where the warming is coming from (very few actual scientists claim no warming), where it is going, how fast, etc. ) So there isn't really an opportunity for a credible skeptic to invoke Galileo as a counter to the widespread (overwhelming) body of scientific evidence that the world is warming and man is to blame.
    0 0
  7. muoncounter#55: about your claim "The only thing circular here is your persistent conviction that you and you alone are correct." - is not true. I am looking for validation from AGW claiming community, when someone claims to AGW be deterministic. If you think I am talking about myself, "and not about validation of science of AGW", then we are not in same frequency. And there is no point to discuss further. I am only looking for validation, and validation alone, if there are any. Else I do not need anything from anyone!
    0 0
  8. actually thoughtful#57: You are entitled to hold your own thoughts, but that does NOT change my question about validation!
    0 0
  9. patonomics - My apologies, this may be a language issue, but I cannot parse your last post. The "Galileo Gambit only suffices if you are correct. The mass of evidence supports anthropogenic global warming - if you disagree, you need to provide a better answer, which you have (so far) notably failed to do. Global warming via human generated greenhouse gases fits the last 150 years of spectroscopy, all the observations, multiple fingerprints, etc. What alternative do you point to? If any? Or are you simply presenting the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy?
    0 0
  10. KR#60: What I tried to communicate is science needs validation and not assumption. I do NOT and can NOT equate myself with "Galileo". "mass of evidence supports anthropogenic global warming" - I am just asking if it is 1) validated or 2) derived from assumption, or from 3) theory (based on assumption)? If AGW is validated truth, why not its quantitative (I expect the relationship must be deterministic in quantitative level) form is presented in a equation of temp as dependent variable of human created co2. Once I get validation document it will SILENCE my Q. Is not that easy to and many other who claim "The mass of evidence supports anthropogenic global warming" ?
    0 0
  11. patonomics - it is notable that you have no 20th century examples of Galileo, nor can you produce any counters to the overwhelming evidence in support of AGW. I hope you will take the time to think about the implications of those two items. It appears your validation is already at hand. Your task is simply to understand what the evidence tells us - that world is warming, and man is to blame.
    0 0
  12. Moderator Response#56: I got your msg ["subsequent pursuit of this topic will receive further, more severe moderation"]. I will not bother you any more. Thank you for your clear communication.
    0 0

    [DB] Unfortunately, there are no posts at Skeptical Science directly focus on the philosophy of science.  You are welcome to peruse any/all of the 4,700+ comment threads here at SkS dealing with all aspects of climate science and may place on-topic comments on any of them.

    Simply use the Search function in the Upper Left of every page to locate those more appropriate threads.

  13. Patonomics - You are asking for an equation and we are responding by saying - you don't need an equation when the evidence is directly in front of you. However, here is a simple equation. The hypothesis is that it is warmer now than in 1975. this can be expressed in the logical equation: If Tn>Tt, global warming is occurring (you recognize, of course that this is simplified as necessary to present it on a blog site) Where Tn is Temperature now, and Tt is Temperature then (as I said- keep it simple). Thus you have your validation equation, supported, not by models, but observable reality. And of course, this was predicted by Arrhenius in 1896, so the science has been tested almost as long as old Galileo (by which I mean you can measure in the 100 year increments). If this does not meet your equation requirements, perhaps you can be both more specific and more succinct?
    0 0
  14. patonomics: You've been pointed to any number of 'validation documents' and yet you ignore those pointers. #61: "I am just asking if it is 1) validated or 2) derived from assumption, or from 3) theory (based on assumption)? " That is entirely circular. The theory is valid (it is called 'physics'), the data validate the theory. The only one making assumptions is you, as you have built a case on a single sentence from a thousand-plus page summary document. And in #54: "I am not going to read and read in litterateurs and compete with those who are into full time Climate Scientist" If you don't want to read, you don't want to learn - or even have your preconceived notions (a 'deterministic equation') challenged. I note that you have not responded to several comments showing the irrelevancy of that search. We must conclude that your 'questions' here are merely rhetorical; no one has time to play that game.
    0 0
  15. I see that patanomics (@63) has got the very "clear communication" from the moderator. I expect him therefore to reopen this discussion in a thread in which it is on topic, as that was the very clear suggestion by the moderator. Something about the wording of patanomics response, however, suggests to me that he is trying to pretend that a requirement that he comply withe the comments policy is actually censorship, when it is no such thing. I hope I am wrong.
    0 0
  16. patonomics - I would point you towards the simplified RealCliate overview, as well as The Discovery of Global Warming. Multiple observations, multiple reinforcing fingerprints of anthropogenic warming (as opposed to solar, cosmic ray, leprechauns, etc.), basics in pure science such as spectroscopy, >120 years of simple physics pointing to the increased greenhouse effect, on and on and ... If you want a simple equation (and apparently you are looking for a shrink-wrapped simplification), I would suggest this. As inputs, look at the changes in radiation to space at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) over the satellite era, demonstrating reductions from the pure black-body spectra to a less efficient (in terms of energy radiated based on temperature) emissivity due to increased greenhouse gases. Less energy radiated at a particular temperature, thus higher temperatures to radiate away what the sun inputs to the climate system - it doesn't get any simpler than that.
    0 0
  17. #61: You request validation, but what do you wish validation of? 1: That the Earth's temperature is rising, according to all major temperature records? 2: That the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise rapidly, and that the CO2 increase is isotopically identifiable as being fossil fuel-derived? 3: The fundamental theoretical and experimental basis for CO2, water vapour and some other gases being radiatively active (see Spencer Weart for a history going back 150 years)? 4: The direct observations of the CO2 greenhouse effect (e.g. Harries et al 2001, Philipona)? 5: The observations that the temperature rise is consistent with the enhanced greenhouse effect (nights warming faster than days, stratosphere cooling etc). It is inconsistent with a warming from other sources. Do you not trust the above observations or the century-old theoretical basis? If not, why not? What more validation do you need?
    0 0
  18. DSL @50, I second your suggestion of Spencer Weart's book. But this is all off topic. If it was patonomics's goal to derail the thread, s/he certainly is trying very hard. They are also, despite trying to create that impression, not amendable to reason or compelling evidence. The independent research papers cited provide a very consistent and coherent picture, and that is clearly causing some angst amongst the "skeptics". If people want to debate the philosophy behind AGW, or other aspects then please take them to the relevant threads. This thread is to discuss the "review the results of these various studies, and a few others which we have not previously examined, to see what the scientific literature and data have to say about exactly what is causing global warming.". So can we stick to that please. Surely is not to much to ask?
    0 0
  19. Patonic built an off-topic distraction about the philosophy of science. He is poorly versed in AGW, but very well versed in philosophy 101 and knowing how to manipulate an internet thread. Basically he trashed a very important topic, and redirected it to where what he knows is more important than what others know. Example- the TAR is out-of-date. ... AR4 states outright that the definition of radiative forcing from the TAR is retained: He walked right by the best suggestion - go to the link and start with 'the Discovery of Global Warming'. He ignored the response where he could study a survey of CO2 properties.
    0 0
  20. The request of a set of equation for validation of the theory is disingenuous. Equations from quantum theory are needed to calculate the radiative forcing of CO2. The radiative forcing is a direct consequence of quantum laws, those laws seemingly so dear to Patonomics. The only way that heat will not build up in the atmosphere with added GH is if quantum laws somehow do not hold. Not likely. These calculations have been done by LBLRTM and MODTRAN. The results of the calculations closely match observations. Then, there is all the fluid dynamics equations necessary to model atmospheric circulation, and ocean circulation for AOGCMs. And then there is more, as climate science is complex. That is simply too much to list in a setting like this. It would require an entire team with varied areas of expertise. However, it is in fact possible to do so. It's just not really worth bothering; what would the point? to make a point. Feh... I affirm that quantum theory alone is enough to show witout any doubt whatsoever that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the heat content of the whole atmoshere/ocean system. The only possibility that it would be otherwise would reside with the existence, as yet uncovered, of a mechanism that would allow the extra heat to be radiated out to space immediately. Lindzen's hypothesis has not panned out so well. I find Patonomics' contribution so far to be of little value and I would encourage all to get back to the topic (I know, I just indulge for a few paragraphs myself).
    0 0
  21. Well the most basic equations, verifiable from satellite and ground measurements would be the RTEs, for which Ramanathan and Coakley 1978 would be the starting point.
    0 0
  22. Don't you see? SkS has failed to provide a summary of all the research/measurements/math/physics/and theory in one paragraph. Since you are unable or unwilling to do so you must be hiding something behind all that complicated math and all those long boring papers. Now that his inconvenient and probing questions have made the AGW Team uncomfortable he has been silenced! The only logical conclusion is that he has gotten too close to uncovering the Man Behind the Curtain. /sarcasm
    0 0
  23. pbjamm.... Okay, that was just a little too close to real. (@73) You can't imagine how many times I've read virtually those exact statements online, only with no sarcasm.
    0 0
  24. I have to make an apology: I am the friend who pointed Patonomics to SkS and the possibility to discuss AGW here, after I had exhausted my efforts to make him understand the concept. I also had already provided him with copies of or links to a lot of up to date literature and discussions, on climate models, trends, the BEST study, Arctic ice melt, etc etc, whatever i could find including Principles of Planetary Climate. Only having a PhD in medicine, some odd 30 years in science and having read climate science literature for the last 20 yrs I thought that maybe I lacked clarity in my arguments.... Thanks anyway to all of you who took time to engage in the debate.
    0 0
  25. Zeboo - no need for an apology. Your friend Patonomics is engaging in a form of denial. That's not a condition we can cure. Be nice if he didn't write in riddles too, it impresses no one here. State things plainly - if you can't maybe you don't know what you're on about?
    0 0
  26. Dana’s OP has been summarized by RP Siegel in “What Are the Real Causes of Global Warming?” posted (Jan 25, 2012) on Triple Pundit. Sigel’s insightful opening paragraph: “The folks at Skeptical Science have put together a review of various scientific investigations into the causes of global warming, in hopes of coming up with a definitive answer. This seems like a good time to do this, in the midst of Republican primary season, as the various candidates try to one-up each other on bashing the science in lieu of what their supporters would prefer to hear.”
    0 0
  27. User LRDT has asked about the human attribution of the causes of global warming and climate change.  Given this:

    Causes of AGW


    And this:

    Causes of AGW


    Yields this, from the OP above:

    Causes of AGW

    0 0
  28. It is also worth noting that in political debates, finding a middle ground is often in the way forward. However, science doesnt go for middle ground much. You cant try and postulate that there are fictional sources of warming for which there is no evidence. If you want to excuse humans then you need to provide evidence for other causes that dont violate first law thermodynamics. For example, you cant say the warming is coming from the oceans on some "natural cycle" while the oceans continue to heat. You can explain short term heating (eg El Nino) from ocean/atmosphere exchange (ocean heat content drops) but not long term.

    0 0

Prev  1  2  


The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2021 John Cook