Do you have a link to a research paper that says, Man has caused The recent warming cycle?

You recently asked “So, has anyone found the missing heat, yet?”, but the question was closed by the time I got to it. My answer to that was going to be...

“I think Jones et al have put it in the same place as they’re keeping the ‘scientific method’.”... which overlaps nicely onto this question.

“Do you have a link to a research paper that says, Man has caused the recent warming cycle?”

No, I don’t... it doesn’t exist. If it did then indeed the science would be settled, and the debate would be over. The fact of the matter though, quite simply, is that the warmers have not proven their hypothesis. I’ll go a little further, and say that as far as I’m aware they haven’t even stated their hypothesis... we have lots of statements around a common theme, but where’s the testable hypothesis?

Please someone show me I’m wrong on this. At least then I’ll have a testable premise on which to base my opinions.

@jyushchyshyn

Thank you for your interesting link which shows that simulations of DTR (diurnal temperature range) from 5 models fail to match actual observations. The study was about...

“The usefulness of global-average diurnal temperature range (DTR) as an index of climate change and variability is evaluated using observations and climate model simulations representing unforced climate variability and anthropogenic climate change.”

This study does not test whether or not ‘man has caused the recent warm cycle’.

The study you link tests whether or not DTR is a useful “index of climate change”.

In its summary the authors conclude that

”Diurnal temperature range appears to be a suitable index of climate variability and change,...”.

This is remarkable conclusion considering that in the same paragraph they also say “Analysis of trends in DTR over the last century from five coupled climate models shows that simulated trends in DTR due to anthropogenic forcing are much smaller than observed. This difference is attributable to larger than observed changes in maximum temperatures in four of the five models analysed here, a result consistent with previous modelling studies.”

This paper does not prove that ‘man has caused the recent war cycle’ (it doesn’t even address it!), it proves that current models do not successfully reproduce observed results.

Your second link is to the original work by Svante Arrhenius. I trust you are aware that this work relates to “the absorption of heat by aqueous vapour and by carbonic acid”, the radiative properties of water vapour and CO2 in our parlance. The paper does not even speculate on the possibility global warming. It is of interest to note that towards the end of his paper Arrhenius writes “I worked out the calculation in more detail and lay it now before the public and the critics”. How we wish that we saw this same transparency today.

Summoning all the generosity I can muster, your comments about Newton are at best, childish.

@Bacceus. The main point about the missing heat is that if you can’t successfully model the earth’s energy budget then it is impossible to build a worthwhile model projecting future temperature. Trenberths own recent work (Trenberth et al 2010, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5976/316.fig... shows that well over 50% of the earth’s energy budget is unaccounted for.

http://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2010...

Full article here:

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/2013/missing-heat-may-af...

“Global warming at its heart is driven by an imbalance of energy: more solar energy is entering the atmosphere than leaving it,” Fasullo says. “Our concern is that we aren’t able to entirely monitor or understand the imbalance. This reveals a glaring hole in our ability to observe the build-up of heat in our climate system.”

... or perhaps it isn’t building up and we’re failing to measure where it’s exiting?

Perhaps we should keep an open mind until something’s proven.

Edit to jyushchyshyn.

Great rant; I fear I have misjudged you.

Clearly I should have said childish, petulant and presumptious but mostly harmless.

Why would you want .edu? Those are education sites. You want the science journals, and those are .com or .org depending on the journal.

Start here.

The enhanced greenhouse effect has been directly measured.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/ab...

http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Con...

http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource...

Actually, for proof of how CO2 is affected the the infrared radiation reflected off the earth, you need only watch this 4th grader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4

If you really mean that you have an intent to learn, then you can get an overview of the depth of research here.

http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~rodenburg/B-C%20house%2...

You'll not find one single study that proves all of the thread. There are a large number of researchers and data that have proved each point: CO2 causes warming, we have more CO2, the CO2 comes from human activities. If you spend the time to familiarize yourself with the research you will learn that the only reason people doubt it is because they know nothing.

Now, as far as the missing heat, the point of that conclusion is that it is missing and that more research is required before undertaking any geoengineering solutions. Nobody is paying for meaurements of deep sea temperatures and we would have history of that anyhow. So it remains an hypothesis that cannot be tested. But no possible answer is a good one: either the deep ocean is warming or the satellites measurements are somehow under-calculating enviromental temperatures. Either way it is bad news.

Here is a link

http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/jma/2004GL019998.pdf

I can also give you a very early link.

http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-1735...

"So just like Newton's laws, it should be testable anywhere, in any language, with exactly the same results, every time."

Actually, Newton's laws have been replaced by quantum mechanics. But to get the "same results, every time," do we need warp or wormhole travel to perform tests on planets in other galaxies? Do we need a control knob on the Sun?

If you find the article convincing, will you believe, or will you delete the question like the last time I won the argument? And no, I am not asking about the question I was asking about the other day? I am asking about your own question. I believe it was about the sun ending the Little Ice Age.

Perhaps we should keep an open mind until something’s proven.

DaveH

Like a typical ignorant denialist, you hide your ignorance in a long winded rant. The title of the Arrhenius article is, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground." Carbonic acid is what people called carbon dioxide in 1896 and the title clearly says that it is about the Earth's temperature.

"It is of interest to note that towards the end of his paper Arrhenius writes “I worked out the calculation in more detail and lay it now before the public and the critics”. How we wish that we saw this same transparency today."

Oh! Please! Here is some transparency.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#dat...

Oh! You want the raw data. Just Google every weather station on Earth

"Summoning all the generosity I can muster, your comments about Newton are at best, childish."

If you do not believe in quantum mechanics, you are living in complete ignorance of the modern day physical sciences.

"The main point about the missing heat is that if you can’t successfully model the earth’s energy budget then it is impossible to build a worthwhile model projecting future temperature."

Add CO2 to the atmosphere, you get warming. That is basic physics.

You warm ice enough it melts.

When enough ice melts, sea levels rise.

If we can't trust our models, then we need to play it safe, because reality could be much worse than the models.

DaveH

Obviously I misjudged you. You are a rocket scientist.

edit

Oops! I almost forgot to give DaveH his TD.

Actually, Newton's laws have been replaced by quantum mechanics. But to get the "same results, every time," do we need warp or wormhole travel to perform tests on planets in other galaxies? Do we need a control knob on the Sun?

If you find the article convincing, will you believe, or will you delete the question like the last time I won the argument? And no, I am not asking about the question I was asking about the other day? I am asking about your own question. I believe it was about the sun ending the Little Ice

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/wa...

also watch the video six degrees could change the world, unfortunately i could not find a link

Why would you want .edu? Those are education sites. You want the science journals, and those are .com or .org depending on the journal.

The enhanced greenhouse effect has been directly measured.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/ab...

http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Con...

Actually, for proof of how CO2 is affected the the infrared radiation reflected off the earth, you need only watch this 4th

You'll not find one single study that proves all of the thread. There are a large number of researchers and data that have proved each point: CO2 causes warming, we have more CO2, the CO2 comes from human activities. If you spend the time to familiarize yourself with the research you will learn that the only reason people doubt it is because they know nothing.

Now, as far as the missing heat, the point of that conclusion is that it is missing and that more research is required before undertaking any geoengineering solutions. Nobody is paying for meaurements of deep sea temperatures and we would have history of that anyhow. So it remains an hypothesis that cannot be tested. But no possible answer is a good one: either the deep ocean is warming or the satellites measurements are somehow under-calculating enviromental temperatures. Either way it is bad news.

You recently asked “So, has anyone found the missing heat, yet?”, but the question was closed by the time I got to it. My answer to that was going to be...

“I think Jones et al have put it in the same place as they’re keeping the ‘scientific method’.”... which overlaps nicely onto this question.

“Do you have a link to a research paper that says, Man has caused the recent warming cycle?”

No, I don’t... it doesn’t exist. If it did then indeed the science would be settled, and the debate would be over. The fact of the matter though, quite simply, is that the warmers have not proven their hypothesis. I’ll go a little further, and say that as far as I’m aware they haven’t even stated their hypothesis... we have lots of statements around a common theme, but where’s the testable hypothesis?

Please someone show me I’m wrong on this. At least then I’ll have a testable premise on which to base

“The usefulness of global-average diurnal temperature range (DTR) as an index of climate change and variability is evaluated using observations and climate model simulations representing unforced climate variability and anthropogenic climate change.”

This study does not test whether or not ‘man has caused the recent warm cycle’.

The study you link tests whether or not DTR is a useful “index of climate change”.

In its summary the authors conclude that

”Diurnal temperature range appears to be a suitable index of climate variability and change,...”.

This is remarkable conclusion considering that in the same paragraph they also say “Analysis of trends in DTR over the last century from five coupled climate models shows that simulated trends in DTR due to anthropogenic forcing are much smaller than observed. This difference is attributable to larger than observed changes in maximum temperatures in four of the five models analysed here, a result consistent with previous modelling studies.”

This paper does not prove that ‘man has caused the recent war cycle’ (it doesn’t even address it!), it proves that current models do not successfully reproduce observed results.

Your second link is to the original work by Svante Arrhenius. I trust you are aware that this work relates to “the absorption of heat by aqueous vapour and by carbonic acid”, the radiative properties of water vapour and CO2 in our parlance. The paper does not even speculate on the possibility global warming. It is of interest to note that towards the end of his paper Arrhenius writes “I worked out the calculation in more detail and lay it now before the public and the critics”. How we wish that we saw this same transparency today.

Summoning all the generosity I can muster, your comments about Newton are at best, childish.

The main point about the missing heat is that

specific it has grow to be a faith and Al Gore is the pope of the cult.think of of ways plenty money specific communities will make off of the hype.think of of all that government money going to "study".besides there is basically plenty you're able to do ,after all whoever controls the climate controls the international.concern is the superb political motivator. climate substitute is a factor of the character of the planet.easy experience is to have sparkling potential yet until there's a greenback in all of it that happens is communicate,communicate and extra communicate.government regulations,fines and outcomes(gotta get that bailout money someplace) We genuinely desire sparkling air and water .i'm the unique recycler and that i do no longer waste potential basically like many persons.i take advantage of potential and don't choose for the "guilt" holiday of doing so. I also have a issue with Gore the guru who flies around a gasoline guzzling jet.So does Queen Pelosi who opted for a much bigger one to fly returned and forth to California.remember her asserting she needs to maintain the planet,yeah she flies we walk.we are able to all commence via using the hot potential saving easy bulbs. Oh I forgot they are those with mercury in them.Oh,nicely appears like a reliable theory on the time. i assume you all heard that some genius baby-kisser had to tax cow farmers for any that own extra suitable than one hundred for emitting "methane gasoline" yeah that's authentic.can we bottle it fairly?Or on 2d theory deliver some from the bull to that baby-kisser as he's familiar with the B.S. whilst he sees or smells it.

Wow there are a lot of good answers.

But we all know you'll chose Mr. Usual as the best answer because he agrees with you.

Who needs evidence when you can just deny it and continue ranting like a nut case?

EDIT - and as far as your .edu website needs. Good luck finding specific research information on .edu websites that aren't links to *peer reviewed literature in journals.* What do yo think that universities exists to create websites to explain science to those who will ignore it anyways?

Here are two of the latest:

“Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/fu...

“Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/fu...

Here's a review of those two papers:

Two seminal Nature papers join growing body of evidence that human emissions fuel extreme weather, flooding that harm humans and the environment

"Scientists have predicted for decades that human-caused global warming would increased extreme weather events that cause severe harm to humans, property, and the environment. These two studies are but the latest in a growing body of scientific literature demonstrating that these predictions are coming true now.

They should help lay to rest the myth that human-caused global warming will contribute to grievous harm only in some far-off future. They also strongly support the view that the human-induced increases in greenhouse gases have contributed to the devastating extreme events that hit Australia and other parts of the world in the past several months, helping to drive up food prices"

More...

The human fingerprint in the increased greenhouse effect

Satellites measure infrared radiation as it escapes out to space. A comparison between satellite data from 1970 to 1996 found that less energy is escaping to space at the wavelengths that greenhouse gases absorb energy (Harries 2001).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/ab...

Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by more recent data from several different satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

http://spiedl.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet...

http://www.eumetsat.eu/Home/Main/Publications/Conf...

Another example...

Philipona et al. (2004):

"The resulting uniform increase of longwave downward radiation manifests radiative forcing that is induced by greenhouse gas concentrations and water vapor feedback, and proves the "theory" of greenhouse warming with direct observations."

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765...

And another...

Evans et al. (2006):

"This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/p...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/05-5

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/wa...

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/...

these are just a few sites that talk about global warming

also watch the video six degrees could change the world, unfortunately i could not find a link for it.

Man does not 'cause' global warming/cooling, a.k.a. Climate Change.

We do however 'contribute' to it.