If Global Warming isn't Causing Climate Change, then What Is?

Your observation <Honestly, I think that even if the scientific community did a complete 180 and declared they were wrong, the environmental lobby would ignore the consensus.> is absolutely correct. In fact the majority of the scientific community does not think that AGW or ACC are viable. When the greenies say scientific community they are referring to 75 highly paid and corruptible scientists. There is a list of over 31,000 scientists on 'petitionproject.org' which the greenie community makes up inane stories about and downgrades the whole project as worthless, then substitutes meaningless polls and statistics as proof of their cause. One example you see is the ten warmest years. That has been debunked and has proven to be worthless drivel many times over, yet these bankrupt individuals keep spewing their insane thoughts on this site without any shame.

Look at the real scientific community and you will see hardly any of them adhere to AGW. One such example is:

Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

Real scientists like this one is ignored. Look at those who raise objections:

Quote by Madhav L. Khandekar, UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist: "Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated climate change….As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed."

There are many many more examples of real scientists who can prove that AGW or ACC are just fictions of agenda driven politicians and scientists.

The true scientific community is 180 degrees away from these phonies and yet all you hear about is these few agenda driven scientists, like James Hansen, who is now retired and a full time communist activist.

The assumption that you just’re making is that greenhouse gases are the one thing that can affect whether or not the planet warms or cools. It might be great if it were as simple as that, but the fact is that hundreds and hundreds of exclusive explanations contribute to warming and cooling. In recent years there was a gigantic increase within the emissions of sulphates and particulate matter, most above all from the developing chinese and Indian economies. Sulphates are reflective to incoming sun vigor, black particulate subject absorbs that energy. A few years ago it was once steered that we deliberately inject sulphates into the surroundings so that you could set off cooling, then the Asian economies started booming and have done it anyway. We did the specific identical factor in the center of the final century and the result was that global warming stalled for 30 years. When we handed clean Air Acts the warming back. China and India are each speaking about introducing regulations to tremendously cut down the emissions of those pollutants, if they accomplish that it's going to remove this cooling have an effect on. There are additionally oceanic oscillations, these have positive (warming) and negative (cooling) phases; essentially the most well comprehend of these is El Nino however there are many others. In recent years the online outcomes of those oscillations has been a negative one. Sometime inside the following 10 years or so, no person particularly is aware of when, there will be a reversal and this cooling aspect may also be removed. On a smaller scale is solar variation, this can be a cyclical event and also has constructive and terrible phases. Not too long ago the solar has gone by means of an strangely quiet interval with a curb than normal sunspot quantity, this too is inducing cooling. The next eleven 12 months cycle might reverse that trend and if that occurs then an extra contributor to cooling would be eliminated. What we’ve noticeable within the final 10/eleven years (now not 15) is a levelling off of temperatures as a number of cooling reasons have come collectively. If it weren’t for the underlying warming then we might have seen a enormous drop in temperatures. This hasn’t happened due to the fact the warming continues to be there. PS – i am not an environmentalist or liberal by means of any stretch of the creativeness however i am a local weather scientist and be taught all causes that intent and have an effect on the worldwide climates.

The assumption that you’re making is that greenhouse gases are the only thing that can influence whether the planet warms or cools. It would be nice if it were as simple as that, but the reality is that hundreds of different factors contribute to warming and cooling.

In recent years there has been a large increase in the emissions of sulphates and particulate matter, most notably from the growing Chinese and Indian economies. Sulphates are reflective to incoming solar energy, black particulate matter absorbs that energy.

Several years ago it was suggested that we deliberately inject sulphates into the atmosphere so as to induce cooling, then the Asian economies started booming and have done it anyway.

We did the exact same thing in the middle of the last century and the result was that global warming stalled for 30 years. Once we passed Clean Air Acts the warming returned. China and India are both talking about introducing regulations to significantly reduce the emissions of these pollutants, if they do so it will remove this cooling influence.

There are also oceanic oscillations, these have positive (warming) and negative (cooling) phases; the most well know of these is El Nino but there are many others. In recent years the net effect of these oscillations has been a negative one. Sometime within the next 10 years or so, nobody quite knows when, there will be a reversal and this cooling factor will also be removed.

On a smaller scale is solar variation, this is a cyclical event and also has positive and negative phases. Recently the Sun has gone through an unusually quiet period with a lower than average sunspot number, this too is inducing cooling. The next 11 year cycle could reverse that trend and if that happens then another contributor to cooling would be removed.

What we’ve seen in the last 10/11 years (not 15) is a levelling off of temperatures as several cooling factors have come together. If it weren’t for the underlying warming then we would have seen a significant drop in temperatures. This hasn’t happened because the warming is still there.

PS – I am not an environmentalist or liberal by any stretch of the imagination but I am a climate scientist and study all factors that cause and influence the global climates.

I want to say that first of all climate change is real but there are a number of factors that determine its outcome of which CO2 is only one and also where do you determine what is natural climate change and what is man made. One of the most powerful greenhouse gases is actually from fertilizer use. Nitrogenous fertilizers give off nitrous oxide gas which is about 300 times worse than CO2. And these fertilizers eventually wind up in the ocean. The dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf is a clear example of what happens with fertilizer. So think on this, that kelp and seaweed forests sequester a good majority of carbon and produce a massive amount of oxygen. If they are dying from a substance that produces a greenhouse gas worse than carbon you have double the problems. And it is happening all over the world, I only used the Mississippi as an example. There are other gases also like methane that cause heating. However, you have to also look back in history to other markers of climate change. Only a couple of thousand years ago things were even warmer than they are now. There is a fort in Istanbul Turkey that sits near the water. But when it was built and in operation the water came right into the gates of the fort to allow boats on and out indicating that sea levels were much higher. In northern England the Romans found it warm enough to cultivate wine grapes that would not be able to survive in that same location. In the Carolinas, scientists have determined ocean levels were much higher a couple thousand years ago also because of the geology a couple of miles inland. My point on all of this is it is not do black and white. There is still a lot more research that needs to be done and that there are so many factors to consider. Should we do everything we can and more to protect the environment? Absolutely, but look at the broader picture than just CO2. There are so many ways we are poisoning the earth and they all connect.

Solar flares in the pulsating sun has been going on for many a millennium. That is the real culprit, furthermore, warmness controls CO2 levels, not the other way around. Man-made pollution has very minimal effect, if any. Politicians are using the global warming scam as a convenient vehicle as to make the global warming issue a political subject more than a scientific issue. Therefore they utilize junk science to "prove" their point. Archeological evidence shows that the earth experienced even warmer periods, especially around fourth century AD. For the past 50 years, we are coming out of a "little ice age", as to make it seem that we are in a "runaway" warming trend. Finally, why can't meteorologists accurately predict the weather week ahead of time, while environmentalist seem to predict the climate a century ahead?

Our Earth is warming. Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.4°F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5°F over the next hundred years. Small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather.

The evidence is clear. Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced some big changes - oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising. As these and other changes become more pronounced in the coming decades, they will likely present challenges to our society and our environment.

The world goes through phases. Do you think the ice age happened just because some dinosaurs were like "Let's build some factories!"

I'm not saying I know everything. And as I saw, none of you do, either. And we all know very little about Global Warming and Climate Change and all that good stuff. But we do know for sure that there's a lot of talk about it. And we are restating what we heard in said talk.

I just saw a freaking alienistic spider in my bathroom that was way bigger than it should've been and had pedipalps and I felt like it was going to kill me in my sleep if I didn't kill it. I just killed it. But the fact that such a monstrous spider that has no known species (I did a ton of research while trying to calm down enough to kill it- it was just sitting there, so I had plenty of time to do so) can survive and grow and not be killed by several bouts of being mercilessly attacked by 409, should be enough proof that we have bigger issues than the state of our world, mmmkay?

*I shouldn't get on Yahoo! Answers when I'm heavily sleep deprived. The state of our earth is definitely more important than alien-spider over there dead in the bathroom sink.

Even if it was, in fact, true that atmospheric temperatures had not risen in the past 15 years (they have, though the rate of increase has slowed because of various factors), no temperature rise in part of the system =/= no change in heat content of the system.

If you melt ice, a lot of heat is "used up" melting it, and the resulting water can change the salinity and temperature of ocean water, affecting ocean currents. And, of course, rising ocean levels.

If the heat is warming the water rather than the air, again you can have changes in currents and ocean levels (warmer water expands, except for right around freezing).

And ocean acidification is a nontrivial problem. In fact, in the short term, it may be a bigger problem than global warming per se. Coral reefs frequently act as fish nurseries and the like, and the oceans are badly overfished as it is. Not to mention several species of algae that use carbonate shells, and a wide variety of commercially important molluscs. I happen to like clams...

Actually the last 15 years have produced the 10 warmest global temps in 132 years. That BS about no warming in 15 years was a lie by someone who misinterpreting data from the MET They pointed out the lies in their blog the same day the article was published.

Don't know where you got all this bullsh*t info but none of your statements are true. You might consider learning a little about science and rely less on your lame sources

Wrong. The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012. All within the last 15 years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

<Global Warming made sense to me at first. Heat is energy and that energy has to go somewhere, so weather patterns, like any system, can be changed by the introduction of energy.>

What convinced you that the laws of thermodynamics were wrong? Is someone marketing a perpetual motion machine? If you had become a skeptic, you would have questioned the claim that there has been no warming for 15 years, investigated it, and found out that that claim is a lie.