Are Human-caused and Natural Global Warming...

Are Human-caused and Natural Global Warming Different? Study Says Yes.

Climate change deniers stress that climate change is a natural process, and many think that humans have little or nothing to do with it.Â Â There is a measurableÂ difference,andÂ this report addressesÂ that.

PETE SPOTTS, Staff Writer - The Christian Science Monitor

Human-triggered climate warming appears to leave a unique fingerprint on global rainfall rates compared with natural warming, according to a new study.

While rainfall rates increase whether the long-term warming trend is natural or not, the rate of increase appears to be higher during natural warming trends.

The result might help resolve a long-standing discrepancy between changes in rainfall projected in global climate models and changes projected by studying the historical record, researchers say.

The study suggests that "carbon dioxide has a fundamentally different mode of warming than natural climate change" â€“ one that leaves a unique signature on rainfall rates, says Jeff Severinghaus, a climate researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. While the effect is most pronounced the the Pacific basin, the work "is about something more fundamental.... Natural and human-caused climate change really produce different effects."

"It will become ...

Richard B. Feb 2, 2013, 5:33pm UTC

Well the patterns of cities and CO2 from those cities are defiantly not natural. I’m well aware that the CO2 that we folk are generating is not normal at all and adds to the ‘natural’ CO2, basically every day and that the CO2 created today will last at around a hundred years before it dissipates, that just piles up and piles up, thus greater and greater piles of CO2. That ain’t going away. However also the Earth is warming because the sun is getting warmer just like it did in the 1300’s when the oceans were much higher than today. The warmer sun also means a warmer earth.

Richard B. Feb 2, 2013, 5:45pm UTC

There’s always this chart to look at.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

That chart also has that date of 2019 on it, or the start of another cool down of little Ice age start that I think will occur.

Dan E. Feb 3, 2013, 1:06am UTC

Thanks for the info Richard.

Graham L. Feb 3, 2013, 6:41am UTC

A new paper now throws even more doubt on how Climate scientists have been conducting themselves with their climate models that have shown that the present climate is all down to CO2. Of course the establishment are doing there level best to discourage this study but it shows that the science in climate change never stands till and we have quite a lot more to learn on how it all works.

http://www.thegwpf.org/research-blows-climate-science-wide-open/

As Sheil says the present climate models are in correct because they are missing one the key mechanisms of how the global climate works. I know it does sound amazing to say this, but once you look at these models they are not as detailed and not as smart as you would think.

Now these models are what the climate scientific establishment are saying are infallible and that the data that they put in shows that the world is warming. However if they only put in what they think is relevant without giving a second thought to anything else then as Sheil says , that is bad science. Only an ardent alarmist would not agree with that statement.

Richard B. Feb 3, 2013, 3:04pm UTC

Thanks for that Graham, as it was well over thirty years ago that I read an article that claimed that a leaf that dropped in that Amazon forest will have more to do with the winds than anything that we humans do in this country we call the ‘great’ USA. Then he went on to explain quite a bit more about just why. I at this time haven’t got a clue as to what that article was or where it is at, I just read it then and that’s that.

Clarke M. Feb 3, 2013, 3:43pm UTC

Graham,
I think you enjoy arguing but your biased opinions tend to be a distraction from learning what scientists are doing.

Consider this as a part of my reply here to you, if you wish:

What's the deal with Arkansas' radioactive snow?

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981845550

Clarke M. Feb 3, 2013, 3:08pm EST
Clarke, I assume that you're asking what's the point if there is no predictive value.

Ruta,
What I wrote was,"What is the value in such specialized studies within the acquired body of knowledge ?" ......

Richard B. Feb 3, 2013, 3:52pm UTC

I always argue with scientists, how else will they learn

Dan E. Feb 4, 2013, 4:55am UTC

"Top Swedish Climate Scientist Lennart Bengtsson Says Warming So Small, Not Noticeable Without Meteorologists!"

"We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justifiedâ€¦there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic.

The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didnâ€™t have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldnâ€™t have noticed it at all."

Graham L. Feb 4, 2013, 5:42am UTC

Trouble is Richard some of them seem to think the science is all nicely settled and the models are right and when some one comes along throws doubt on what they have been saying they get a little huffy and try to do what this person is doing. international climate scientist Isaac Held of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recommended that publication be rejected.

Now why should a well written already international peer reviewed science paper be rejected? One can only conclude that the climate scientists seem to think that everything is jolly good and settled. And as these so called scientists should know science never stands still, is never settled as there is always something somewhere that says hang on a moment look at what I have found that might contradict.

Graham L. Feb 4, 2013, 5:57am UTC

Clark, my biased opinions!!!!!!! I have just shown you if you have bothered to read a scientist who has co wrote a paper that throws doubt on how today's perceived climate change is happening. Or would you be thrilled if the paper is rejected by people like international climate scientist Isaac Held wants to do.

I am far from being distracted. I think the only persons being distracted from what climate scientists are doing are people like you who seem to think the science on climate change is settled which it certainly is not.

Clarke M. Feb 4, 2013, 11:41am UTC

Graham,
You haven't bothered to read my views (referenced above ) or you would not suggest I am defending different scientists' views.

reply to this comment

Clarke M. Feb 4, 2013, 11:39am UTC

"Above all, they should expand efforts to understand the mechanisms
through which cooperation evolves, because avoiding collapse will
require unusual levels of international cooperation."

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845.full

Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?
Paul R. Ehrlich†⇓ and
Anne H. Ehrlich

Published online January 9, 2013 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.2845 Proc. R. Soc. B 7 March 2013 vol. 280 no. 1754 20122845
AbstractFree
» Full TextFree
Full Text (PDF)Free

Top
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Do current trends portend a collapse?
3. What needs to be done to avoid a collapse?
4. Dealing with problems beyond food supply
5. The role of science
6. The need for rapid social/political change
7. Conclusions
Authors' profile
Acknowledgements
Footnotes
References

reply to this comment

Are Human-caused and Natural Global Warming Different? Study Says Yes.

1 person recommends this post

Comments: 12

Join the Conversation