I think it is the very essence of what climate change is. climate change is supposed to change the weather, and when this happens those changed events are called extreme for the locations that the weather event takes place in. For example it is normal to have a lot of rain and some snow where I live. If a location that is normally warm and dry experiences my normal weather, those events would be considered extreme. They are out of the norm.
What would your definition of climate change be, and has any place on the planet experienced this climate change? Keep in mind that weather can be quite variable and change for many years, then change back again. We are looking for trends to indicate if the change in weather is permanent.
A climate time period is considered 30 years, less than that and it's just weather. all the datasets tracking weather events are pretty much flat for trends. Some of our data such as from satellites are only 33 years old, and the ocean Argo data is barely 10 years old. Some climate scientists say you need two 30 year periods just to be able to plot a trend keeping in mind you still only have 2 data points.
And as I have mentioned, temperatures have flat-lined for the past 16 years. All climate scientists agree on this fact.
A recent peer reviewed paper, in Science Magazine, turns out to be junk science:
"For those who missed the details of the Marcott paper I will provide a brief summary. The paper was published on March 8th in the ultimate of peer-reviewed journals, Science Magazine. The paper was loudly broadcast by the media as further proof of global warming. The paper basically says that the most modern period of the Holocene (the current interglacial which the Marcott paper states as 11,300 years) has been warmer than ~75% of the Holocene. The paper states that this is especially significant as the Holocene has shown steady cooling for the past few thousand years, but that has now completely reversed. The conclusion is that mankind has drastically altered the natural climate of the Earth. "
So you agree that it hasn't been proven yet.
"Long-term trends in normalized economic disaster losses cannot be reliably
attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change, particularly for cyclones
and floods (medium evidence, high agreement)."
These statements come from the organization (IPCC) whose sole job is to attribute climate change to humans, and they can't find any evidence yet since they started 30 years ago.
I recommend the book The Age of Global Warming, a History :
Peter Foster reviews it here:
- - -
Steve Goddard often posts news clippings from long ago weather events that mirror todays weather events. The climate is doing what it always has been doing. For example:
Six degrees warming in the Arctic from 1900-1940, and the ice was the same thickness (two metres) as it is today.
Maddus is correct about there being no climate change, attributable to humans. The IPCC even says so:
"Most importantly, the IPCC should be congratulated for delivering a message that
cannot have been comfortable to deliver. The IPCC has accurately reflected the
scientific literature on the state of attribution with respect to extreme events
-- it is not there yet, not even close, for events such as floods, hurricanes,
tornadoes, bushfires and on other topics there remain enormous uncertainties.
That is just the way that it is, so that is indeed what the IPCC should have
I don't want to say you are wrong. I want to explain why you are wrong. You are missing a piece of the puzzle. Even almost all skeptics believe in the greenhouse theory, but they know that there wont be much warming caused by CO2.
And one more Slayer article:
@Maddus Mattus: I don't understand what you are saying. Did you read the articles I linked? I haven't thoroughly read some of them before myself but have done so now, except I have one left to read and my eyes are sore. Do yourself a favor and read the articles. I think you will find one of them showing observational evidence that disproves what you are saying:
"SECOND, IR absorbing gases are observed from satellites to reduce the rate of energy loss to space."
Update: Looks like I will have to read previous comments, and find the time, before I can add more of my own.
"You can see why the error from considering the earth as a blackbody in the IR is quite small"
A few articles on cold heating warm objects:
"Objection #2: The Atmosphere, which is cooler than the Earth Surface, cannot warm the Earth Surface.
Answer #2: The Second law of Thermodynamics is often cited as the source of this falsehood. The correct interpretation is that the Second Law refers to net warming, which can only pass from the warmer to the cooler object. The back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface has been measured (see lower panel in the above illustration). All matter above absolute zero emits radiation and, once emitted, that radiation does not know if it is travelling from a warmer to a cooler surface or vice-versa. Once it arrives it will either be reflected or absorbed, according to its wavelength and the characteristics of the material it happens to impact."
From the physicist Luboš Motl
And from a climate scientist:
A note about "Slayers". Slayers is a term skeptics use for those that don't believe there is a greenhouse effect. They are not welcome, for example, on WattsUpWithThat. :