Bill Nye Destroys climate change-denying Trump adviser William Happer

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

---

Sea level rise

• 

  Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century.⁴

   

  Image: Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise

+ MORE

---

Global temperature rise

• 

  The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.⁵ Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. ⁶ 

+ MORE

---

Warming oceans

• 

  The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.⁷

+ MORE

---

Shrinking ice sheets

• 

  The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

   

  Image: Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet

+ MORE

---

Declining Arctic sea ice

• 

  Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.⁸

   

  Image: Visualization of the 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum

+ MORE

---

Glacial retreat

• 

  Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.⁹ 

   

  Image: The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.

+ MORE

---

Extreme events

• 

  The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.¹⁰

+ MORE

---

Ocean acidification

• 

  Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.^11,12 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.^13,14

+ MORE

---

Decreased snow cover

• 

  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.¹⁵

+ MORE

---

References

1. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers

   B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

   Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

   V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

   B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

2. In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

3. National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
   
   http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

4. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
   
   Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

   The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.

5. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

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

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

6. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20170118/)  
    

7. Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

8. L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

   R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009

   http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

9. National Snow and Ice Data Center

   World Glacier Monitoring Service

10. "Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change," National Academies Press, 2016
    https://www.nap.edu/read/21852/chapter/1
    
    Kunkel, K. et al, "Probable maximum precipitation and climate change," Geophysical Research Letters, (12 April 2013) DOI: 10.1002/grl.50334 
    
    Kunkel, K. et al, "Monitoring and Understanding Trends in Extreme Storms: State of the Knowledge," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2012.
    
    http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html

11. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

12. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

13. C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371

14. Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.

15. National Snow and Ice Data Center

    C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504

    http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html

    Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

---

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)²

• 

  American Association for the Advancement of Science

  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)³
• 

  American Chemical Society

  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)⁴
• 

  American Geophysical Union

  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)⁵
• 

  American Medical Association

  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)⁶
• 

  American Meteorological Society

  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)⁷
• 

  American Physical Society

  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)⁸
• 

  The Geological Society of America

  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)⁹

SCIENCE ACADEMIES

---

International academies: Joint statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 

  U.S. National Academy of Sciences

  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)¹¹

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

---

• 

  U.S. Global Change Research Program

  "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)¹²

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

---

• 

  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

  “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”¹³
  
  “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”¹⁴

OTHER RESOURCES

---

List of worldwide scientific organizations

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

U.S. agencies

The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf

---

References

1. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
   
   Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
   
   J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
   
   Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
   
   W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
   
   P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
   
   N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
2. Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)
3. AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)
4. ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)
5. Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)
6. Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)
7. Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)
8. APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)
9. GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010)
10. Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005)
11. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)
12. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)
13. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2014)
14. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2014)

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, ccneat said:

 

 

 

Is that your graph? Or was that the result of a google image search?

 

Oops never mind just saw above, now we're just cutting and pasting everything we see on the internet now.

 

 

So just "I have nothing" with a lot of cut and paste.

Edited April 24, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, IAMX said:

Is that your graph? Or was that the result of a google image search?

It is from NASA...are you expecting that I come up with original work or are you willing to consider the work of experts?

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, ccneat said:

It is from NASA...are you expecting that I come up with original work or are you willing to consider the work of experts?

I don't buy the argument from authority, I buy proof. The best way to show that humans have a grasp of the complex system dubbed "climate" is to accurately predict it. Otherwise, we don't.. which is pretty clear as of today.

 

Your cut and pastes though certainly reek of desperation.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, IAMX said:

Is that your graph? Or was that the result of a google image search?

 

Oops never mind just saw above, now we're just cutting and pasting everything we see on the internet now.

 

 

So just "I have nothing" with a lot of cut and paste.

I dont care what your source is , I just want to see anything that leads you to believe the scientific community is all wet on this global warming thing 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, IAMX said:

I don't buy the argument from authority, I buy proof. The best way to show that humans have a grasp of the complex system dubbed "climate" is to accurately predict it. Otherwise, we don't.. which is pretty clear as of today.

 

Your cut and pastes though certainly reek of desperation.

you seemed unable to go to the mountain of evidence...so I brought the mountain to you

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, IAMX said:

I don't buy the argument from authority, I buy proof. The best way to show that humans have a grasp of the complex system dubbed "climate" is to accurately predict it. Otherwise, we don't.. which is pretty clear as of today.

 

Your cut and pastes though certainly reek of desperation.

you need to explain how the ocean is acidifying and how the global is warmining...those are facts as well as the production of CO2.  I am all ears if you have another explanation.

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, ccneat said:

you seemed unable to go to the mountain of evidence...so I brought the mountain to you

You brought a mountain of cut and paste with no context in respect to what I addressed. If the issue of AGW was so cut and dry, it wouldn't need non-experts desperately trying to grasp this concept like it were a religious doctrine. The proof in respect to climate models would be more than sufficient. Yet the ambiguity and inaccuracy of them prove only one thing -- we don't know enough. Something the left would never admit. So this is entirely a political issue that those on the left like yourself wish to treat like a religious philosophy, which hurts science far more than it helps. The wise thing to do would be disassociate yourself from climate science and let it progress on it's own.

Edited April 24, 2017 by IAMX

[smilesammich 10,727]

i wouldn't expect much from someone who earnestly believes science and logic are a marketing gimmick - while maintaining that the trump brand name holding the office of us presidency..is not a marketing gimmick.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

36 minutes ago, IAMX said:

You brought a mountain of cut and paste with no context in respect to what I addressed. If the issue of AGW was so cut and dry, it wouldn't need non-experts desperately trying to grasp this concept like it were a religious doctrine. The proof in respect to climate models would be more than sufficient. Yet the ambiguity and inaccuracy of them prove only one thing -- we don't know enough. Something the left would never admit. So this is entirely a political issue that those on the left like yourself wish to treat like a religious philosophy, which hurts science far more than it helps. The wise thing to do would be disassociate yourself from climate science and let it progress on it's own.

"Yet the ambiguity and inaccuracy of them prove only one thing -- we don't know enough."  

We don't know enough for what?  If you want to wait for all of the evidence that will be when our costal cities are underwater.  

We see the trajectory of CO2 and warming. FACT  We are continuing put more CO2 and Methane into the environment.  FACT

Do you need more information about how the rate of CO2 affects the Environment ?

What is enough for you? 

 The impact of our changing environment is a debt we are not just putting on our grand children but is affecting our environment today.  We are fiddling while Rome burns.

Edited April 24, 2017 by ccneat

[CaliCat 3,957]

25 minutes ago, ccneat said:

"Yet the ambiguity and inaccuracy of them prove only one thing -- we don't know enough."  

We don't know enough for what?  If you want to wait for all of the evidence that will be when our costal cities are underwater.  

We see the trajectory of CO2 and warming. FACT  We are continuing put more CO2 and Methane into the environment.  FACT

Do you need more information about how the rate of CO2 affects the Environment ?

What is enough for you? 

 The impact of our changing environment is a debt we are not just putting on our grand children but is affecting our environment today.  We are fiddling while Rome burns.

 

If you start questioning the supreme leader on his views about climate change the wall starts to crumble, and next thing you know, you realize the so-called president has no clothes. It's slippery slope.

 

[Dakine10 5,452]

15 hours ago, eieio said:

Nice change of discussion. Of course the climate is changing. It always has and always will.

 

Science is not a consensus. At one time 97% of scientists believed the earth was flat. 

 No they didn't. That the earth was flat was never a predominant belief during any time period in earths history. Certainly among the educated it was not. It's a myth and if you actually read up on the history there's a bit of a parallel there with climate change deniers of today. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 hours ago, ccneat said:

 

 

 

Since carbon dioxide is key in all soft  drinks I doubt it could be bad for the environment 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

34 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Since carbon dioxide is key in all soft  drinks I doubt it could be bad for the environment 

As long as no one pulls your finger we are good