Humans have caused more than 100% of climate change over last 50 years

Not really a fully fledged blog post, just a quick link pointing you to something interesting.

More than 100%? Sounds funny, doesn't it? Let me rephrase. Humans have caused so much climate change that some of the climate change changed some of the climate back.

Still sounds kinda funny.

OK, try again: Humans have caused a whole bunch of global warming. Nature has caused a small amount of global cooling, which has offset a little of the human caused global warming. But also, humans have caused a little bit of global cooling as well.

Make sense? OK, look at this graph:

Screen Shot 2014-09-20 at 6.11.37 PM

I'm sure you've got it now. But if not, go read this: The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?

More like this

Sadly, a large percentage of Americans are under the impression that climate scientists do not agree on the reality of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). A lot of people are simply wrong about this. They think that there is a great deal of controversy among the scientists who study the Earth's…
I'm going to intermittently keep track of the comments I make on other blogs. I'll spare you the totally trivial ones, but I don't guarantee this to be especially interesting. One point of doing this will be to track the ones that "disappear" on various sites (no names for now) that I've found don'…
This is a guest post by David Kirtley. David originally posted this as a Google Doc, and I'm reproducing his work here with his permission. Just the other day I was speaking to a climate change skeptic who made mention of an old Time or Newsweek (he was not sure) article that talked about fears…
I thought I'd take a bit of a break for a change of pace. At the risk of falling flat on my face, I'm going to wander far afield from the usual medical and biological topics of this blog into an area that I rarely say much about. The reason is an incident that happened nearly two weeks ago when I…

You have a graph that I don't understand using man supplied info.
Xtians have the buyBull the word of gawd, which says its all OK and I can do as I wish.
The rich & well-off are not going to give up ANYTHING.
The poor are going to do what is needed to do better.
So its obvious that climate change is not real.
So we have 10% of the people fighting against 90%, and few decisions are made on logic when it involves people.
The best we can hope for is that we develop some fancy high tech CHEAP solutions that people can use to fix the problems, otherwise prepare the G'kids to face the consequences. Yep! I'm an optimist with a sense of reality otherwise known as a pessimist.

A mechanical engineer friend of mine likened it to a tug of war, with some of the forcings pulling back and forth, others like AGW 'winning' the pull towards warming. I would add another player; a big, hulking, slumbering-but-just-waking-up behemoth called permafrost/ clathrate methane, lurking in the background. Easy guess as to which side of the rope he'll pull on!

By KnightBiologist (not verified) on 21 Sep 2014 #permalink

You can hear xtians always claiming that certain information is just information supplied by men thus false or from satan where the buyBull is the word of gawd so is true.
So your graph is just data gathered and recorded by just men so is fallible and not to be trusted.
In some cases, since the buyBull shows PI=3 your calculations are incorrect and I trust gawd's word.
And I've heard religious people say that Climate change is wrong because gawd told Noah that the land will not be covered by water. Ya I know it' not going to be.
But it comes back to how do you get action from people with their heads buried in the sand????

L.Long: Easy. Move them to beach-front houses.

They'll, uh, "Get religion" soon after...

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 22 Sep 2014 #permalink

Some of the bible based deniers explain things like star light arriving from millions of light years away, or fossils, as the result of God creating the universe in situ. Using that logic, the paleo-climate record must have been included in order to give us fair warning. Being religious is no excuse for denying scientific evidence.

By Rick Whitten (not verified) on 22 Sep 2014 #permalink

L.Long. While i do not wish to challenge your 'faith' here i do want to show you the error in your logical reasoning.

You state the data is just that gathered by men and so cannot be trusted.

You are, by default, 'man; (HUman) and so by your own logic you cannot trust your human thoughts/beliefs/data.

Some data MAY be 'given' by God but is ALWAYS interpreted by humans, be they priests or just lay folk who are more easily deceived than scientific experts who can easily show their evidence and reasoning to allow it to be 'checked' against whatever reality you choose to believe in.

And if you choose to believe the buybull when it 'tells' you that Pi is = to 3 i will very happily buy golden balls from you from your calculation of their volume/intrinsic net value. :-) H.A.N.D.

By Bob Twomas (not verified) on 28 Sep 2014 #permalink