Ray D dog

.
Bush has called for greater reliance on technology to combat global warming. Although early in his first term, he had insisted that the science of what causes global warming was not yet settled, more recently he has been less questioning of a link between human activity and higher global temperatures, and supportive of programs to tackle the problem.

crabby_blindguy

There's been plenty of added data--all of it simply further confirming global warming and its human causes.

What Bush says means nothing--prior to his early-term "position" he said the science of global warming was settled and we needed to cap carbon emissions. That was during his 2000 campaign. Then he switched after he got elected--and hired an oil company lawyer to censor (falsify) the scientific reports prepared by government agencies.. Now he's flip-flopped again. Tomorrow, who knows?

Bob

Sure. Every year the data becomes more solid, because of two things.

We gather more data. The increase in greenhouse gases raises the extent to which greenhouse gases are driving the train, ie controlling climate.

In 2001 the IPCC said it was likely we were the main cause of global warming. In 2007 they said it was very likely. The scientists draft said "virtually certain" but that was watered down a bit by the political edits.

That, by the way, shows the lie of those who say the political editing of the IPCC reports makes them stronger. They routinely make them a bit weaker.

Tomcats solar data basically shows how the Sun has generally been getting weaker. The only way to make it say otherwise is to pick just two points and draw a line between them. What justification is there for that, instead of looking at ALL the data?

Tomcat

I have not personally carried out any analysis over the last eight years, but the last 10 year trend for the Mid Troposphere shows a cooling of -0.12 Degrees. And the last twenty only show a +0.075 Degree/Decade warming trend, if you remove the effects of Pinatubo. The Mid Troposphere is were the greenhouse process captures heat, this is were you should see an AGW signature, but clearly there is not one, the majority of it can all be explained by Solar Variability and Volcanic aerosols.

The Sunspot data is not TSI Bob, it is the number of sunspots that exist at that moment in time. Look at the Acrim if you want to see the Energy budget.

Jake

I love this section. I love to poke fun at the global warming crowd. They sound like the old hippys that I knew back in the 60s. They were the same way, always telling other people how to live their lives. They act like global warming is a religion.

mentat314

Scientific American spent an entire magazine on modern global ecology (partly global warming) and how it ties to society. And not once did I see a main article against global warming. Many of the SA magazines have a climate article, and each one I've seen supports the fact that there is (human induced) global warming. There was a report that a the Rose Ice shelf melted 8-fold faster (year before last I think) than the previous years. And the GRACE satelities reported record high of mass melting of glaciers around the world.

And don't forget, Bush tried to shoot down the Kyoto Protocall

Trevor

I guess it depends really on what you call 'new evidence'. The glaciers are melting faster than previously expected, the Arctic ice cap is now expected to be gone in 40 years (had been 100), the planet is warming faster than previously thought (0.0177°C per year as opposed to 0.0156°C per year), more species have become extinct than expected, animal hibernation and migration patterns have changed faster than expected etc etc etc.

These aren't really new things as they'd been predicted all along, they're just happening faster than had been though because the planet is warming faster now than ever before.

Global warming isn't new, it been on the scientific aggenda since 1896 so we've had over 100 years to research it and uncover the evidence.

We have a clearer understanding of it and can make even more accurate predictions but there's little in the way of new evidence.