I wanted to pull out one thought from my longer video and presentation on global warming.
As a reminder, I adhere to what I call the weak anthropogenic theory of global warming — that the Earth’s sensitivity to CO2, net of all feedback effects, is 1C per doubling of CO2 concentrations or less, and that while man may therefore be contributing to global warming with his CO2 (not to mention his land use and other practices) the net effect falls far short of catastrophic.
While in the media, alarmists want to imply that the their conclusions about climate sensitivity are based on a century of observation, but this is not entirely true. Certainly we have over a century of temperature measurements, but only a small part of this history is consistent with the strong anthropogenic theory. In fact, I observed in my video is that the entire IPCC case for a high climate sensitivity to CO2 is based on just 20 years of history, from about 1978 to 1998.
Here are the global temperatures in the Hadley CRUT3 data base, which is the primary data from which the IPCC worked (hat tip Junk Science Global Warming at a Glance) click to enlarge
Everything depends on how one counts it, but during the period of man-made CO2 creation, there are really just two warming periods, if we consider the time from 1910 to 1930 just a return to the mean.
- 1930-1952, where temperatures spiked about a half a degree and ended 0.2-0.3 higher than the past trend
- 1978-1998, where temperatures rose about a half a degree, and have remained at that level since
Given that man-made CO2 output did not really begin in earnest until after 1950 (see the blue curve of atmospheric CO2 levels on the chart), even few alarmists will attribute the runup in temperatures from 1930-1952 (a period of time including the 1930’s Dust Bowl) to anthropogenic CO2. This means that the only real upward change in temperatures that could potentially be blamed on man-made CO2 occurred from 1978-1998.
This is a very limited amount of time to make sweeping statements about climate change causation, particularly given the still infant-level knowledge of climate science. As a result, since 1970, skeptics and alarmists have roughly equal periods of time where they can make their point about temperature causation (e.g. 20 years of rising CO2 and flat temperatures vs. 20 years of rising CO2 and rising temperatures).
This means that in the last 40 years, both skeptics and alarmists must depend on other climate drivers to make their case (e.g. skeptics must point to other natural factors for the run-up in 1978-1998, while alarmists must find natural effects that offset or delayed warming in the decade either side of this period). To some extent, this situation slightly favors skeptics, as skeptics have always been open to natural effects driving climate while alarmists have consistently tried to downplay natural forcing changes.
I won’t repeat all the charts, but starting around chart 48 of this powerpoint deck (also in the video linked above) I present some alternate factors what may have contributed, along with greenhouse gases, to the 1978-1998 warming (including two of the strongest solar cycles of the century and a PDO warm period nearly exactly matching these two decades).
Postscript: Even if the entire 0.7C or so temperature increase in the whole of the 20th century is attributed to manmade CO2, this still implies a climate sensitivity FAR below what the IPCC and other alarmists use in their models. Given about 44% of a doubling since the industrial revolution began in CO2 concentrations, this would translate into a temperature sensitivity of 1.3C (not a linear extrapolation, the relationship is logarithmic).
This is why alarmists must argue that not only has all the warming we have seen been due to CO2 ( heroic assumption in and of itself) but that there are additional effects masking or hiding the true magnitude of past warming. Without these twin, largely unproven assumptions, current IPCC “consensus” numbers for climate sensitivity would be absurdly high. Again, I address this in more depth in my video.
pauld:
Renewable say, “2000 to 2009 was the warmest decade on the temperature history. I don’t believe the warming has stopped as some would like to think. 2005 and 2010 are tied for the hottest years on record.”
Renewable: Go take a look at a temperature graph using any index you choose. As you look at it, ask yourself, how is it possible for the temperature trend since 2001 to be 0 or close to it and yet the decade of 2001 to 2010 is the warmest on record. If it is not immediately obvious as you gaze upon the graph, then think harder. It is important for you to understand this point, so don’t come back until you have completed this assignment.
################################
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.gif
It looks like a steady climb to me.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif
Both seem to show a general climb upwards
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
July 28, 2010
State of the Climate in 2009: Report Cover.
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.
#########################################
I don’t know there this flast warming is coming from?
pauld:
Renewable: I just don’t find anything on skeptical science to be very convincing because it does not fully present both sides of the debate. It always ends with the CAGW rebuttal and never discusses the skeptic’s surrerebutal. It thereby creates the illusion that controversial topics have been satisfactorily resolved in favor of CAGW. That is why I don’t find its discussion of Spencer to be helpful. You need to read wider if you really want to understand the controversy.
########################################
Where do you find such sites?
There is established science and then there is uncertain science. The idea that we will warm is certain. How fast and when is uncertain.
There is community science agreement on climate sensitivity to be around 3 deg C for a doubling of co2 in the atmosphere. Climate sceptics and deniers are trying to discredit this. Plus there is an organized campaign of confusion of which Spencer is a part of.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=25
I was wondering where this flattening out was coming from. Nasa includes the artic in its data set while Hadcrut does not. The artic has the fastest warming on the planet.
“Plus there is an organized campaign of confusion of which Spencer is a part of.”
Please provide your evidence for this assertion.
“Where do you find such sites?” There are lots of them. For starters, I would recommend Judith Curry’s site http://judithcurry.com/ and Roger Pielke, Sr. , http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ Roger Pielke, Jr is also pretty good and you can find his site fairly easily with google.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-don-easterbrook.html
Figure 1: Easterbrook’s global temperature projections (Source)
This looked similar to what the blogger Warren Meyers was writing about. Looking at the past in terms of warming and cooling periods. What comes to mind is I’ve been asked all kinds of questions about the view of climate warming I have presented.
At the link above Don Easterbrook has presented his view of how the climate will cool. Dana Nuticelli attempts to understand what D.E. is doing. Strangely enough D.E.’s model is not based on physics.
Table 1: Average values for PDO, AMO, and sunspot number during Easterbrook’s chosen timeframes.
Reading through the comments section Easterbrook’s assumptions cannot explain past climates before 1850.
Somehow all kinds of skepticism for the real science and total faith in the bogus science by some of the people.
pauld:
“Plus there is an organized campaign of confusion of which Spencer is a part of.”
Please provide your evidence for this assertion.
“Where do you find such sites?” There are lots of them. For starters, I would recommend Judith Curry’s site http://judithcurry.com/ and Roger Pielke, Sr. , http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/ Roger Pielke, Jr is also pretty good and you can find his site fairly easily with google.
##############################################
I thought you were talking about balance.
I am reading Warren Meyers though. I’ve seen some whacky stuff out of Judith Curry.
I also read the other side such as RealClimate. One difference between this site and realclimate is that the comments here are not censored.
I am curious what it is you describe as “some of the whacky stuff out of Judith Curry”? I suggested her because she is willing to be critical of the IPCC, but is still hardly what I would view as a strong skeptic. She is the chair of the department of atmospheric sciences at Georgia Tech so she has credible academic credentials. Although I don’t always agree with her, I have always thought her posts were well-written and thoroughly documented. I think she runs circles around John Cook.
Pielke Sr. is one of the most published climate scientists in the world. His views defy the “black and white” categories that so pervade this debate. He is willing to seriously criticize the IPCC when he thinks it is off-base.
I find it amazing that the CAGW have attacked both Curry and Pielke, Sr. with such acrimony. I think that they present very thoughtful challenges to the IPCC crowd and that is what good scientists should do.
I am still waiting for your evidence that Spencer is part of an organized campaign of confusion.
Renewable Guy:
You have a strange manner of talking. You aren’t answering direct questions, continuously bringing up tangential topics, contradicting yourself and whatnot.
As just one example:
Your link stated: “The ‘skeptic’ logic […] is usually that if the early 20th Century warming was as large as the late century warming, and was natural, then the current warming could be natural as well […]. Ultimately while natural forcings can account for much of the early 20th Century warming, humans played a role as well. Additionally, the early century warming wasn’t as large or rapid as the late century warming, to which these natural factors did not contribute in any significant amount.”
I replied to that: “The second paragraph presupposes that it has been unequivocally established that the warming in the early 20th Century happened because of the anthropogenic factor plus the natural factors cited in the link and nothing else. I fail to see how one can make such a statement given the current state of the our understanding of climate. The magnitude of factors such as cloud cover and aerosols are under debate, plausible ranges of values for climate sensitivity and a number of similar parameters are very wide, yet we are sure on exactly why the climate behaved the way it did some 70-100 years ago? Sorry, that’s just handwaving. Consequently, the skeptic’s argument in the first paragraph has not been countered.”
To which your answer was: “If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks. Below is a link on cloud feedback.”
Huh? Instead of addressing my point you made a strange statement (I asked you about it and you failed to clarify) and said something about clouds.
Even more blatant:
You then started talking about clouds, and said: “Cloud cover is showing to be a pos feedback with increasing temperature.”
I asked you to clarify what you think are the extents of our current knowledge: “So, is cloud cover a net positive feedback or a net negative feedback? Can you answer this with certainty?”
You replied: “I spent a great deal of time on reading cloud feedbacks. It is still uncertain but with preliminary observations showing some pos feedback. That is Dr Andrew Dessler’s paper. 20 years out we will be able to say with more certainty what it is.”
Good, I can agree with it. I repeat: “So, this is uncertain …”
But apparently you don’t agree. You say: “Not so. Dessler data based observations of earth’s cloud cover showed pos feedback.”
I am at a loss. So, which is it? Has it been established with certainty that effects from clouds on temperature are net positive? Yes or no? Sigh.
You constantly wiggle. Whenever you are asked a direct question, you work hard trying to avoid answering it. When you do answer, you change your mind a post or two later. Sorry, I have better uses of my time than to talk to you.
Just found this new gem:
Argument: “The second paragraph presupposes that it has been unequivocally established that the warming in the early 20th Century happened because of the anthropogenic factor plus the natural factors cited in the link and nothing else. I fail to see how one can make such a statement given the current state of the our understanding of climate.”
‘Counter’ by Renewable Guy: “Natural forcings were looked at. How deep we want to go will take some time to look into the uncertainty of that time period. The co2 only went from 295 to 310. Other factors if you read the whole article were looked at.”
Renewable, if you don’t understand the argument, don’t bother replying.
And this:
Renewable Guy: “If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks.”
Request for clarification: “Let’s say the earth temperature is increasing. Are you saying that this proves that the combined magnitude of effects from cloud cover and aerosols is less than the magnitude of the warming induced by anthropogenic CO2?”
‘Clarification’ by Renewable Guy: “Pos forcing outweighs negative forcings. 1910 to 1940 solar slightly increased. co2 also increased. and the temperature increased.”
What??
No, really, Renewable Guy, I am done talking to you. That’s just a waste of time.
Booker:
And this:
Renewable Guy: “If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks.”
Request for clarification: “Let’s say the earth temperature is increasing. Are you saying that this proves that the combined magnitude of effects from cloud cover and aerosols is less than the magnitude of the warming induced by anthropogenic CO2?”
‘Clarification’ by Renewable Guy: “Pos forcing outweighs negative forcings. 1910 to 1940 solar slightly increased. co2 also increased. and the temperature increased.”
What??
No, really, Renewable Guy, I am done talking to you. That’s just a waste of time.
#################################################
That’s the reason the sceptics (deniers) loose the argument. They run away. I have given an explanation prepared by a person who reads the science.
The person or persons with the best explanation wins.
Booker:
Just found this new gem:
Argument: “The second paragraph presupposes that it has been unequivocally established that the warming in the early 20th Century happened because of the anthropogenic factor plus the natural factors cited in the link and nothing else. I fail to see how one can make such a statement given the current state of the our understanding of climate.”
‘Counter’ by Renewable Guy: “Natural forcings were looked at. How deep we want to go will take some time to look into the uncertainty of that time period. The co2 only went from 295 to 310. Other factors if you read the whole article were looked at.”
Renewable, if you don’t understand the argument, don’t bother replying.
###################################################
My point of view of you is that you aren’t entering into the argument in depth. Which is ok.
Science has reached a reasonably deep level of understanding of the climate.
To which your answer was: “If the earth’s temperature is increasing, and it is, then negative feedbacks are constrained to be less than the positive feedbacks. Below is a link on cloud feedback.”
Huh? Instead of addressing my point you made a strange statement (I asked you about it and you failed to clarify) and said something about clouds.
######################################################
Denier explanations are even less so.
YOu are welcome to come up with a better explanation than I have. I am an armchair climatologist in my living room.
WHile you are embracing AGW is not a problem, it pretty much relegates you to denier sites and their explanations.
But apparently you don’t agree. You say: “Not so. Dessler data based observations of earth’s cloud cover showed pos feedback.”
I am at a loss. So, which is it? Has it been established with certainty that effects from clouds on temperature are net positive? Yes or no? Sigh.
You constantly wiggle. Whenever you are asked a direct question, you work hard trying to avoid answering it. When you do answer, you change your mind a post or two later. Sorry, I have better uses of my time than to talk to you.
##################################################
There is uncertainty in all of science. I don’t have a link to explain uncertainty in all of science. Within the bounds of some areas of uncertainty, for instance adding more co2 to our biosphere, it is very clear what will be the consequences.
Cloud cover has higher uncertainty than above, and yet there is a trend. It has not been observed yet, because the recent satellites have not been in space that long.
PaulD:
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/11/11/207018/judith-curry-climate-science/
I am curious what it is you describe as “some of the whacky stuff out of Judith Curry”? I suggested her because she is willing to be critical of the IPCC, but is still hardly what I would view as a strong skeptic. She is the chair of the department of atmospheric sciences at Georgia Tech so she has credible academic credentials. Although I don’t always agree with her, I have always thought her posts were well-written and thoroughly documented. I think she runs circles around John Cook.
####################################
I’m more aware of her crap.
pauld:
“Plus there is an organized campaign of confusion of which Spencer is a part of.”
Please provide your evidence for this assertion.
######################
http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer
Spencer is involved in the denial circuits. I’ve noticed he plays both sides of the fence. He is actively trying to confuse things and yet act like a scientist another time.
Renewable Guy: Desmogblog is engaged in a smear campaign that is pathetic. It is hardly surprising that Spencer has written articles or served in some undefined “expert” capacity for think tanks that take a sceptical view of CAGW. It is also not surprising that such think tank would receive money from energy companies. The leap in logic is that Spencer has compromised his integrity and is misrepresenting science because of any of this. Missing is any evidence to support such an inference.
Particularly ludicrous is this statement, “Spencer, along with another well-known “skeptic,” John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere”
This is no secret. Spencer made a technical mistake, admitted it and took action to correct it. Isn’t that what good scientists do? The mistake was that they had not corrected for the orbital drift of the satellites. The problem of orbital drift is frequently discussed on his website
I also find particularly obnoxious the criticism of his religious views. Scientists aren’t allowed to be Christians?
Other actions such as writing books with which other scientists disagree is hardly a crime.
Still waiting to hear about the whacky stuff from Judith Curry?
Oh, I see you did provide your evidence on Curry. Renewable: Did you really find the diatribe to be convincing. You need to read more broadly. Joe Romm is one of the most unhinged players in this entire debate. Read Judith Curry’s own website and then compare it to the reckless ramblings of Romm. If you can’t tell the difference, and who is the more credible, then I see little hope for you.
“That’s the reason the sceptics (deniers) loose the argument. They run away. I have given an explanation prepared by a person who reads the science.
The person or persons with the best explanation wins.”
Renewable: I have to agree with Booker. You are difficult to reason with because your responses are either largely irrelevant or incoherent. If you think you are winning any arguments here, I think that is an interesting perspective.
Oh, joy.
“I have given an explanation prepared by a person who reads the science.”
No, man, what you call an explanation didn’t answer the question. 🙂
It looks as if you have tried to look for an appropriate quote on your skepticalscience site, did not find anything suitable and decided to simply reiterate what the site was saying again.
Renewable: On the post from Romm where he discusses Judith Curry he makes the following statement:
“Only three things in life are certain: Death, taxes, and the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. Now that I think of it, though, lots people on this planet don’t pay taxes. I guess only two things are certain after all.”
I would agree that “death” is 100% certain. I am curious whether you agree with Romm that “the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions” are 100% certain. Do you think this is a statement that a serious scientist would make?
I just happen to be reading a book that discusses the “Big Bang” theory that is supported by very convincing, multiple lines of empirical evidence. Yet I find this statement by Victor Stenger, a well-known physicist: “We have to leave open the possibility that the Big Bang could be wrong . . .”
Which attitude do you think is more consistent with science?
Pauld:
Renewable Guy: Desmogblog is engaged in a smear campaign that is pathetic.
##############################
Desmogblog is telling the truth about Spencer. If you can’t see his behaviour, its more about your judgement than Desmogblog. Recieving money to help propaganda against climate science. Its as clear as it gets.
Renewable: I have to agree with Booker. You are difficult to reason with because your responses are either largely irrelevant or incoherent
#######################
You are entitled to your judgment. But I can say the same about sceptic explanations of the climate. They fall apart on their own.
Herbert:
Oh, joy.
“I have given an explanation prepared by a person who reads the science.”
No, man, what you call an explanation didn’t answer the question.
It looks as if you have tried to look for an appropriate quote on your skepticalscience site, did not find anything suitable and decided to simply reiterate what the site was saying again.
#######################
Be specific. That is very vague.
I would agree that “death” is 100% certain. I am curious whether you agree with Romm that “the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions” are 100% certain. Do you think this is a statement that a serious scientist would make?
#######################
Adding more co2 is a guaranteed increase in temperature and all the consequences that come with it.
“Adding more co2 is a guaranteed increase in temperature and all the consequences that come with it.”
“Be specific. That is very vague.”
Renewable says, “[Spencer] is recieving money to help propaganda against climate science. Its as clear as it gets.”
There is no evidence anywhere in Desmog’s webpage that Spencer has been given any grant money from anyone. It says:
“Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.”
“Spencer is listed as an “Expert” with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.”
“Spencer is listed as an “expert” by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP). . . ICECAP was initially registered by a representative of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), Joseph D’Aleo. SPPI is a prominent global warming denier group backed by the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FoF). FoF has received over $1,272,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.”
“Listed as an author for Tech Central Station daily (TCS), an organization that until recently was owned and operated by a Republican lobby firm called DCI Group.”
There is no evidence that he has received any grant money from any of these organizations, let alone any money from one of their donors. For the record, Dr. Spencer says on his website says:
“Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/
The fact that Desmog trafficks in this type of pathetic innuendo says much about the credibility of the website.
Renewable Guy, you do realize that CRU is partly funded by US DOE (Department of Energy)? That’s right up there with Exxon.
Renewable says:
“I have your statements in parenthesis.
I’m either misundersatanding what you are saying or you are contradicting yourself.”
Here are my statements that you put in parenthesis:
((((((((I said, “No temperature is a function of forcings and feedbacks.))))))
((((((((Temperatures are a function of forcings and feedbacks.)))))))
Huh?
Missed comma after “No” (should be “No, temperature is a function …”).
A few comments about funding/associations:
How much have GE, BP, the former Enron, Exxon Mobil, etc, etc contributed to the pro-AGW camp? The answer is a lot and you don’t have to look hard to find out about it. What makes people think a company like Exxon Mobil would be so stupid as to only align itself with one side of this issue? Companies hedge and position themselves to win/make money. It is a Leftist canard that the Right is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big business/big oil.
As for the Skeptical Science website, I dismiss any statements that start with “The science says…” There is no such thing as THE Science. AGW Theory has plenty of problems and there are some interesting counter-theories that are slowly gaining ground, but you wouldn’t know it if you confine yourself to THE Science. The case for AGW is only getting weaker.
Having said all of this, I side with Mr. Meyer’s general assertion that CO2 is a warming agent, but its effects are exaggerated. The climate models are doctored up to generate hockey sticks given any random inputs and much of the science is based on nothing more than fear-mongering. It’s actually sad to see science used so poorly and in such an ideological manner.
“We have hundreds of millions of years of temperature data”. And what instruments was that data read from? The statement is obviously a falsehood. At best it’s just badly wrong. At worst it’s intentional deception.
What we have is millions of years of more or less hypothetical proxies for temperature, not the same thing as “temperature data” at all.
“Having said all of this, I side with Mr. Meyer’s general assertion that CO2 is a warming agent, but its effects are exaggerated. The climate models are doctored up to generate hockey sticks given any random inputs and much of the science is based on nothing more than fear-mongering. It’s actually sad to see science used so poorly and in such an ideological manner.”
Clearly an AGW model is being ‘firmed up’…and it certainly supports warming associated with CO2….but it more and more clearly does NOT support catastrophic change or catastrophic impacts from the CO2 contributed portion of warming (which may more often than not be subsumed by other factors). This is why the ASM has one conference, so advocates of AGW can present their finding, more or less as Science, and the Pew people, who are political, social and ideological advocates of one kind or another, have a SEPARATE conference to try to claim the Science supports their ‘scary stories’…which it generally does not. The pity is the gene pool is now so contaminated on the science side it’s often hard to see where the ideology ends and the science begins. The new result is Science itself must clearly be held suspect as it’s divorced itself from indifference in practice.
Spencer and the “Interfaith Stewardship Alliance”
Along with the report was a letter of endorsement signed by numerous representatives of various organizations, including 6 that have received a total of $2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil over the last three years.
Satellite Research Refuted
According to an August 12, 2005 New York Times article, Spencer, along with another well-known “skeptic,” John Christy, admitted they made a mistake in their satellite data research that they said demonstrated a cooling in the troposphere (the earth’s lowest layer of atmosphere). It turned out that the exact opposite was occurring and the troposphere was getting warmer.
Spencer and the Heartland Institute
Spencer is listed as an author for the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
The Heartland Institute has also received funding from Big Tobacco over the years and continues to make the claim that “anti-smoking advocates” are exaggerating the health threats of smoking.
Spencer and the George C. Marshall Institute
Spencer is listed as an “Expert” with the George C. Marshall Institute, a US think tank that has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Spencer and ICECAP
ICECAP was initially registered by a representative of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), Joseph D’Aleo. SPPI is a prominent global warming denier group backed by the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FoF). FoF has received over $1,272,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Spencer and Tech Central Station
Listed as an author for Tech Central Station daily (TCS), an organization that until recently was owned and operated by a Republican lobby firm called DCI Group.
#############################################
All those links and Spencer doesn’t take a dime of their money.
Do you see a conflict of interest here being so strongly connected to anticlimate groups and doing supposed climate science?
Malcolm:
Renewable Guy, you do realize that CRU is partly funded by US DOE (Department of Energy)? That’s right up there with Exxon.
################################
How so?
Pauld:
“Adding more co2 is a guaranteed increase in temperature and all the consequences that come with it.”
“Be specific. That is very vague.”
#########################################
Co2 is a GHG.
sundevil:
The case for AGW is only getting weaker.
##################################
How so? In your best science please.
sundevil:
Having said all of this, I side with Mr. Meyer’s general assertion that CO2 is a warming agent, but its effects are exaggerated. The climate models are doctored up to generate hockey sticks given any random inputs and much of the science is based on nothing more than fear-mongering. It’s actually sad to see science used so poorly and in such an ideological manner.
#################################
The deniers are nothing but a poor use of science.
Care to show what you are talking about.
ADiff:
“We have hundreds of millions of years of temperature data”. And what instruments was that data read from? The statement is obviously a falsehood. At best it’s just badly wrong. At worst it’s intentional deception.
What we have is millions of years of more or less hypothetical proxies for temperature, not the same thing as “temperature data” at all.
###############################################
Care to learn how they do it? It appears to be all opinion and no facts. No evidence behind what you are saying.
Renewable: I asked: ” I am curious whether you agree with Romm that “the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions” are 100% certain. Do you think this is a statement that a serious scientist would make?”
So far, you have answered: “Adding more co2 is a guaranteed increase in temperature and all the consequences that come with it.”
When I suggested that this answer was rather vague and requested that you be specific, you elaborated, “Co2 is a GHG.”
Perhaps at some point, you could answer my question.
Renewable says: “All those links and Spencer doesn’t take a dime of their money.
Do you see a conflict of interest here being so strongly connected to anticlimate groups and doing supposed climate science?”
1) Do you think it is unusual that a scientist would be affiliated with organizations that share his viewpoint?
2) It is up to Romm (or you) to demonstrate that Spencer is taking money from the organizations and that this somehow matters? No such evidence is presented, just innuendo. Spencer says that his research is sponsored by the government.
3) There is no evidence that Spencer is “strongly” affiliated with any of these organization and I don’t see any conflict of interest if he were.
Renewable,
You make little sense. Why bother? By now you know these deniers are not going to change. The only reason I think you are doing this is because you get some enjoyment out of it. Life is too short to waste time preaching to the deaf, wouldn’t you agree?
But if you are having fun, then by all means…
pauld:
Renewable says: “All those links and Spencer doesn’t take a dime of their money.
Do you see a conflict of interest here being so strongly connected to anticlimate groups and doing supposed climate science?”
1) Do you think it is unusual that a scientist would be affiliated with organizations that share his viewpoint?
2) It is up to Romm (or you) to demonstrate that Spencer is taking money from the organizations and that this somehow matters? No such evidence is presented, just innuendo. Spencer says that his research is sponsored by the government.
3) There is no evidence that Spencer is “strongly” affiliated with any of these organization and I don’t see any conflict of interest if he were.
#####################################################
You are missing the big picture here. These organizations don’t want the truth period.
If he is a consultant to them, then he is taking money. Consulting for free is highly unusal.
You haven’t stretched reality this much before. I’m surprised to see you in this position.
pauld:
Renewable: I asked: ” I am curious whether you agree with Romm that “the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions” are 100% certain. Do you think this is a statement that a serious scientist would make?”
So far, you have answered: “Adding more co2 is a guaranteed increase in temperature and all the consequences that come with it.”
When I suggested that this answer was rather vague and requested that you be specific, you elaborated, “Co2 is a GHG.”
Perhaps at some point, you could answer my question.
####################################################
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1831
We are just getting started. More extreme weather to come.
co2 regulates atmospheric vapor, and the atmospheric vapor carries latent heat into the storms adding energy to them. The more co2 the more atmospheric vapor.
Huuummm, then why is it that the severity of storms, severity of droughts, number of storms, number of droughts, in fact every single measure of ‘extreme weather’ shows no significant change across the observable periods of warming? The data indicates:
Warming is moderate and slow, and does not vary directly with CO2 alone or predominantly
Warming has been occurring since the LIA and appears to be continuing, without dramatic acceleration
The change displays a consistent range of variation that appears across and throughout warming periods (and cooling periods, too)
Severity of weather, drought, and their frequency does not appear related to observed warming periods.
Ditto for fire, sea level, infectious disease (and vectors).
In short,
No catastrophe …
No crisis …
No emergency …
Actually I know how it’s done, in some detail. That’s not even relevant, as you’d admit if you weren’t grinding an ideological axe. A Proxy is a proxy, not a temperature measurement, so save your breath about how the proxies work (or don’t, as the case may be…to some extent or other…). Good temperature DATA only goes back a hundred years or so, on a sparse and irregular basis. The quality of even that data is not continuously stable (re: ground stations). But at least it is data…unlike the more or less speculative proxy estimates of temperature, some of which aren’t too bad, other of which are very questionable, like many tree-ring proxies.
You seem to think your “issue” so important that your lying is justified, starting with to yourself….
I trust Exxon a hell of lot more than DOE, and I’ve worked with both……
Exxon is a big company, but it only profits if people willingly buy its products… The DOE operates at the end of a gun, can force consumption of its ‘products’ and only has a single concern on Earth…the perpetuation, expansion and appropriations of DOE……
Given a choice of the two, I’ll take Exxon, at its self-serving worst, every day over the black-hearted bureaucracy of DOE.
For Renewable Guy, on CRU and US DOE:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/21/us-doe-apparently-funded-cru-millions-not-200k-as-reported/
This cites Climategate emails and the website of CRU. All money leaving DOE are public record, so you should be able to verify the cited figures.
” I am curious whether you agree with Romm that “the grim consequences humanity faces if we take no serious action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions” are 100% certain.”
Renewable: why are you avoiding answering this question. Romm statement implies that just as it is 100% certain that everyone will die, it is 100% that humanity will face grim consequences if we take no serious action to curtail greenhouse gases.
The part of this statement that I am interesting in hearing your response is the part dealing with level of certainty with which Romm holds his view. The part where he equates the certainty of grim consequences with the certainty of death.