jryan

Given GISS and Hansen's recent record on "warmest ever" proclamations I would give this a few months to stew before checking it into evidence. Hansen and GISS glide through the climate debate with these proclamations when the dirty little secret is that GISStemp records, and certainly the proclamations, are not subject to the same peer review processes that they are quick to use in disqualifying their detractors. GISSTEMP has numerous outstanding issues that hopefully now can be addressed in the open. Some of the past errors that were corrected after undue hardship (due to stonewalling on Hansen's part): There was the Y2K flub where they started measuring temps later in the day after the Y2K software update and failed to adjust.. this was the source of the "8 of the 10 warmest years were in the last decade" claim... which had to be downgraded to 2 out of 10. Oops. And the California problem where they have eliminated inland weather station data from their calculation of global mean leaving 6 coastal stations which artificially inflated the warming across all of California and a 0.6 bias across the U.S. And then their was the failure to adjust ocean temp records for the switch from bucket water collection to engine intake. The kicker is that these errors have since been acknowledged after some resistance, but instead of casting a skeptical eye on GISSTemp and Hansen, those who get it right are the ones who take the heat from the climate community. So, like I said, let this stew for a while. Hansen's track record is abysmal. Hell, there are more demonstrable problems with GISS than with CRUTemp and HADCrut, and those were taken offline for concerns of data tampering.

It is about positive feedback. But it is that very same positive feedback that drives the current high end predictions on climate change. Without the high sensitivity of 40ppm/1C feedback -- in this case a much more modest 8ppm/1C -- there is a logical upper bounds of human contribution to climate because their is a logical upper bound of the CO2 we will produce in the next 100 years. We'd be hard pressed to double our CO2 output every 20-30 years... especially when the natural progression (absent the climate driven hysteria) has been toward cleaner and cheaper energies since the beginning of the industrial age. This 40ppm sensitivity was supposed to be the upward pressure (for lack of a better term) that counterbalanced the known downward pressure of the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and warming. That is to say, while diminishing returns on CO2 warming bend the curve to the horizontal the increasing CO2 feedback was pushing the curve back closer to a linear relationship. Edit: Also, on the "one study" and "not critiqued yet" qualifications: So peer review isn't enough anymore to discuss the implications of a study?

I would suggest you read the entirety of the link, POM. I'm not going to play your game of slicing up the emails into "most condemning" so you can argue simpler sound bites when the emails need to be taken as a whole. So go read it and then we can discuss the entirety of the emails and the authors interpretations of them. Even individually, if you would like. But I would rather you use the knife to cut your own arguments.

Here is an interesting development in Climate change studies: Journal Nature - CO2 Sensitivity Overstated If CO2 sensitivity is indeed closer to the 7.7ppm average than to the 40ppm that has been assumed for many years, that could give all sides of the climate change ruckus a rather dignified exit from the current cage match that is AGW debate. If correct this would lead to a few immediate conclusions: 1) Most of the CO2 rise in the atmosphere in the last 150 years is demonstrably anthropogenic. 2) A considerable portion of the warming is also anthropogenic... but... 3) forecasts of runaway global climate are incorrect 4) The majority of the warming that humanity can cause do to CO2 production has already occurred. 5) Humanity's contribution to warming over the last 150 years has been equally over estimated. What this means to the heavily entrenched, or how well this will wash out in revised climate models remains to be seen. But there is no doubt that if a low sensitivity is indeed the reality, we can all breathe a sigh of relief and start arguing about different stuff moving forward.

As has been the contention of most skeptics for over a decade, it isn't the "science" of global warming that is in question, but the statistics that underlay the proofs. So many skeptics have been shouted down by the consensus for not being expert climatologists while all many were doing was pointing out that there are severe statistical flaws in the models, and even right down to the smoothing of raw station data. If an astrophysicist tells me that 2+2=7, I don't need to be an astrophysicist to call him on his error. As such, there are many scientists and mathematicians with statistical prowess equal to and exceeding that of the climatologists at CRU, GISS, Hadley, and so on. They should have been heeded rather than demonized or targeted for black balling. It's the MATH not the SCIENCE. Given that, there is a very thorough dissection of CRU emails that cast a shadow on many of the defenses thrown abouot for the folks at CRU, as well as Mann, and it's looking more and more like James Hansen and the IPCC will fall before this is all over as well. Such defenses include: This was isolated... it wasn't. This was only a few scientists... it was quite a few. They weren't influential... They were the gatekeepers for the IPCC And so on. After reading the following link in it's entirety it should come as no surprise that the IPCC-AR4 is quickly being discovered to be chock full of unsubstantiated claims to rival the Himalayan Glacier fiasco. These Climategate emails show with great detail a group of IPCC gatekeepers that squashed opposition at every opportunity while failing in their due diligence on anything that remotely supported their preconceived notions of global climate... Climategate E-Mails - Commentary by John Costella The effect of all of this is hard to understate. The common understanding of climate change in the general culture is drawn from the IPCC-ARs over the years. Whether as journalistic interpretations on the AR itself, or the even more watered down journalistic interpretations of the Summary for Policy Makers (itself a summary of the IPCC-AR.. and a politically driven one at that). Not the least of the outcomes of the Climategate scandal is it proves very clearly that the primary complaints by skeptics such as Richard Lindzen, and agnostics such as Steven McIntyre and Anthony Watts were completely founded in stark reality and not the product of some mysterious deal with Big Oil or misstatements of fact. Lindzen was absolutely correct that the IPCC was a political loony bin -- though he was vindicated more with the recent revelations of WWF non-scientific non-peer-reviewed studies cited as fact throughout the IPCC-AR4 -- and Steven McIntyre's campaign to crack open the very insular and opaque surface temperature clatch.

I was discussing the graph which you felt was sufficient to be "scientific", I commented on it in the spirit in which it was presented and you requested hard numbers derived from the graph. You: You're wrong, here's a graph Me: That graph looks wrong. You: Don't comment on the graph comment on the numbers! Me: Ok, where are the underlying numbers You *Provides links to more graphs* Me:

Ok.. do you have the source of that graph? I will need the data that went into making it. Obviously it isn't 7 orders of magnitude off as the margins of error are very generous. Also, where is the MWP and LIA in that graph?

This is an interesting graph you have provided, iNow. It appears to have been produced in or around 2000, which is the end of it's listed instrumental record and the beginning of it's projection period. It is interesting in that ever single one of those projected warming trends is wrong when compared to the actual instrumental record of 2000-2009. Edit: Retracted one statement on time scale

Good, we're making progress. We are no longer looking at the 30 year graph. We have now moved into graphs depicting a glacial and interglacial cycle, which is, again, focusing on the interglacial warming rather than the full cycle. But the time slice has been increased by a factor of 10, so that is a step in the right direction.

Thanks, sometimes when you are in the middle of a debate it's easy to lose sight of different ways of stating the point to move the discussion along. I hope you have better luck getting the idea across. As for the point of stasis and or statistical insignificance in the last 10 years, sure, why not. That portion of my discussion is really not worth debating as it was merely a demonstration of the problems of short time slices. My point was not to make a definitive established trend over 10 years, but simply to show that the final 10 years do not follow the trend of the first 20. Also the divergence of the last 10 years appear to be the end of the 30 year warming PDO that dominate that time slice, and an end of the full 60 year PDO cycle. Another way to put it is it makes no sense to show a 30 year time slice of global climate when we know that global climate has a very real 60 year oscillation influenced by the PDO. If anything, a 60 year time silce at minimum is necessary to weed out any PDO signal.

Again, you are completely missing my point. The spatial variation in water vapor and temperature changes more traveling from Washington DC to Albuquerque (or from sea level to the top of Mt. McKinley for that matter) than is claimed to be coming temporally in the next 100 years. Unless you are claiming that DC and and Albuquerque are very similar in average temperature and humidity. Yes it was. It was made as an excuse for labeling CO2 a pollutant. Again, if you want to claim hypercapnia is a threat in the environment then explain how that would happen and how CO2 is a pollutant at that point. Furthermore, explain how exposing a person to the high CO2 environment is more deadly then filling that same space with water and submerging them. By the hypercapnia argument, and the micronutrient argument, water is also a pollutant. It wasn't misplaced. The argument for making CO2 a pollutant applies to everything. Too much rain an kill crops... that doesn't make it a pollutant. Ok, so if you don't want to compare current trends to historical trends, then how do you know if the trend is abnormal? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, it's a summary, as I said. It's called reviewing the data and discussing points. If you aren't willing to do that, then our discussion is at an end. Again, you refuse to acknowledge the point I was making in ADMITTEDLY cherry picking that data. There is nothing to discuss with you. Taking a 10 year trend is no different than taking a 30 year trend when talking about the dangers of abnormal, man made, climate change. You litteraly have nothing to compare it to. I'm not trying to defend it other than my selection has all the same logical pitfalls as your 30 year selection. Which brings us back to opinion. It's hard to claim "reputable" when they have resisted correction and ignored glaring issues with their data while the curator is spending so much time in advocacy endeavors. No it's not. The PDO follows 30 year cycles of warming and cooling, that 30 year time slice is dominated by a warm PDO. It's hard to show you one way or another because you will claim GISS as more reputable even though they have made some egregious errors, yet label those that found the errors as less reputable because they aren't 100% convinced of the AGW theory. How can one penetrate such circular logic? Of course it seems that way to you. Those who care enough to check the work of climate scientists are part of the anti-science in your belief... which is a very counter-scientific stand.

Here is the summary, the Journal in which it is published requires a fee for more than the summary (as do many) It's no more cherry lpicked than the 30 year slice you provided. Which is the point you have yet to address. No apology necessary. It's the largest on record? Given that the record only goes back so far it's like saying that you are the set the world pogo stick golf score when you're the first to do it. Records do not equal climate, nor does GISS. Also, there is some interesting studies by statisticians into how GISS does it's running averages and end points... and has been shown at least twice in the last 10 years to have skewed their data... once due to a failure to catch erroneous data in Siberia, and once in screwing up the measuring times with their Y2K conversion. The former killed the "Warmest October on record" claim in 2007, and the latter killed the "warmest decade on record" when it was finally accepted into the GISS record. So you may want to be a little cautious when claiming any GISS records.

I created this to explain to a friend the difference between liberals, Liberals and Libertarians:

http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/don-easterbrook-global-warming-since-1977-is-over/ Irony So you said. An I reiterate that your attempts at character assassination lend nothing to the debate. You focus your energy on denying that which discredits the theory. I suppose if there was such a thing as an "affirmative skeptic" you would be one. I posted something for you to dig into, and I will await your meticulous examination. Try to make it more meaty than the traditional link to "Who Worked for Big Oil Wiki" or other such nonsense.

Well, it was never intended to be a red herring, Swansont. Just an example of another compound in the atmosphere that in high enough concentrations can be deadly but that seems awfully silly to claim as a pollutant. I would say it is a fairly simple assumption that warming climate leads to more water vapor, though. Here is the problem Swansnot, you are jumping into completely unrelated discussions, ignoring the reason the points were made in the first place, and then attacking them as if they were some central thesis. Go back and look at the reasons I was making the points I was making.... maybe take someone to task for claiming a threat of hypercapnia. Are you asking what would be the point of a longer average time?

Talk about out of wack. I brought up water vapor as a counter to the claim that increasing CO2 is a pollutant. I couldn't care less whether water vapor is increasing in step with CO2 OR climate, though I would guess there is some correlation to the later. It may have been an overly dry joke comparing drowning to hypercapnia as water and CO2 relate to the atmosphere. But the point remains. If you want to claim hypercapnia as a threat from rising CO2 you mights as will claim that rising water vapor will lead to drownings. It wasn't lost or ignored. Sea levels rise and fall and have historically. It would be quite a feat to keep them in stasis. As for desertification, try an ice age. A global drop in humidity and the atmospheres ability to hold moisture does a real number on precipitation. It sure will. Which is my point entirely... I was demonstrating that the 30 year time slice was not very helpful given it's bias toward upward pacific oscillations. I just didn't see you jump in with instruction to others that a 30 year time slice is not particularly helpful in discussing climate, but rather long term rolling averages are better. If you want to talk 30 year average you might as well talk 10. I'm glad you cleared that up for everyone.

The over all variation in water vapor, CO2 and even oxygen is far more prevalent in simple changes in latitude or altitude.. yet we do it all the time. If you don't want an increase in water vapor in the air you breathe then never travel to the tropics. Well, again, worries about atmospheric concentrations of water seems inconsequential when compared to traveling from, say, Washington DC to Albuquerque... that is a major change in atmosphere, but I do it all the time for work. So if your primary worry is the effects on you personally, fear not. The Human species is very robust and can survive from the south pole to the north pole and everywhere in between. The crop worries are very real, but is much more effected by a decline in temperature than in a rise in temperature. I don't think Brazil has any inherent handicap in growing corn versus Oklahoma even though Oklahoma is much cooler on average than Brazil. Well, the current concentration of CO2 is .038%, the earliest onset of hypercapnia (drowsiness) is at 1%. That translates in a CO2 concentration of 10,000ppm over the current 380ppm.... or a 2,600% increase over current levels. The worst prediction by the IPCC, since you accept their findings, is a quadrupling of CO2... still far far below even early onset hypercapnia. In other words, we will never have that much CO2 in the atmosphere even if we try. Nutrient deprivation in the soil has been a concern of humanity since the advent of farming. It is the reason for crop rotation and fertilizers. In this case the effect on humanity would be slim... if we are worrying about OUR food crops, a minor change in fertilizer corrects any imbalance if the study shows to be true. If it is the third world farmer that you are worried about, I would suggest that there are several concerns to handle first that are orders of magnitude higher than a drop in micronutrients. Like dependable irrigation, steady access to fertilizers, and proper pest controls. In other words, I would worry first about the output of the farm before the level of micronutients. I can't locate it at the moment, but I remember studying a disorder back in my neuropsychology courses in college that struck large swaths of people in Europe for many generations.. it resulted in a high rate of what was thought to be retardation. This lead early Europeans to think the ground was haunted, and later scientists to believe in weak genetics.... turned out is was a nutrient deficiency in the soil. Changes in farming eliminated the disorder within a generation. So, again, humans are adaptable. Given all that, I would still wait for actual numbers to start rolling in before I take this seriously. That isn't to say I take it as a joke, just that I don't yet see enough to be concerned. Should we study it? Sure! So long as the studies are done appropriately and all data and calculations and samples are provided to the world to evaluate. If they come back and say "The study has proven that micronutrients have dropped dramatically... but we won't release our data to just anyone... we have IP concerns, you know!" I will start to become skeptical of their study just as I have with work by Jones, Mann, Hansen, et al. who require FOI filings just to release their data and calculations. One other nagging question I am still trying to answer about this study is it sounds like the concentration in micronutrients in the plant is a factor of increased mass of the plant itself. That is to say, there is enough CO2 to promote increased growth but not enough soil trace nutrients to provide the same concetrations in the plants that grow. It is interesting and you have given me a new thing to research, so thanks for that. If it turns out that plants are getting too big or growing too fast as it sounds right now, I would have to start wondering what the worry is. Nowhere else will you find products in the "Early Stages of Development" being pushed as the new standard in any industry. Also, even accepting the notion that the oil companies suppressed alternative energies (we can debate that elsewhere), that is not a viable reason for pushing for installation of admittedly stunted technology "in the wild". If your claim were true, then let the Government help fund and protect alternative energy STUDIES until they can compete in price and availability with natural gas, oil, nuclear and coal. I don't want the federal government funding alternative energy INSTALLATION if the tech isn't ready to compete. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The over all variation in water vapor, CO2 and even oxygen varies far more through travel yet it happens all the time. If you don't want an increase water vapor in the air then definitely never travel to the tropics. Well, again, worries about atmospheric concentrations of water seems inconsequential when compared to traveling from, say, Washington DC to Albuquerque... that is a major change in atmosphere, but I do it all the time for work. So if your primary worry is the effects on you personally, fear not. The Human species is very robust and can survive from the south pole to the north pole and everywhere in between. The crop worries are very real, but is much more effected by a decline in temperature than in a rise in temperature. I don't think Brazil has any inherent handicap in growing corn versus Oklahoma even though Oklahoma is much cooler on average than Oklahoma. Well, the current concentration of CO2 is .038%, the earliest onset of hypercapnia (drowsiness) is at 1%. That translates in a CO2 concentration of 10,000ppm over the current 380ppm.... or a 2,600% increase over current levels. The worst prediction by the IPCC, since you accept their findings, is a quadrupling of CO2... still far far below even early onset hypercapnia. In other words, we will never have that much CO2 in the atmosphere even if we try. Nutrient deprivation in the soil has been a concern of humanity since the advent of farming. It is the reason for crop rotation and fertilizers. In this case the effect on humanity would be slim... if we are worrying about OUR food crops, a minor change in fertilizer corrects any imbalance if the study shows to be true. If it is the third world farmer that you are worried about, I would suggest that there are several concerns to handle first that are orders of magnitude higher than a drop in micronutrients. Like dependable irrigation, steady access to fertilizers, and proper pest controls. In other words, I would worry first about the output of the farm before the level of micronutients. I can't locate it at the moment, but I remember studying a disorder back in my neuropsychology courses in college that struck large swaths of people in Europe for many generations.. it resulted in a high rate of what was thought to be retardation. This lead early Europeans to think the ground was haunted, and later scientists to believe in weak genetics.... turned out is was a nutrient deficiency in the soil. Changes in farming eliminated the disorder within a generation. So, again, humans are adaptable. Given all that, I would still wait for actual numbers to start rolling in before I take this seriously. That isn't to say I take it as a joke, just that I don't yet see enough to be concerned. Should we study it? Sure! So long as the studies are done appropriately and all data and calculations and samples are provided to the world to evaluate. If they come back and say "The study has proven that micronutrients have dropped dramatically... but we won't release our data to just anyone... we have IP concerns, you know!" I will start to become skeptical of their study just as I have with work by Jones, Mann, Hansen, et al. who require FOI filings just to release their data and calculations. Nowhere else will you find products in the "Early Stages of Development" being pushed as the new standard in any industry. Also, even accepting the notion that the oil companies suppressed alternative energies (we can debate that elsewhere), that is not a viable reason for pushing for installation of admittedly stunted technology "in the wild". If your claim were true, then let the Government help fund and protect alternative energy STUDIES until they can compete in price and availability with natural gas, oil, nuclear and coal. I don't want the federal government funding alternative energy INSTALLATION if the tech isn't ready to compete. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No it's not. If you take an average from the peak of the 98 El Nino to present the temperature is definitely declining. You can argue that a time slice that takes advantage of an El Nino start and La Nina finish is an unfair comparison... but that would also be my point in a 30 year time slice dominated by the 98 El Nino. So, I guess what I am trying to say is let the current La Nina finish and then let's look at the trend, and make time slice comparisons that aren't by choice biased by either El Ninos or La Ninas.

Huh... global warming without an increase in water vapor? That's not what I read. Ok, well, please do better than the Wiki article about CO2, then, because as I read it also covers the "co2 is used in plant respiration and is essential to photosynthesis" argument as well. Note also that it says that a 5% concentration of CO2 is when get into the serious side effects of hypercapnia... which is equivalent to 50,000ppm compared to the current 380ppm. As for the micronutrient effects from a CO2 imballance... if you read the actual thesis here rather than the blurb in Wikipedia, you see that the study is a mathematical support for a theory with no actual proofing in the actual world ecosystems being done yet. So don't hang you hat on that theory just yet. Because I made no claim about oil companies or the imaginary advances that could have happened in their absence. You are claiming that my argument is a strawman while making an argument I didn't make and shooting it down with "Who Killed the Electric Car" arguments. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged "Spreading falsehoods"... hmmm... You are completely misrepresenting or misunderstanding my argument and then calling it disiformation. It's almost not worth discussing with you anymore, but I will soldier on as the point is worth making. First, I never claimed that there is 30 years of cooling. Go back and reread the posts. I stated that the final third of that graph is cooling... which is to be expected as it cuts off in the middle of a La Nina. After all, you tried to adminish me for not taking La Ninas into account in my argument while showing a graph whose trend line is HEAVILY influenced by a single El Nino. I am not the one disregarding La Ninas, amigo. No at the moment I am disseminating contrary information that you seem to be misreading. I do hold out hope that agree on terms at some point and we can properly address the graph you have provided.

Actually, they don't. Or not that I have seen. They claim to isolate out human influence... but in every paper I have read the "human influence" is nothing more than a catchall for whatever they believe to be unexplainable by the natural influences they have determined. It's just another issue I have with the science. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, using the Hypercapnia argument why don't we label water a pollutant? I hear too much of than in the lungs is bad for you too. As for the reduction in mitronutrients in plants... well then, lets deny those plants CO2. Kidding aside, the concentration of CO2 in the air we breathe needed to bring on hypercapnia is absurdly high if you are projecting that to the whole atmosphere. It's nowhere near the 383ppm we have now. Talk about strawmen...

I'm not arguing that the current climate isn't warmer than the past, I am arguing that the warming is not anthropogenic in nature, or the portion that is anthropogenic is likely very small. As it is, the actual warming of the planet in the last 150 years (a time of recovery from the LIA) is agreed to be 0.7 C +/- .16 C (last I checked... I'm having trouble tracking down a quote that lists the error range). I am saying that the portion, even assuming it exists, of the climate increase that is anthropogenic falls within the error range of the observed warming. Another question I have regarding AGW is this: absent industrialization, what do climatologist assume would be the current global climate? Are we assuming a continuation of the LIA? Are we assuming 150 years of stasis? Or are we assuming a lesser warming trend? If the latter, how much less? It would seem to me if you want to argue an affirmative affect of human action you should have a good idea of what it would look like i the absence of human action. This is an excellent point, and it also plays a role in my skepticism. But I take it further than that. If it is found that the extremely costly actions we take now were worthless in regard to AGW, I fear the public support for alternative energy dies with AGW. If there are very good reasons for alternative fuel not connected to AGW (and I believe there are) then argue THOSE points for alternative energy rather than AGW fear mongering. Exactly right. I know someone who installs solar hot water systems for a living and he just can't understand why they aren't taking off without government subsidy. The problem is, though, that for a family of 5 in Pennsylvania you are looking at a $10,000 investment minimum, and 80 sqr feet of solar array on your roof that you will need to sweep off every time it snows or run on normal electricity until it melts. They are better off installing a natural gas tankless system for $700 and saving energy that way in the short term while the government cash goes to an R&D award systems much like in military contracting. Give goals, and reward the best design to meet those goals... or those that come closest. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm not a fan of hybrid electric cars because they are not as efficient as the newer diesel engines being created in Europe. The efficiency of any car is not simply in the cost of ownership, or the energy expended in ownership. It is in the cost of production as well. The cost, in energy, of a hybrid vehicle is very high given the amount of production that goes into the battery system alone. If I can get 50+ MPG from an all combustion diesel I would rather limit the need for damaging nickle mines as much as possible.. as well at the added energy expenditures in creating the car in the first place. Heck, if we moved to more diesel in the country we could reduce the need to expensive refinery conversions every year as they switch from gasoline to diesel and back again. Better mileage, cheaper gas... what a curious idea! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Again, I fully agree with all of this with only one caveat: CO2 is not a pollutant no matter if we just labeled it as such. Other than that, what I see right now is that the alternative energy sources that are being foisted on the country are far from being ready for prime time with the ONLY justification for the pain of use is the AGW mitigation and cost mitigation through Government subsidies (which is itself a function of AGW). I saw a funny statistic the other day in Consumer Reports that showed the Smart Car had the lowest dependability ratings of all cars tested... yet they had some of the highest owner satisfaction ratings (I read it as "self satifaction" ratings). In such a situation where a car is only pleasing so long as it has a "higher purpose", it ceases to be pleasing as soon as the intended purpose vanishes. Similarly I read a report that Geo Metros are making a comback... not NEW Geo Metros, but old 1980s Geo Metros. This is because they get 40-50 mpg, and can be had for $3000. I don't know if you have ever owned or ridden in a Metro... but I assure you that the ONLY reason to endure such a thing is as a sacrificial gesture to Gaia.

But you aren't examining the counter claims, you are using moon landing deniers to rationalize why you don't examine counter claims. More to the point, when people like Mann are taken to task for poor statistics by actual statisticians, rather than examine the counter claim those like you go running to biographies to see is the person ever worked for an energy company. You know why I know you haven't treated it skeptically? Because when such claims are made you provide no actual rationale, except for a graph that shows more misunderstanding of the subject than it displays understanding. But that is more between me and bascule than you and me. So, other than the blip on the radar that we call "The Age of Man", the CO2 has been MUCH higher than today and life continued and was very diverse... the Earth was also absent any runaway global warming too... Given that, 25% isn't that big of a deal as far as "saving the Earth" goes. It seems it is more an argument for "saving our coastal cities"... but that doesn't have the same ring to it. And mathematicians, actually. Again, are you arguing that correction must come from within and not from overlapping disciplines? Climatology, after all, is really a subset of geology, and they all fall under Earth Sciences. So do we simply accept whatever gerrymander allows you to cut out the opposing voices? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Oh good, the insults have started. I'm not pretending the graph is a lie. I am stating that to state anthropogenic global warming is happening based on a 30 year graph is silly when the most recent third is displaying cooling. It's like showing the arc of a thrown stone and stopping a quarter of the way into the descent, drawing a average line that has a distinct up slope and claiming it proves that the rock will actually fly into space. In the case of that 30 year trend we have the upward thrust being El Nino, and the downward pull being El Nina. Eesh... I'm not disregarding El Nino OR pretending La Nina doesn't exist. Quite the contrary. There is currently a La Nina in progress which your graph cuts off while being heavily influenced by the El Nino in the mid 90s. I would assume, being that you understand the La Nina and El Nino cycle, that you know the 30 year running trend is pointless when you know that there is a La Nina in progress. More eeesh. I am responding bascule. I am choosing to ignore your attempts to derail the discussion into personal attacks. I learned last time I came through here to ignore iNow posts all together as that seems to be his method as well. So how about you forgo the insults and wow me with your grasp of the subject matter? To reiterate, no you aren't, as much as you may want to believe so. Your first response to a challenge to AGW is defensive, not inquisitive. And your prolonged response to doubters is offensive. You spend no time questioning the supporting studies while directing energy towards belittling those with questions. Bottom line, yes I am. I believe that questions about the theory of global warming can and do originate from both inside and outside the field of climatology, and I read both the pro and con of the theories with an open mind. The trouble is, when I see one side turn to ad hominem as the go-to defense of their position, as well and attempt to limit who has access to their data and code I can't help but realize they are not operating within the scientific paradigm, but have rather turned towards advocacy. The much discussed 30 year temperature graph is a good example. There are very real questions about the usefulness of that 30 year trend (we haven't even started on the climate anomalies it inherited in the decades prior to the time slice), yet rather than discuss the current La Nina and it's counterbalance to the El Nino that dominates that time slice, you jump to the insults. Why? Because you have no answers, I assume, as you have provided none. See, here is something for you to consider... in the long term, with regard to funding of environmental study, and the trust by the public in general, if this theory turns out to be a tempest in a tea pot, the environmental movement will have bypassed shooting itself in the foot for the alternative of jamming the barrel in it's mouth. When so much is being planned politically to remedy this scientific theory it is VERY important to make sure you are getting it right as the whole of the public trust rests in this theory. The trouble is there is too much politics in the science to begin with. When leading scientists become political advocates the science suffers.

So let me get this straight... the article states that temperatures since 2001 have been level, and your evidence against hat claim is the averaged slope of the last 30 years? I hate to break it you you, but that isn't how to get the trend of the last 8 years. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, swansont. You may very well be skeptical about things other than AGW, hell, you may even be skeptical about some aspects of AGW... but right now you are only questioning the challenges to global warming. This doesn't make you a AGW skeptic, it makes you an AGW protectionist. You can very well cast doubt on the opposing views of AGW and call yourself a skeptic. But not a skeptic of AGW. Certainly both sides of the debate need to be viewed with skepticism, and certainly I find more compelling in the skeptics side (especially since they hide nothing yet Schmidt and Hansen and Jones and Mann and others have a history of withholding information). What I object to in your, and other supposedly scientifically minded posters, is that the theory that you believe shoudl no longer be viewed skeptically.. or the mass delusion that what we see on this forum and many other AGW forums passes as skeptical evaluation. No, it wasn't. And actually the previous president was not very big on ACTUAL pollution either... a topic that we would probably agree on. But we are ready to pass cap-and-trade and spends trillions of dollars on alternative energy like the world will burst into flames tomorrow. Since all of that money will be coming out of every American's pockets, and the cash we spend will be paid by our children, we have a duty as much to spend wisely as protect the Earth. In this case I don't think we are actually protecting the Earth by limiting the basic fuel for all life on Earth. Questioning Extreme Weather predictions - http://www.stat.unc.edu/faculty/rs/talks/APHA-Richard.L.Smith.pdf Testimony of Dr. Edward J. Wegman, director at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and board member of the American Statistical Association testifying on the statistics behind high profile AGW studies: http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/Hearings/07192006hearing1987/Wegman.pdf William M. Briggs, Statistician and Professor at Cornell Medical... here is a blog post about poor statistics in AGW: http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/william-m-briggs-statistician/3060f440a08c463ca4cb771107aa44c5 And on... what would you consider a plethora, anyway? Yes they were. Their theory was simply very flawed. Are you only pursuing science if the outcome ends up being right? You say they are better only because they agree with you. I am saying that science is not all Piltdown Man and Relativity. There was also the recent hooplah about the physicist who thought he might have found the foundation of the much sought unified theory. He was proven wrong as well, very wrong actually... that doesn't mean he isn't a scientist. For your example to work you have to first accept a truth of fraud without evidence of fraud in the work of the statisticians I posted above, and many other scientists as well. You would do so as an article of your own faith.

There-in lies that "belief" that you say you don't have. Climatology is a very incestuous discipline, and the numbers of global temperature data sets, for example, is rather small. An error in one dataset effects all studies that used it in their model. That is just a simple example. But I am glad that you support a full blind statistical audit of climate modeling and climatology. It's certainly worth a few billion dollars for a comprehensive and structurally impartial verification of the science for the peace of mind before spending trillions on the cure.

I didn't want this to become a semantic argument, but I guess we are there: skep⋅tic   /ˈskɛptɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [skep-tik] Show IPA Use skeptic in a Sentence –noun 1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. 2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others. 3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it. 4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy. a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible. b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind. Either #1 or #2 will do. A skeptic is one who actively doubts something... once you have decided the the evidence is sufficient you cease to be skeptical. Scientific consensus. Which again doesn't matter because the claimed scientific consensus is in accord with the political consensus, so it is pointless to even question. If the scientific consensus becomes skeptical of AGW, I suppose you would become skeptical? Or, what subdivision of the scientific community do you give the most weight to? If the consensus of PhDs in Statistics is that the climate models are bad statistics, yet the climatologists say their statistics are sound, who do you give weight to? Now, will they work to undo the political consensus if the scientific consensus breaks down? Or will they cling to "you can't listen to them because they are just.." arguments? We have already seen the preeminent AGW climatologists play keepers with their data and code if they think the person asking is a skeptic or deniar. I can't be anything but a skeptic until they allow the full light of day to be shined on the full proofs and data sets without legal action. Then you are missing the point. I fully expect that any demise of the AGW theory will come from the scientific world. If you go back and see the post the lead me to that example you will see that it was in response to the statement that the author of "Heaven and Earth" was a geologist and that their opinion would change when the climatologists opinions change. I simply brought up a scientific discipline that wasn't changed because phrenologists decided they were full of crap. Relying on the people who now have a life's work invested in AGW isn't always the wisest and most open minded approach as their whole careers rest now on this being true. Yep you're right. Fixed. You're missing the point entirely, as many people in this very thread have made claims that only climatologists can sway them. Neurophysiology and nueropsychology are not phrenology, their influence was not from inside phrenology. It was a whole separate discipline, as was psychology. I m saying that phrenologists didn't disprove themselves. I am asking, primarily, if (for example) a STATISTICIAN would carry sufficient weight to sway you as the whole framework of climatology is built on statistical analysis. Would you consider a statistician to be "inside" climatology? I am arguing that if you are going to carve out 30 years from 150, or 2000 and use that 30 year span as a stand alone demonstration of global warming then there is no compelling reason NOT to carve out 10 from the 30 and use that as a compelling arguement.

I'm not saying that there isn't a warming trend from 1970 to 2000. I am saying that in a 30 year trend the final 11 years are VERY significant. If you want to actually go back further than the last 30 years (to limit the significance of the last 11 years)... say 150 or 1000, or 2000 years, then the majority of that time is modeled data that is believed to be accurate, but is not directly known. And the current models that we are using to establish future trends -- those based on CO2 as a leading forcer of climate -- fail to account for current cooling trends within their confidence interval, or well to the low side of the confidence interval.