Decrease in sea ice a 'cyclical' event

[richyoung]

It's never been 'because we said so'. The point is that now the consensus is pretty darn impressive, the debate isn't over, the theory isn't proven

That is one of the major points As far as the global warming advocates are concerned here is no room for debate. Anyone who disagrees should be discredited and any science/weather related credentials revoked and probably burned at the stake for heresy.

If you look at my post a couple up (the overly long one that should just have been restricted to those two quotes) you'll see that I say the debate isn't over and the theory isn't proven because no theory ever really is, so the 'debate', in terms of scientific research, never ends.

Also, don't mistake media representation and the rantings of internet warriors  and a few fringe outliers for the position of most scientists in terms of their view of those who disagree. The term 'septic' often does get applied to the persistently annoying (see Christopher Monckton), but that's different from someone out there doing proper research testing the theory. That's welcomed, that's the norm.

It's customary in science to also publish your data and methodology, along with your conclusions.  Climate research, especially those espousing snthropogenic global warming, are notorious for NOT  doing that.  ON the reare occasions the data and methodologies have been prised out, due to the Freedom of Information Act and its Canadian equivalent, frequently the conclusions turn out to be so much "hot air", (pardon the pun).  A shining example of this is the famous Mann "hockey stick" graph that proved that global warming was occuring - until they fed random numbers into it, and got... a hockey stick graph.  Noticw Mann isn't a lead author on the IPCC  reports anymore: I guess they found shills that haven;t been discredited yet...

[onebigelf]

I also note that many of the same "scientists" who now swear that the incontrovertible evidence shows  that the pollution mankind pumps into the atmosphere is causing global warming, despite evidence that temperatures are falling again and that other planets in our solar system showed similar warming curves over the same time period that Earth did so, are the same ones who swore that we were entering a new ice age in the 70's as a result of the pollution mankind pumps into the atmosphere!  Pollution apparently causes BOTH warming and cooling depending on what the temperatures are doing.  I suspect that the field of climatology attracts people who feel mankind is damaging the planet.... and taadaa!!!! Their research backs up that conclusion!  Amazing!  Interesting that many of those arguing that global warming is a cyclical event are archeologists, geologists, paleontologists, and astronomers.  Scientists who understand that a 50 or even 100 year trend in terms of the Earth is meaningless.  Mankind is responsible for the creation of less than 10% of the so called greenhouse gases.  News flash, folks.  I don't think the Earth really gives a crap what mankind is up to.  I'm fairly sure the solar system doesn't.

John

[Desertdog]

There are two ways to go after a subject.

1) Take the evidence presented and come to a conclusion.

2) Come to a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it.

Which do you think Global Warming is?

[Iain]

John - really, read Weart. All your 'gotcha's' have answers or are not as simple as you want to believe. It's a fairly mature field, there are no gotcha's left, all there is left is science to do.

Find me a scientific journal article from the 1970's actually predicting global cooling. You won't be able to, because nobody has found it yet. There are media articles, but that's a whole different thing.

Oh btw, your attempt to be snide about how pollution can cause both global warming and global cooling only betrays how little you have read. Study up on aerosols - it was understanding the role of aerosols that led to some vague discussion about whether or not we could be cooling the planet, but even in the 1970's papers were being published that suggested that even if they may be so, the dominant effect may well be anthropogenic greenhouse emissions rather than anthropogenic aerosol emissions. Deliberately introducing aerosols into the atmosphere is one of the proposed geo-engineering solutions to AGW.

Also, climate has cycles, sure, but it's a fallacy to assume that because general phenomena has happened before because of specific cause X it is absolutely the fact that specific cause X is causing it this time. Especially when the general position of climatologists is that the known specific causes have been investigated and found wanting as the specific cause this time around.

Also - explain the rise of CO₂ in the atmosphere from 280ppm to 350ppm since the 1960's whilst rejecting the general understanding amongst scientists that this, along with other evidence of this rise, is directly attributable to man.

The next paragraph you write to dismiss a whole field should probably be slightly better evidenced and show somewhat more comprehensive understanding. This is the internet - take it seriously.

Oh and DD - seeing as I've seen no evidence that you've ever read or understood any of the evidence, aside from what Drudge dredges, I'm going to suggest that you look in the mirror before laying such a serious, misplaced and offensive charge. Offensive because you honestly believe it is acceptable to slander a whole scientific profession because you don't like what they are saying.

[richyoung]

And here sre some questions for you, Iain:

1.  The temperature is conceded by both sides of the argument to have been gradually trending upward all through the 20th century.  Anthropogenic Global Warming proponents, (hereafter shortened to AGWPs), claim that some unknown natural mechanism caused the warming up until 1955 or abouts, when this unknown natural warming cause suddendly ceased, and increasing CO2 levels took over causing the warming.  What was the natural cause of warming BEFORE CO2 levels rose high enough to cause the warming, and what changed in 1955 to make it stop?

2.  Why, if increasing CO2 causes warming, has there BEEN NO WARMING since 1998?

3.  Why are troposphereic temperatures not rising, as the climate models that predict global warming also predict?

4.  Why, if increased CO2 levels cause a warmer climate, do ice core data reveal that elevated CO2 levels actually FOLLOW an increase in global temperature?  It's rather hard to CAUSE something AFTER it has already happened.

5.  Speaking of ice cores and other proxies, why do modern analysis of the same proxies for temperature differ from observed temperatures, (a phenomenon known as "divergence"), yet they are assumed to be dead-on accurate BEFORE there were any observed temperatures.

6.  Speaking of proxies, on of the principle proxies for temperature is growth ring size in tree rings, particularly the bristlecone pine.  What other factors, such as disease, parasites, precipitation, soil depletion, etc, could effect the amount of tree ring growth, and how is the data normalized for those other influences?  WHat to bristlecone pine tree rings tell us about temperatures on and in the ocean?  (Nothing).  Above the tree line?  (Nothing.)  In the Arctic and Antarctic?  (Nothing.)  In the desert? (Nothing.)  In areas that have suffered catastrophic wildfire?  (Nothing.)  In areas where the bristlecone pine does not grow?  (Nothing.)

7.  The overwhelming greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor.  What percentage of the greenhouse effect is attributable to water vapor and the clouds it forms?  How do any climate models model water vapor, and upon what data do they rely to validate their modeling of water vapor?

8.  Speaking of climate and atmospheric research, where is the ozone hole, (which, according to theory, should be growing larger and larger, as almost a century's worth of flourocarbons escape from the containers they are in, and work their way up into the atmosphere)?  According to the theory under which we abandoned Freon, it should be getting larger and larger, and appearing at the north pole as well as the south.  Yet its gone.  COuld it be that the skeptics were right when they went against the "consensus" and claimed that the atmosphere running out of ozone was like the ocean running out of waves?  That as long as the air had oxygen, and that sunlight hit it, you could take ALL the ozone out of the air and it would replenish itself in a matter of weeks?

In short, there isn't enough good, reliable data for long enough to support the claims of AGWPs.  It's the ozone hole on a larger scale, claiming to find a man-made "signal" that doesn't exist in the noise of natural cycles and variation.

[Iain]

I think I've said before that I don't intend to get into long drawn out arguments with you rich. I admire the tenacity, but if you want these questions answered properly - don't ask me. My only, limited, expertise lies with an interest in the public perception of the science and attempts to mislead about the science. Also, the easy 'gotchas', which are not easy and not gotchas.

I'll answer what I can.

1. A cite for the claim that there was an unknown warming factor prior to 1955?
2. Misleading. 1998 was an anomalous year due to a strong El Nino. The trend since then is somewhat up, some sources claim 2005 exceeded 1998. A spike 10 years ago does not prove that warming has stopped, only that there was a spike 10 years ago, an anomaly.

4. Quote from a couple of posts up - "it's a fallacy to assume that because general phenomena has happened before because of specific cause X it is absolutely the fact that specific cause X is causing it this time. Especially when the general position of climatologists is that the known specific causes have been investigated and found wanting as the specific cause this time around."

Milankovitch or other factors may start a forcing, which causes a rise in C02 which itself is a forcing factor. Co2 in and of itself has the potential to be a pimary forcing factor, the fact that it may not have necessarily been one does not disprove this.

7. Water vapour is not this 90 something % that is claimed. There is no authoritative source for this claim that I have seen. Wiki uses figures I have seen elsewhere:

The most important greenhouse gases are:
water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)
carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%
methane, which causes 4–9%
ozone, which causes 3–7% - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#The_greenhouse_effect

Climate models account for water vapour and clouds, I bolded something about that in the Weart quote earlier. I'm in no position to argue specifics, go find those guys and argue with them as I've suggested you should do before. If you have concerns about the validity of the models and the data used and generated highlight those claims, don't moan about it on the internet. Same for the rest of those questions. I'm not claiming to be the expert here, far from it, I'm casting doubt on dubious claims to expertise such as the guy in the article in the OP, or some paragraph written by some random guy on the internet that 'proves' all this is a hoax.

On that subject - your questions are more indepth clearly - but are you confident they have not been addressed? Reading Prothero on evolution highlighted for me the way that creationists quote and selectively use older quotes and ignore certain data and so on. The internet is rife with this, websites are out there making the 1998 claim, continuing to cite a recent error-strewn article about sea ice (the author has admitted total error). I'm obviously just as vulnerable to this, but I'm reading books too and trying to get to the bottom of what I can - are you reading papers that specifically cover the subjects of your questions? Because if you're not, you're wasting time asking me. Like Mann et al's recent return to the hockey stick for instance? Your questions are so specific that you really should be reading primary source material, the research itself, not interpretations of the research.

Anyway - you went quiet for a while there, hope all is well with you.

[freakazoid]

I remember seeing somewhere saying that while there are cycles, that during the recent one instead of dropping back down it kept on rising.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"active and publishing "

that is the end all and be all in the scientific world
that means your mortgage gets paid your kids go to private school. and you gotta play the game to get paid/funded


anyone remember the big "jet contrails are leading to excess cloud formations   "the next ice age cometh bs that was peddled in the late 60's?  too bad they didn't have the internet to fluff that with.

[richyoung]

I think I've said before that I don't intend to get into long drawn out arguments with you rich. I admire the tenacity, but if you want these questions answered properly - don't ask me. My only, limited, expertise lies with an interest in the public perception of the science and attempts to mislead about the science. Also, the easy 'gotchas', which are not easy and not gotchas.

I'll answer what I can.

1. A cite for the claim that there was an unknown warming factor prior to 1955?
2. Misleading. 1998 was an anomalous year due to a strong El Nino. The trend since then is somewhat up, some sources claim 2005 exceeded 1998. A spike 10 years ago does not prove that warming has stopped, only that there was a spike 10 years ago, an anomaly.

4. Quote from a couple of posts up - "it's a fallacy to assume that because general phenomena has happened before because of specific cause X it is absolutely the fact that specific cause X is causing it this time. Especially when the general position of climatologists is that the known specific causes have been investigated and found wanting as the specific cause this time around."

Milankovitch or other factors may start a forcing, which causes a rise in C02 which itself is a forcing factor. Co2 in and of itself has the potential to be a pimary forcing factor, the fact that it may not have necessarily been one does not disprove this.

7. Water vapour is not this 90 something % that is claimed. There is no authoritative source for this claim that I have seen. Wiki uses figures I have seen elsewhere:

The most important greenhouse gases are:
water vapor, which causes about 3670% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)
carbon dioxide, which causes 926%
methane, which causes 49%
ozone, which causes 37% - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#The_greenhouse_effect

Climate models account for water vapour and clouds, I bolded something about that in the Weart quote earlier. I'm in no position to argue specifics, go find those guys and argue with them as I've suggested you should do before. If you have concerns about the validity of the models and the data used and generated highlight those claims, don't moan about it on the internet. Same for the rest of those questions. I'm not claiming to be the expert here, far from it, I'm casting doubt on dubious claims to expertise such as the guy in the article in the OP, or some paragraph written by some random guy on the internet that 'proves' all this is a hoax.

On that subject - your questions are more indepth clearly - but are you confident they have not been addressed? Reading Prothero on evolution highlighted for me the way that creationists quote and selectively use older quotes and ignore certain data and so on. The internet is rife with this, websites are out there making the 1998 claim, continuing to cite a recent error-strewn article about sea ice (the author has admitted total error). I'm obviously just as vulnerable to this, but I'm reading books too and trying to get to the bottom of what I can - are you reading papers that specifically cover the subjects of your questions? Because if you're not, you're wasting time asking me. Like Mann et al's recent return to the hockey stick for instance? Your questions are so specific that you really should be reading primary source material, the research itself, not interpretations of the research.

Anyway - you went quiet for a while there, hope all is well with you.

Sorry for the quiet period - I was diagnosed with pulmunary hypertension and congestive heart failure.  The medicos still don't know whats "causing" it, but it is responding to treatment so far, so I may around yet a while to tilt at windmills, (no pun intended).

I guess the gist of my argument is as follows:

1.  Proxies for temperature in the past,.. actually aren't.  So we have only a very rough approximation of what the "climate" was doing before humans started keeping records, a (very) little better after we started recording thermometer readings.  The "signal to noise" ratio of the proxies is too poor to be useful to see if mankind is altering the climate, based on that data.  This is before the problem of divergence is accounted for.
2.  About the ONLY credible temperature estimates for the earth come from satelite observations - so we've got maybe 20 to 25 years of (almost) good data.  Now, above, you said, "Misleading. 1998 was an anomalous year due to a strong El Nino. The trend since then is somewhat up, some sources claim 2005 exceeded 1998. A spike 10 years ago does not prove that warming has stopped, only that there was a spike 10 years ago, an anomaly."  I submit that 20 years of data is also not enough to plot a climate trend.  If picking an anomolous year (1998) to claim warming has ended is wrong, then it is just as wrong to claim that Earth's Little Ice Age, (well documented, BTW), is the "baseline", and that the warming since then is "Global Warming" - when we have yet to reach temperatures observed in the Midieval Climatet Optimum, and indicated by proxies 4000 years ago, and 6000 years ago. 
3.  Even if true, and even if we are causing it, its not necessarily a BAD thing - crop yields will soar, and desertification may be reversed.

[richyoung]

I think I've said before that I don't intend to get into long drawn out arguments with you rich. I admire the tenacity, but if you want these questions answered properly - don't ask me. My only, limited, expertise lies with an interest in the public perception of the science and attempts to mislead about the science. Also, the easy 'gotchas', which are not easy and not gotchas.

I'll answer what I can.

1. A cite for the claim that there was an unknown warming factor prior to 1955?

from data from the 4th IPCC report, analysed by http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-4-skept.html

"By no means does this variation disprove a causal relation between CO2 concentrations and global temperature.  However, it also can be said that this chart is by no means a slam dunk testament to such a relationship.  Here is how strong AGW supporters explain this data: Strong AGW supporters will assign most, but not all, of the temperature increase before 1950 to natural or non-anthropogenic causes.  The current IPCC report in turn assigns a high probability that much or all of the warming after 1950 is due to anthropogenic sources, i.e. man-made CO2.  Which still leaves the cooling between 1940 and 1979 to explain, which we will cover shortly.

Take this chart from the fourth IPCC report (the blue band is what the IPCC thinks would have happened without anthropogenic effects, the pink band is their models output with mans influence, and the black line is actual temperatures (greatly smoothed).

Scientists know that something caused the pre-1950 warming, and that something probably was natural, but they are not sure exactly what it was, except perhaps a recovery from the little ice age.  This is of course really no answer at all, meaning that this is just something we dont yet know.  Which raises the dilemma: if whatever natural effects were driving temperatures up until 1950 cannot be explained, then how can anyone say with confidence that this mystery effect just stops after 1950, conveniently at the exact same time anthropogenic warming takes over?  As you see here, it is assumed that without anthropogenic effects, the IPCC thinks the world would have cooled after 1950.  Why?  They cant say.  In fact, I will show later that this assumption is really just a necessary plug to prevent their models from overestimating historic warming.  There is good evidence that the sun has been increasing its output and would have warmed the world, man or no man, after 1950.  

But for now, I leave you with the question  If we dont know what natural forcing caused the early century warming, then how can we say with confidence it stopped after 1950?  (By the way, for those of you who already know about global cooling/dimming and aerosols, I will just say for now that these effects cannot be making the blue line go down because the IPCC considers these anthropogenic effects, and therefore in the pink band. For those who have no idea what I am talking about, more in a bit)."

 

(alas, I don;t know how to post the chart...)  Thanks for the directions!

[richyoung]

II'll answer what I can.

4. Quote from a couple of posts up - "it's a fallacy to assume that because general phenomena has happened before because of specific cause X it is absolutely the fact that specific cause X is causing it this time. Especially when the general position of climatologists is that the known specific causes have been investigated and found wanting as the specific cause this time around."

This assumes that ALL natural causes, AND THEIR causes, along with all interations, are known.  If thats not the case, (and submit it clearly is NOT), then you can't claim AGW "..because we've eliminated everythign else".

Milankovitch or other factors may start a forcing, which causes a rise in C02 which itself is a forcing factor. Co2 in and of itself has the potential to be a pimary forcing factor, the fact that it may not have necessarily been one does not disprove this.

Greatly higher CO2 levels existed in the past, and life thrived.  600 million years ago, it was 7000ppm - more than TEN TIMES what it is now.  Yet we didn't turn into Venus...

7. Water vapour is not this 90 something % that is claimed. There is no authoritative source for this claim that I have seen. Wiki uses figures I have seen elsewhere:

The most important greenhouse gases are:
water vapor, which causes about 3670% of the greenhouse effect on Earth. (Note clouds typically affect climate differently from other forms of atmospheric water.)
carbon dioxide, which causes 926%
methane, which causes 49%
ozone, which causes 37% - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#The_greenhouse_effect

36 to 70 percent?  Thats a hell of a spread.  Maybe climate scientists need to be figuring out THAT NUMBER, before trying to predict the climate 100 years from now.  CO2 9 to 26% - Thats even WORSE than the estimates for water, (which do not include clouds).  Are you seriously trying to tell me that with the contributions of greenhouse gases THAT unsettled, we can predict what anthropogenic CO2 is going to do?  Garbage in, garbage out, my friend.

Climate models account for water vapour and clouds, I bolded something about that in the Weart quote earlier. I'm in no position to argue specifics, go find those guys and argue with them as I've suggested you should do before. If you have concerns about the validity of the models and the data used and generated highlight those claims, don't moan about it on the internet. Same for the rest of those questions. I'm not claiming to be the expert here, far from it, I'm casting doubt on dubious claims to expertise such as the guy in the article in the OP, or some paragraph written by some random guy on the internet that 'proves' all this is a hoax.

This is fair enough, and you have a valid point.

On that subject - your questions are more indepth clearly - but are you confident they have not been addressed? Reading Prothero on evolution highlighted for me the way that creationists quote and selectively use older quotes and ignore certain data and so on. The internet is rife with this, websites are out there making the 1998 claim, continuing to cite a recent error-strewn article about sea ice (the author has admitted total error). I'm obviously just as vulnerable to this, but I'm reading books too and trying to get to the bottom of what I can - are you reading papers that specifically cover the subjects of your questions? Because if you're not, you're wasting time asking me. Like Mann et al's recent return to the hockey stick for instance?

In Mann's "return" to the hockey stick, he had over 1000 data sets, and discarded all but 480- or so.  In other words, he cherry-picked his data AGAIN to get his preconcieved results - AGAIN.



[/quote]

[freakazoid]

If picking an anomolous year (1998) to claim warming has ended is wrong, then it is just as wrong to claim that Earth's Little Ice Age,

Isn't that believed to be because a glacier fell into the ocean off of Greenland causing a change in the currents?

(alas, I don;t know how to post the chart...)

Right click on the image and click copy image location. Then in your post type, [img] url link {/img] But put another [ instead of a {

[richyoung]

If picking an anomolous year (1998) to claim warming has ended is wrong, then it is just as wrong to claim that Earth's Little Ice Age,

Isn't that believed to be because a glacier fell into the ocean off of Greenland causing a change in the currents?

From Wiki:

"Scientists have identified two causes of the Little Ice Age from outside the ocean/atmosphere/land systems: decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity. Research is ongoing on more ambiguous influences such as internal variability of the climate system, and anthropogenic influence (Ruddiman). Ruddiman has speculated that depopulation of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during the Black Death, with the resulting decrease in agricultural output and reforestation taking up more carbon from the atmosphere, may have prolonged the Little Ice Age. Ruddiman further speculates that massive depopulation in the Americas after the European contact in the early 1500s had similar effects. [23]

One of the difficulties in identifying the causes of the Little Ice Age is the lack of consensus on what constitutes "normal" climate. While some scholars regard the LIA as an unusual period caused by a combination of global and regional changes, other scientists see glaciation as the norm for Earth and the Medieval Warm Period (as well as the Holocene interglacial period) as the anomalies requiring explanation."

(alas, I don;t know how to post the chart...)

Right click on the image and click copy image location. Then in your post type, [img] url link {/img] But put another [ instead of a {

Thanks!

[richyoung]

Climate models account for water vapour and clouds, I bolded something about that in the Weart quote earlier. I'm in no position to argue specifics, go find those guys and argue with them as I've suggested you should do before. If you have concerns about the validity of the models and the data used and generated highlight those claims, don't moan about it on the internet. Same for the rest of those questions. I'm not claiming to be the expert here, far from it, I'm casting doubt on dubious claims to expertise such as the guy in the article in the OP, or some paragraph written by some random guy on the internet that 'proves' all this is a hoax.

How can they model water vapor when the net feedback effect is not known at this time to be either positive or negative - according to the 4tyh IPCC report itself?  Answer:  they assume large positive feedback, despite no evidence for this.  Again, from Climate Skeptic:

"In global warming models, water vapor plays a key role as both a positive and a negative feedback loop to climate change.  Water vapor is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, so its potential strength as a feedback mechanism is high.  Water comes into play because CO2 driven warming will put more water vapor in the atmosphere, because greater heat will vaporize more water.  If this extra vapor shows up as more humid clear air, then this in turn will cause more warming as the extra water vapor absorbs more energy and accelerates warming.  However, if this extra water vapor shows up as clouds, the cloud cover will tend to reflect energy back into space and retard temperature growth. 

Which will happen?  Well, nobody knows.  The IPCC4 report admits to not even knowing the sign of waters impact (e.g whether water is a net positive or negative feedback) in these processes.  And this is just one example of the many, many feedback loops that scientists are able to posit but not prove. And climate scientists are coming up with numerous other positive feedback loops."

[richyoung]

Now this global warming might be because it is "cyclic" or because of sunspots or something natural, but isn't it true that CO2 does affect how much sunlight is reflected back?

Yes, but its a diminishing effect.  CO2 absorbs only a few select wavelengths, and those over-lap with water and methane's absorption spectra.  So once you are absorbing almost all of those wavelengths, more CO2 doesn't really DO much of anything.  Think of it like this - your ma wants you to paint the fence, using whitewash, a big bucket of Liquid Paper, and white latex paint.  You will put them on in the following way - 3 coats of whitewash, one coat of liquid paper, one coat of paint.  Repeat.

After a certain number of coats, it doesn't matter how many more you put on - the fence doesn;t look much "whiter".

[richyoung]

I'm not curious about the consensus of climatologists because I believe consensus determines the science or what is fact. I'm curious about the consensus (again, of real climatologists) because I don't have the time or resources to study the mountains of evidence for myself. They are the experts on the subject.

I think global warming a basically a hoax with stronger origins in politics than in science, but I haven't seen the actual data myself. If a majority of climate experts believed global climate change to be a reality, I'd be less skeptical, but I haven't seen that actually documented anywhere. All I've seen is a lot of talk of consensus by those with a political agenda.

It pains me t admit this, but the "concensus" is in favor of AGW.

[MechAg94]

That may be true, but every time I have delved into details to see what people said was proof, it was always very doubtful, uncertain, and full of assumptions and guesses.  To me it is the same consensus that yesterday said Ike was definitely heading straight for Houston.  Now the consensus says it is headed for Corpus Christi.  When there are that many unknowns, the "consensus" is pretty worthless. 

[richyoung]

Too right.  AGWPs routinely commit the following three sins -

1.  Assume everything else is accounted for, so by elimination, the warming "has to be" AGW.

2.  "Smooth" and average data, then USE the "smoothed data as input for more calculations.  BIG no-no.  The data is the data.  Put the data into the models, not the smoothed data.  Using massaged data greatly increases the risk of seeing "fingerprints" that aren't there.

3.  Use models as proof.  Models don't prove anything about a complex system, and averaging a bunch of models, (12 in the case of the IPCC) doesn't increase accuracy or precision, it just distributes the errors evenly.  If my simulations at work have AK-47s killing M1 tanks, that's not proof that the M1 is a bad tank, but rather that the assumptions int he simulation - the "model" if you will - is WRONG.

[richyoung]

Find me a scientific journal article from the 1970's actually predicting global cooling. You won't be able to, because nobody has found it yet. There are media articles, but that's a whole different thing.

How about Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.  in 1971 he published a paper that suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Find me a scientific journal article from the 1970's actually predicting global cooling. You won't be able to, because nobody has found it yet. There are media articles, but that's a whole different thing.

How about Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.  in 1971 he published a paper that suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled.

  does "Meteorologist" count as a scientific journal?  there were at least 2 or three articles in there in the early 70's expounding on the imminentthreat from the jet contrails. i was a geeky kid and at our house we discussed that and scientific american  at the dinner table.   no tv

[Racehorse]

I'm not curious about the consensus of climatologists because I believe consensus determines the science or what is fact. I'm curious about the consensus (again, of real climatologists) because I don't have the time or resources to study the mountains of evidence for myself. They are the experts on the subject.

I think global warming a basically a hoax with stronger origins in politics than in science, but I haven't seen the actual data myself. If a majority of climate experts believed global climate change to be a reality, I'd be less skeptical, but I haven't seen that actually documented anywhere. All I've seen is a lot of talk of consensus by those with a political agenda.

It pains me t admit this, but the "concensus" is in favor of AGW.

Yes, it does appear that way. I haven't decided where I stand on this yet, but there are obviously well informed opinions on both sides.

Either way, it doesn't matter much to me. I'm not going to change my behavior regardless of which side is right. I do my best to not pollute/litter, etc. but I'm not going to blow thousands on a hybrid or pay for carbon offsets (total scam) to ease my conscience. Even if man is causing the warming/cooling/climate change, it will only get better if everyone changes their behavior. And that will just never happen. So I'm not going to crap my pants every time it's hot outside.

[Desertdog]

Either way, it doesn't matter much to me. I'm not going to change my behavior regardless of which side is right. I do my best to not pollute/litter, etc. but I'm not going to blow thousands on a hybrid or pay for carbon offsets (total scam) to ease my conscience. Even if man is causing the warming/cooling/climate change, it will only get better if everyone changes their behavior. And that will just never happen. So I'm not going to crap my pants every time it's hot outside.

I fully agree excpt I am trying to reduce my electric, water, natural gas, and gasoline useage, not to save the planet, but to make MY income go further.

[De Selby]

I'm not curious about the consensus of climatologists because I believe consensus determines the science or what is fact. I'm curious about the consensus (again, of real climatologists) because I don't have the time or resources to study the mountains of evidence for myself. They are the experts on the subject.

I think global warming a basically a hoax with stronger origins in politics than in science, but I haven't seen the actual data myself. If a majority of climate experts believed global climate change to be a reality, I'd be less skeptical, but I haven't seen that actually documented anywhere. All I've seen is a lot of talk of consensus by those with a political agenda.

It pains me t admit this, but the "concensus" is in favor of AGW.

Yes, it does appear that way. I haven't decided where I stand on this yet, but there are obviously well informed opinions on both sides.

Either way, it doesn't matter much to me. I'm not going to change my behavior regardless of which side is right. I do my best to not pollute/litter, etc. but I'm not going to blow thousands on a hybrid or pay for carbon offsets (total scam) to ease my conscience. Even if man is causing the warming/cooling/climate change, it will only get better if everyone changes their behavior. And that will just never happen. So I'm not going to crap my pants every time it's hot outside.

Okay, so the earth might be ruined if we all continue on this path, but you shouldn't do your part because you think no one else will?

That is a picture perfect scenario for why a law should be passed.  Seriously.

This is one of those examples that people give in economics to prove that the free market doesn't always work-because competition gives rise to the collective action problem, as outlined in textbook format above.

[richyoung]

Explain to me how we are going to pass a law that affects - CHina.  Or India.  Or even explain to me why we should keep a big hunk of the world in poverty to MAYBE reduce a rise in temperature of 1 - 2 degrees kelvin.  Or even why we should try to prevent it.  Historicly, higher temperatures have been golden times in man's existence.  Higher CO2 SHOULD mean warmer nights, longer growing seasons, increased rain, increased crop yields, and a delay to the start of the next Ice Age, which IS a destructive disaster that, unlike AGW, we KNOW is real, and coming.

[Desertdog]

That is a picture perfect scenario for why a law should be passed.

Please, please, stay the hell out of politics.  We have too many in there now that has the same ideas as you do.  Get a job digging ditches or driving a cab to realize that life is NOT a utopian dream.