Banner
    Why Don't You Believe In Global Warming? Making Greener Minds
    By Hank Campbell | March 24th 2011 12:23 PM | 244 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0®.

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes...

    View Hank's Profile
    The past few years have seen a decline in the percentage of Americans who believe what scientists say about climate science. 

    The science community shares some of the blame, obviously; the IPCC made rookie errors in its recent assessment and even intentionally included non-science results as data, and the so-called "Climategate" emails showed scientists weren't always out to promote science as much as they were out to stick it to opponents, behavior just like every other field where humans work. 

    But human fallibility is what it is and we didn't stop driving cars because executives at car manufacturers once buried knowledge of defects.   The physics truth is that more greenhouse gases means more warming yet still much of the public, both in America and increasingly worldwide, remains unconvinced.

    Writing from the Climate, Mind and Behavior conference at the Garrison Institute in New York, which sounds as goofy as 'a conference for environmentalists, psychologists and sociologists to sell global warming better' but is a lot shorter to write, TIME's Bryan Walsh says it all comes down to making more fun of Republicans and 'framing' the debate - the two things which got environmentalists and climate scientists into credibility trouble.

    Well, there is something to be said for understanding why people are sometimes skeptical (supposedly a positive quality in science unless the public is skeptical about your job) even long after the science is accepted.  I mean, really, more emissions won't cause problems? Seriously???

    But even if people know that on an intellectual level, if they don't trust the motivations of the people saying it, that instills doubt.   Hey, Al Gore and environmentalists loved ethanol until a Republican Congress and a Republican President mandated and subsidized it.  Then they figured out it had to be wrong, which everyone except environmentalists and Al Gore knew all along.

    Cognitive biases throw sound decision-making out the window, as Walsh notes.   But that occurs on both sides.   The Kyoto attempt to blame American cars for global warming and exempt Chinese, Mexican and Indian cars was crazy to anyone without cognitive bias.    Loss aversion is also a concern.   Presenting people with tangible losses in return for intangible gains is always a tough sell.  A recent analysis showed contented citizens vote against change.   Well, why wouldn't they?   In France, Kyoto was readily acceptable because they had switched to more nuclear power after the 1990 target date anyway, making CO2 targets easy to achieve.  But try and privatize the power industry in France to save money and government employees shut off the electricity to the Presidential palace.   That is loss aversion at work.

    So Americans may get promised some wealth of new green jobs but, even in California, which has shown no weakness when it comes to subsidizing green technology even in a disastrous financial situation, the green jobs are few for the money spent.  Americans aren't buying that it will happen if green promises are nationwide and don't want to lose what they have.

    Walsh tries to infer that group identification is another reason for climate skepticism - Republicans who side with other Republicans about other things are going to believe less in global warming if other Republicans do - but it is a silly assertion.   Do all Democrats believe vaccines cause autism just because almost all anti-vaccine people are Democrats?   President Obama and a Democratic bullet-proof majority in Congress gutted NASA's Constellation program, not Republicans.   Do Democratic Senators deny the science benefits of GMO corn because their constituents in the Democratic party do?   

    No, and Republicans don't deny particle physics - but particle physics requires 5 standard deviations to be considered accurate.   Climate science is, by comparison, still in its infancy and less scientifically accurate than a public opinion poll so statements like "the science is settled" make people concerned.   It may be settled but it is unscientific to say so in this instance and when activists in science then have to issue statements like, "Have we learned a great deal since the IPCC 2001 report? I would say yes, we have. Climate science, like any other field, is a constantly evolving field and we are always learning" it looks bad.

    So it isn't that Republicans are anti-science, perhaps they are too scientific?   Republicans overwhelmingly accept climate change yet are skeptical about global warming.   Actually, that turned out to be accurate.  'Global warming' was always a cringe-inducing term but science journalists and climate scientists felt the need to 'frame' the issue for a public audience they seem to think is rather stupid.

    As Walsh rightly notes, people, including Americans, when it came to issues like Iraq and Afghanistan or recently to protesters in Libya, Algeria and Egypt, will act against their own personal best interests if they believe in a higher cause.  But in America, some were skeptical when the debate over Iraq was framed as 'we have to invade or the terrorists win' so it shouldn't be a surprise that similar skepticism is in play when the interests of the few claim to represent the interests of the many, but their actions say otherwise.

    Science journalists, get back to asking the awkward questions about studies and methodology, like you would if Exxon was denying global warming exists at all, and the public will trust you again.    Climate scientists, get back to being trusted guides by not framing the message the way the attendees at that conference suggested you do.    Unless you note that terrorist-supporting dictators control a lot of OPEC oil so alternative energy would stick it to them.  That's pretty smart.

    But the data are there.  The physics answer is there.  Use those, and conferences on convincing an increasingly skeptical public will no longer be needed.

    Comments

    Hank, I hate to shake up the tidy "he said/she said" symmetry of your argument, but you seem to be utterly unaware that it was GOP pollster Frank Luntz who advised Republicans to substitute the phrase "climate change" for the phrase "global warming," purely for reasons of spin and discrediting the science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming

    If you read Luntz's memo, it's clear not only that the GOP adopted Luntz's scheme (they always do -- a couple of weeks ago, that busy bee Luntz was advising Gov. Scott Walker to frame his union-busting law was good for "the middle class"), but that posts like this one fit handily into Luntz's framing strategy. I'm sure that somewhere in Koch Industries today, someone will be chuckling with approval over your apparently earnest notion that Republicans are "too scientific" to accept "global warming."

    Hank
    Hi Steve,

    You saw my point and hopefully they would also.   I hope they do not quote mine me to make it seem like I am actually contending they are more scientifically literate by just denying the whole problem exists.    If Frank Luntz suddenly endorses dark matter, I would not chuck it out the window.   Climate change is a more accurate term precisely because it invokes climate instability rather than a one-directional effect that is easy to be scoffed at.   So the more people that embrace it, the better.   Getting people to use better science language, even if their intent is malevolent, is a good thing in the end.

    Generally, I wish framing would just end but both sides, in both science and politics, seem to feel it is essential.
    I lost all confidence in the global warming scare when I got back from working on dams in Central Asia, and saw Gore's movie shortly thereafter. I knew from the hydrological studies for the dams that the glaciers were not melting. I speak Russian and was familiar with the Vostok ice cores, and the fact that temperature leads CO2 in that climate proxy. I saw Gore's representation of the Aral Sea drying up as being a brazen and willful fraud, since the Aral Sea dried up because of the dams on the Syr Darya, and the diversion of the Amu Darya by the Kara Kum Canal to Ashgabat. This blog is too short to list every fraud in his movie, but those lists are available online.
    Temperature records taken at airports and water plants are not representative of climate. Rural and high altitude weather records have been abandoned because the lack of electricity and internet precludes automatic readings, and this cost-driven decision continues to bias temperature records upwards.
    I recently worked on a major project in the Appalachians, and our test bores struck seven different alternating layers of sandstone, coal and mudstones. Each of those seven sets of layers represented one complete cycle of climate change at that spot. No surprise there; if you look at the Vostok records and numerous other climate proxies you cannot deny the alternating patterns of glaciation and warmer interglacial periods. The recent changes in temperature and CO2 are mere "noise" compared to drastic swings recorded in the geological records.
    Nothing anthropic could have caused the regular patterns of glaciation stretching back millions of years. For the patterns to be regular, something with a fixed period has to be causing it. Almost a hundred years ago a Serbian engineer named Milutin Milankovitch recognized that the pattern matched the eccentricities in orbits and the earth's precession. Modern scientists discern planets around distant stars by observing how planets with large masses jerk the stars around. Our sun also gets jerked around by the gas giants, which influences our planet's orbit. An Italian scientist has recently correlated the jerking by our gas giant planets to the 11 year sunspot cycle.
    If I have a valid and obvious cause and effect which explains the cycles of glaciation before mankind had any kind of influence, and the range of these cycles of temperature and CO2 were so large as to make current changes mere background noise, why would I look for an explanation elsewhere? With the explanation being so in your face obvious, it requires other competing explanations to be posited in clear, unambiguous, well documented formats with true peer review. Instead we have Gore's fantasy movie that anyone with Google and Wikipedia and modest curiosity could refute, we have the climategate E-Mails which proved manipulation of the message, we have "Glacier-gate", which came as no surprise to me because I had been aware of the glacier fraud all along, and most recently the peer review scandal where it was revealed that a major climate journal had a carefully researched paper by a climate sceptic which meticulously pointed out flaws in previous climate research, be peer reviewed by the same climate researcher whose climate research was being critiqued! This has destroyed any remaining sense of accountability and believability for the tiny group of scientists who insist they have a climate model which actually works when it appears to not be any better than tea leaves.

    Anoymous: The author of the article is extremly biased, note the mention of Repups constantly. I totally agree with your assesment on climate change. Climate cooling, warming => Earth 4.5 billions years worth of it. and it isn't stopping. Now pollution is different. It's about monies, grants, taxes, and most of all POWER_CONTROL. Follow the Russian who is doing the longterm studies on Sun Spots and Solar cycles. He has an experiment running on the US Space station his data should be completed by 2014. My monies are on him, he says it's going to get cooler. People don't get it global warming is good, they'll hate cooling when there isn't enough food for those who are least prepared. In addition note through human history when where the most advances, weather and food supply are stable. Massive Earth quakes, Volcanoes and Temp drop always resulted in mass extinctions.
    tsb_AWM

    But the alarmists have models that show the Earth will warm to, well, alarming levels in the coming decades.

    Please ignore the observational data over the past decade that has invalidated those models. They are still correct, and we need more money to do further research. Lots of money. We have a planet to save, after all.

    You, sir, are obviously insane and need to check into the nearest re-education center immediately.

    Anonymous: Thank you, thank you, thank you. There are other proxy's that show the glaciation cycles but the Vostok is the most clear: What is happening now is happening exactly as it has in the past and in exactly the same way. This didn't happen once or twice but 50+ times in the Vostok alone. That's 5 million years of this same cycle repeating over and over.

    I call it the "Church of Global Warming" because it may be a lot of things but science it's not.

    PS: Oh by the way, Peak Oil called...you don't have to worry about carbon emissions from Gasoline BECAUSE WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF IT.

    PS PS Hey come to think of it the title is "Why Don't You Believe..."

    I just wanted to add to my original post from last Thursday; I am disappointed so many people try to debate the temperatures and the CO2 model. The temperature monitoring system is so hopelessly flawed, and the CO2 computer models so confounded by unknowns such as clouds and moisture, and their combined effects so trivial compared to the swings in the geological records, that debating those issues is akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    I believe I have a relatively limited knowledge of the whole climate change debate currently so try not to get aggressive if any of these questions seem ignorant.

    Firstly is when you say " pattern matched the eccentricities in orbits and the earth's precession", I was under the impression that this is more or less not questioned, but that once the earth does start heating the resultant increased emission of green house gases will compound the effects. So logically if we were to put an increased amount of CO2 into the atmosphere we could begin this heating process without the assistance of a fluctuation due to orbit?

    Secondly do you mind explaining why "Temperature records taken at airports and water plants are not representative of climate" and also giving some examples of "Rural and high altitude weather records [that] have been abandoned because the lack of electricity and internet precludes automatic readings"?

    Thanks in advance.

    Framing is not going to end because the way that most lay people come to understand situations is through narratives. "Framing" is just a fancy word for storytelling, and storytelling is at the root of human psychology (you don't read algorithms to your kid at bedtime). Some stories are true, others are false, and much damage is done in the world by false narratives -- such as the notion that gay couples who are fighting desperately for the right to get married are somehow "attacking" marriage (likely another Luntz frame), as the GOP's John Boehner would have us believe with his defense of DOMA. I'm in favor of embracing frames that encourage a clear and sober understanding of reality. People like Luntz, and Senator James Inhofe, clearly don't care if the stories they tell are true or false, as long as they prevail.

    Hank
    It's a good point when it comes to kids at bedtime but I think the public is smarter than they are given credit for; there are some on the right who are going to believe whatever they are told by spin doctors and that goes for some on the left also.   Real policy changes occur when the intellectually curious in the sweet spot of the culture agree.    If you've been in business you know it takes 5X as much time to get someone back on your side who doesn't trust you as it did to get them in the first place.   That may be less in science because people know science converges on the best answers and that can change over time.

    I was at the Vatican a few years back looking at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and a woman (American) nearby said (paraphrasing), 'I expected something different.  It's just so...busy'.   Clearly that woman needed to have things framed for her while you and I do not but adult science literacy has tripled since I graduated college and we get a million readers a month here and they don't all have PhDs - but they ask smart questions of the people who do have PhDs and they get straight answers, even if sometimes they are conceptual.   

    Maybe we could change our tagline to "Join The Science Narrative" but I am sure "We Frame The Science Debate For You" would be received negatively because framing is a negative term due to the reasons you cite.  I just note there are plenty of examples of non-Republicans doing it also.
    ...Hank, you're a hack. That Russian dude owned you with his knowledge! Why can't you make sense like that? Show us some evidence you know what you're talking about. You need to justify for job goon!

    Why don't I believe? Because I understand statistics and the fraud of hiding the decline in tree ring density to justify the lie that humans have cause unprecedented warming due to CO concentration. If they had to replace proxy derived temps with real temp data, it's a fraud. You warmers are highly uncritical thinkers

    MikeCrow
    I've spent nearly 15 years professionally running, writing models for, and explaining the results of some dozen different simulators to 100's of engineers. I think I have a pretty good grasp on the questions you can ask them.

    I've read a number of papers on the GCM's used for climate simulations, including ones written by James Hansen.

    As you abstract the behavior of a system for simulation purposes there's the issue of fidelity of the models. A behavioral model can represent the actual mechanisms they're modeling or some level of abstraction of that behavior. For instance analog simulators (non-linear equation solvers) can model op-amps at the discrete component level, but the run times are much longer than if you use the op-amp model available in them. Same inputs, nearly the same outputs, drastically different methods for computing the output. This is a lot like listening to music live, vs analog recordings, vs digital recordings vs compressed digital. Most people don't much notices the loss of fidelity in compressed digital music until it's really compressed, others do. But they are drastically different representation of the original music.

    Fortunately for electronics, we could (usually) drag it into a lab and actually test it. One of the things I saw, more than once, was when writing behavioral models for complicated things like micro processors, it was easy to write a model on how you thought something was suppose to work, not how it actually worked. In some cases the actual chip was the source of the problem, other times it's the model itself.

    This was the roots of my skepticism. And the more I studied AGW the more skeptical I've become.

    First the climate sensitivity value for CO2 is made up to make the simulators temperature output rise with CO2. This in itself doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't mean it's right either. And there's no lab to drag it into to get some real measurements. This is much like dark matter, where they had to multiply know mass by 5x to make galaxy simulations work. I happen to think there is dark matter, however I'm not willing to bet 10-100's of trillion dollars and possibly modern civilization on it.

    I've also looked at the absorption spectrum for our atmosphere, and while I do agree CO2 will reflect additional Infrared, I'm not convinced that there's a lot of ir at 4u(~600F black body temp), nor at 10u (61F BB) through 16u (-133F) to cause AGW.

    I also do astrophotography. Because I don't have a cooled camera, I log the temps when I start a run, and usually will run my scope until the middle of the night. At some point due to topics such as this, I logged the temps over a couple of clear days with fairly uniform weather. I live in NE Ohio, and while it's not Texas, it does tend to stay humid, which was one of Hansen's 'tricks' to make temperatures rise in the CGM's. I have measured 50-55F air temps drop to near freezing by midnight, and into the upper 20's by early morning. The night I did this, we also had a lot of dew, that turned to frost. That's 2 phase transitions to water vapor, that seems to me to contain a lot of heat, and we still radiated over 30F I have to presume into space. Through the water vapor (a much stronger GHG) and all of that CO2. Something else I noticed was that the patio brick I had stuck a thermometer into didn't drop below freezing, at the same time there was a yard full of frost inches away.

    Even NASA has alternates for a portion of the warming http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2004/04-140.html .

    IMO there still room for skepticism.
    Never is a long time.
    Beautifully executed....its amazing how 'real' data tends to abolish rubbish, yet the same old tired arguments get slapped on the table. Once the 'real' data is analyzed and proper lab tests are ratified, it becomes very obvious that 'we' as humans are not changing the climate of the planet. Liberals and progressives tend to make this a political fight rather than a discussion based on rational data analysis. I am an electrical engineer and tend to work on the premise of design, planning, data and verify. All those elements combined tends to yield the truth....although, it may not be the truth you like and there in lies the rub.

    Gerhard Adam
    ...it becomes very obvious that 'we' as humans are not changing the climate of the planet.
    Then it should be equally obvious that such a conclusion must, by definition, be wrong.  In the same way that microorganisms changed the atmospheric content in the early Earth, it should be apparent that ANY organism, by its mere existence, will affect its environment.

    Therefore we will affect the environment, as will cows, insects, or microbes.  In addition, humans have an additional unique contribution through their technology.  As I've stated elsewhere, it doesn't matter if human contributions are 100%, 50%, 1%, or .00000001%.  ANY positive change in a particular component of the atmosphere, will allow for that component to grow over time. 

    Therefore to argue that humans can't possibly be contributing to climate change is obviously false.  Everything contributes to climate change.

    It is certainly reasonable to argue that we don't know what, if anything, should be done about it.  It is certainly reasonable to question proposed solutions.  It is equally reasonable to argue that this is simply a natural consequence (or cycles) of being on the planet and we'll simply have to adapt to accommodate whatever happens.  What is NOT reasonable is to argue that we can't possibly have an effect.

    People like to argue that this is a "natural cycle" of the Earth.  What does that mean?  It means that the Earth has been affected by a wide range of influences whether it be due to the physical interactions with the Sun or the influences of living organisms on the planet's surface.  Something will trigger a shift in a particular direction whether it be towards cold or toward heat.  It is the ability to oscillate that prevents a shift in one direction only which would deny any opportunity to recover to an "equilibrium" point. 

    So, once again, everything contributes and it is complete foolishness to focus our questioning on whether humans are to blame or not.  The only relevant questions are on whether anything can or should be done about it, and for that we have no good answers.
    Mundus vult decipi
    MikeCrow
    And we won't have any good answers until we can quantify the various influences.

    I think it's foolhardy to try and change behavior at the risk of modern society until we have quantified those influences. I don't have a problem addressing the 'low hanging fruit' before that time, but the proposals that have been made are more draconian than that.
    Never is a long time.
    Gerhard Adam
    ...but the proposals that have been made are more draconian than that.
    I certainly agree, and it is far from clear what is expected to be accomplished even if they were implemented. 

    This is what I find so irritating about the entire debate, is the focus on whether climate change is occurring and challenging the data, etc. when it should be obvious that it would be more surprising if it weren't changing.  However, by engaging in these kinds of discussions it tends to polarize people into making decisions or proposing solutions based on their "belief" in human blame.

    The relevant questions involve what actions, if any, can or should be taken and we aren't prepared to have that discussion because we're still squabbling over irrelevancies. 

    We already know that no actions are going to occur immediately and that not will have an immediate effect even if they were implemented.  So does anyone really believe that it will matter if in 10 or 20 years we say .... "Ooops ... I guess it was us all along." 

    I do understand that people want to use this discussion to advance their own political ideas about the environment and society, but in the end, we should be having those discussions anyway.  We aren't so naive as to fail recognizing the level of pollution we've created, and we've also recognized our ability to reverse some of those trends.  This is a long-term effort that every society needs to engage in, but it can't occur if we allow ourselves to become polarized around irrelevant issues.

    No one would accept that argument that human sewage pumped into rivers is just as natural as that occurring from fish.  So let's focus on addressing the problems so that we don't have to commit economic suicide to improve our societies.
    Mundus vult decipi
    This is a long-term effort that every society needs to engage in, but it can't occur if we allow ourselves to become polarized around irrelevant issues.

    Certainly. As one of the laypeople, or "average Americans", it also seems defeatist for a few countries to make all the efforts while China and India (and any others) are left to pummel any progress we were making. No?

    Darn. The first paragraph is Gerhards and should've been italicized.

    logicman
    Globally averaged warming is real and is the major driver of climate change.  If the snow which should be falling in the Arctic is falling where a lot of people live, it is natural that they should think the planet is cooling.  If you compare how many people are seeing more snow with how many are seeing less snow you get an appearance of global cooling.  But most of the warming is happening at the polar regions - as long predicted.

    A majority of the people reporting polar warming are scientists.  A majority of people reporting that the ice isn't melting live in democracies.  Guess who the politicians on both sides listen to most?  Yep - constituents!
    MikeCrow
    Patrick, just the act of measuring a 'global' temperature is mind boggling difficult, let alone measuring any trends over the very short period of geological time we might have even have some data to try and do such a thing.

    Apparently the planet was pretty warm in the 30's and 40's, and there was also a lot of ice melt, or so I've read. But whether there was or not, our ability to measure that was even more limited than the temps.

    But, that said, I'm not going to try and argue that we're not warming.

    What I will argue is the premise that it could only be from our CO2. We just don't have the evidence to say it's fact.
    Never is a long time.
    logicman
    I'm not going to try and argue that we're not warming.

    What I will argue is the premise that it could only be from our CO2. We just don't have the evidence to say it's fact.

    Mi Cro: with respect, I strongly disagree.

    Confirmation that rising carbon dioxide levels are due to human activity comes from analysing the types of carbon found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.

    ...

    Further confirmation comes by measuring oxygen levels in the atmosphere. When fossil fuels are burned, the carbon in the fossil fuels are joined to oxygen, creating carbon dioxide. As CO2 increases in the atmosphere, oxygen decreases. Observations show oxygen levels are falling at a rate consistent with the burning of fossil fuels.

    ...

    Satellites measure infrared radiation as it escapes out to space. A comparison between satellite data from 1970 to 1996 found that less energy is escaping to space at the wavelengths that greenhouse gases absorb energy (Harries 2001). Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by more recent data from several different satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

    May I direct you to http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-intermediate.htm for more information.
    MikeCrow
    Patrick, I have read many such links, and their arguments at times seem sound, but there's also others, who know more than I do, who also make a compelling argument
    http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
    this is the first of 3 articles written by Dr Glassman.

    CGM's were specifically designed to show CO2 is the source of the measured temperate increases. They alone can't be the sole proof of AGW, and IMO everything else is circumstantial at best.

    But let me say we probably already have the data to prove AGW one way or another, and I'm really surprised no one has analyzed the data yet, let me explain.

    What CO2 does, is act as a thermal insulator. As I've measured in my own yard, when the sun goes down, temperatures drop like a rock. But I freely admit, maybe it really should drop faster. But we can search weather data and mine rate of change data. And if CO2 is causing (the majority of) warming, the rate of change has to be dropping.

    But as I also measured, we have to exclude many measurement locations because almost all of them are in urban areas, and stored heat is a real measurement problem.

    After finding usable locations, you'd have to select on cloudless days, fairly staple air pressures, low wind speeds, and bin by RH and day time temp. From this set of data we should be able to see rate change or not.

    I also find it curious that while climatologists loudly claim changes in solar radiation couldn't be the source of modern increases, when it's pointed out that temps have leveled off (or so it seems), they point out how strong the recent solar minimum has been.
    Never is a long time.
    logicman
    Mi Cro:  the article you cite is riddled with emotive terms such as are used by agendists and it contains many errors.

    In brief:

    The idea that our current rises in atmospheric CO2 come from ocean warming is wrong.  Isotopic distributions show it is wrong - quite apart from other errors of logic.

    If we suppose that the article is accurate and hence a majority of climate scientists are wrong, then it follows inexorably that we should not be adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a time when nature is increasing atmospheric CO2 - because we know that CO2 in all of its isotopic forms is a greenhouse gas.
    MikeCrow
    Patrick, yeah, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. And I trust his signal analysis more than what I've seen of the climatologist.

    Supposing he is right, CO2 is following temps, not the other way around. I'd love to stop burning fuel, just as soon as we can find something at least close to it's transportable energy capacity.

    As a side note, I found out about science2.0 from people referencing your blogs, and I'm glad we got to exchange posts on more agreeable topics before now, and hope even if you think I'm batshit crazy, we can still do that.
    Never is a long time.
    logicman
    Mi Cro:  I respect your informed opinions and enjoy the exchange of ideas.  I most definitely do not count you amongst the ranks of the trolls.

    As for batshit crazy - I can do that - have you not seen some of my more whimsical blogs ? 

    Try An Essay Concerning Wings for an example.   :-)
    Hi Patrick,

    actually the two facts you presented
    - shift in the C-isotope ratio
    - decreasing oxygen in the atmosphere
    only indicate that we are indeed burning fossil fuel.
    That does not prove anything as regarding of what actually is the reason of the increase,
    but the amounts and level and everything are plausible - just not *proven* in a scientific way.

    The changing ration of carbon isotopes would seem to indicate that the CO2 in the atmosphere does, in fact, come from burning fossil fuels. But that is kind of irrelevant. There is far more CO2 in the oceans than in the atmosphere, so the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is set by the equilibrium exchange rate. Put it this way - if your house is full of smoke, you may well find that the smoke came from your fireplace. But that does not mean that having a fireplace causes a smoke-filled house. It's having a chimney that doesn't work that causes the smoke-filled house. The question is not, "Where does the smoke come from?", but "Why does it hang around?".

    As a previous poster noted, in the past, increased CO2 has always occurred AFTER a temperature increase, presumably because higher temperatures shift the equilibrium, causing CO2 to come out of the water, into the air. Therefore, it is likely that CO2 is an effect of increasing temperature, not a cause.

    Even if there were good evidence that our CO2 emissions were causing GW (which there is not), the proposed remedies are laughable. Does anyone actually think that if I stop driving my car, the oil will miraculously just "stay in the ground"? The people who own that oil want to sell it, and there are other people who want to buy it. It is going to get pumped out and burned, and anyone claiming to think different has no business doubting anyone else's rationality. Same with the coal, of which there is a HELL of a lot more. If you are really concerned that burning all that fossil fuel is going to cause global warming (I think another Ice Age is more likely), you need to look to ameliorative approaches. Synthetic volcanoes, or something. I actually think that the worldwide nuclear exchanges which will result from our current foreign policies should be more than sufficient to reverse any warming trend. Really, expect cold weather.

    JBB

    What a weird coincidence. Today your subject is why skeptics don't believe in global warming, and over at
    wattsupwiththat.com
    they have just posted more evidence of brazen manipulation of climate data!

    I started with acceptance of CO2 based CAGW until I was able to sit down with my cousin who writes code for climate models. That sparked my interest in studying more deeply the GCMs. The models backcast/project .2C to .3C of decadal temperature rise based on CO2 trend. Both HadCRUT and UAH are showing .14C/decade warming for the last 30 years with only a .02C rise in the most recent decade. Did models project this last decade of .02C temperature rise? No but according to a 2010 PNAS summary the models are still within their internal variability and still valid. However PNAS points out that a 15 year period of little to no global temperature increase would be outside the internal variablity design of IPCC models at the 95% level and this would falsify the models. As there has been no change in temperature anomaly between the El Nino year of 1998 and the El Nino year of 2010, it will be interesting as to what happens through 2013. If there is no warming increase by 2013 AGW would not be falsified but rather the model assumptions on CO2 feedbacks would be too high or there are other feedbacks missing in the models. If the models are falsified my views on CAGW would definitely change.

    Many AGWs tie themselves in knots wondering why the average person doesn't buy the IPCC dangerous AGW paradigm and conclude that it is somehow a communication problem and that the discussion hasn't been framed correctly. They are unable to accept the fact that the real reason is that the real earth is now in a cooling trend and that most people, very reasonably, don't believe ,that extreme cold and snow is evidence of global warming.
    Be­cause of the thermal inertia of the oceans and the lack of any Urban Heat Island effect the best indicator of recent trends is the Hadley – CRU Sea Surface Temperatur­e data. The 5 year moving average shows the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows a global cooling trend since then . The data shows warming from 1900- 1940 ,cooling from 1940 – about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose steadily during this entire period. There has been no net warming since 1998 – 12 years with CO2 up 6% and no net warming. ( Check the actual data at the Hadley center) Anthropoge­nic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot accurately estimate what the anthropoge­nic CO2 contributi­on is. Since 2003 CO2 has risen and yet the global temperatur­e trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base prediction­s but in the context of declining solar activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal and Arctic Osciallati­ons a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.
    The entire IPCC -Al Gore AGW paradigm is about to collapse in the face of the real world temperatur­e data.

    The Stand-Up Physicist
    I am having trouble with the term "believe" in the context of a scientific theory. By scientific theory, I mean a collection of ideas - and their corresponding mathematics - that allows for hypotheses to be made and tested. I am also reserving the phrase scientific theory for such a collection that has past more than two dozen experimental tests, and drives further tests even today. 
    Of course we forgive Hank for using "believe" in this context since such words are in common use. Science is not like a democracy were the most popular idea wins. Scientific theories are hard to understand, they are hard to accept all their consequences.

    I feel like giving people an F if they do not believe a scientific theory. A hundred years from now, there will be old engineers going to APS meetings at 8 am with their proof that special relativity is wrong. I want to give them an F in scientific theory of special relativity. Given enough time, I can often pick out the algebra mistake, but there is never enough time to convince such people they are wrong, too much energy and investment on their part to change their mind.

    If you choose not to believe in evolution, fine, but I will grant you an F in biology. There are many people who are successful in other activities, say business or politics, who would get such a failing grade. This is a targeted failure. There are many subjects where I too would get an F, like how to do a kidney transplant. Our 1.6 liter brain cannot hold all knowledge on all subjects.

    Be humble before the mountain of scientific theory. Instead, we encourage people just say what they feel, to share what they believe. That should not be done. Scientific theories routinely crush reasonable beliefs. The sincerity of beliefs is irrelevant.

    Would I be willing to give F's to those that doubt climate change? I think I would because they have not done real rigorous - ie grad school in planetary science, not college level meteorology - study. Given them an exam they do for those subjects, nearly all would fail. I am quite confident I would fail too. My believe either for or against climate change is not relevant to the scientific theory of climate change. I accept the consensus of scientists working on the scientific theory of planetary climate. I am a climate change parrot. Like the "I can go faster than the speed of light" crowd, not amount of data will alter the opinions of folks quick to jump on this article. It is easy to pour gasoline on their fire, just mumble something about Al Gore...

    If someone has data to show that adding more greenhouse gases is not happening, we have a way to deal with that: publish. One could complain that goal is difficult. Good, great, science is a tough business. I got a unified standard model I am trying to give away. No one in buying except for that physics grad student getting the tattoo. Would not want it any other way.
    Hank
    Of course we forgive Hank for using "believe" in this context since such words are in common use. Science is not like a democracy were the most popular idea wins. Scientific theories are hard to understand, they are hard to accept all their consequences.
    I chose 'believe' rather than 'accept' quite intentionally.   If someone tells me they don't believe in natural selection, they are just being silly but as long as they accept the science that is fine.   The framing and spin doctoring points made at the conference had nothing at all to do with getting people to accept science, it was instead the science equivalent of getting people to buy soap. 
    The Stand-Up Physicist
    Folks who don't accept natural selection do not accept the science. Instead they will claim a fact disproves what is only a theory, showing a misunderstanding of how scientific theories are constructed and not wild-ass guesses. They really don't like being called silly, that much is certain :-)

    Scientific theories are hard to understand. All the implications can be bewildering (or just plain old fun to explore). It requires real brain work to wrap ones head around these bodies of work. Should an idea be misunderstood, then you are free to go anywhere with it.

    Scientific theories evolve. While I embrace natural selection, I am betting that sexual selection may end up getting more credit as an engine for creative biochemistry and development. There was recent work on the consistency of the genetic code among really old organisms that suggests combining of those that are sucessful (a G rated label for s..).

    It appears like I wos thinking about believe in terms of science the practice of knowing the Universe, versus the article, which is science policy, putting that knowledge to use in the democratic process. To me, politics is all about money, which is why so many politicians are lawyers (this is not a bad thing, just an observation). If politics is a fight over money, then it makes sense for a group with money to want to keep on making money as they do at this moment. Such a group would attack any other group that was a threat.

    In this model of politics, Republicans in the US want to keep making money as they do today. Things are great at the moment, keep things as they are. They are not interested in hearing that biosphere sits at the bottom of a frail ocean of gas we continually fart into with the factories of industry, that those farts tend to collect at the bottom where we live, and if you fart that often for that long, unpleasant changes will happen. There was serious resistance to the Clean Air Act and the CFCs that ate away at the ozone layer. At the moment, it is climate scientists that challenge the way things are going, so might as well cut off their funding. Take away science momey, and they will die. Political evolution practiced by many would don't believe in evilotion, ironic. 











    "In this model of politics, Republicans in the US want to keep making money as they do today. Things are great at the moment, keep things as they are. They are not interested in hearing that biosphere sits at the bottom of a frail ocean of gas..."

    You had me interested...sigh,,,then you bored me with your agenda...quite scientific...not...

    Doug says "If you choose not to believe in evolution, fine, but I will grant you an F in biology."

    The theory of Natural Evolution is used by many AGW proponents as an example of another theory that was also met with a lot of resistance by sceptics. AGW theory is like the theory of evolution. The sceptics opposes it but the theory is true.

    The theory of evolution is true*, but not as it was enounced by Darwin and how it was understood at the beginning of the last century. Yes, it had some truth in it (evolution of man without the need of a direct intervention of a spiritual creator) but it had a lot of falsities in it too. One of the falsities was the social Darwinism that formed the base of Nazism and of the racial theories of that time. This social Darwinism together with the Marxist historicism formed also the base of communism.
    The two most deadly events in the history of humanity had at their base the wrongly understood theory of natural evolution of species and the human hubris that they can social-engineer the human society. Popper’s piecemeal social engineering was too small for them as it is now for a part of CAGW proponents.

    PS
    Natural evolution is a fundamental law of the Universe while social Darwinism is pseudo-science.

    "Well, there is something to be said for understanding why people are sometimes skeptical (supposedly a positive quality in science unless the public is skeptical about your job) even long after the science is accepted. I mean, really, more emissions won't cause problems? Seriously???"
    -
    When there's absolute proof that human CO2 emissions do cause warming, the public would heed the warning, but until then, there's room for doubt in a science that has yet to take its first baby steps.

    Hank
    When there's absolute proof that human CO2 emissions do cause warming, the public would heed the warning
    This is kind of a strawman.   I said emissions and you narrowed it to down to human CO2 causing 'warming', whatever that means.   You seem to be contending pollution is not bad for the environment but don't want to look silly so you are picking something so narrow and demanding 'proof' which you haven't even done in your own house, but could.

    Have a party in your house and put 15 people in a room and tell me how long it takes for warming to occur.   You will need to open a door or window fast.  There are twice as many people on the planet since I was born and they need to be fed and have good stuff to buy and that all takes industry and that is emissions.  Asserting that it doesn't exist unless someone can point to your emissions and a localized warming effect is ridiculous.  If you're instead contending Gaia is this giant, magnificent organism and puny humans cannot possible impact her with our presence, how wonderfully 1960s hipster liberal of you.
    MikeCrow
    While I think cars are much much cleaner than when I first started to drive, and don't think CO2 is a pollutant, we do burn a lot of fuel no doubt.

    If pollution is the complain, make it the complaint. Stop trying to disguise it under the guise of AGW.

    If population is the complain, well then make that the complain. The problem with this is, no one who needs to hear that message is going to be willing to hear it from 'us'.
    Never is a long time.
    Hank
    If pollution is the complain, make it the complaint. Stop trying to disguise it under the guise of AGW.
    My complaint was people desiring to use more framing to convince the public.   I forgive you if you didn't actually read the article.  It seems none of the other commenters did either.   If you don't understand that more gases in the air have a profound impact, you should stick to amateur astrophotography and avoid physics.
    MikeCrow
    Hank, while your complain might be about framing (which I have no issue with your pov), your title starts with what might be a question for someone like myself.

    Why Don't You Believe In Global Warming?

    I did read your article, but thought you might actually want to know why someone with a reason amount of basic science might not 'believe'.

    I agree that more gases will have an impact, it's the 'profound' I question. As I mention in Patrick's bean blog (say that 5 times real fast) here
    http://www.science20.com/comments/64109/Re_idunno_are_you_mind
    I want to see humans become a spacefaring race. We don't currently have the technology to replace fossil fuels, and after Japan, we may lack the will, but we only have a handful of decades to pick our path, and if we force fuel prices through the roof over a defective model, well that'll be a shame.

    There's also a reason I put my thoughts in front of the collection of real scientist you have here, because I would like to know if there's some fundamental flaw in them.

    Oh, the complain of mine you quoted wasn't directed at you.
    Never is a long time.
    Gerhard Adam
    I want to see humans become a spacefaring race.
    While I can appreciate the sentiment, I don't think you can hurry along human social evolution any more than any other species can "decide" to evolve.  Despite the illusion that humans are directing their own fate, nothing could be further from the truth.

    Science and technology aren't the problem, but unless we get our political and economic house in order, all other ambitions are simply a fantasy.  I'm not particularly optimistic that this will occur, so in my view, there isn't going to be some "Star Trek" era of humanity.  At best, we'll be lucky if we aren't forced back into the stone-age by our own dumb decisions.
    Mundus vult decipi
    MikeCrow
    Having read a number of your posts, I already know we disagree a lot on the economies of business(and no I'm not a big fan of the banking system), but much like my comment to Patrick, I hope that won't prevent many other interesting conversations.

    I'm more optimistic, we'll have the technology to expand into the Solar System in this century, if we don't crash our society in the mean while, and unfortunately I think draconian taxes on on our main source of energy will do that. I also think the technology to do something about a replacement for fossil fuel energy will be created this century as well, again if there isn't a crash.
    Never is a long time.
    Gerhard Adam
    I hope that won't prevent many other interesting conversations.
    Certainly not!  In case that's too ambiguous ... it certainly won't prevent other conversations. :)
    Mundus vult decipi
    Have a party in your house and put 15 people in a room and tell me how long it takes for warming to occur. You will need to open a door or window fast. There are twice as many people on the planet since I was born and they need to be fed and have good stuff to buy and that all takes industry and that is emissions.

    You have got to be kidding. Are you suggesting that there are enough people on the planet to warm it by radiant heat and expiration of heated breath?

    Science is about numbers, not about wild generalizations. As the discussion above makes clear, lots of very bright people understand that the assumptions in the GCM models are just that -- assumptions. If the models have no predictive validity (clear already), we are wise to be skeptical.

    As Karl Popper pointed out, to be science it must be falsifiable. If no set of facts can ever disprove the AGW hypothesis, it ain't science. Call it religion, call it politics, call it moral philosophy, but stop calling it science.

    I notice you do not post in reply to any of the highly-detailed criticisms of AGW from folks who are obviously scientists themselves. Any reason for that?

    Overall, though, a much more valuable article than most from the warmist camp.

    JoeJoe

    Gerhard Adam
    How about you stop quoting Popper as if he were a deity?  All of science is NOT falsifiable and that's not an accurate assessment of how science works.

    If you don't believe me, just consider that any result that depends on probability cannot be falsified.  Therefore, would you argue that probability can never be used in a scientific theory or context?
    Mundus vult decipi
    If a hypothesis cannot be falsified then it's prediction value is zero. A non-falsifiable theory is equivalent with "If A then anything". It's obvious that the predictive value of "if A" is zero.

    Theories using probabilities (is there any that doesn't use them?) can be falsified very easy. If you predict a certain probability distribution and that probability distribution doesn't happen than it is falsified.
    Actually the bulk of the work of the scientist is toward finding falsifiable criteria. This is the only way he can say something meaningful. The easier to falsify an assertion the more value it has.

    Hank
    If a hypothesis cannot be falsified then it's prediction value is zero
    I would discourage you from jumping off a building because what you believe about gravity flies in the face of what science does.    Like mathematicians and time travel, you think putting together mumbo-jumbo sophistry means you know science.
    Mathematics and relativity (space travel) sophistry ????? This is first time I hear this :-)

    If you jump of a building you fall toward ground - this is a falsifiable assertion. The criteria is very stringent (everything will fall) and this gives high value to the assertion. If one would have said "If you jump from a building then anything can happen" he would have said nothing of value.

    I think you confuse the "falsifiable" with "being false", Falsifiable means that one can find experiments to verify the theory. "Everything will fall to the ground" is a falsifiable assertion. One can do the experiment and show that everything indeed falls to the ground, it doesn't fly up, it doesn't fly straight,

    If AGW theory is to have value there must be falsifiable assertions. The more specific the assertions the more the value.

    Gerhard Adam
    If you predict a certain probability distribution and that probability distribution doesn't happen than it is falsified.
    Well, it's clear that you understand neither what "falsifiable" means nor probability.

    A probability distribution is NOT assured, no matter how many iterations of an experiment you're willing to undertake.  If I toss 1000 heads in a row, that doesn't negate the probability, although it would make me suspect that the coin isn't fair.  Your concept of what it means to falsify a theory is nonsensical.
    Mundus vult decipi
    mircea
    If a theory predicts a probability distribution and that distribution doesn't happen then that theory is false. You'll have to refine it because you reached the limit of applicability of the respective theory (supposing that it survived previous other tests). In the above example the experiment might demonstrate that the 50% distribution applies only to balanced coins.

    I think the word "falsifiable" is what creates problems. Instead of "falsifiable" one can use "verifiable". A theory in order to have value must be verifiable. Do you agree now?
    Gerhard Adam
    If a theory predicts a probability distribution and that distribution doesn't happen then that theory is false.
    That's not true at all.  There is nothing that suggests that experiment will ever conform to what probability theory predicts.  It would be nice with a sufficiently large sample set and an infinite amount of time, but even the coin toss won't necessarily result in the desired distribution.

    The point being, that there is never an instance of where you can predict the probability of the event from the perspective of being "falsified" where the counter argument can't be made that you need to run more samples.  (BTW, Popper recognized this problem and tried to address it with "Propensity" theory, which didn't work any better).
    A theory in order to have value must be verifiable.
    That doesn't explain anything and the "falsifiable" part doesn't necessarily present a problem if its present properly.  The point of this is that most theories are not and don't have to be directly "falsifiable".  Instead there are adjunct portions that are used in conjunction with such a theory which can be used to verify the original theory.

    Basically a theory must be coupled with an auxiliary assumption which can then be tested or verified as evidence that the base theory is correct.  As an example from Sober (Philosophy of Biology) regarding the point that the Cretaceous extinctions were caused by a meteor colliding with the earth.  The argument was that the present of iridium in geological strata was evidence for this hypothesis.  Note that the hypothesis, itself, says nothing about iridium, but instead we have a theory (meteor responsible for extinction) and an auxiliary assumption (iridium from meteor should exist in greater concentrations that normal on earth).  So, by putting these two together, we have a testable situation without actually requiring that the original theory be "falsifiable".

    In other words, there are a great many theories that are not "falsifiable", when they can be validated when they are joined with auxiliary assumptions that make predictions, from which we can infer that the original theory holds.

    This is precisely the process used for cosmological origins and biological evolution.  Since none of these ideas can be directly falsified, they must be connected to auxiliary assumptions to quantify their predictions and validate the original theory.
    Mundus vult decipi
    mircea
    "In other words, there are a great many theories that are not "falsifiable", when they can be validated when they are joined with auxiliary assumptions that make predictions, from which we can infer that the original theory holds."

    What you mentioned is the case for most scientific theories. The basics are formulated at an abstract general level and one tests the conclusions (joined sometimes with auxiliary assumtions). If a theory has conclusions that can be falsified then that theory is scientific as long as the testable conclusions become part of that theory. For example the "meteor impact" theory will become the "iridium meteor impact".

    Any scientific theory must be verifiable somehow in reality, i.e. it must be falsifiable. Theories non-falsifiable (i.e do not have testable conclusions or that cannot be verified) are anything else but scientific. I call them hypotheses or assumtions.
     
                                                                      -//-

    "Popper recognized this problem and tried to address it with "Propensity" theory, which didn't work any better"
    - Propensity has nothing to do with falifiability. Propensity was introduced as a tentative to get rid of the observer's role in the the collapse of the probability wave (see "Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics").

    "
    There is nothing that suggests that experiment will ever conform to what probability theory predicts" - I do not understand this one. Probability is usefull on its domain of applicability. It's useful for 100 coin flips and is useless to predict the next coin flip. If one knows apriori that the experiment will not conform to the prediction why do the prediction?
    Gerhard Adam
    Propensity theory was Popper's attempt to try and avoid the problem that probabilities could not be falsified.

    However, even Popper's basic premise of theories being "falsifiable" is subject to question and isn't actually of much use.
    David Hume's famous question was "How can induction be justified?" It can't be, said Popper, because there is no such thing as induction!

    There are many objections to this startling claim. One is that falsifications are much rarer in science than searches for confirming instances. Astronomers look for signs of water on Mars. They do not think they are making efforts to falsify the conjecture that Mars never had water.


    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gardner_popper.html

    The point regarding probability theory is that it cannot be falsified, since any number of events can always be explained as being insufficient for failing to produce the desired result.  The larger the number of events needs to be, the less likely that any probability distribution will materialize, so it is impossible to falsify, since more events may always serve as an excuse for why it failed to occur.

    In addition, probabilities can only work when all of the possible outcomes are actually known in advance, as well as what the individual probabilities are for the event's occurrence.  This is a common problem with hypothesis like the Drake equation which suggest a probability for life in the universe, without actually knowing what any of the individual probabilities are.  At this point a guess is still simply a guess and calling it a probability doesn't make it any different.

    Mundus vult decipi
    The main contention is that human emissions of CO2 are mostly blamed for current warming, agreed?
    My actual words were, "When there's absolute proof that human CO2 emissions do cause warming......."
    Not as you claimed I wrote, "human CO2 causing 'warming',
    "Whatever that means" should be quite obvious, but in case it isn't, I meant fossil fuel burning.
    And, no, I'm not, "contending pollution is not bad for the environment," of course it is, but is CO2 pollution?
    At the age of 70, I don't appreciate being treated like a child, so I'll not respond to the rest of you reply.

    That is precisely the problem, Hank. What you stated above with 15 people in a room indicates a closed loop environment. The earth's climate/atmosphere is not a closed loop system and tends to be an area of severe misrepresentation when it comes to the IPCC models. There is no doubt that humans can impact their existence on this planet by contaminating water sources, food supplies and the very air we breathe, but the climate system of an entire planet 4 billion years in its evolutionary process? The 'real' data just doesn't support it...

    I totally agree with this present article, I am not a climate scientist, I do not have time to study it and I have no interest in studying it. I should be able to rely on the climate scientists opinion. The climate scientific community should reject and criticise by themselves and without outside pressure their peers that do not abide to the scientific standards or are not intellectually honest. Alas, when Judith Curie had the courage and integrity to point toward the incertitude in climate science she was ostracised and declared an "heretic". Alas, when Steve McIntyre had the audacity to verify Mann's results he was treated like a criminal.

    How can one not become a sceptic when the IPCC's chairman Pachauri speaking about the Japan tsunami declares:

    “In the 20th century, sea-level rise was recorded at an average of 17 centimetres. If the sea-level was significantly lower, clearly the same tsunami would have had a less devastating effect. Therefore, sea-level rise is a kind of multiplier of the kinds of threats and negative impacts that will take place anyway,”

    How can one not become a sceptic when after the Indian government declared that the glaciers will not melt in 2035 ,as mentioned in the IPCC report, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as “voodoo science”.

    If the proponents of CAGW want to be believed then they need to act like scientists and stop spinning and spinning and framing and framing. This is very important because unfortunately is not so simple as you write in the end "But the data are there. The physics answer is there." Because the climatic system is a chaotic system one cannot generate a formula to predict the future temperatures. The calculus must be done iteratively and it can be accurately be done only by CGMs and, even then, the results are projections and not predictions. Therefore the need to recourse to the authority (the CGMs results) in the debate. Therefore the need for authority to project an image of impartiality.

    Neven
    Alas, when Judith Curie had the courage and integrity to point toward the incertitude in climate science she was ostracised and declared an "heretic".

    Was that before or after she received a Nobel Prize with her husband Pierre?
    "Why Don't You Believe In Global Warming?" Because I see no evidence of it. When I have palm trees growing in my yard and can stop shoveling snow we'll talk.

    logicman
    Palm trees grow in Scotland.

    People frequently shovel snow in Scotland.

    And your parochial-parallax perspectival point is ?
    Is climate change real? Sure. It has been happening on earth for all of history. How else do you explain the medieval warming period or the little ice age? It should be expected based on historical records.

    Is it driven by carbon dioxide today? Such driving would be the result of Beer's law (dI/dC = kI). I = light intensity at a given wavelength, C = concentration of absorbing substance and k is a constant at that wavelength. This is a compound interest type equation. At those wavelengths where carbon dioxide absorbs 20 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide will absorb 80% of all incident energy. Going to 40 ppm of carbon dioxide results in 96% absorption. By the time you get to 100 ppm of carbon dioxide you will have practically absorbed 100% of available infrared energy. Further increases in carbon dioxide simply lower the point in the atmosphere where you have absorbed, for all practical purposes, 100% of the available energy.

    At the background level of carbon dioxide before the industrial period started (280 ppm) all the infrared radiated from the surface of the earth at active wavelengths was absorbed by a height of under 100 meters. Going from 280 to 380 ppm of carbon dioxide simply lowers this height to perhaps 60 meters. As absorption lines are far more peaked than a bell shaped curve what happens on the absorption line tails is insignificant. Lowering the height of absorption simply is going to make thermals slightly more intense. Slightly more intense thermals result in extra cloud formation. Clouds shade the earth by reflecting radiation back into space. That is why when you fly over clouds the tops shine so brightly. All climate models ignore such cloud formation effects as they lead to predictions of no global warming. And no global warming is not the desired answer. It also is not the answer that will allow you to get your next government grant from the NSF.

    As a practicing scientist I see lots of reason to think carbon dioxide at projected future levels will do nothing significant to global temperatures. I also know many other scientists. The vast majority share my views.

    I don't believe in global warming because i'm not a follower of the green religion and scientifically I looked into it and it doesn't stand up. I don't believe in it because I'm a critical thinker and don't go with the crowd. The proposed solutions to the global warming don't stand up even it it were true, as those are also green religion practices. Even according to the IPCC the actions would do nothing. The actions are green religion measures to follow that religion. I don't have a problem if somebody wants to decrease their own footprint, but they have no right to force others to do so. The green religion is mostly totalitarian in that they have merged it with political philosophy and impose it on others. This is the same fear that people have about totalitarian Islam, but with totalitarian greenism it is already happening. A secular green religion or secular Islam is withing one's rights, but that seems to be the minority from my person experience.

    The Stand-Up Physicist
    There is no green religion by any standard definition of religion, so I give you an F in describing the problem at hand. I hope you find accurate sources of information someday instead of your current digest of crazy stuff, but I understand crazy stuff is more fun to read.
    Not all religions look the same. Religions without strong hierarchy and which are new born particularly look different. The green religion is a faith based ideology without a formal doctrine, that is why it is harder to recognize.

    Gerhard Adam
    You can't simply call everything a religion because you disagree with it.  That's just a poor excuse for not reviewing the evidence or failing to engage in a coherent argument.
    Mundus vult decipi
    See my other reply that explains what green religion Is. Green religion is not all about global warming.

    Also to be clear, the green religion is not all about global warming, that is just one small part of it that is a common held belief for most people of the green religion. The green religion is also called environentalism. It has multiple facets which come together. The general idea are thing like, subserviating humans to the animals (PETA, vegetarianism etc), protecting the Earth from humans ( as opposed to "for humans"), a mystical spiritual connection with nature, plants animals and inanimate objects like rocks, water or dirt, recycling even if it is not rationally beneficial for the particular substance and may pollute and cost more, but makes the believer feel good like they are doing something to show devotion to the Earth . Multiculturalism is also common as tribalism and collectivism are important, rather than seeing people as individuals. the religion is still new born and lose but clearly mystical, spiritual and includes common philosophic ideas, values etc. You can find books on the subject of green religion.

    Gerhard Adam
    The problem with your view is that it doesn't allow for the possibility that different viewpoints may be correct.  You simply categorize all of them into one group and then dismiss them.

    Of course, your position is ridiculous, but you're certainly entitled to be as silly as you like.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Ridiculous, you didn't address anything I said. You are giving the mystical subjectivist argument "that is your opinion". In essence you are saying "I know It is impossible to know anything". , there are no facts everything is just an opinion. It is an attempt to throw a wrench in any conversation because if every statement is meaningless no thinking is possible. The statement itself is self contradictory. If "that is just your opinion" and you "know there is no way to know anything" how could you possibly know that or establish that since you can't know that. It is text book case of post modernism subjectivism.

    Gerhard Adam
    There's nothing to discuss, since it is obvious that everything you disagree with, you simply categorize as part of the "green religion".  It wouldn't matter what points I raised, because you would simply counter with my being a believer in the "green religion".  I'm not going down that path, because you've already made up your mind.
    Mundus vult decipi
    I give you an F for giving everybody F's.

    Carbon:sin
    Capitalism:evil
    Carbon credits:indulgences

    "Green religion" has some merit.

    I might believe in global warming if well fed "climate scientists" enjoying public money did not feel the need to lie about the results of their research.Even then, assuming that global warming can be proven to be actually occurring, believing that it is a consequence of modern living would be a much harder sell considering that the astronomers tell us that the polar ice caps on Mars are melting and that the two mile thick sheet of ice covering North America melted all with out the assistance of a single SUV. Until the issues are properly and scientifically addressed, as opposed to politically prosecuted as they are now in a stratist agenda ,I will reserve my religious beliefs for religion

    Never forget just how similar economics and climate sciences are. We both try to explain untestable phenonemon observed in highly complex and chaotic systems...we build models that simplify said systems into a set of manageable variables...we tune our models so that they fit prior data...we are steadfast in our conclusions...and we are always wrong come tomorrow.

    Oh, and we are both rewarded mpst highly when we make the most exaggerated claims.

    -economist

    Great post. My business (investments) nearly wrecked the world economy by betting huge sums based on complex models of financial instruments that we have known since 1998 (when Long Term Capital Management blew up) were fundamentally flawed.

    Why did we keep using the flawed models? Because the math was elegant, and there was lots of money to be made, right up until the point where we drove everyone off the cliff.

    Climate scientists rely on government and corporate grants to stay in business, and they will keep peddling their models as accurate to keep the funds flowing. Our choice is about whether we want to let these guys wreck the world economy for us by implementing Kyoto and its offspring.

    JoeJoe

    logicman
    Never forget just how similar economics and climate sciences are.

    Yes: they both study something to try to understand it.

    However -

    Economic exchanges are performed only by humans.  In order for economics to become recognized as a true science it must be founded in the scientific study of human behavior.

    Climate science studies habitat changes on an inanimate planet circling an inanimate sun, together with the group behavior of all living species which react to - or cause - variations in their local habitats.  One of those species walks on two legs and is - according to legend - intelligent.  These bipeds exhibit many strange behaviors, one of which is economic activity.  These bipeds have a most endearing trait: they are far too modest to admit that they have the capacity to modify their own global habitat.
    I would also like to note that even if all the models are correct, can we accurately predict the OUTCOMES as they are important to humans? If agw is real then surely some populations will be negatively affected (starting with the wise planners who continue to build im areas BELOW sea level), but surely some positive effeccts will be seen too (a widening of the grain belts, for example). As hank points out, there are numerous cog biases at work in the framing, but there is certainly a hubristic status quo biasis at work too: the world has looked like x for years, agw will make it look like y or z (neither of which we fully comprehend) thus we must maintain x.

    Hubris and myopicy at its finest.
    ---
    This is not to say the "green movement" is all bad...but extraordinary claims necessitate extraordinary evidence, especially when calling for complete overhauls of our system--not models with adjustable sensitivites.

    Ahem...cough...cough.

    “So profound is our ignorance, and so high our presumption, that we marvel when we hear of the extinction of an organic being; and as we do not see the cause, we invoke cataclysms to desolate the world, or invent laws on the duration of the forms of life!”
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

    A couple of things.

    First, there is no "greenhouse" effect.

    http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/physics/22563/Greenhouse-Physics

    Second, the numbers batted around by AGW believers are just p*ss poor engineering.

    2 + 4 = 4
    2 + 2.0 = 3.95~4.05.

    What if the temperature on 5 consecutive days is reported as 71F. What's the average? Somewhere between 70.5 and 71.5. The AGW models talk about temp increase of 0.1C per year. The very best historical records (from about 1850 or so) report the temps as whole degrees. Beyond that the proxies have never been tested empirically, except for the tree rings that got hidden.,

    logicman
    The dance of the trolls in the halls of the mountain king Mighty Hank !

    Both the Arctic and the Antarctic are most definitely warming.

    The Arctic is rapidly losing the ice cover it has had for many thousands of years.

    The total amount of heat retained by the entire planet is rising yearly.

    The chance that CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is not the major driver of the observed globally averaged warming is about the same as the chance that nobody on this planet is going to watch a ball game today.

    There are so many patently absurd things being said by anti-science trolls that we could burn the straw men to cook the red herrings, gather the carefully picked cherries and have ourselves quite a feast!  Right!  Who's buying the beer?
    Gerhard Adam
    Just when you thought idiocy might be confined to the evolution debate.

    ... but it does illustrate my point from another post where people can believe all manner of rubbish, because there are no consequences to them for being stupid.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Reply to Hank Campbell | 03/25/11 | 09:40 AM

    The main contention is that human emissions of CO2 are mostly blamed for current warming, agreed?
    My actual words were, "When there's absolute proof that human CO2 emissions do cause warming......."
    Not as you claimed I wrote, "human CO2 causing 'warming',
    "Whatever that means" should be quite obvious, but in case it isn't, I meant fossil fuel burning.
    And, no, I'm not, "contending pollution is not bad for the environment," of course it is, but is CO2 pollution?
    At the age of 70, I don't appreciate being treated like a child, so I'll not respond to the rest of you reply.

    Gerhard Adam
    I don't appreciate being treated like a child...
    Then perhaps you should stop behaving like one.
    Mundus vult decipi
    "the IPCC made rookie errors"
    The IPCC was 19 years old in 2007, still making rookie errors.

    You are losing the argument precisely because you do not have the science; this is self-evident.
    ~A scientist
    But let's examine your argument as a lawyer examines his. When you have the facts on your side, you argue the facts (none in evidence here), when you have the law you argue the law (none in evidence here) when you have neither the facts nor the law, you argue on emotion.. "Belief" is an emotion.

    To deny that a great many scientists, engineers, and even some climatologists do not have a valid position in their skepticism of the DATA, the MANIPULATION OF THE DATA, the COLLECTION OF THE DATA, and the MODELING, much less the theory from which the questionable data is derived, is your first mistake.

    Until you recognize that many those who disagree with you do so from an educated view, you will scramble around in the darkness of your belief system, seeking explanations which only favor and elevate your own opinion. Saying that skeptics are 'ignorant', 'stupid', or 'evil' might be gratifying for you but it will not bridge the gap - that is if your objective is truly what you imply here, to understand the skepticism. This too I doubt, for your argument and succeeding comments resemble in style a Catholic school browbeating, and do not attempt to respond to actual discussion of the issues. Nor does your cheerleading section amplify your message unless of course your message is "You must be stupid if you don't 'believe' in global warming... What a great argument, How is it that it doesn't work for you?

    As for my view of AGW, it is a belief system based on flawed scientific analysis, a flawed peer-review system, with highly politically and financially rewarded motivators, in short it is not examined thoroughly because the money does not flow to negative outcomes.

    Please note, those most likely to swallow the AGW theory unquestioningly are not scientists, eventhough some of them play scientists on TV or in the halls of Congress. It does not imbue you nor them with creditability to imply that no reputable disagreement may exist on the subject. What does it say for your "science" that it cannot withstand scrutiny? (Answer: that it is in fact a belief system requiring a leap of faith not everyone is willing to make, this does not make them stupid, ignorant or evil.)

    logicman
    You are losing the argument ...

    You who?  Referent?

    ... let's examine your argument as a lawyer examines his.

    By all means.

    In a legal context, every effort is made to avoid the inherent ambiguity of human language.  However, if a lawyer detects ambiguity in the opponents case, you may be sure that the opportunity to wreck the opponents case will be most gratefully received.

    As for my view of AGW, it is a belief system based on flawed scientific analysis ...

    That is very honest of you.  Now that you admit that your view is based on flawed scientific analysis, will you now support those of us who are trying to warn the human race of the perils of unconstrained 'economic' growth?
    That the Earth is much warmer (about 33 C) than can be explained by solar heating was first demonstrated by Joseph Fourier in 1824.

    That this additional warmth is caused by carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor and other 'greenhouse gases' in the Earth's atmosphere which slow the rate that infrared radiation escapes to space was first established by John Tyndall in 1858.

    That human emissions of carbon dioxide could theoretically raise atmospheric levels sufficiently to increase this greenhouse warming effect was first shown by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

    That human emissions actually HAVE raised atmospheric concentrations of CO2 sufficiently to increase greenhouse warming was first shown by Charles Keeling in 1960.

    None of these statements is remotely controversial. No 'skeptic' climate scientist that I have heard of disputes any of them. Not Lindzen. Not Spencer. Not Christy. Neither of the Pielke's. Et cetera. Rather, they argue that the warming being caused by human CO2 emissions will be small because natural feedbacks will come into play to offset most of it.... though the vast majority of scientists (and available data) hold that natural feedback effects will actually ENHANCE the warming significantly.

    So no, the problem here isn't that the 'science hasn't advanced to the point where we can 'prove' that human emissions of CO2 are causing warming'... that boat sailed over 50 years ago.

    Nor is the problem that climate scientists are human and can display animosity or make mistakes. The 'doubts' about global warming were being spread long before those excuses got added in.

    Rather, the problem is a deliberate campaign to spread outright lies about the state of the science, what observed data shows, and what it means... and a news media which has collectively failed to examine the evidence and call out these lies.

    Human CO2 emissions are causing the amount of energy within the climate system (aka 'heat') to increase. That is proven fact. The only uncertainty lies in HOW MUCH increase we can expect to see as CO2 levels continue to rise. The weight of the evidence and the vast majority of climate scientists argue that the additional warming could be very significant if we continue current CO2 emissions. A very very small group argue, without any strong supporting data, that the impact will be modest. And countless hordes insist that it isn't happening at all based on misinformation and nonsense.

    Yes, the earth is about 30 deg C warmer than it would be if it had not atmosphere containing carbon dioxide, water vapor, etc. Absolutely correct. BUT that does not mean more of one of those gasses causes it to warm more. The Beers Lambert law explains why some gives us some warming and more does nothing at all. As this law has been well understood since the 1850s and the math is really simple it is not hard to understand at all. So called green house gases do not store heat as you imply resulting in a warmer atmosphere. They simply absorb infrared radiated according to the Boltzman distribution set by the local temperature of the earth's surface. More carbon dioxide simply results in absorption at a lower altitude is all. Once 100% is absorbed there simply is no more to absorb. As the background level of carbon dioxide of 280 ppm was more than enough to give 100% absorption adding more carbon dioxide can not absorb any more infrared. All more carbon dioxide does is lower the point a few meters in the atmosphere at which 100% absorption takes place. I hardly think lowering it from 80 or 100 meters to 60 or 80 meters is going to make a big difference. That absorbed energy is rapidly dispersed to the surrounding atmosphere at whatever temperature the surrounding atmosphere happens to have. The net result is some carbon dioxide is good and gives us a global temp compatible with life. More does nothing of consequence.

    Sorry, but NONE of that is true.

    The greenhouse effect does NOT work by absorbing and 'storing' heat. Photons of infrared radiation absorbed by greenhouse gases (GHGs) are quickly re-emitted in random directions. Thus, photons which without the GHGs would have gone up from the heated surface of the planet out to space are instead bounced around within the climate system. Some of those photons then re-heat the lands and oceans and, in conjunction with continually incoming sunlight, result in greater temperatures than the sunlight would alone.

    Adding more GHGs increases not only the density of coverage at any given altitude, but also the range of altitudes at which these gases occur. Thus, no there is not a 'saturation point' at which more GHGs cannot have any greater warming effect... adding more increases the highest altitude at which they occur and thus effectively adds another 'layer of insulation' higher up which continues to redirect some of the escaping heat back down to the surface.

    You have been sold a LIE... and that is the problem with the 'debate' about global warming. Read any of the IPCC reports on global warming... they will match my description of how it works rather than yours. Ditto the writeups in Brittanica, Wikipedia, and other encyclopedias. Ditto countless peer reviewed scientific studies. Ditto even skeptic scientists like Spencer and Lindzen. Yet the false information you repeated above, and a vast array of other (often contradictory) misinformation continue to be spread by bloggers and other 'opinion' writers.

    Mr Dunkerson, if what you say is true than Beer's law would not take the form it takes. And Beer's law is a well established law that really works very, very well. It is used in lab experiments every single day to do quantitative analyses. It works over wavelengths from UV all the way thru infrared.

    There is almost no re-emission of photons at the same wavelength as the absorbed photons. There can not be many as that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Re-emitted photons, when they happen are going to be of longer wavelength than the absorbed photons. All infrared photons do when absorbed is boost a molecule into a higher vibrational or twisting state. In English they make that particular molecule much hotter than surrounding molecules. A hot molecule shares its heat with surrounding molecules warming the whole gas.

    So what I said is exactly correct. It is clear you are not a scientist or you would not harbor such strange ideas. If you want to educate yourself on this topic my suggestion would be physical chemistry would be a good starting point. That of course assumes you understand calculus and general physics and general chemistry.

    I am 100% right. You are nearly 100% wrong.

    What is amazing is that you can't even see the insanity of your position.

    You are claiming that basic physics makes anthropogenic global warming impossible. So what are we to make of the physicists all over the world who claim it not only CAN happen, but IS happening? They are all too stupid to understand basic physics? They are all lying? Ditto the National Academy of Science of the U.S. and similar scientific bodies all over the world. Ditto the IPCC. Heck, even Roy Spencer, one of the leading skeptic scientists, says you are flat out wrong;

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make...

    Encyclopedia entries, textbooks, peer reviewed scientific papers... they all explain the greenhouse effect working the way you insist it cannot work. So... what?

    EITHER we have virtually the entirety of the scientific community, including the global warming SKEPTICS, engaged in a massive fraud stretching back over 150 years (to when Tyndall first showed how the greenhouse effect worked)

    OR

    You are so deluded that you would rather cling to complete nonsense than ever accept that your preconceptions were wrong.

    Well CB I never said there was no greenhouse effect. In fact quite to the contrary I said there was a greenhouse effect that makes our planet habitable. If it did not exist the place would be too cold for us to live. I have already said all this so please do not lie about what I have said.

    The fact that a greenhouse effect exists does not mean that more carbon dioxide will cause a greater effect. Someone earlier, perhaps you, talked about re-emission. In the first place the proper word to use is not re-emission. The proper word is fluorescence. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs a photon it has two choices in what it does with this excess energy. One choice is simply share it with surrounding gas molecules as heat. The second is to fluoresce a photon. If fluorescence were the main thing it did this would simply amount to scattering the infrared at the wave lengths where carbon dioxide absorbs. Such scattering does not add a bit of heat to the atmosphere. Zero, nadda, none. If 100% of the infrared were fluoresced the ultimate result would be that infrared would eventually escape into space without doing a bit of heating on its way out. Some might get back to earth's surface and warm the surface a tiny bit. Due to the Boltzman emission spectra of a black body little of the resulting re-radiated infrared from the earth's surface would be at wavelengths where carbon dioxide absorbs. So some other greenhouse gas would have to pick it up or it would simply radiate into space. The net result is any discussion about fluorescence some how "magnifying" the greenhouse effect is a pure red herring. If anything it would reduce the greenhouse effect by the simple laws of physics.

    You seem to mistake me for someone who is spouting stuff from some random web site who really does not have any technical skills. Let me put your mind to rest. I have a PhD in physical science. I spent my whole life doing scientific research for a living and am still doing experiments with my own hands in retirement. I have studied and understand topics like calculus, differential equations, quantum mechanics, relativity, physical chemistry, a good deal of biochemistry and on and on. I also have more skills in building mathematical models than more than a tiny number of professional scientists.

    Is there a green house effect? Sure there is. Any dummy can look up data that shows it exists. Is there such a thing as a saturation effect where more greenhouse gas makes no further difference? Sure there is. The Beer-Lambert law demands it. You simply can not beat a compound interest equation. As Einstein said the most powerful force in the universe is a compound interest type equation.

    "Well CB I never said there was no greenhouse effect."

    And I didn't accuse you of doing so. Your error is a false understanding of how the greenhouse effect works and what impact adding additional greenhouse gases would have.

    "The fact that a greenhouse effect exists does not mean that more carbon dioxide will cause a greater effect."

    And yet the National Academy of Sciences of the United States says that it WILL and indeed IS causing a greater effect;

    http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/greenhouse01.jsp

    They say, "Higher concentrations of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases trap more infrared energy in the atmosphere than occurs naturally. The additional heat further warms the atmosphere and Earth’s surface."

    A direct contradiction of your position. From the highest scientific body in the United States.

    You say: "The net result is any discussion about fluorescence some how "magnifying" the greenhouse effect is a pure red herring."

    In the link above the NAS directly contradicts this too;
    "* Heat (infrared energy) radiates outward from the warmed surface of the Earth.
    * Some of the infrared energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which re-emit the energy in all directions.
    * Some of the infrared energy further warms the Earth."

    Their explanation of how it works matches mine and directly contradicts yours. So your position is that they are lying? Or don't understand basic physics?

    How about NASA?

    http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

    And, as I linked previously, even scientists who are global warming skeptics say you are flat out wrong about the physics. As does every other major scientific body on the planet. And every encyclopedia writeup on how the greenhouse effect works. And every peer reviewed scientific paper on the subject.

    So, again... we are faced with a situation where either the entire scientific establishment has been perpetuating a massive fraud that can be easily disproved by basic physics for more than a century.

    OR

    You are completely delusional.

    Hank
    we are faced with a situation where either the entire scientific establishment has been perpetuating a massive fraud that can be easily disproved by basic physics for more than a century.
    If only those X-Files people were still around.   This would be the mystery of their season!   We should cue spooky music every time someone implies there is a vast, science conspiracy to promote crap that a bunch of people with no understanding of simple physics somehow sees through on the Internet.

    Gerhard Adam
    I have a PhD in physical science
    An appeal to authority is still a fallacy and coupled with anonymous posting;  well, it doesn't look good for you.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Technically, my argument is an 'appeal to authority' also... but in this case it is an appeal to EVERY authority. Every high school and college textbook writeup on the greenhouse effect and global warming. Every peer reviewed scientific paper on the subject. Every notable scientist working in the field. Every report from every national scientific body on the subject.

    They all say that the greenhouse effect works be greenhouse gases absorbing and re-releasing infrared energy in random directions such that it remains in the climate system longer than it would if just traveling up and out to space and that increasing the amount of greenhouse gases will therefor further increase the amount/duration of 'retained heat'.

    Anonymous, can you cite me ONE example (i.e. textbook/peer reviewed study/national science report/et cetera) which backs your version instead?

    Gerhard Adam
    It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but you're actually describing a consensus.  My only point was that pulling out the "I have a PhD" card, in the absence of any real data is a bonafide "appeal to authority" argument because it's purpose is to prevent further discussion on the basis of the presented credentials.
    Mundus vult decipi
    CB, you seem to labor under the impression that when a photon is absorbed it warms the molecule that absorbed it. Then when that same photon is fluoresced the molecule stays warmed and the photon can go someplace else and warm another molecule. Well, I am very sorry, but science does not allow perpetual motion and that is what your understanding just created.

    The way it actually works is when a photon is absorbed the absorbing molecule is warmed. This heat is distributed through whatever rotational and vibrational modes are allowed for that molecule. If the molecule fluoresces to get rid of that heat the fluoresced photons on average are at lower energy than the absorbed photon because some of the energy is left behind in some vibrational or rotational states. Those vibrational and rotational states are simply heat. This must happen always due to simple scientific laws. It has been experimentally demonstrated millions of times in the lab. The net result is the molecule left behind is a bit warmer than it was before it absorbed the photon of light. And the fluoresced photon has lower energy exactly equal to that left behind in the molecule it just left. Further, fluorescence is never a 100% proposition. Quite often molecules simply disperse the energy as heat to surrounding molecules a lot faster than fluorescence happens. This is particularly true in a dense media such as our atmosphere. So it really does not make a bit of difference to the physical understanding if some fluorescence happens or none happens in the case of our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is such a good absorber of infra red at active wavelengths that the light does not make it very many meters before it is absorbed.

    Actually, if fluorescence happened with 100% probability the net result would simply be the light would be scattered. The eventual result would be the light would leak out the top of our atmosphere without creating any greenhouse warming effect at all. I am very happy that it does not work that way as if it did the earth would be uncomfortably cold.

    It is clear you have no formal training in science or you would not be making the gross thinking errors you are obviously making. While I do find you amusing I also do not think I am going to bother to try and educate you as you obviously do not understand calculus. If you did understand calculus all I have said is obvious from the equation I posted in my first post. Namely dI/dC = kI. This equation is well established and well understood. It is used by practicing scientists every day. If you do not understand this simple math you sure are not going to understand why Newton's laws on conservation of energy are correct or even why your argument is a total violation of those laws. You are not going to understand thermodynamics. I am sorry you are uneducated as you strike me as being a really bright fellow. But being bright is simply potential to learn. It does not mean you have the slightest understanding of physical reality.

    Gerhard Adam
    I am very sorry, but science does not allow perpetual motion and that is what your understanding just created.
    Since when has anyone suggested that there is only a single photon involved?  Your incoherent anonymous babbling suggests that you know little or no science.

    I find your patronizing attitude laughable since you have no credentials to offer (despite your claim) and you have no scientific backing for your ideas.  You're just another anonymous wanna-be.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Really, you had to go to all that effort to construct a fictional strawman of 'what I believe' (which bears no resemblance to reality) and then knock it down?

    Rather than just going out and reading up on the subject from ANY available source... outside the blogosphere?

    Your position is in contradiction to the whole of established science. I have provided multiple links showing this. You have not provided a single reference backing up your position... because the only people who advance your theory of how global warming works are internet crackpots.

    Until you can come up with some backing for your position more solid than 'because I say so' there really isn't much point in continuing this. Yes, you say so. And EVERYONE else says you are wrong.

    Here are a few refs as starting points:

    Any good introductory calculus book. There must be a hundred books on the market on this topic so a used book store would have one.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/beerslaw.htm This gives a straightforward explanation of Beer's Law
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here is a nice explanation of multi photon absorption processes:

    Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics Volume 11 Number 8
    B R Marx et al 1978 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 11 L273 doi: 10.1088/0022-3700/11/8/004
    The effect of laser linewidth on two-photon absorption rates
    B R Marx, J Simons and L Allen
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here is a book about molecular Fluorescence that has enough detail to make the topic understandable:

    "Molecular Fluorescence: Principles and Applications " Author - Bernard Valeur
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here is a real recent paper that covers fluorescence induced light scattering and a bit about quantum yields:

    Validation of Fluorescence Quantum Yields for Light-Scattering
    Eugenia P. Tomasini†, Enrique San Romn*† and Silvia E. Braslavsky‡
    † INQUIMAE/DQIAyQF, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, UBA, Ciudad Universitaria, Pab. II, C1428EHA Buenos Aires, Argentina
    ‡ Max-Planck-Institut fr Bioanorganische Chemie, Postfach 101365, D 45413 Mlheim an der Ruhr, Germany
    Langmuir, 2009, 25 (10), pp 5861–5868

    It probably is worth noting that quantum yields for fluorescence very seldom exceed 10%. And to get to 10% you typically need quite large molecules with greatly extended chromophores and often need to include a heavy metal in the structure. More commonly quantum yields are well under 1%. This is particularly true at the low energies involved in the infrared as Heisenberg does not provide much driving force at such low energies.

    And the parade of misdirection and logical fallacies continues.

    No one has claimed that Beer's law does not exist. Likewise, no one is questioning Calculus, photon absorption, fluorescence (though I will mention that this only applies to emission of electromagnetic radiation in the VISIBLE range since you keep misusing the term), or any other ridiculous tangent you want to throw out.

    You are claiming that the greenhouse effect does NOT work by greenhouse gases absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere would have no additional warming effect.

    Please cite a reference for THAT claim... or explain how the scientific community has consistently gotten it wrong for the past 150+ years.

    Seriously,. if you really believe you are right you should write up a paper about it and go win the Nobel prize for overturning more than a century of 'settled science'. Why are you wasting your genius here on the internet when you've got information which can completely transform modern physics? No one else has ever published your revolutionary findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal (unless you can provide a reference to such)... so you would be the first!

    Please, stop wasting your brilliance on US here. You owe it to the world to make sure that all the textbooks which wrongly describe the mechanism of the greenhouse effect get corrected. Otherwise poor blind idiots like me will just keep reading false information in EVERY AVAILABLE SOURCE and thinking that is reality.

    CB, you say "though I will mention that this only applies to emission of electromagnetic radiation in the VISIBLE range since you keep misusing the term."

    This is the most truly amazing statement I have seen a non scientist make in years and years. Totally astounding! Really unbelievable! Incredible! And stupid as a stump.

    The fact is the term fluorescence is used for electromagnetic radiation after photon absorption at all wavelengths. In the lab I ran when I worked we routinely used standard xray and UV fluorescence techniques for instance every day. Those are perfectly standard methods used in electron microscopy for xrays and for UV the instument is called a spectrofluorimeter. These techniques for a number of purposes including both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Gamma ray fluorescence is a routine technique in high energy physics. The literature is loaded with publications about infrared fluorescene and how it can be useful in very selected circumstances. I will have to admit that off hand I can not thing of any applications that use microwave or radio wave fluorescence. At such low energies the quantum yield would be vanishingly small so probably not of much use. Actually it is pretty seldom of any use in the visible spectra above about 550nm as the quantum yields are generally too low to be useful. The major exception would be astronomy. But there quantum yields are not an issue due the extreme low pressure.

    You really need to get a life and learn something. Those refs I gave you prove my point beyond any shadow of a doubt.

    So no on the any sort of reference for your position then.

    Got it.

    >plonk<

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    I still haven't made up my mind about global climate warming, whether its caused by man (AGW) or is simply yet another of the Earth's ever changing climate cycles or whether  it is a combination of the two.

    Without a doubt I would be delighted if mankind got its act together and tried to reduce its polluting, destructive and parasitic effect upon the planet and the many rapidly declining species that have successfully evolved alongside man for millions of years until the last century.

    Just the chance that global warming is man made, is probably good enough reason for humanity to try to curtail the huge negative polluting effects of human population expansion, which currently employs massively inefficient global resource, food and commodity production, transport, consumption waste management and mismanagement. However, if laws are imposed based on false justification of AGW this could also have a deleterious effect when the truth did finally come out or would it? Can laws even be imposed globally and would they adversely affect some countries much more than others, if so then how can this be managed without having a global government, difficult to imagine?

    I've read Australia's Emeritus Professor Ian Plimer's book 'heaven+earth' which contained a lot of evidence for past global warming cycles. Plimer repeatedly argues that the climate change we are experiencing is not unprecedented in history or outside the range of normal variability, and he rejects the idea that the explanation of climate change can be reduced to one variable, carbon dioxide. Instead he believes that climate change is cyclical and driven by Earth's position in the galaxy, the Sun, wobbles in the Earth's orbit, ocean currents and plate tectonics.

    Plimer is a 'climate change caused by humans' skeptic which is different to a climate skeptic. He is a geologist and not a climatologist but I think that's a bit like saying he is a skin specialist and not a GP and the Earth is like a patient with a high temperature and other worrying and varied symptoms. Like GP's, climatologists probably need to listen to many specialists before being able to diagnose exactly what is wrong with their patient and give the prognosis.

    Plimer is opposed to the catastrophic views of AGW and believes that the Earth is dynamic, always changing and evolving, and that an integrated, scientific assessment requires a holistic view of the Earth resulting from looking at climate over geological, archeological, historical and modern time. I don't know if he is right or wrong overall, but I would like to see empirical evidence from both sides of the debate clearly presented without insults being constantly thrown at each other.

    In his book Ian Plimer also asks and gives reasons for his answers to the following questions :-
    Are the speed and amount of modern climate change unprecedented? Answer: No.
    Is dangerous warming occurring? Answer: No.
    Is the temperature range observed in the 20th Century outside the range of normal variability? Answer: No.
    Does the Sun influence the Earth's climate? Answer: Yes.
    Do volcanoes change climate? Answer: Yes
    Do wobbles in the Earth's orbit change climate? Answer: Yes.
    Have past climate changes driven extinctions? Answer: Yes and no.
    Is global warming melting the polar ice caps&alpine valley glaciers? Answer: Yes but no.
    Do human emissions of carbon dioxide create a rise in the sea level? Answer: No.
    Will the seas become acid? Answer: No.
    Does sea level rise kill coral atolls? Answer: No.
    Are humans forcing changes in ocean currents? Answer: No.
    Do thermometer measurements show the planet is warming? Answer: No.
    Do other temperature measurements show the planet is warming? Answer: No.
    Is atmospheric carbon dioxide increasing? Answer: Possibly.
    Is atmospheric carbon dioxide approaching a dangerous level? Answer: No.
    Do higher sea temperatures cause more hurricanes? Answer: No.
    Do clouds influence climate? Answer: Yes.
    In his final chapter he says that 'We are facing the greatest global threat in my three score and two years. It is not global warming. It is the threat from policy responses to perceived global warming and the demonising of dissent. These policies also threaten freedoms and the nature of science and religion'.....'There are calls for trials and imprisonment of those scientists who, on scientific evidence, do not agree that human emissions have changed climate. Such scientists are called deniers and are compared to Holocaust deniers yet their scientific doubts are not addressed.'

    My husband and I get into very heated debates about this subject. He gets annoyed that I won't just accept AGW. He has recently sent me a link to some article which claims that Plimer's book contains over 500 peer reviewed errors in its several hundred pages. I intend to go through it with a fine tooth comb to see if this is true, as soon as I get enough time. In the meantime I still remain undecided, but of course still a keen supporter of better management of the negative effects of our human presence on the planet Earth and other earthlings.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Gerhard Adam
    I think you're confusing several issues.  First, if you accept AGW, that doesn't automatically mean that you accept any proposed solutions or even if there are any.
    Plimer is opposed to the catastrophic views of AGW and believes that the Earth is dynamic, always changing and evolving, and that an integrated, scientific assessment requires a holistic view of the Earth resulting from looking at climate over geological, archeological, historical and modern time.
    ... and what does this have to do with anything?  If the only concern is that we provide plenty of readily obtainable fossils for whatever future life form goes digging for them, then this might be a reasonable position.  Beyond that it's simply stupid.  It isn't the Earth that is in trouble.  It's humans.  It doesn't matter whether humans are causing AGW or if it's a natural (whatever that means) cycle.  The only difference, is that if humans are causing it, then perhaps they can curtail whatever activity is aggravating the situation.  If humans aren't causing it, then we're fundamentally screwed.

    Of course, the Earth is a dynamic system.  I'm sure the dinosaurs enjoyed it just fine while they were here.  I'm sure the various lifeforms enjoyed the various iterations of our climate and atmosphere, from excessive CO2 to excessive O2 to ice ages to whatever.  However, none of these had 7 billion people to contend with, so it's absurd to engage in such a discussion.

    As for this comment:
    Do other temperature measurements show the planet is warming? Answer: No.
    Perhaps he could explain why the Arctic ice is melting?  On the other hand, if his only point is that "average" temperatures don't reflect an increase, then he's just a fool.

    His last statement is far too political to be taken seriously within the context of AGW.  There are certainly merits to the argument that politicization doesn't help anyone and there will certainly be radicals on all sides of this question.  There is equally, no question, that we don't actually know what to do to solve this "problem", and any action we take is going to be fraught will all kinds of unknowns because we don't even know what "success" might mean or do.

    That doesn't change the basic question nor its answer.  Any fool that denies warming in the presence of melted ice is clearly got an agenda.  Whether anything can be done is another question, but it doesn't negate the answer to the first one. 

    As far as the empirical evidence goes, I agree that more data can't be anything except helpful.  However, to anyone that wants to deny AGW, I ask the same question.   Explain why the Arctic ice is melting (and I'd love to hear the explanation without invoking warming, because that truly would be a marvelous addition to our knowledge about chemistry).
    Mundus vult decipi
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Do other temperature measurements show the planet is warming? Answer: No.
    Perhaps he could explain why the Arctic ice is melting? On the other hand, if his only point is that "average" temperatures don't reflect an increase, then he's just a fool.
    Gerhard, I've got the book open in front of me and that question appears at the start of his Chapter 7 titled 'AIR' so I'm afraid that maybe I took it out of context in my list of questions. I better go back and check I haven't taken any of the other questions out of context.

    Anyway, Plimer goes on to explain why the average air temperatures don't reflect an increase in the following excerpts :-
    There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere behaves neither as a greenhouse nor as an insulating blanket preventing heat escaping from Earth. Competing forces of evaporation, convection, precipitation and radiation create an energy balance in the atmosphere.

    Historical thermometer measurements are flawed, contain bias, have a low order of accuracy, do not measure the planet's surface equally and are a combination of land surface measurements, the effects of urbanisation and the effects of changing land use patterns. The data quality is not research quality hence no conclusions about future trends can be made.

    Satellite and balloon measurements provide a more accurate data set. These show that there is no global warming. Temperature proxies give general climate trends and are not accurate enough for global temperature predictions.

    Historical CO2 measurements show that in the 19th and 20th centuries there were times when the atmospheric CO2 content was far higher than at present. Historical measurements of CO2 have not been correlated or integrated with modern measurements and long-term trends cannot be deduced.

    The earth has an average surface temperature of about 15 degrees C. The tropics are some 10 degrees C warmer. In the atmosphere, CO2 is a highly effective trap of energy in the infra-red wavelength band of 14 to 16.5 microns. Blocking the escape of heat radiation with wavelengths in this range reduces the radiating efficiency of the Earth by 15%. If the atmosphere had no CO2 far more heat would be lost from Earth and the average surface temperature would be -3 degrees C. The efficiency of the CO2 trap is essentially insensitive to the amount of CO2 oin the atmosphere. All the COs2 does is slow down heat loss. Atmospheric CO2 does not not trap heat as insulation does.. If the current atmospheric content of 380 ppmv were doubled to 760 ppmv, there would be a miniscule impact on the radiation balance and the temperature. An increase in air temperature of 0.5 degrees C is likely. This is hardly catastrophic. Furthermore, the effects of the additional CO2 would be completely masked by other climate drivers such as the Sun and Earth's orbit and there would be great benefits derived from accelerated plant growth...

    ...The surface of the Earth is heated by incoming radiation. What we humans feel on the surface of the Earth is short wavelength radiation, a radiation that is not absorbed by greenhouse gases.....and so on....
    He then explains what is causing the land surface temperatures to heat etc. He is not denying that the ice caps are melting, he just doesn't believe that it is being caused by man-made CO2 emissions. Under Chapter 5 titled 'ICE' in answer to the question 'Is warming melting the polar ice caps and alpine valley glaciers?' He answers: Yes but no. The following are couple of excerpts from this chapter :-
    There is neither a significant loss nor gain to polar ice, alpine valley glaciers and sea ice. Drill holes in Antarctic and Greenland ice are windows into the past. During previous interglacials when it was far warmer than now, the ice sheets did not completely melt. Nor was there runaway greenhouse. Dust from meteors, comets, volcanoes, droughts, and interstellar activity is preserved in ice, as is dust from Greek and Roman industrial activity. This dust can give a record of changes in solar and supernoval activity. Ice sheets provide a guide to past temperature and a less reliable guide to past air composition.

    In Antarctica, ice sheets and sea ice are expanding. There is a millennial-scale polar see-saw. When Antarctica is cooling, the Arctic is warming and vice versa. The Arctic was warmer than now between 1920 and 1940.....
    Phew! Anyway, these are some of Plimer's arguments, I have only included excerpts which are hopefully not out of context. I would now like to hear the counter arguments if anyone can be bothered?


    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    logicman
    Plimer's bookhas been thoroughly debunked many times over.

    Satellite and balloon measurements provide a more accurate data set. These show that there is no global warming.

    Patently false!

    In Antarctica, ice sheets and sea ice are expanding

    Antarctic land ice sheets are declining and sea ice is - temporarily - expanding.  Both are attributable to global warming.

    The Arctic was warmer than now between 1920 and 1940

    Codswallop!  In my articles here I have published maps and quotes from Arctic explorers and scientists which show how ice extent has declined since about 1850.  The decline accelerated post 1950.  The Arctic has not been so warm as it is now for thousands of years.

    Plimer clearly has an anti-science agenda since his book contains less factual information than a Superman comic.  Period.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Plimer: Satellite and balloon measurements provide a more accurate data set. These show that there is no global warming.
    Patrick: Patently false!

    So do I just believe you Patrick because you say so, or is there a link to satellite and balloon measurements that can prove this one way or the other?
    Plimer: In Antarctica, ice sheets and sea ice are expanding.

    Patrick: Antarctic land ice sheets are declining and sea ice is - temporarily - expanding. 
    Do you have a link that can prove this one way or another?
    Plimer: The Arctic was warmer than now between 1920 and 1940
    Patrick: In my articles here I have published maps and quotes from Arctic explorers and scientists which show how ice extent has declined since about 1850.  The decline accelerated post 1950.  The Arctic has not been so warm as it is now for thousands of years.
    Again, is there a link somewhere that shows temperature records in the Arctic over the last 90 years to prove this one way or the other?



    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    logicman
    Helen:  you are of course right not to take my word for anything.  That is a very healthy kind of skepticism.

    I would have to do a search to list various satellite and weather balloon records - I hope someone else will take this up as I don't have time at the moment.  I could list one or two papers, but that would be cherry picking.

    There is a very good article on sea ice expansion and land ice loss on Skeptical Science.  Please do read the comments thread for a discussion of the points raised.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

    Since the Elizabethan era the Arctic has been explored by many nations.  There have also been whaling, sealing and fishing on a commercial basis.  Records kept by various people down the centuries all point to a long-term shrinkage of the ice margin maximum extent.  Ice shrinkage is a strong indication of warmer air and / or water. 

    Since the invention of the thermometer we have a record of temperatures which gets ever less sparse and ever more accurate.  Records from ice cores, from ocean sediments, from lake sediments, from ships' logs: all these and more point to an ever-warmer Arctic.  The post-industrial Arctic has warmed broadly in line with what is to be expected from fossil fuel consumption and the combination of CO2 and carbon particle emissions.

    The Arctic is warming beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Still no evidence here in the answers to these questions which could sooo easily debunk Plimer!
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Gerhard Adam
    Patrick has dozens of articles that illustrate that the Arctic ice is melting and it's not hard to find the information showing how this has changed. 

    Pilmer sounds like a nutcase.  He can't be that naive and fail to understand the the CO2 and O2 levels in the atmosphere have undergone radical changes throughout the Earth's history.  His first statement (on the face of it), shows a complete lack of understanding.  There is NO balance, which is why we have ice ages.  Yet somehow these ice ages manage to thaw ... how?  Because of the accumulation of green house gases (like CO2) to warm up the planet.  There's even an article this month that talks about the shift in oxygen and CO2 balance because of algae (after the last big extinction).
    ...Plimer goes on to explain why the average air temperatures don't reflect an increase...
    Is this guy stuck on stupid?  The "average" doesn't matter if it shifts or not, because that's what causes climate change.  Do you think it would matter if there were palm trees in Antarctica and snow at the equator?  Even if the global temperature was exactly as it is today, no one could argue that it would be "business as usual".  To talk about averages is not just disingenuous, it reeks of blatant stupidity.

    I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean:
    The atmosphere behaves neither as a greenhouse nor as an insulating blanket preventing heat escaping from Earth. Competing forces of evaporation, convection, precipitation and radiation create an energy balance in the atmosphere.
    What is the atmosphere and where does he think these activities occur from?  Do you notice a difference in temperature when the atmosphere holds more water (such as high humidity)?  Just that simple example suggests he doesn't know what he's talking about.  The less humidity, the greater the temperature range throughout the day because of direct radiation energy from the sun.  (On a side note, perhaps he'd care to explain Venus' atmosphere or Mars)?
    Mundus vult decipi
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Patrick has dozens of articles that illustrate that the Arctic ice is melting and it's not hard to find the information showing how this has changed.
    Plimer isn't denying that the Arctic is melting so why did you say that Gerhard?
    Pilmer sounds like a nutcase.  He can't be that naive and fail to understand the the CO2 and O2 levels in the atmosphere have undergone radical changes throughout the Earth's history.
    Plimer isn't denying this either Gerhard. Have you read the excerpts or just having a knee-jerk reaction?
    Yet somehow these ice ages manage to thaw ... how?  Because of the accumulation of green house gases (like CO2) to warm up the planet.
    He explains how but obviously I can't type the whole book in here. The main point of this discussion here is that he says it isn't man-made emissions of CO2 and the 'greenhouse effect' that is causing climate change. In his introduction he summarises the following:-
    Climate change can be summarised:-
    a) The Earth's climate has always changed with cycles of warming and cooling long before humans appeared on earth. Numerous overlapping cycles range from 143 million years to 11.1 years. These cycles can be greatly affected by sporadic unpredictable processes such as volcanoes.

    b) Measured global warming in the modern world has been insignificant in comparison.

    c) Although man-made increases in CO2 may theoretically make some contribution to temperature rise, such links have not been proven and there is an abundant evidence to the contrary.

    d) Contrary to nearly two dozen different computer models, temperature has not increased in the last decade despite an accelerated input of CO2 into the atmosphere by human activities.

    e) Other factors such as major Earth processes, variable solar activity, solar wind and cosmic rays appear to have a far more significant factor on the Earth's climate than previously thought. The IPCC has not demonstrated that the Sun was not to blame for recent warmings and coolings.

    f) Humans have adapted at sea level, at altitude, on ice sheets, in the tropics and in deserts. As in the past, humans will again adapt to any future coolings or warmings.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Gerhard Adam
    Plimer isn't denying that the Arctic is melting...
    Then how does ice melt in the absence of warming?
    The main point of this discussion here is that he says it isn't man-made emissions of CO2...
    That's good to know, except that it is irrelevant except as it pertains to any ideas that people may have about mitigation.  It means nothing with respect to whether warming is occurring.
    Numerous overlapping cycles range from 143 million years to 11.1 years.
    Hmmm .. let's see ... how many people were here 143 million years ago? 
    Although man-made increases in CO2 may theoretically make some contribution to temperature rise...
    So can it or can't it?  He seems to be somewhat contradictory on this point.
    ...temperature has not increased in the last decade
    So, my question is ... what is causing the ice to melt?
    ...variable solar activity, solar wind and cosmic rays appear to have a far more significant factor on the Earth's climate than previously thought.
    So, he wants to haggle over what's causing the warming?  Once again, that's irrelevant when establishing whether or not warming is occurring.
    As in the past, humans will again adapt to any future coolings or warmings.
    That's just an idiotic statement.  Humans once hunted Wooly Mammoths too, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on that particular skill returning any time soon.

    NOTE:  Just to put this in perspective as to why it's an idiotic statement.  How would you react if I suggested that we don't need to develop new antibiotics, because humans have evolved their immune system to respond to diseases in the past and they will do so for the future?
    Mundus vult decipi
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat

    So, my question is ... what is causing the ice to melt?...variable solar activity, solar wind and cosmic rays appear to have a far more significant factor on the Earth's climate than previously thought....So, he wants to haggle over what's causing the warming?  Once again, that's irrelevant when establishing whether or not warming is occurring.
    Gerhard, can we just keep to the main point which is are man-made emissions of CO2 causing global warming? We all know the ice caps are melting and that climate change is taking place and I agree that an important question is why? Incorrectly blaming man-made CO2 emissions isn't going to help anyone if it turns out to be wrong. He gives plenty of explanations why in his book but I'm not going to type them all in here OK?

    Personally, like Plimer I'm also interested in how the solar wind and cosmic rays are affecting the climate and the protective magnetosphere lately. As you know I have written an article called 'the weakening geomagnetic force and possible polar reversal' which also mentions these factors.

    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Gerhard Adam
    If you agree that warming is occurring, then that's pretty much all there is at this point regarding the effect.  Everything after that is whether or not there are viable solutions and whether or not they would be effective or make matters worse.  That's an entirely separate discussion.

    The problem as described here, is whether or not global warming occurs at all (which is where the denier aspect of it comes in). 
    Personally, like Plimer I'm also interested in how the solar wind and cosmic rays are affecting the climate and the protective magnetosphere lately.
    See, I have a problem when you use the word "lately" in here, because it sits on the edge of more "doomsday" scenarios.  That's what I find baffling about your posts, on the one hand you want to accept that something like global climate change isn't man made, but then you want to attribute all manner of effects to other man-made phenomenon (which has significantly less chance of being a factor).

    How much have you read about early Earth's history?  Snowball Earth? The introduce of CO2 and then O2?  These would go a long way towards helping you understand some of what's happening.

    What's interesting in that context, is that no one has a problem with the idea that billions of microbes modified the atmosphere to the point of where CO2 and O2 became stable components which is what gave rise to larger life forms.  Yet when one of those larger life forms (with a population in excess of 7 billion), using all manner of polluting energy is being charged with doing something similar ... suddenly we're too insignificant.  If microbes could modify the atmosphere as radically as they did, you can be assured that so can human influences.

    Everything that exists modifies its environment by the mere act of existing.  Put enough of them together and they will have farther reaching impacts.  Unless there is something to counter balance it, then something is going to change.

    Bear in mind that while humans have been dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, they've also been doing their best to decimate the rainforests and other large CO2 users on this planet.  It doesn't take much imagination to recognize how much of the flora has been taken over by concrete and asphalt, so it shouldn't be a big surprise that there is, quite likely, a shift occurring in atmospheric chemistry.  It's certainly not on the scale of the millions of years that microbes influenced it, but that's another human shortcoming in visualizing such events.  Changes don't occur rapidly, but when they do occur, the inertia of such a system makes it virtually impossible to stop.

    If you want to explore whether or not additional factors may be affecting climate change, then more power to you.  I don't believe there's any controversy there and additional data will always be useful. 
    Incorrectly blaming man-made CO2 emissions isn't going to help anyone if it turns out to be wrong.
    That's true only if that is the only criteria for determining whether any action is to be taken.  Such a decision is economic and political, although it depends on an accurate assessment from science.  However, the problem isn't nearly as mysterious as it is presented.  If CO2 is not increasing the temperature, then we have an unknown source at work and a much bigger problem to address.  On the other hand, if CO2 increases are responsible for shifting the temperature, then whatever humans are adding isn't helping matters.

    For the sake of argument, let's assume that it is the latter.  What can we realistically do about it?  I know there's been suggestions for curbing CO2 emissions, but how much is necessary?  Would it be a problem if we do too much?  Does it matter if we don't curb it enough?  My point here is that regardless of what the answer turns out to be, solutions are much more difficult to arrive at. 

    In my view, we aren't technologically developed enough to curb our CO2 emissions, and no country is going to commit economic suicide, regardless of what the science says.  So even if everyone joined hands and agreed on AGW tomorrow, there would still be no viable solutions (in my opinion).
    Mundus vult decipi
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    The problem as described here, is whether or not global warming occurs at all (which is where the denier aspect of it comes in).
    So what does that make Plimer? He believes that we are in a warming cycle but that it is not being caused by man and his CO2 emissions. Everyone bandies these terms around willy-nilly, 'global warming' (GW), 'climate change' (CC), Anthropogenic Global warming (AGW) non-anthropogenic Global Warming (NGW) thinking that they mean the same thing to everyone but half of he time they don't, people are misunderstanding each other.

    I think that yes there is climate change, I'm not sure whether it is also GW, AGW or NGW. Plimer is saying that yes there is CC but it is not AGW caused by man-made CO2 emissions and that
    measured GW is insignificant, so I guess that that makes him a GW denier, a AGW denier and a NGW denier but not a CC denier?

    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Gerhard Adam
    You're creating a false dichotomy.  Warmer or colder, the climate is changing.  The primary point regarding climate change, is that some areas will get warmer while others may get colder.  This is precisely why "averages" can be seriously misleading.

    Pilmer is contributing to the problem by pretending that there's some distinction in what is taking place and despite having almost no scientific support for his ideas, continues to act as if he's making some significant contribution to the discussion.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Helen,

    You are brave to jump into the middle of this. You are a rational person trying ot cope with an imperfect data set, and running into a bunch of AGW true believers who take your statements out of context because they are furious that you do not accept their version of the conventional wisdom.

    I am also unsure whether the current warming is due to AGW or natural processes. I am troubled by the lack of recent warming despite continued manmade C02 increases. As are some AGW-centric scientists, as shown by the UEA email dump.

    A few years ago I took a cruise in Alaska. The guides showed how the glaciers and in the process of disappering. To their (huge) credit, they put it in context. The glaciers have been retreating since at least 1740. Glacier Bay did not exist when George Vancouver sailed past around that time. So what is CO2 and what is natural processes? I don't know, and the AGW community says I may not ask.

    It strikes me that the scientists at the center of the AGW debate are the B team -- guys who found science congenial and interesting, but who weren't smart enough to get into the high-powered programs doing microwave radiation, plasma phsics, etc. Guys who weren't cool enough even to date SocAnthro majors back in the day. Then climate science became interesting to politicians and policy makers, and all of a sudden these lifetime losers were rock stars. When skeptics questioned their arguments and assumptions, they froze them out of the journals and the discussions. But now the genie is out of the bag and the real debate is beginning.

    I believe in the scientific consensus about AGW in the late 1990s. It was damn hot and it seemed to make sense. My wife and I even talked about where to buy vacation property, accepting that warming was real and would continue. Not so much anymore.

    JoeJoe

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    You are brave to jump into the middle of this. You are a rational person trying ot cope with an imperfect data set, and running into a bunch of AGW true believers who take your statements out of context because they are furious that you do not accept their version of the conventional wisdom.
    Thank you Joe JoeBubbaJr for these sympathetic words. Yes all I want is some unbiased evidence to help me make my mind up one way or the other, Professor Plimer has provided plenty but nothing much from his opponents here yet.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Thanks for the links, I'll check them out next week, I have to get back to my university assignments now. I had a quick look at the first one and surprise surprise, it said that 70+ year old academic Professor Plimer  didn't do too well in a television interview. Name me one 70+ year old academic professor who would? Let's face it they are not exactly groomed for media stardom except for Dr Brian Greene of course. Anyway I look forward to resuming this discussion next week.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Gerhard Adam
    ...that 70+ year old academic Professor Plimer  didn't do too well in a television interview.
    Age wasn't his problem.  Data was.  More to the point, if a 70+ year old academic has no problem working on books and criticizing AGW, then he is just as fair a target to take his lumps. 

    "If you can't run with the big dogs, you have to stay on the porch."
    Mundus vult decipi
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Ha ha, very funny. Well I'm going to run with the big dogs now, on the beach.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Why don't I believe in Global Warming? (Outside of normal variation?)
    First I understand the Clever Hans fallacy
    I am old enough that at one time Movies convinced me we were all going to be eaten by giant grasshoppers, crabs, scorpions or stomped on by a nuclear revived dinosaur.
    I still have my pin from the very first Earth Day when we were all headed for an Ice Age
    I lived through the deadly use and banning of DDT, My cousins who used it on their farm (way to much they admitted) are still living.
    I also conversed once with the scientist who discovered that DDT thins egg shell and later discovered that he had accidentally limited the Calcium intake of the test birds. (His supervisors refused to let him retest with normal Calcium diet levels)
    I know that the first IGY detected a larger hole in the Ozone layer than at the height of the scare in the 80's
    I know that if the total Green House Gasses were represented by a ream of paper, eliminating mankind AND GHG created by mankind, you would reduce the ream by 1/10 of a single page.
    I know that Termites generate more Methane GHG every year than all of mankind
    I know that reported temperatures have been misreported many times by either mistake or fraud (like when they shifted Siberian March temperatures into February)
    I know some groups have eliminated the warming periods during the Roman times and around 1,000 AD
    I know that at one time Greenland was green with vegetation
    I know at one time Great Britain grew excellent Wine grapes
    I know there was once good wine grapes in Eastern Canada and Maine. (how are they doing these days)
    I know that some glaciers are melting and revealing long covered mines and towns.
    I know that the Polar Bear population is growing like crazy
    I know that the code used to "prove" global warming are rigged to only show warming no matter what temperatures you enter (my brother an international IT consultant was able to show and explain the specific code in question
    I know that many of the weather stations are next to heat generating AC units, placed on asphalt, are not painted with the proper paint of even the proper color
    I know that the first choice to Warmists is more government control and I know that governments do very little right. The US government for example couldn't even run a Whore House.
    I know that 4 years ago Warmists warned that we would soon see winters with no snow
    I know this past year these same Warmists warned us that all that cold and snow was caused by warming
    I know that the polar Ice Cap has thinned, but I also know it is thickening again
    I know that parts of the South Pole is losing the snow and Ice cover, but the rest is gaining snow and ice cover
    I know that a significant number of people believe that man caused global warming is causing major changes in the environment but I know that a significant number of people know that the HAARP project cause Katrina and the Moon landing was faked by Stanley Kubrick.
    I know that if you believe the Earth is warming, you will note changes that back your belief
    I know that if you believe the Earth is cooling, you will note changes that back your belief
    I know that if you believe the Earth is wildly out of control, you will note changes that back your belief
    I know that if you believe the Earth is doing exactly what it always has done, you will note changes that back your belief
    When the "gatekeepers of truth" share all their raw data...
    When the "gatekeepers of truth" stop massaging the numbers...
    When the "gatekeepers of truth" stop blocking access to all information
    When the "gatekeepers of truth" stop lying...
    When the "gatekeepers of truth" stop claiming that a majority of scientist agree with them when they don't..
    I know that once people believed that we could stop destruction by throwing a virgin into a volcano, now they want to throw tax money at the problem. (I believe throwing a virgin at the problem would be just as effective and cost far less)
    Then we can begin accurate and honest study of the situation

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Wow!
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    logicman
    Wow indeed.

    And that, Helen, is a perfect illustration of the gish gallop.  A gish gallop is a rapid switching from topic to topic in an attempt to wear down opposition by the abuse of time - much like a filibuster.  Filibusters and gish gallops don't need to be rational - science does.

    The proper response is: "Can you provide me with three credible source for each of the points you raise?", but "Wow" will do fine.

    Ian Plimer poses many questions and then answers them himself.  That is rhetoric and it ain't science.

    Most of the answers he gives are patently false.  Please read what a real climate scientist has to say: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/plimers-homework-assignment/

    I am currently doing the final error-checking of my Arctic ice update.  The oldest ice in the Arctic - 3 to 5000 years is nearly gone.  Most of the ice now is less than 5 years old.  Wow!  The Arctic is warming at a rate which strongly supports other evidence that we humans are causing this warming.  We are destroying one of our planet's major cooling devices.  When it is gone we will have performed a major experiment to see who is right and who is wrong about globally averaged warming.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Thanks for the link Patrick, I am working my way through Plimer's homework assignment and the criticisms of it, so far the criticisms seem a bit heavy handed but I am persevering. In the meantime I know you are very busy but I value your opinion a lot, so I wondered if you could give your own one or two word answers to Plimer's questions that he has answered below. or just point out the ones that you definitely disagree with?
    Are the speed and amount of modern climate change unprecedented? Answer: No.
    Is dangerous warming occurring? Answer: No.
    Is the temperature range observed in the 20th Century outside the range of normal variability? Answer: No.
    Does the Sun influence the Earth's climate? Answer: Yes.
    Do volcanoes change climate? Answer: Yes
    Do wobbles in the Earth's orbit change climate? Answer: Yes.
    Have past climate changes driven extinctions? Answer: Yes and no.
    Is global warming melting the polar ice caps&alpine valley glaciers? Answer: Yes but no.
    Do human emissions of carbon dioxide create a rise in the sea level? Answer: No.
    Will the seas become acid? Answer: No.
    Does sea level rise kill coral atolls? Answer: No.
    Are humans forcing changes in ocean currents? Answer: No.
    Do air thermometer measurements show the planet is warming? Answer: No.
    Do other air temperature measurements show the planet is warming? Answer: No.
    Is atmospheric carbon dioxide increasing? Answer: Possibly.
    Is atmospheric carbon dioxide approaching a dangerous level? Answer: No.
    Do higher sea temperatures cause more hurricanes? Answer: No.
    Do clouds influence climate? Answer: Yes.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Basically, Plimer is a flat out liar. Some corrections;

    Is dangerous warming occurring? Plimer: No. Reality: Yes. We are currently warming at a rate of about 2 C per century. Warming much slower than that in the past has caused mass extinction events (i.e. half of all species on the planet dying out).

    Is the temperature range observed in the 20th Century outside the range of normal variability? Plimer: No. Reality: It is outside the range of any climate change in the past 800,000 years (the period we have detailed proxy records for) and anything which can be caused by current natural variations. It is not outside the range of natural variations which took place in the distant past - but which we know by measurement are not happening now.

    Is global warming melting the polar ice caps&alpine valley glaciers? Plimer: Yes but no. Reality: Yes. Sea ice around Antarctica has increased slightly. All other large ice groupings (i.e. Arctic sea ice, Arctic land ice, Antarctic land ice, and other glacier ice) are in accelerating decline... as is the global total.

    Do human emissions of carbon dioxide create a rise in the sea level? Plimer: No. Reality: Yes, though indirectly. The emissions increase temperatures which melt ice and cause water to undergo thermal expansion... both of which result in sea level rise. Note that sea level rise is also a measured reality.

    Will the seas become acid? Answer: No. Reality: Probably not, but the question is misleading. The percentage of carbonic acid in the oceans is increasing sufficiently to significantly shift the ocean pH. Anyone who has ever had a fish tank can tell you that pH changes kill fish. So while we'd probably kill off most of the human race (and thus drastically decrease emissions) before we got to the point that the oceans shifted from a base to an acid that doesn't stop ocean acidification (i.e. increasing the acid content of the oceans) from being a massive problem.

    Does sea level rise kill coral atolls? Answer: No. Reality: Yes. Plimer likely argues that some atolls have survived some sea level rises in the past... which is true. However, it is also true that some atolls have already died from 'recent' sea level increases. The speed of increase and the species of coral both play a part.

    Are humans forcing changes in ocean currents? Answer: No. Reality: Yes. This is most easily observed in the Arctic where the decline in sea ice has allowed much stronger currents in recent years than in the past. Should be self evident that water flows faster when it isn't impeded by ice. Plimer's only dodge on this one would be to claim that we aren't causing the ice to melt, but that too is false.

    Do air thermometer measurements show the planet is warming? Answer: No. Reality: Yes. Or at least so say the science academies of every major nation on the planet.

    Do other air temperature measurements show the planet is warming? Answer: No. Reality: Yes. Again, not even skeptic scientists deny this... Roy Spencer used to (and possibly still did when Plimer wrote his book), but his satellite measurements were proven to contain numerous assumptions which turned out to be false (oddly always in the direction of cooling) and his revised results now show significant warming (though still less than all other sources). As others have pointed out it also defies logic... how is ice melting all over the world if there is no warming? How are sea levels rising? Why are new high temperature records being set at a rate more than double that of new low temperature records? Why are spring flowers arriving earlier? Why are countless species all over the globe shifting their ranges northward and to higher altitudes?

    Is atmospheric carbon dioxide increasing? Answer: Possibly. Reality: Yes, without question. There are a couple of dozen monitoring stations all over the world which all show the same results... which are also now confirmed by satellite readings (those might not have been available yet when Plimer wrote his book). Again, NO 'skeptic' scientist disputes this... only the outright propagandists do.

    Is atmospheric carbon dioxide approaching a dangerous level? Answer: No. Reality: Yes. The difference between half the planet being covered in ice and our current environment is from ~180 ppm to ~280 ppm... and we are now at 390 ppm... a level which was last seen millions of years before the human race even existed. Further the rate of increase is faster than anything in the ice core records... and rate of change is the relevant issue when discussing whether life forms can adapt or not.

    Do higher sea temperatures cause more hurricanes? Answer: No. Reality: Probably, but the research is still inconclusive.

    Quote
    ..."The proper response is: "Can you provide me with three credible source for each of the points you raise?",
    Patrick Lockerby | 03/25/11 | 19:04 PM"

    Thanks
    I will be waiting.

    Three credible sources?

    How about EVERY credible source?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    Not one major scientific body on the planet disputes that human CO2 emissions are warming the Earth.

    A number of scientist on the IPCC rejected the final report and had to threaten legal proceedings to have their names removed from the report. The final report was created by NGOs and not real scientists. And never use the words Every or All, that can never be accurate and you logic therefore defective

    Gerhard Adam
    ...not real scientists...
    Are you suggesting that all the research and evidence on climate change has been published by people that aren't real scientists?  If you are, then where's your evidence, and if you aren't then what is your point?


    Mundus vult decipi
    "And never use the words Every or All, that can never be accurate and you logic therefore defective"

    By that logic your use of the word "never" should disprove your own axiom. :]

    That being said... fine. Cite me ONE national science organization... of any field... for any country of the world... which DOES dispute that human CO2 emissions are causing warming.

    You've said that I MUST be wrong about there not being any so surely you should be able to find one.

    Good luck! :]

    Gerhard Adam
    If you spent half as much time actually looking up this crap, you might be better informed.  However when I saw HAARP, that told me all I needed.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Didn't intend to insult you if you actually believe HAARP is some sort of plot to control the weather, minds or transcendentally demensional units.

    Gerhard Adam
    You're the one that said HAARP caused Katrina ... not me.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Please try reading the post again....
    "but I know that a significant number of people know that the HAARP project cause Katrina and the Moon landing was faked by Stanley Kubrick."
    That is sarcasm, much like Swift suggesting that poor Irish could make money selling their children as food.
    Anyone with half a brain knows that HAARP is nothing more than pure research of basic natural processes that occur in the ionosphere and solar interaction and development of technology that can potentially use effects produced through ionospheric interactions such as ELF signals.
    Much like the highly dubious concept that a less than 0.00001 percent increase of so called green house gasses could adversely affect the climate.
    BTW, can you suggest a good wine from Northern England?

    Gerhard Adam
    BTW, can you suggest a good wine from Northern England?
    No, since I'm not from England
    Anyone with half a brain knows that HAARP is nothing more than pure research of basic natural processes...
    You'd be surprised at the number of people this month that I've dealt with that have half a brain then.  Unfortunately such sarcasm doesn't work here, since we get more than enough posters that believe that nonsense, so it's extremely difficult to discern when someone's simply making fun.

    Some examples:
    Please google h a a r p causes japan earthquake. This is real, it exists, it's used (without telling the public) and can cause everything that is happening and there is evidence that haarp was used just before it happened.
    http://www.science20.com/comments/62786/Re_Japanese_Earthquake_Causes_Supermoon_Concern
    Take haarp, firing 1 billion watts to a fault in the earths crust which in turn causes a tsunami. So if you add the power of haarp, add an earthquake, plus a tsunami and I am thinking you are talking the kind of energy that could mess up japan.
    http://www.science20.com/comments/62861/Re_Japanese_Earthquake_Causes_Supermoo

    Mundus vult decipi
    And you missed the Moon landing reference?
    And the answer to the wine question is there are none. During the peak of the Roman Empire what is now the British Isle were renowned for the grapes and wines. They withered with the cooling and returned in the late 10th and early 11th century warming.

    Gerhard Adam
    And you missed the Moon landing reference?
    I didn't miss it ... it's just that nothing surprises me anymore when it comes to the crap that people believe.

    Good response on the wine, but since I don't drink at all .... I have absolutely zero knowledge about wines.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Gerhard Adam | 03/26/11 | 00:03 AM
    "In my view, we aren't technologically developed enough to curb our CO2 emissions, and no country is going to commit economic suicide, regardless of what the science says. So even if everyone joined hands and agreed on AGW tomorrow, there would still be no viable solutions (in my opinion)."
    -
    Probably the most sensible and accurate comment you've managed to make here so far.
    It's good to know that not all alarmists believe that all we need to do is come together to fight, stop, slow, reduce, reverse or in any other way tackle GW.
    It's a pity that more of the merry band of believers don't see the futility of their argument as sensibly as you do.
    -
    NB: I hope that wasn't too childish for you.
    Ö¿Ö

    Helen, I notice that Plimer says Yes in answer to the question about volcanoes affecting climate.

    There are no details here, but if you've bookmarked that page it would be worth having another look. Is he talking about volcanoes cooling by releasing clouds of dust or warming by release of greenhouse gases or both?

    If he accepts that it was the accumulated GHGs released by volcanoes that finally got the planet moving away from the Snowball Earth state we might get somewhere. See this item. http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

    Humans currently emit 100 times the CO2 of volcanoes. If volcanoes releasing these gases could jolt the planet out of snowball earth, why can't people do the same thing? Especially seeing as we seem to be able to do heaps more than our current crop of volcanoes.

    The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa cause the year with no summer.

    The physics truth is that more greenhouse gases means more warming yet still much of the public, both in America and increasingly worldwide, remains unconvinced.

    Probably because the science is so closely tied to left winged liberal political activists like Al Gore, and so 33%, (the republican base) will never buy it, while at least have of the 33% who make up the swing voters will have serious doubts about the honesty of the science as 33% of the left will accept the conclusions without any skepticism whatsoever.

    This will never change as long as the peer review process is dominated by left winged liberal activist scientists, and it does not matter who is right or wrong, period, get over it...

    Hank
    It is not dominated by "left winged liberal activist scientists" and the first problem with your assertion is that with 5% of the world population American produces 32% of the world's science.    America is #1 so even diehard Republicans should be proud.   Leftwing people are willing to work for peanuts and so there will be more of them in academia where, let's face it, the salaries will be smaller due to primarily federal financing, which is what the government made happen, both Republican and Democrat.

    The second problem your assertion is that diehard skeptics who even acknowledge there may be a problem are counting on future generations to come up with a magical solution to fossil fuels - but since science is all "left winged liberal activist scientists" your 33% won't want to fund them to cure pollution ills.

    Is science and academia overwhelmingly liberal?  Yes it is.  And have there been instances (ClimateGate again) where a handful of scientists set out to suppress contrary results?  Sure.   But any process that has humans involved with have corruption.    It isn't like Big Tobacco or oil companies have been exempt from trying to suppress results they didn't like.

    Peer review has flaws because any human system will but it works.  The issue skeptics have is they think articles showing the weaknesses in science can be peer reviewed.   "You can't prove X in all instances" is not science.
    “For assistant professors, the reported salary range in July 2009 was $44,405 to $71,708."
    "In July 2009, associate professors received $42,412 to $85,592. After five years of employment, associate professors earned a minimum of $52,447."
    "For full professors, the maximum salary reported in July 2009 was $117,130. During the first four years of employment, full professors earned $40,000 to $71,295."
    Source: The Average Salary of a College Professor | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5220905_average-salary-college-professor.html#...
    Not exactly working "for peanuts"
    Academia is not only liberal but in more cases all the time exclusionary in it's left wing lock step (I would never label them as "liberal")
    If we MUST reduce so called Green House Gasses, let's eliminate termites, because they generate more GHG than all human activity combined
    And climate gate didn't just set out to suppress contrary results, lead members conspired to hide and eliminate legally requested information, marginalize and ostracize anyone who voiced even the slightest question about global cooling-warming-change, an active willingness to shift temperature records to show warming and eliminate reporting stations that generated information outside predetermined end results. Plus fraudulent code that guaranteed temperature increase no matter what temperatures were used.

    Hank
    "For full professors, the maximum salary reported in July 2009 was $117,130. During the first four years of employment, full professors earned $40,000 to $71,295."
    That's $20 an hour, one third of what a plumber makes.  Again, you are shooting data through a narrow political prism to match conclusions you already had - the very definition of a junk model you claim is evident in science.

    You graduate from college at 22 and if you are lucky you get a doctorate at 26 or 27 - but that does not get you a job doing anything in academia. Nothing.    There are 6X as many PhDs per year as there are jobs, not that you did any research beyond googling a crappy content farm site like ehow.com.   How many 27 year old professors do you know?

    So after you get a PhD you have to do a post-doc and you have to work with a primary investigator who has a grant to pay you because the university does not pay you.  If your project fails, you will end up needing another post-doc position, even if it's not your own fault and was instead a mistaken hypothesis by the PI.   Salary while you do all that - maybe $34,000, with your PhD.   The only way you can get a tenure track position is to keep trying or get an R01 grant of your own.  Average age for the first R01 is 41 years old.   So now a 41 year old PhD is making $40-50K.    Less than what a guy selling mobile phones makes at 24.

    Academia is not for the rich.   Is it cushy once you get tenure?   Sure, but cars cost the same, there is no university discount, so the only people who do it are the ones who don't care about money.   
    Don't forget the benefits and they are not likely to really work 40 hours a week. They may not be rich, but with two professors in a household at a minimum you're over 80 K per year, again not minimum wage and if they don't care about the money, why focus on the money. Although I suspect a significant number push fake Global Cooling/Warming/Change to get more grants and more money to feather their nests.
    If the numbers are accurate there may be concern or perhaps an environment 2 or 3 degrees C might be better. longer growing seasons, more fertile areas, a return of the Sahara from desert to life supporting land.
    But the Warmists won't release their raw data, use fraudulent code to fake reports and bully any qualified scientist into silence.

    Those that can, do
    Those that can't, teach

    Hank
    But the Warmists won't release their raw data, use fraudulent code to fake reports and bully any qualified scientist into silence.
    I don't know what a warmist is but it isn't like there are various groups putting their own sensing devices in various places.   The raw data is available to anyone.   Your use of the word 'fraudulent' shows you have a political agenda rather than a science one - the charge you level against scientists, ironically.   There can be errors in numerical models but there has never been any evidence of fraud.

    On bullying, I suppose it is possible.  
    I just can't get through all the comments on this blog but have managed about half and i don't know how you bloggers do it .I take my hat of to you.My only comment ,if you are not too exhausted,is that early science was full of speculative theory and argument and a sceptical public. The thing that changed it's image was practical experiment and working models.As children we used to see Flash Gordon movies where spacemen skyped to each other with large t.v. screens on walls now we all accept computer science because we see working models..Mi Cro wrote"And theres no lab. to drag it into to get some real measurements"[concerning the effect of co2].Why can't we construct a working model on a laboratory scale?.Are we so inept and lacking in expertise or rescources.?It would certainly convince both politicians ,sceptics and the general public and settle this endless debate.

    Hank
    Why can't we construct a working model on a laboratory scale?
    You want to model the climate in a physical lab?   We don't set off nuclear bombs in labs either, they are tested numerically.
    logicman
    We don't set off nuclear bombs in labs either ...

    Well, we try not to - but there was a very close call at Los Alamos once:
    tickling the dragon's tail is not to be recommended as a spectator sport!
    MikeCrow
    This would depend on if your lab is designed for it or not.

    I've read of a really amazing super high speed camera that's used to film a nuke detonating. There's a long horizontal tunnel, intersected by a long vertical tunnel. The camera is dropped down the vertical tunnel, and is timed to cross the horizontal tunnel at just the right instance to capture the detonation of a nuke that's down one end of the horizontal tunnel, and then fall somewhere safe, to be recovered later for review.

    But I won't argue if you don't consider that a lab, it is however a very clever way to film a bomb detonating. Besides treaties now prohibit lighting off the big boomers....


    More to the point, it would seem to me we could narrow down some of the CGM's parameter values with some clever lab work.
    Never is a long time.
    Hank
    But I won't argue if you don't consider that a lab, it is however a very clever way to film a bomb detonating. Besides treaties now prohibit lighting off the big boomers....
    I agree with the rest of your comment but note that those treaties were only signed and upheld because it became possible to do accurate numerical simulations.  The prohibition did not come first, successful policies rarely happen when the need to violate them is evident.
    MikeCrow
    I suppose this is very true.

    I got to see 1/4 of Cray's Red Storm (that was going to Sandia National Labs), way cool.
    Never is a long time.
    Hank
    You were working in Seattle then?  After Tera acquired Cray I did a lot of work with those guys (our company had the EM analysis tools they used) and also when they got the Red Storm contract.   We may have met!   
    MikeCrow
    No, I was in Chippewa Falls(and they had already delivered part of RS by the time I got there), but worked with people from Seattle. I do remember talking to some of the Tera people about what they were trying to design, as was amazed by what they were trying to do.
    Never is a long time.
    Climate does change, but lets get real, if the handful of scientists presenting this religion want to be believed then they better show all of their data or keep quiet. I'm tired of the just accept what I say. Dr. Mann's hockey stick graph turned out to be garbage they fudged the results. What else have they done which is not science? Science does not progress if others can't replicate your theory.

    logicman
    Science does not progress if others can't replicate your theory.

    ... if others cannot replicate your experimental results!


    Next contestant please.
    Gerhard Adam
    Let's be clear that not all science lends itself to experimentation.  Prediction is the ultimate criteria.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Gerhard Adam
    I'm not sure which is worse ... your idea that data is "fudged" or your tone which suggests that science must be infallible.  Even if everything goes 100% correctly, there is no assurance that a new theory or idea won't come along to demonstrate that previous conclusions were erroneous.

    I'm not sure why this rabid fascination with everything being perfect has come from.  Just as cold fusion was a dead end, there is nothing wrong with people point out errors (or even outright fabrications).  Instead of praising science for persisting despite these obstacles, people want to hold scientists to some superhuman standard of behavior.  Despite its faults, it is the peer review process and skeptical inquiry that keep the data honest, not individuals.

    So when people want to fabricate whole conspiracy theories, then they are not simply denying themselves the opportunity to ever learn the true science, they create a fantasy scientific persona that leaves them susceptible to following every twit that comes along with a political explanation.
    Mundus vult decipi
    "I'm not sure which is worse ... your idea that data is "fudged" "
    It's not my idea, the 'gentlemen' responsible for ClimateGate have admittedly been caught at least twice shifting temperature date and 'creating' temperature 'increases'. Afterward when called on it they quickly changed the numbers and apologized. And the code used for generating the reports uses algorithms that suppresses recent temperature declines

    " your tone which suggests that science must be infallible."
    I expect 'science' to be honest. Jumping from a "new Iceage" in the 70s to "the Earth is onfire" in the 90s is a little extreme. As a percentage of the atmosphere, modern man MAY have increased so called GWGs by pess than 0.0001 of a percent.

    " Even if everything goes 100% correctly, there is no assurance that a new theory or idea won't come along to demonstrate that previous conclusions were erroneous."
    BINGO!!!! exactly right. Keep studying, share all the data, argue, but don't destroy the worlds economy and force the world back into a cave man existence.

    "Just as cold fusion was a dead end, there is nothing wrong with people point out errors (or even outright fabrications). Instead of praising science for persisting despite these obstacles, people want to hold scientists to some superhuman standard of behavior.
    No we don't. I personally would have liked to seen continued research into "cold fusion" Something was happening just not what they though it was.

    "Despite its faults, it is the peer review process and skeptical inquiry that keep the data honest, not individuals."
    Again BINGO!!! except individuals can and do keep things honest, IF they have access to the process and the data.

    So when people want to fabricate whole conspiracy theories, then they are not simply denying themselves the opportunity to ever learn the true science, they create a fantasy scientific persona that leaves them susceptible to following every twit that comes along with a political explanation.

    Gerhard Adam
    I expect 'science' to be honest.
    No you don't.  You just want to use this tired old "climategate" issue be the lever you wanted to deny it.  You don't believe climate change before and now you think you've got your conspiracy to rationalize what you always believed anyway.

    Also your point about an "ice age" and then the "earth is on fire" is simply your rhetorical bullshit and demonstrates once again that you aren't interested in the science at all.

    However, the real giveaway is this:
    ...destroy the worlds economy and force the world back into a cave man existence.
    Now, you're finally being honest.  This isn't about climate change or science.  This is about your political and economic views, as well as advancing only those ideas that support that position.

    It's because of that statement that no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient for you to intelligently discuss the climate.  You've already made up your mind, and are only looking for those statements that support your agenda.

    This is why you keep bringing up irrelevancies, instead of discussing the actual science involved.  If you believe I'm wrong, then show me ONE piece of evidence that suggests that climate science is wrong.  That needs to be SCIENTIFIC evidence, and not agenda driven crap.
    Mundus vult decipi
    logicman
    ... when people want to fabricate whole conspiracy theories, then they are not simply denying themselves the opportunity to ever learn the true science, they create a fantasy scientific persona that leaves them susceptible to following every twit that comes along with a political explanation.

    Every twit that comes along?  Like Monckton, perhaps - who believes that the Arctic was ice free when the Chinese fleet sailed through it in 1421?

    Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.
    Christopher Monckton
    He wrote that load of political bilge in November 2006.  This is what the science said about tropical glaciers in June 2006:
    COLUMBUS , Ohio – For the first time, glaciologists have combined and compared sets of ancient climate records trapped in ice cores from the South American Andes and the Asian Himalayas to paint a picture of how climate has changed – and is still changing – in the tropics.

    Their conclusions mark a massive climate shift to a cooler regime that occurred just over 5,000 years ago, and a more recent reversal to a much warmer world within the last 50 years.
    Eurekalert
    Neven
    This post must be getting a lot of hits!
    logicman
    This post must be getting a lot of hits!

    Why would you think that?  ;-)

    The Ancient Greeks had logic and the Olympic Games.

    We have illogic and the Whack-a-troll games.

    It's called human progress, I tell you!
    Well lets make it clear I didn't say they had to perfect. Peer review is broken. All you have to do is see the work of Dr. Muller at Berkeley and know the hockey stick should never have been used they misled us. Why is it so hard to understand their data should be open. When iyou leave it closed the public feels you are hiding something. There is no conspiracy here just some scientist who want to keep the gravy train rolling in.

    Gerhard Adam
    ...know the hockey stick should never have been used they misled us.
    OK, so would it have made you feel better had it been an outright error?  Get over it.  If Muller is a bad scientist, then review other data and other papers.  The point is that it is the number of papers and other evidence that are responsible for formulating what the actual events are.  Right or wrong, I would never believe just one source.

    The problem here is that people like to invoke individual scientists as an indictment of the entire discipline.  That's as bad as invoking Einstein for every word he ever uttered, as if his pronouncements have more validity than anyone else (outside his area of expertise).

    As for the gravy train .... get in line.  There are far more politicians and corporate leaders that are on a much larger, longer gravy train that any scientist will ever see, let alone be invited on.  If someone has an agenda, then why not examine those that truly stand to profit. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    logicman
    I just love how these pseudo-skeptics keep recycling -

    their old arguments.


    Skeptic Argument  vs What the Science Says

    1 "It's the sun"
    In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

    2 "Climate's changed before"
    Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

    3 "There is no consensus"
    97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

    4 "It's cooling"
    The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record.

    5 "Models are unreliable"
    Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

    6 "It's not bad"
    Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health&environment far outweigh any positives.

    7 "Temp record is unreliable"
    The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites.

    8 "It hasn't warmed since 1998"
    For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.

    9 "Ice age predicted in the 70s"
    The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.

    10 "Antarctica is gaining ice"
    Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.

    11 "CO2 lags temperature"
    CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.

    12 "We're heading into an ice age"
    Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.

    13 "Al Gore got it wrong"
    Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books.

    14 "1934 - hottest year on record"
    1934 was one of the hottest years in the US, not globally.

    15 "It's freaking cold!"
    A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.

    16 "Hockey stick is broken"
    Recent studies agree that recent global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 1000 years.

    etc. etc. ad nauseum.

    Source: Skeptical Science
    Read climateaudit and see for yourself. Phil Jones himself has stated that no warming has occured in the last 15 years. Lets get the science right, why should I believe the warmistas when you have to use FOI to get their data and there are scientists who openly refuse. Why is that? Why aren't others allowed to see the data and that means all of it code and all so we can see if the theory has any chance. As for a consensus that is 97% of the scientists who work on the IPCC reports believe in CAGW. There has never been a poll taken of all scientists I would dearly love to see that. I guess you have lots of money to pay for the cost of heat and hydro should this nonsense go on.

    logicman
    Phil Jones himself has stated that no warming has occured in the last 15 years.
    Phil Jones did not say that - as anyone with a working brain can see for themselves:


    B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
    BBC interview

    Phil Jones was talking about statistical significance and being intellectually honest.

    Intellectually dishonest people have turned this around to make Phil Jones look bad.

    Now, why would anyone want to do such a thing?  Is it possible they may have some sort of secret agenda to damage the reputations of climate scientists?
    Not at all. Tell me though if they are so correct why is not all the data available? That means code and all, People are still having to send FOI requests to get the information. Lets get this right and not make a costly error.

    Gerhard Adam
    Who's going to do the analysis?  You?

    I agree that data and papers should be available, but that applies to all science and not just climate science.  Once again, your point about a "costly error" has little or nothing to do with the science.

    That is a political/economic decision and that is based on an entirely different set of data.  The point being that in the latter instance, we aren't questioning the climate science, but rather we are having to determine whether (1) there is a solution and (2) do we know enough to predict how it will behave.  Once we know the answer to those questions, then we would have to address how it might actually be implemented (if it's even possible).

    As Patrick knows, I'm a cynic in this area, because I don't believe that climate change can be addressed globally, since there are too many differing political agendas and people that will use this as a vehicle to gain individual advantage.  Be that as it may, that's no excuse to deny the science just because I don't believe an actionable solution is possible.
    Mundus vult decipi
    logicman
    People are still having to send FOI requests to get the information.

    Which implies that they are, nevertheless, getting the information.

    Do you think that anyone and everyone has the right of instant access to commercially valuable information - or military secrets come to that - other than by legally enforceable right?

    Can we please have access to all of your personal and private emails to check that you are not secretly conspiring with others to fabricate climate data?  No?  I thought not.
    Unfortunately policy decisions are being made by the Ecco-Mobsters, who for political reasons have co-opted Environmental Science. There is/was an unspoken covenant between Lay-people and the practitioners of Science on Society’s behalf. The Scientists dispassionately compiles and distills the data, and Society charts how Humanity integrates that knowledge into the fabric of our lives.

    Stepping away from the the climate issue, and just looking at the actions & behavior of those the public would normally trust, what I see is the entire issue ENCAPSULATED by Collectivist & Socio-Political agendas, forcing me conclude that powerful elements have sized upon these issues as a way/method to sequester more than just our Carbon.

    I frankly don’t trust them…it’s a condition they have brought upon themselves with the series of duplicitous actions regarding how they established their so-called consensus. The “Warmest” community then further aggravates and “poisons the well” by calling us “Flat Earthers” and “Paleo-intellects”. Setting aside their elitist disdain, I have found myself ample evidence that the deconstruction of our carbon based society, along the radical time-table advocated by the likes of: Hansen, Mann, Cueller, et al…poses a greater risk of war, famine, and governmental tyranny, than the disruption and risk imposed by a fraction of a degree celsius.

    Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our present climatic era. The predictions of warming are based on modeling, these computer models have been crafted & reformated since the Rio Conference on Climate Change in 1991 (predates Kyoto by approx 7 years). These models continue to undergo revision, as we learn more, guess what?...Every major revision has REDUCED AND EXTENDED FURTHER INTO THE FUTURE THE PREDICTED GLOBAL WARMING RATE.

    The complex and multi-variable matrix that is Climate is far from being a simple "Greenhouse" Anthropogenic Warming is not established to the extent many think. A consensus is not a substitute for a proved event. The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in the model.

    Remember the Y2K scare? the poor countries that spent ZERO on computer protection fared as well as the U.S. and it's $50,000,000.00 Y2K placebo.

    Gerhard Adam
    You have no idea what you're talking about. 

    As for your Y2K point .... that's as ignorant as it is stupid.
    Mundus vult decipi
    logicman
    Climate has always changed, and always will.

    Indeed!  I'm old enough to remember the first liquid water that fell on the boiling rocks.  Man! I tell you - it played havoc with my delicate skin!
    We are not advanced enough in the many fields of study involved in understanding global climate.

    There are new findings and theories published almost monthly in our understanding of cloud formation, ocean current patterns, solar cycles, non-human biological influences, earth wobble, planetary influences, and cosmic particle bombardment - to name a few. These findings are often contradictory and sometimes revolutionary (as in the latest solar science).

    AGW computer models presume a level of confidence in our understanding of these many (likely) drivers of climate that is not justified.

    Of course, billions of dollars offered to "scientists" around the world every year to prove the AGW assumption (rather than to discover the truth) could not possibly influence the results of AGW science. Right?

    Hank
    You argue for complexity in nature and then one-dimensional simplicity in people - which makes no sense and is more like a bad novel.   I assume you don't know any scientists, just what you read about them.  They are combative, contrarian and competitive.   If this vast conspiracy of money existed, humans by nature would want some of it but you think scientists can be bought for $50K a year.    Would you lie to everyone you know for $50K?

    No.   Instead, scientists work for little money but they would happily get showered with worldwide fame if they could prove this conspiracy to invent a fake climate change issue existed.
    logicman
    billions of dollars offered to "scientists" around the world every year to prove the AGW assumption

    Where do I apply?  I'm fed up with living on a meager state pension and warning people about the effects of AGW just out of love for humanity.
    I fell for the Y2K scare which was overblown. I will not be fooled again. Climate Change, Global warming or the Greenhouse effect is a myth. Also without carbon based fuel earth would simply not support 8 billion people. As the population rises and the global middle class grow we will need carbon based fuel more then ever.

    Hank
    Y2K was not a disaster precisely because it was anticipated and dealt with.  You are disappointed things did not crash so you refuse to believe pollution is bad.   

    My article was not arguing people should be dumb, it was arguing that framing debates to convince dumb people was wrong.   But really, you can't be taken seriously invoking Y2K as a reason to pollute.  
    Gerhard Adam
    I fell for the Y2K scare which was overblown.
    Which tells me that you know nothing about it, and had nothing to do with correcting it.  This type of comment is annoying because it's the armchair critic who always knows better than everyone that is actually working on mitigating these types of situations.

    Y2K was NOT overblown except for laypersons and the popular media.  To demonstrate just how foolish your Y2K sentiment is, that was a case of where every IT person knew about the problem (and had anticipated it for years), but the general public only caught the drama.  People like you simply latched on the hysteria, did no investigation, and then when it was successfully handled, immediately were disappointed that there was no catastrophe.  You're as foolish as you are ignorant.
    Mundus vult decipi
    "I don't know what a warmist is............"
    Take a wild guess, Hank.

    To compare laboratory experiments to prove that co2 causes warming is far different toproving the power of an atom bomb in a lab..You are not being fair here Hank and i don't know why since i'm not running away from the truth whatever lab tests may prove i'm quite willing to leave behind my previous ideas for love of truth.

    logicman
    To compare laboratory experiments to prove that co2 causes warming is far different toproving the power of an atom bomb in a lab ...

    Indeed!  Lab experiments which involve shining a beam of light through a gas are much safer than bringing two lumps of radioactive material into close proximity in order to discover the critical mass and yield.  Yet in order to build the first atom bomb it was necessary to carry out exactly that lab experiment.

    Lab tests based on a still-developing atomic theory proved that the theory was sound.
    Unfortunately.

    Our accidental experiment of continually pumping CO2 into the atmosphere proves that the AGW theory is sound.
    Unfortunately.
    Would you lie to everyone you know for $50K?

    Sir, I am a trial lawyer. I can buy "scientists" by the pound or by the hour and often do. My experience is that "scientists" will shape their opinions for a lot less than $50K.

    For all the nonsense that is put out by political propagandists, the facts are that we do not know whether or by how much the climate is warming or cooling (and depending on one's reference point it is doing either or both at all times) nor do we know if or by how much this process is influenced by anthropogenic CO2. What we do know is that the average global temperature has been a lot warmer than it is at present within the historic record when anthropogenic CO2 was negligible - a fact that AGW "scientists" spend a lot of time ignoring.

    The entire "global climate change" stupidity is no longer even a scientific question, since it's now permanently beyond falsifiability. No matter what facts are observed, they are always now explainable in terms of "anthropogenic global warming." And since nobody (you the least of all) can say what temperature the earth is supposed to have, nobody can say it is too warm or too cool. You and your ilk have now entered the realm of faith without reason - like a Shiite Muslim waiting for the return of the Hidden Imam. Good luck with that.

    Psychoanalyze all you wish - since psychoanalysis is but another example of non-science. You're engaged in nothing but pseudo-intellectual masturbation.

    Hank
    Psychoanalyze all you wish - since psychoanalysis is but another example of non-science.   You're engaged in nothing but pseudo-intellectual masturbation.
    No, that would mean I am a trial lawyer.  

    Just because you know unethical people you can pay for expert testimony and can get them to say anything you wish - and you have no problem doing so - does not mean all scientists are unethical.   Just the ones who associate with you.
    Gerhard Adam
    ...nobody can say it is too warm or too cool.
    Actually they can.  However that is spoken like a true trial lawyer.  Never let a thing like evidence (i.e. Arctic ice melting) get in the way of a good argument.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Found many of the posts here interesting.

    One seemed to cast doubt on the English wine production during the MWP. I suggest reading several books by Lamb for a detailed analysis based on surviving documents. Wine production occurred in England 500 mile further north than can be done today. England was a major competitor with France in wine production during the MWP.

    There is a reason Mann and crew worked so hard to try and refute the MWP and the LIA. If these events stood, then there was nothing unusual about today climate. The MWP and the LIA is still proven to be world spanning events, so the warming seen is well within historical variance.

    Lamb, as in: The Hubert Lamb Building, University of East Anglia, where the Climatic Research Unit is based

    some interesting headlines on climate reporting over the years.

    Historical reporting of global warming and cooling cycles.
    For the global cooling from 1880s to 1910s, the headline in The New York Times on 24-Feb-1895 was PROSPECTS OF ANOTHER GLACIAL PERIOD.
    http://bit.ly/dM1dp9
    For the global warming from 1910s to 1940s, the headline in The New York Times on 15-May-1932 was MELTING POLAR ICE CAPS TO RAISE THE LEVEL OF SEAS AND FLOOD THE CONTINENTS.
    http://nyti.ms/6vk7O6
    For the global cooling from 1940s to 1970s, the headline in Newsweek on 28-April-1975 was THE COOLING WORLD. Check out the temp graph. This one is worth a look
    http://bit.ly/X403E
    Cartoon that summarizes the above historical reporting
    http://bit.ly/aVQyxO
    Data that supports the above historical reporting of global warming and cooling cycles:
    http://bit.ly/emAwAu

    blue-green
    I can’t resist amusing Patrick with a deep snow photo taken from my yard at noon on March 28, 2011, Latitude 41 degrees north. That’s my tall Kawasaki dirt bike just showing …. and my 21’ boat. The nearby lake is frozen. I won’t be burning any hydrocarbons with these toys soon. Question for Patrick: do you actually visit the Arctic with boots on the ground …. or do you just gaze upon it from on high like a god? It’s almost April and I have run through all the firewood I have … the remaining stock is unprocessed beetle kill pine lying on the forest floor with 3 or more feet of snow on top. I am in one of those many areas that experienced its lodgepole pine forest being decimated by pine beetles. It’s my understanding that these beetle problems are also occurring way up north. Perhaps Patrick can shed some light on the condition of the great boreal forests that used to run just below the arctic …. and what will be the effects of their dying. To be real, I must add that in my area near Rocky Mountain National Park, there is an ample new growth of trees to replace the older forest, as long as the snow and moisture keeps piling up as shown.
    It is not about believing or not believing, it is about massive German-sponsored propaganda that became German guided EU-policy, soon evolved into "let us convince every fool in the Western World to pay carbon taxes, so that we can peddle carbon absolvong solutions, all conveniently made by Siemens and half a dozen other European companies

    Naive exercises in modelling, peddled in the US by the successors to Meadows' "Limits to Growth". I remember oil running out of oil by 1995!

    Lidzen and Choi (http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Lindzen_Choi_ERBE_JGR_v4.pdf) pretty much settled the matter.

    Fukushima, will now put an end to the Green Fairy Tale, as the Germans are caught in their own eco-trap.

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Thanks for the link green fraud buster. This research supports what Professor Ian Plimer has been saying.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    The problem goes well beyond cognitive biases. The obvious need to "win" the argument in the first place is evidence of a historical inheritence that precludes the sort of complex understanding needed to deal effectively with this issue.

    Check you assumptions about human nature. We do not (at least not yet) fit the monstrous parameters of the rational economic actor so ubiquitously assumed.

    Nothing here has been said about heat of industry on the inside and what the worldwide total heat emissions from all sources[bodyheat as well] is.only heat from the sun is mentioned.You see my point Hank only a practical working model will settle this.

    RANDOM THOUGHTS;I was thinking how good it was to see a lawyer visit these pages and how he would envisage a court case held about the current scientific situation.You would have to have a judge,someone who knew enough about scientific law to keep the lawyers in line but who hadn't been contaminated with the extreems of defence or prosecution.The "soft scientists"would make excellent judges.You would have to have a jury,the general"man in the street",like my wife,who says"I don't need to understand about electricity to turn a light on"but can see when it works and when it doesn't.Here in court we have the "I put it to you" hardy scientific lawyers for the defence and prosecution{Is that why they are called"hardies","pseudo-intellectual masturbators?"]The lawyers from both sides call their expert witnesses but the court requires that their qualifications and testimony should be beyond reasonable doubt,since the court cannot make judgements beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence that is not.The court examines the expert witnesses and discovers that they are qualified in lies and half truths.The lie is that as something tends towards nothing you can say it equals nothing,then you can take that thing you said was nothing and you could extrapolate it into an infinitely large amount by differentiation.So these experts are people who know more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing,or less and less about more and more untill they know nothing about everything.The half truth is atomic theory that is based upon the activity of an electron who we can be sure is at the scene of the crime but are very unsure of his identity,or conversely can be sure of identity but are very unsure that he was at the scene of the crime.I would think any court of the land that accepts such "expert witness' would be foolish indeed.

    Hank
    the court requires that their qualifications and testimony should be beyond reasonable doubt
    This is something you just invented, not a facet of law.   By your definition, "What is a magnetic field?"  could never be discussed by an expert in a court of law, even though there is a $300 billion semiconductor industry built around it.
    Gerhard Adam
    That's got to be one of the most convoluted illogical statements I've ever read regarding the law and science.

    I'm not sure why you think an "expert" witness must be capable of taking a complex topic and, after questioning by non-experts, necessarily be able to reduce it to a simple "yes" or "no" answer for the "man in the street".  Eyewitnesses have far less credibility that such "expert" testimony, and yet because a non-expert can twist a complex topic beyond recognition, the fault lies with science.

    You've got a very strange view of the law and the court system.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Well I think those are interesting random thoughts Don.
    Science journalists, get back to asking the awkward questions about studies and methodology, like you would if Exxon was denying global warming exists at all, and the public will trust you again. Climate scientists, get back to being trusted guides by not framing the message the way the attendees at that conference suggested you do. Unless you note that terrorist-supporting dictators control a lot of OPEC oil so alternative energy would stick it to them. That's pretty smart.

    But the data are there.  The physics answer is there.  Use those, and conferences on convincing an increasingly skeptical public will no longer be needed.
    I think conferences on convincing a hopefully for good reasons, decreasingly skeptical public will be needed for some time Hank. You could add, take the religion out of climate science and the inevitable 'Spanish Inquisition' of heretics like Professor Ian Plimer who question their ideologies even though they don't actually deny climate change. Funny that Spain is now leading the way with some forms of green energy.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Hank
    No, China is leading the way but Spain is the only company with an open society so we can see the cost and results with any truth.  Perhaps we should all become dictatorships to get something done about climate change too.  I mean, it's that important.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Its difficult for me to get very enthusiastic about China supposedly 'leading the way' when relatively recent reports and Wikipedia have have shown that China has recently overtaken United States of America (US) to be the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. China is the largest contributor of carbon dioxide putting out 6,200 million tons, in comparison with America's 5,800 million, as well as being the largest contributor of sulphur oxides and chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone depleting substances to the atmosphere.

    China's dust and aerial pollutants are transported eastwards to neighbouring countries and even North America. In 2008, China contributed 22 percent of global emissions, followed by US with 20 percent of emissions. Despite a recent interest in environmental reform, pollution has made cancer the leading cause of death in 30 cities and 78 counties. Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city inhabitants (2007) breathe air deemed safe and chinese industry scores very poorly in energy efficiency.

    China has already chopped down the majority of its once vast native forests and has serious desertification ,flooding, land degradation, mud and landslide problems, that it is admittedly trying to rectify to some extent by planting new pine forests, but these are of little help to the many rapidly declining and soon to be extinct native species. Each year in China forty-five billion pairs of disposable chopsticks are thrown away, and another eighteen billion pairs are exported, even though the Chinese Government has introduced an ineffective disposable chopstick tax.

    Disposable chopsticks are made from wood, in most cases from birch or poplar, but in some cases from expensive bamboo. Greenpeace China estimates that to create just that many disposable chopsticks per year, a hundred acres of trees need to be chopped down every twenty-four hours. That means that every day there is a forest the size of a hundred U.S. football fields chopped down just to make disposable chopsticks, which is between sixteen and twenty-five million trees per year.

    It is true that according to Wiki the People's Republic of China is 'an active participant in the climate change talks and other multilateral environmental negotiations, and claims to take environmental challenges seriously and is pushing for the developed world to help developing countries to a greater extent. China is also a signatory to the Basel Convention governing the transport and disposal of hazardous waste and the Montreal Protocol for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, as well as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the Kyoto Protocol', but China is not required to reduce its carbon emissions under the terms of the present agreement.

    China is making all the right environmental noises and even making some pretty radical changes and improvements but I’m still not sure that it deserves to be seen as 'leading the way' when it is still increasingly the world's worst, global environmental polluter.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Hank
    Its difficult for me to get very enthusiastic about China supposedly 'leading the way' when relatively recent reports and Wikipedia have have shown that China has recently overtaken United States of America (US) to be the largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
    They have been for years.  What they have consistently done is under-reported.  Outside verification is difficult in China whereas in democracies it is quite easy.   They have implemented harsh techniques to curb emissions, which democracies also cannot do because we can't for instance, just tell a million people to find a new place to live.    It used to be funny looking at China's claims of emissions and then seeing these huge clouds coming over the ocean toward us.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    So why can't they tell 1.3 billion people to stop using disposable chopsticks then?
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Hank
    If you concede on the little things you can win the big ones. Creating 1.3 billion casual criminals by forbidding them to do something they will do anyway would cause terror in the hearts of The Leaders - because then people might start ignoring the wishes of the dictatorship when it comes to things like voting.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Hank, the Chinese people have already done this in the past when asking for democracy in 1989 and to no avail, so I doubt if they are likely to do it again over disposable chopsticks. According to this BBC article by James Miles who is now the Beijing correspondent of The Economist, and author of The Legacy of Tiananmen: China in Disarray University of Michigan Press. A million people ignored the wishes of 'The Leaders' and their dictatorship in 1989 and demonstrated in Tiananmen Square and what happened then was by far the most widespread pro-democracy upheaval in communist China's history :-
    It was also by far the bloodiest suppression of peaceful dissent.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    What?? I have read this rhetoric long enough, but imam not certain you have the facts or perhaps you believe your own lies. China has in no way implemented any discernible measures at curbing its CO2 emissions. I have lived and worked there plus have Many, many friends still living and working there. This is completely fallacious.

    Gerhard Adam
    You could add, take the religion out of climate science and the inevitable 'Spanish Inquisition' of heretics like Professor Ian Plimer who question their ideologies even though they don't actually deny climate change.
    I'm really disappointed that you would stoop to this kind of comment.  Even in the comments section, there's been a significant number of links that demonstrate that Plimer is more than merely "on the fringe" and yet you still want to hold him out there as some sort of unsung hero.  I just don't get it.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    There you go again, I'm not saying he's an unsung hero but he's an emeritus professor with a different ideology about what is causing climate change. He deserves to be heard without all this pathetic verbal slander and screams of 'heresy' and 'fringe' viewpoints.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Gerhard Adam
    He deserves to be heard without all this pathetic verbal slander and screams of 'heresy' and 'fringe' viewpoints.
    He has been heard, and nobody buys it.  You read his book, didn't you?  That would hardly qualify as being suppressed. 
    ...he's an emeritus professor with a different ideology
    There you go again.  I don't care about his ideology.  What is his evidence?  He's a geologist and not a climatologist.  His views have been shown to be demonstrably wrong.  You should also know better than to bring out the "emeritus professor" since an appeal to authority is not the way to gain credibility here.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    You should also know better than to bring out the "emeritus professor" since an appeal to authority is not the way to gain credibility here.
    So what is the way, is it just to agree with you, because I've never seen you change your mind or position on one single issue? Do you ever change your mind about anything once its made up?
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Gerhard Adam
    I haven't asked you to agree with me.  There are been numerous articles published by Patrick and numerous links provided that debunk Plimer, but you either haven't read them or you choose to not accept them.

    There's nothing more to say, because it's clear that you want to believe Plimer, so unless you're prepared to do more research, I am not inclined to keep looking for information to try and convince you. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Its very simple Gerhard. I asked 3 questions that would easily debunk 3 of Professor Plimer's claims earlier in this blog and noone has been able to provide that evidence yet, so don't tell me I need to do more research, its you who needs to provide proof or links to easily debunk Plmer right here. I haven't made my mind up yet one way or the other and I asked the following questions :-
    Plimer: Satellite and balloon measurements provide a more accurate data set. These show that there is no global warming.
    Patrick: Patently false!
    Question 1: So do I just believe you Patrick because you say so, or is there a link to satellite and balloon measurements that can prove this one way or the other?
    Plimer: In Antarctica, ice sheets and sea ice are expanding.
    Patrick: Antarctic land ice sheets are declining and sea ice is - temporarily - expanding.
    Question 2: Do you have a link that can prove this one way or another?
    Plimer: The Arctic was warmer than now between 1920 and 1940
    Patrick: In my articles here I have published maps and quotes from Arctic explorers and scientists which show how ice extent has declined since about 1850. The decline accelerated post 1950. The Arctic has not been so warm as it is now for thousands of years.
    Question 3:  Again, is there a link somewhere that shows temperature records in the Arctic over the last 90 years to prove this one way or the other?
    Patrick : Helen: you are of course right not to take my word for anything. That is a very healthy kind of skepticism. I would have to do a search to list various satellite and weather balloon records - I hope someone else will take this up as I don't have time at the moment.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Gerhard Adam
    Question 1: So do I just believe you Patrick because you say so, or is there a link to satellite and balloon measurements that can prove this one way or the other?
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
    Question 2: Do you have a link that can prove this one way or another?
    http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/10/jpl-greenland-antarctica-ice-sheet-mass-loss-accelerating-sea-level-rise-1-foot-by-2050/
    Question 3:  Again, is there a link somewhere that shows temperature records in the Arctic over the last 90 years to prove this one way or the other?
    http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/Arctic_T_Chg_Commentary.pdf
    Mundus vult decipi
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Thank you very much Gerhard for finding and posting these links. On first impressions they look pretty convincing but I need to check them against Plimer's references and links to be completely convinced. I have too many uni assignments and time constraints to be able do that at present.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    blue-green
    Expensive bamboo? Designer bamboo? Learn something everyday. In April 2009, I road the new train from Beijing to Lhasa. It was a very comfortable two day ride. We arrived 3 hours early. Eat that Amtrak. Quite an eye-opener … and yes, much of what you write Helen was evident right out the window … Every river looked like an overworked gravel pit …. completely inhospitable for fish … Nuclear Reactors need an abundant source of water. The Chinese will divert the great rivers that run on the back (north) side of the Himalayas, before they get to India. The water may not be for Nuclear Engineering … there are many other things to do with it … besides annoying the Indians. To appeal to the jurors, you need easy-to-grasp, memorable graphics.

    You are welcomed.
    "Generally, I wish framing would just end but both sides, in both science and politics, seem to feel it is essential."
    Hank Campbell | 03/24/11 | 13:32 PM

    Somebody (Mencken?) is supposed to have said:
    "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

    Ignorance, apathy, and the will to believe in conspiracy, if exploited properly, will always allow for profits.

    Helen,why don't you ask google for an alert on anything to do with antarctica and the arctic and you will see in your e-mail everyday the drama of global warming unfolding before your eyes as scientific evidence pours in almost on a daily basis,from sattelite and landbased observations over virtually every range of scientific disciplins.It was my google alerts that led me to this site.

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Don, it doesn't seem to matter how many times I say that I believe that there is climate change and climate warming, people will still keep saying these sort of comments to me, implying that I don't believe it is happening. All that I have ever said is that I am not yet decided as to which factors are primarily responsible for this warming and what percentage is caused by man. I am all for reducing pollution and the size of our carbon footprint, and preserving and preferably restoring what is left of our forests and endangered species and habitats regardless because of course this makes sense.

    I am not even saying that I don't believe that man made CO2 emissions are definitely causing some climate warming, I am just questioning what other factors might also possibly be having even greater effects, like a weakening geomagnetic force, climate cycles, other greenhouse gases, volcanoes, tectonic plates, water vapour and even the effects of large amounts of methane clathrate gas being released from the warming ocean beds, solar flares, just to mention a few. Even Plimer is not denying climate change and warming for what its worth.

    Gerhard has given me some good links to support the man-made CO2 is causing global warming hypothesis and to discredit some of Plimer's claims and after submitting my latest uni assignment last night I will be free tomorrow to investigate for at least my own satisfaction, how Plimer's claims in his book 'heaven+earth' which I own, will hold up against them and other Plimer debunking links.

    In Australia at present the Government is trying to introduce a business carbon tax, which many conservative people, including now this week the unions, fear will destroy even more jobs in this country, sending them overseas to countries like China, who is already the world's number one polluter, oh yes and of course the leader in reducing CO2 emissions. This is a bit like saying a person who smokes 3 packs of cigarettes a day and is cutting up 5 cigarettes a day is now being credited with leading the way in giving up smoking.

    If Australia is a 5 cigarettes a day person who cuts down by a packet of cigarettes a week and gives that packet to China so that China becomes a 80 cigarettes a day person who still cuts up 5 cigarettes a day and throws them in the bin, what does that achieve? It was easy for China to stop cutting down some of the largest and oldest forests in the world, when they had already destroyed 90% of them to primarily make chopsticks. They had to start planting pine forests to stop the mudslides and keep making the billions of disposable wooden chopsticks that the Chinese people still refuse to stop using.

    I think that its very important not to be barking up the wrong tree when humanity tries to hunt down and reduce the the primary causes of climate change and warming. Imagine how disillusioned people will become if in the unlikely event that the CO2 emissions are finally reduced globally, and climate change and warming still keeps occurring regardless. The time, effort and money invested in CO2 emission reduction might have been better spent in preparing humanity for rising sea levels and temperatures and planting trees and restricting logging, if as I feel these once massive rain forests are analogous to the lungs of the Earth.

    Similarly I am also concerned that the thousands of nuclear reactors, neutrino and particle collidor experiments around the planet that are emitting potentially hazardous particles and toxins are like the boils on the skin of a sick, feverish patient who is already suffering from emphysema, lung disease and sunburn.
    My article about researchers identifying a potential blue green algae cause & L-Serine treatment for Lou Gehrig's ALS, MND, Parkinsons & Alzheimers is at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Hank
    Don, it doesn't seem to matter how many times I say that I believe that there is climate change and climate warming, people will still keep saying these sort of comments to me, implying that I don't believe it is happening. All that I have ever said is that I am not yet decided as to which factors are primarily responsible for this warming and what percentage is caused by man.
    That's certainly the rational approach.  The focus on CO2 was political and economic, the chair of Kyoto later admitted that focus was a flawed plan but they wanted to accomplish something.   We're obviously getting into trouble with emissions and estrogen and plenty of other pollutants but the focus on CO2 smacks of zealotry, not science.    It is truly impossible to say what combination is the culprit.     No snowflake in an avalanche takes the blame, as the saying goes. 

    But avoiding avalanches does not happen by worrying about one spot on the mountain so advocates who make money trumping up environmental concern should dial it down while science does its job.   Otherwise, it makes the scientists who get caught up in the 'yayy, we are popular in the news' segment look bad when later data clarifies an unknown and makes "the science is settled" statements look silly.

    The problem is certainly coming.   Skeptics who delight in being right if it is not just CO2 while the atmosphere goes to hell are certainly no help.
    Gerhard Adam
    All that I have ever said is that I am not yet decided as to which factors are primarily responsible for this warming and what percentage is caused by man.
    I'm not convinced that the question is particularly relevant.  As has been mentioned before, if you consume 2,000 calories per day to maintain your weight, then adding a 100 calorie doughnut per day is going to cause you to gain weight over time.  You can't actually argue that the doughnut is to blame, although clearly the extra 100 calories is contributing to the problem.  Therefore even thought this is only 5% of your total caloric intact, the elimination of that doughnut would put you back on track for your required caloric needs.

    Applying the same logic to GW, we might conclude that a 5% increase in CO2 by humans is sufficient to begin escalating the atmospheric levels of CO2 and be sufficient to begin raising the temperatures.  Certainly the amount contributed by humans would not be a large value, but it would be hard to deny that it isn't responsible (given that in our example it is the only change over normal Earth patterns).

    The second part of your statement is an entirely different problem, namely whether or not there are any reasonable solutions that can be implemented to address this situation.  In the first place we would have to consider whether a reduction is possible (and how to deal with countries that might "cheat").  In the second, we don't know that any action we take is going to be effective at all, or whether we might be tinkering with a system that could "rebound" in the opposite direction.  In the third place, we do have to weigh our choices against our actual social survival (in the sense that it doesn't make any sense to destroy ourselves in the process of attempting to maintain some kind of arbitrary "status quo").

    This is why I don't see a conflict in acknowledging AGW, while correspondingly being cautious and skeptical about proposed solutions.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hank and Gerhard,i think our lawyer /visitor friend would tear your testimony to shreds and you'd be a laughing stock.I don't know where you live but in our part of the world juries are instructed to find "beyond reasonable doubt" it's only in a police state where policemen with hunches can be judge ,jury and executioner and issue "on the spot fines".

    Hank
    Hank and Gerhard,i think our lawyer /visitor friend would tear your testimony to shreds and you'd be a laughing stock.
    Why would I be a laughingstock?   Science is about understanding the laws of nature and attorneys are out to use emotion to get a verdict their way and don't care anything at all about truth or laws.   Given that, I am sure all attorneys regard science as naive and stupid.  Like with carnival barkers and television evangelists, it does not matter much what lawyers think of science.

    What is clear is that being manipulated by attorneys despite accuracy of the evidence would only make anyone a laughingstock to other attorneys - and that's why they have the reputation they have.
    Hi hank,extrapolate ,extrapolate,extrapolate,you have got in a religeous state of mind where you think you can extrapolate any definition [like electromagnetism]which is provable beyond reasonable doubt ,and apply it to other things even if the parameters change,like extrapolating whether co2 causes warming in a lab to testing atom bombs and here comparing evidence of the path of an electron[where you are half blind according to heisenburg] and integrating it back to electromagnetism.You really should get out of your computer modelling and use your mind more to reason especially on climate change.I believe climate change is occurring but some scientists are wise and don't just extrapolate this into apocoliptic "THE SEAS WILL RISE" stuff to frighten everyone into atomic power generation and out of fossil fuels.They realise that extrapolation will lead us into new parameters like cloud generation [as temperatures rise the air will hold more moisture which will cause more forcing etc.],and even that will change the parameters since the poles being extreemly reflective will warm the fastest under cloud cover[21/2 times faster]Whereas the equator will actually cool .Eventually there will be limits on this type of cloud based forcing and even temperatures must ensue accross the world.We can't yet estimate what will be the effect of evaporation on sea levels whether it will cancel out sealevel rise due to ice melt at the poles ,this is why i am interested in measurement of increased volume of cloud compared to ice loss at the poles.

    Hi gerhard,I think you remind me of the great philosophers of Corinth, that conceited city that boasted in its wisdom and where philosophers would stand on street corners and postulate and argue until it wasn't the content that mattered[much of it making sheer nonsense]but the turn of a phrase,apause,a meaningfull look.As bishop Desmond Tutu of s,Africa Quoted his father as saying when they used to argue as children at the dinner table,"don't raise your voice improve your argument".You haven't improved your argument to Helen or to me,and what is the use of being right if you can't take ordinary people with you.?

    Hi helen,love your comment on chinese chopsticks,just goes to show how as long as the parameters stay the same infinitesimal things like chopsticks can be extrapolated into huge forests being lost .Excellent incentive for looking at the small things we can do for a better world.

    Gerhard ,have just checked your links on Climate progress site,Quote"It is always worthwhile to make clear that the projections are uncertain".Yep its that word "uncertain again.They used to be like you when forcasting the weather;like there was no doubt at all,now they talk more honestly in probabilities same with doctors and microbiologists.The terms'may help' and" could be beneficial" are creeping in.I still listen to the weather forcast though,If it says it may rain i take a brolly in case and if v.hot go to a shopping centre for the day in case of wildfire.Sunnami warnings were a great thing as long as ordinary people know that its uncertain and they don't get too disillusioned when they get many false alarms.and start ignoring them.It's then up to us the ordinary peson to make a decision as long as the science is honest and its broadcast to all .

    Gerhard/Helen debate,have cheched your link on Plimer vrs.Monbiot on lateline.I have visited the Guardian initiated "Realscience.org."web site many times and definitely feel they have an agenda they don't want to know or give an airing to anything that opposes" the earth is warming the seas will rise senario" which i find discredits the climate change case which i and many others are trying to show.Perhaps professor plimer is right and it is journalists trying to 'sex up" the senarios to make it more newsworthy{they have done this in the past] in which case they would be better leaving it to a more independent scientist who just sticks to the facts and doesn't get involved in the speculation to be a spokesman.I do like science 2.0 though since it does allow people like Helen to have a say and bears with the opposers.I noticed that Plimer talked about the unknown undersea volcanoes which are not measured by climatologists for co2 emmissions but their effect showed up in rocks that he had studied as a geologist,yet monbiot just ignored this in an ill mannered way.This way of treating people is not the way to improve our argument.I do feel that plimer however has misquoted science and has acted just as badly.I think,like the politicians the average person will say they are as bad as each other and will vote accordingly which will be o.k.by me because i'm looking forward to climate change and getting my environmental skin back.Like all these lawyers Hank goes on about all Plimer has to do is introduce a doubt and juries will find it reasonable to do nothing.

    MAKING GREENER MINDS,Greenpeace is at present making a submission to the E.E.C. on introducing a new grid system which will use direct underground current and a variety of types of electricity generation to eliminate "baseload"waste ie alternative energy being dumped in preference to baseload generation which cannot be switched off or turned on quickly[normally takes days to do both].It has been said years ago that the sun never set on the British Empire.This was because the british empire spanned both hemispheres when it was dark in the southern hemisphere it was light in the north and vice versa.To eliminate baseload waste, greenpeace should go greener and suggest an electricity grid that would join both northern and southern hemispheres.When there is little demand for baseload at night in the south there will be high demand during the day in the north and vice versa.

    "This was the roots of my skepticism. And the more I studied AGW the more skeptical I've become."

    This is why I am skeptical also. I used to work with electromagnetic models. I remember frequent situations where someone would write a paper with some model they simulated and publish it. I thought most of these papers were garbage. Constructing a computer model from a physical system is painstaking and it takes a lot of trial and error and a lot of work. Frequently people assume their model represents reality. It rarely does. I remember one situation where this German professor presented us with a paper where she painstakingly examined her numerical model and its fit with reality. She found a large number of issues most people would just take for granted. Like moisture in the dielectric was altering the diectric constant of the material she was using and causing a major discrepancy between numerical simulations and reality. She was very careful, thoroughly knowledgeable and I was very impressed by her. Her experiment was very simple and it took her probably 1 year or more to fully understand what was going on and match the models to reality. I place no faith in the average scientist to spend anywhere near the time, energy and care that she spent trying to do things properly.

    Its like what Feymann described in surely your joking about mice maze experiments where one researcher painstakingly determined all the conditions that needed to be controlled to properly do mice maze experiments in pschology. And every paper after him ignored everything he discovered and just ran mice experiments the way they always ran them. Scientists are lazy, credulous and mostly stupid.

    It will take a very long time but eventually scientists will develop some criteria (inevitably overly rigid) to get numerical simulations to match reality. But that will take another hundred years and require some large massive institutional failures. But given the current bankruptcy of science I have no doubt that we will see this.

    Hank
    Numerical models in electromagnetics are testable but in climate they are not - this does not mean if you get a result and understand the error margin you should do nothing.   FR4 will be +/- whatever the manufacturer says but a numerical model will use FR4 as a value.

    If you are contending that numerical models have not revolutionized the semiconductor industry despite not being perfect, you are out of your mind.   There are zero - count them zero - products today made solely on a bench.
    MikeCrow
    I agree with this, unless:

    and understand the error margin

    This means you think we understand the error margins in CGM's. I can't think of any numerical models used in electronics design that haven't been confirmed on a bench at one time or another.

    While I think we're starting to understand the big pieces in the CGM, there's lots of subtleties that I think we're still clueless on.

    On Gerhard's point that he believes in AGW, just not what to do about it, If I didn't think we'd do anything until we knew more, I'd be a whole lot less concerned. But having the EPA classify CO2 as a pollutant isn't doing nothing until we know more.
    Never is a long time.
    Gerhard Adam
    But having the EPA classify CO2 as a pollutant isn't doing nothing until we know more.
    That's certainly true, but that is also a different discussion. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    MikeCrow
    True.
    Never is a long time.
    And there are zero products made solely on numerical models. Well, products of worth that is. I have written thermodynamic models for over 18 years for NASA, AMD, E-systems and Hughes Aircraft. They are enormously complex with Internet flaws beyond human comprehension. It's the very reason why my work is checked by others.....and why I check others work.

    Global warming isn't what we created. IT IS NORMAL.

    It's a cycle of 26000 years. All the planets are heating up in our solar system.

    Our sun is cooling down.

    PLEASE DO NOT BELIEVE FOR THE FALSE SHIT OF GLOBAL WARMING lol.

    Gerhard Adam
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
    Bertrand Russell
    Mundus vult decipi
    Right you are. The Warmists are cock-sure they are right and the Skeptics are questioning the headlong dive into unverified and/or manipulated data.

    Gerhard Adam
    You are just too clever .... Now if only the skeptics were actually skeptical instead of simply myopic.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hank
    There is a line and some never seem to cross it.   We put a stop to acid rain and holes in the ozone because we took responsible action based on evidence - we did not wait until the sky was literally pouring acid rain and the hole in the ozone was out of control.   Likewise, we can't wait until the climate is acting truly crazy so a bunch of bloggers can say 'oops, why did you listen to us anyway?  We're not experts'  - there are responsible actions, like monitoring pollution and finding cleaner energy sources, while avoiding silliness like a government-mandated CO2 cap and trade porkbarrel. 

    Some are never going to agree to any reform.  And some on the other side are going to believe any hysteria they see in the popular media.  In between them we can get real things done.
    You may be intelligent thinking it out but you can't take it in so your full of doubt.You'r a simpleton don't want to know ignorance is bliss so you shut the door.BUT,as the song goes"don't mess with mister inbetween".

    Here's the deal:
    1. If you won't call me a "Denier," I won't call you an "Asshole."
    2. I'll listen to scientific arguments, but not to ad hominem crap.
    3. Informed and intelligent skepticism has traditionally been a virtue in science.
    4. Dogmatism and group-think have frequently been the road to scientific ruin.
    5. In the end--whoever's right and whoever's wrong--science will win out.

    Gerhard Adam

    1. If you won't call me a "Denier," I won't call you an "Asshole."
    2. I'll listen to scientific arguments, but not to ad hominem crap.

    I hope that's not a sign of how you operate.  Beginning with an ad hominem attack doesn't look good in promoting your credibility.

    Informed and intelligent skepticism has traditionally been a virtue in science.
    Good.  So that means I won't have to listen to conspiracy theories about how all scientists are corrupt and being paid off to advance the idea of AGW?
    Dogmatism and group-think have frequently been the road to scientific ruin.
    Convenient definition since it automatically means that if scientists agree with each other you reserve the right to still be a jerk.
    In the end--whoever's right and whoever's wrong--science will win out.
    True enough, so that means that regardless of your political orientation you're willing to admit if the science shows you to be wrong.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Every action has a reaction. Pumping lots of extra co2 into the atmosphere has to cause a reaction of some sort wether it be a positive reaction or a negative reaction. however given the fact that we are adding co2 into the atmosphere that would not normally be there. so I don't see how it could be a positive reaction