Slashdot Mirror

These are really really rehashes of thoroughly debunked arguments. We already know that solar output effects the energy that the Earth absorbs, we observe the output of the Sun directly, we know exactly how different solar output changes from year to year. We know the variability between solar output during solar output peak and trough -- it's 0.1% The total solar forcing can be calculated directly it's 237 Watts/M^2. So from sunspot peak to trough the forcing changes by .24 watts/M^2. We know the effect of greenhouse gas change (in particular CO2) since pre-industrial times on forcing. It's 2.43 watts/M^2 see for example The 2001 IPCC Report.

It is true that solar output is high especially high for the past 80 years see solar variation but even the change between now and the Maunder Minimum (.2%) does not compare to forcing from greenhouse gasses.

You understand of course that extra energy in the system causes larger fluctuations right? The global average will increase, but so will the variance. Your colds will be colder, and your hots will be hotter.

That's not a prediction of the IPCC, who gather together and summarise the peer reviewed literature. Climate is variable because there are a lot of things that effect it, from solar influences, to the La Nina/El Nino cycles. Regional variation is greater than global variation. Due to that variation we can still expect extremes to occur: some years are just very cold (for a number of factors not related to anthropogenic warming), and some are hot, and that will continue, regardless of warming. However, as noted in IPCC assessment reports (TAR WGI 9.3.6):

...a warmer mean temperature increases the probability of extreme warm days and decreases the probability of extreme cold days. This result has appeared consistently in a number of more recent different climate model configurations.

In other words, individual cold days or years are not evidence against global warming, since they may well be a result of natural variation caused by other factors (and would have simply been even colder without global warming). To count as notable evidence against global warming you would need a significant sustained cold spell (5 to 10 years at this point). However, extreme cold days or years are not predicted effects of global warming. They may well happen, but there isn't any significant evidence that they are caused by global warming.

It shouldn't matter what the distance is; planes are not green in any way, shape, or form. I don't see how a plane can be more environmental than a train, even for long distances (discounting flights over oceans, of course). A passenger train really should be able to haul people, say, 3500 miles, using less fuel than an equivalent fleet of jets

It shouldn't? Says who?
This is what I mean by immutable "truths" about public transport that we have to change. Here is a another, sobering comparison Though the graph shows CO2 emissions rather than fuel consumption, it should be clear that a high-speed train such as the TGV or the Chinese one draws a massive amount of power to maintain its speed. And airplanes do not require all that much fuel to stay airborne once they reach cruising altitude in thinner layers of air; it's the takeoff that requires the tons of fuel. That's why an aircraft wins on the long haul, where the expense of taking off is spread out over more passenger-miles. The train isn't a clear winner by any means.

It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970s, but a cursory comparison of those warnings and today's reveals a huge difference.

Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions.

In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.

Quite simply, there is no comparison.

If you want some additional detail, Real Climate has discussed this, and William Connelly has made a hobby of gathering everything that was written about global cooling at the time.

(From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222)

What surprises me is that there has not been any significant change in sea level even though the sea level rose about 130m since the last ice age.

I thought flooding was one of the major dangers of global warning. Where did the ice go?

When ice in water melts, the level does not rise. It's ice that sits on land (eg, Greenland, Antarctica) that causes levels to rise when it melts.

What surprises me is that there has not been any significant change in sea level even though the sea level rose about 130m since the last ice age.

I thought flooding was one of the major dangers of global warning. Where did the ice go?

I certainly agree that some of the surface measurement sites are situated poorly. However, given that "changes in borehole temperatures (Section 2.3.2), the recession of the glaciers (Section 2.2.5.4), and changes in marine temperature (Section 2.2.2.2), which are not subject to urbanisation, agree well with the instrumental estimates of surface warming over the last century" and that there is no statistically significant difference between the records from rural and urban surface temperature stations ("While there is little difference in the long-term (1880 to 1998) rural (0.70C/century) and full set of station temperature trends (actually less at 0.65C/century), more recent data (1951 to 1989), as cited in Peterson et al. (1999), do suggest a slight divergence in the rural (0.80C/century) and full set of station trends (0.92C/century) However, neither pair of differences is statistically significant.", as detailed in the IPCC report, it doesn't, well, appear to be statistically significant. Oh, and could we omit the petty attempts at vulgar "humor"?

We're now glossing over point 2 and making broad assumptions. Nevermind that "To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming." [Source] Hmmm... what's the phrase I'm looking for here... something about correlation and causation.

Perhaps you ought to take a look at this study. I quote: "The answer: This particular ice age didn't begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low." "Taken together, the evidence suggests that the ice began to build up some 10 million years earlier than when volcanoes began pumping the atmosphere full of the CO2 that ended the Ordovician ice age." "Our results are consistent with the notion that CO2 concentrations drive climate."

May want to update your talking points...though I rather suspect you'll regurtitate the same set the next time a climate change discussion comes up here.

" This last one brings us to the ultimate death blow to the global warmers' argument. The warming we've experienced since the last glacial period has brought us grasslands, forests, jungles.... When the next glacial period comes, the planet will be covered mostly by icy tundra and extreme deserts again. Warming has only made this planet MORE habitable to us. I've got 12000 years of proof that warming is good. What do you have to the contrary?"

Dude...are you being deliberately obtuse? It's not just sea levels rising due to glacial melt, though that alone is problematic (though there's this thing called empathy where some humans sympathise with the plights of other humans...something you apparently lack). Potential consequences also include droughts, heat waves, disruption of various ecosystems, increased oceanic acidification due to greater CO2 absorption (up to a limit) and so many others. If you were genuinely interested, I could go into the details.

It's true that the population of polar bears has increased in the past 30 years -- but as the article points out, the pack ice has been pretty reliable for those 30 years, too. The bears weren't particularly bothered as the average ice thickness decreased from 3.1 metres in the 1960s and 70s to 1.8 metres in the 1990s. They were still able to go out on the ice and hunt. But the ice has continued to get thinner, and now it is disappearing altogether for parts of the year. For the past 30 years that you speak of, the bears were able to hunt and increase their numbers, but *now* they face a real problem. So people are concerned, not for what happened in the past 30 years, but what will happen in the *next* 30 as their former hunting grounds disappear.

The IPCC "Summary for Policy makers" (linked and quoted above) intentionally includes far less numbers than the full report. It is, after all, a summary for policy makers. If you want numbers and references en mass to back up the statements in the summary, the full IPCC reports are all available online. The working group 2 report on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability is especially interesting (and sobering) reading. WG2 Chapter 9 discusses impacts on human health and touches on some of the co-benefits of dealing with climate change. IMHO, the SPM, along with other documents such as the UDHR should be required reading for any politician taking office.

The IPCC "Summary for Policy makers" (linked and quoted above) intentionally includes far less numbers than the full report. It is, after all, a summary for policy makers. If you want numbers and references en mass to back up the statements in the summary, the full IPCC reports are all available online. The working group 2 report on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability is especially interesting (and sobering) reading. WG2 Chapter 9 discusses impacts on human health and touches on some of the co-benefits of dealing with climate change. IMHO, the SPM, along with other documents such as the UDHR should be required reading for any politician taking office.

The IPCC "Summary for Policy makers" (linked and quoted above) intentionally includes far less numbers than the full report. It is, after all, a summary for policy makers. If you want numbers and references en mass to back up the statements in the summary, the full IPCC reports are all available online. The working group 2 report on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability is especially interesting (and sobering) reading. WG2 Chapter 9 discusses impacts on human health and touches on some of the co-benefits of dealing with climate change. IMHO, the SPM, along with other documents such as the UDHR should be required reading for any politician taking office.

The IPCC "Summary for Policy makers" (linked and quoted above) intentionally includes far less numbers than the full report. It is, after all, a summary for policy makers. If you want numbers and references en mass to back up the statements in the summary, the full IPCC reports are all available online. The working group 2 report on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability is especially interesting (and sobering) reading. WG2 Chapter 9 discusses impacts on human health and touches on some of the co-benefits of dealing with climate change. IMHO, the SPM, along with other documents such as the UDHR should be required reading for any politician taking office.

So, over 600 million years, where exactly do you see a correlation of CO2 vs temperature?

Try this graph for the last 400,000 years, where the Earth's atmosphere wasn't full of methane.

So, don't be a sheep. Look at the science for yourself, and stop believing those who hijack science for their own agendas.

Pot, kettle, black, sheep.

The Maldive islands will disappear under the sea in less than 50 years. Why? Because icebergs melt, slowly but most surely. Why? I'll let you try and answer this last question.

Thanks for the laugh. With luck I'll still be around in 50 years to see that your wrong. The IPCC, which is cited by Global Warming alarmists as the symbol of scientific consensus suggests that by 2100 sea levels will rise between 9-37cm from 1990 to 2100. Check the report yourself here if you don't believe me. The Maldive Islands are 2.3m above sea level, on average. A worst case rise of 19cm in the next 50 years then, would certainly have an impact. It is utter hyperbole though to suggest that they'll disappear under the ocean.
It's ridiculous claims like yours that causes people to dismiss Global Warming as a myth, since arguments like yours have as much scientific basis as the notion that global climate is actually cooling.

It is a common misconception that only weather is a chaotic system, and that climate isn't because it is an average of the weather. That is however an incorrect conclusion. All it means is that climate and weather doesn't share the same chaotic system. Climate instead has its own chaotic system.

As for an IPCC link. Directly from Third Assessment Report (TAR) "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis" (Fourth assessment report is due out this year):

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/504.htm

It explicitly mentions the difficulty in long term prediction of climate, due to its chaotic components.

(data is from '96, couldn't find more recent data using a quick google search and I'm too lazy to keep on looking).

For some other sources, check this graphic for per-capita emissions in 2002. For the US, we have about 19.8 tons, while for China it's about 2.2 tons. Using the CIA World Factbook for current population numbers, we get:

• For the US, a population of 301,139,947, giving an annual CO2 output of 5,962,570,951 tons.
• For China, a population of 1,321,851,888, giving an annual CO2 output of 2,908,074,154 tons.

Of course, there is also Wikipedia:

• For total CO2 emissions, we have 5,872,278,000 tons listed for the US, and 3,300,371,000 tons for China (numbers from 2002).
• Per capita in 2003, we have the US listed with 19.8 metric tons of CO2 for 2003, and China with 3.2 tons. Leaders of the pack are the US Virgin Islands at 121.3 tons, followed by Qatar at 63.1.

Yep, you're right. Thousands of scientists and every relevant scientific organisation forgot the sun! You got 'em!

Oh, wait. The various IPCC reports already deal with solar radiative forcing.

Read up, buttercup. Specifically, read the journal articles referenced there, or meander through the links and find an IPCC reference that discusses your point. Arguments from incredulity hold no water.

STOP MAKING UNDEFENDED CLAIMS. THEY HAVE NO VALUE.

It's real easy to see if a model works. Plug in historical data and see if it accurately predicts today. They don't.

Yes solar variation can affect earth's climate. However, solar variation since 1750 is a much smaller forcing than Greenhouse gasses. See the IPCC TAR section 6.13.

I don't know why this off topic speculation was modded at +5.

The sad part is that you believe what you wrote.

Man-made CO2 represents 4% of the annual output of CO2 on the planet. 96% of all CO2 is generated by natural causes.

The Earth has gone through more massive changes in it's history than you seem to be capable of conceiving. CO2 levels have been as high as 7000ppm in the past. Yes, we have a bunch of arctic ice cores that may indicate CO2 levels have been mostly invariable in the past, but, as one PhD Chemist I know pointed out, "All that may be measuring is the level of CO2 dissolution in water at 0 degrees C." In other words, CO2 in ice is more likely to be the function of how well CO2 dissolves into ice water than any other mechanism like atmospheric density.

I'm not saying that there aren't some signs of warming, but I am highly skeptical of the supposed disastrous consequences.

Sea levels are "noticeably rising"? Not according to the 1841 sea level marking in Tasmania found here. Even the IPCC only claims a maximum of 15 millimeters over the 6000 year average. If you can see 2/3rds of an inch difference, more power to you, but calling it "Noticeably Rising" is a vast overstatement. The 2007 IPCC report is claiming a maximum rise of about 18 inches, or about the same as during the Medieval Climate Optimum. Al Gore is claiming 20 feet, but he also claims to have created the Internet...

Weather, overall, is not getting worse. The 1930's saw worse hurricanes then even the 2005 season. The difference being that now we can name storms 2,000 miles out to sea that never touch land, whereas, the 1930's used ships that passed storms in the ocean and very few storms were measured until land-fall. In fact, the largest hurricane (Typhoon Tip) occurred in 1979, in the midst of a "slow period". In 2005, the increase in Atlantic hurricanes was matched by a decrease in Pacific Typhoons (hurricanes), meaning that overall, the number barely increased. The link to storms and global warming is hotly debated.

In fact, were anthropogenic global warming a reality, we'd find that storm severity would decrease because storms are driven by the heat engine effect, namely the flow of heat from the equator towards the poles. Global Warming, as predicted by the models and climate scientists, indicates that the majority of warming occurs at the upper latitudes, with the largest increases at the poles. This means that the gradient of temperature from equator to poles would be less, and thus, the storms would decrease in severity. In fact, this was the prediction published in several papers up until about 1999, when they suddenly reversed themselves.

I could speculate that it was because they had seen a record storm year with the 1998 El Nino season, and they wanted to use the connection between strong storms and global warming to sell the science, but that would be a correlation vs. causation fallicy. Of course, in 2006, those same scientists predicted a "killer" Atlantic hurricane season, and not one single hurricane touched North American soil. (Yes, one storm was a hurricane when it approached Cuba, but by the time it made landfall it had been downgraded to a tropical storm.) Suddenly we were back to the climate scientists, and they actually said, "The reason we had so few hurricanes was because of global warming." So, now we have global warming if there's more hurricanes, global warming if there's less hurricanes, and, we must assume, global warming if there's no hurricanes. That's called non-falsifiable, and there's a name for its practice, but it's not science. The word is religion.

Is the Earth warming up? Satellite measurements continue to show, at most, a mild and limited warming, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere, and mostly in the middle latitudes. Claiming that glaciers melting (which they are)

Here's a couple (the second covers from 400,000 years ago to today)

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html

Your Google must be broken...

Especially:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/308.htm

And this was 2001.

BTW, couldn't find any communists there, though.

• See here for a summary of the scientific basis for global warming.
• See here for a summary of the predicted outcomes of global warming (eg sea levels, global temperature).
• And see here for a summary of the expected impacts on humanity (eg droughts, migration) and mitigation.

• See here for a summary of the scientific basis for global warming.
• See here for a summary of the predicted outcomes of global warming (eg sea levels, global temperature).
• And see here for a summary of the expected impacts on humanity (eg droughts, migration) and mitigation.

• See here for a summary of the scientific basis for global warming.
• See here for a summary of the predicted outcomes of global warming (eg sea levels, global temperature).
• And see here for a summary of the expected impacts on humanity (eg droughts, migration) and mitigation.

• See here for a summary of the scientific basis for global warming.
• See here for a summary of the predicted outcomes of global warming (eg sea levels, global temperature).
• And see here for a summary of the expected impacts on humanity (eg droughts, migration) and mitigation.

The graphs you refference are boring and in no way interesting and in no way relevant to global warming.
The graphs only contain "temperatures" and no associated CO2 levels or any other greenhouse gas.

Interesting are graphs like this one: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperature_and_co 2_concentration_in_the_atmosphere_over_the_past_40 0_000_years

Your argumentation makes no sense either. 500 Million years ago, the human population was exactly zero, so who cares if it was warmer or not? Today we have a population of 6.3 billion. If you mess up with the local climat of indonesia, china, india, do you really think the people there stay where they are and die? I guess they move elsewhere, where they consider it better, that might be your place or mine.

angel'o'sphere

Well,

nice and well written, but IMHO you are a troll.

There is nothing else significantly changing in the world except CO2 levels. So what else should be the cause for the strong warming up we observe the last years?

Try to understand this picture: A greenhouse is a closed glass house, where especially the sun is causing the interiour of the house to become quite warm in relation to the outside. E.g. at 10 degrees celsious outside temperature, inside of the greenhosue it is about 25 degrees.

Our planet is habitable because "some kind of glass sheet" is providing us with an isolation, preventing the planet to be as cold as Mars. That glass sheet is CO2, which had in the 50s a concentration of roughly 270 ppm. Similar like a real greenhosue, which gets more greenhouse like when you place additional shells of glass around it, the earth gets more "shells" around its atmosphere if CO2 levels increase. Meanwhile we have an CO2 level of roughly 380 - 400 ppm, so the amount of glass shells around our greenhouse planet Earth increased by over 30%. Source: http://aip.org/history/climate/images/maunaloa.jpg on the web site: http://aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

And about your "long term" data, you seem not to be able to google for: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/temperature_and_co 2_concentration_in_the_atmosphere_over_the_past_40 0_000_years ... everyone knows that we currently have the highest concentration, and all know the concentratio will likely still double, even! When we burn all remaining oil, gas and coal, CO2 levels will be around 600 - 700 ppm.

People are only talking about possible "average" temperature increases ... which is roughly 2 or 3 degrees centigrade over the whole planet At the local spot I live right now, the winter temperature, including extreme cold and extrem hot winters (like the current one) jumped from -30 degrees in the 1975th to 1980th to +10 to +15 degress today. So the average levels out to be a jump of 45 degrees centigrade, not farenheit, centigrade at my local position. That is a temperature increase of 112 degrees Farenheit! FYI: I live in central europe, roughly 300km south from the northern coast and 1000km east from the atlantic coast.

angel'o'sphere

See the 2001 IPCC report on THC changes: "However, even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe. For example, in all AOGCM integrations where the radiative forcing is increasing, the sign of the temperature change over north-west Europe is positive (see Figure 9.10)." (The radiative forcing part refers to an assumption that greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase.)

Where I'm from (Finland) the average temperatures for January range from -6 to -14 (depending on where you live) and it can often get as cold as -25 to -30 (all degrees in Celsius).

Currently it's a nice and balmy +5. If it wouldn't rain so much, I'd like it very much. Today is sunny and I can almost imagine the spring is here (for the record, January and February are the coldest months here).

Yes, I know. It's about as stupid as it gets to say: "I like the weather, let's ignore the warnings". If the gulf stream, which warms us up would stop as a result of the changes in the Great Conveyor Belt, we'd be pretty much screwed. If you look at the arctic circle, you can see it's not exactly the warmest region to be around.

The Gulf Stream is partially fuelled by the temperature gradient oop north (I'll be lazy and admit I forget the details) and has apparently already declined recently. This should kill it altogether. In the past, the North Pole being ice free has triggered ice ages.

You want to talk about details? Let's talk about The Conveyor. As the ice melts in various locations it's going to change the conveyor, ultimately stop it and maybe even make it run in reverse. Global weather is going to be completely confused when/if this happens. The climate will probably shift everywhere but along the equator.

The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.

Once again, newpapers show that they have absolutely zero knowledge of science or statistics. Tell me, if I do two experiments to try and find the radius of the earth, and find the first time that my results are 6,370 +/- 3210 km, and the second time that my results are 6370 +/- 10km , is this 'junk science' because my upper bound has dropped by 33%? Of course not. All this quote shows is that their calculations are getting more precise. If you want to show that they were wrong in their last report you'd have to show a large change in their AVERAGE value, and since the sensationalist reporter here didn't bother to even quote it, there's nothing we can say.

By the way, if you want to, you can see projections of sea level from the 2001 report online. The sea level rise for several different scenarios is given in the graph on the right. The overall error bounds are larger because they combine all the data for these scenarios, which are vastly different in their assumptions about economic, technological and population growth in the next century.

The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.

Once again, newpapers show that they have absolutely zero knowledge of science or statistics. Tell me, if I do two experiments to try and find the radius of the earth, and find the first time that my results are 6,370 +/- 3210 km, and the second time that my results are 6370 +/- 10km , is this 'junk science' because my upper bound has dropped by 33%? Of course not. All this quote shows is that their calculations are getting more precise. If you want to show that they were wrong in their last report you'd have to show a large change in their AVERAGE value, and since the sensationalist reporter here didn't bother to even quote it, there's nothing we can say.

By the way, if you want to, you can see projections of sea level from the 2001 report online. The sea level rise for several different scenarios is given in the graph on the right. The overall error bounds are larger because they combine all the data for these scenarios, which are vastly different in their assumptions about economic, technological and population growth in the next century.

with the temperature lagging the CO2 somewhat.

I'm afraid you are totally wrong and have obviously never examined the data. The reverse is quite obviously true at the merest glance at the chart in question.

We've burst outside of that envelope.

And you still think that models created using past data are valid? I'm not saying that we shouldn't study it - I'm saying that climatologists cannot predict what is going to happen. And they keep making predicitons - and then they make predictions as to how to prevent their predicitons. Madness!

I wish people would stop writing this passively defensive crap.

Unfortunately, most of the people with your convictions mode people that disagree down. Look at my posting history - you will find well-reasoned (or at least rational) posts marked troll, etc. In the last global warming debate there was a mod war over my post - it was modded up about 7 times, and down about 6.

Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations
The atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is difficult to define because it is exchanged with reservoirs having a wide range of turnover times; IPCC 2001, (page 38) gives a range of 5-200 years.

The lifetime of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide (Global Biogeochemical Cycles - American Geophysical Union)
If one assumes a terrestrial biosphere with a fertilization flux, then our best estimate is that the single half-life for excess CO2 lies within the range of 19 to 49 years, with a reasonable average being 31 years. If we assume only regrowth, then the average value for the single half-life for excess CO2 increases to 72 years, and if we remove the terrestrial component completely, then it increases further to 92 years.

To let you know how accurate the large model for climatologists is look at the weather prediction in your news paper.

There is, of course, a vast difference between predicting weather - which is a local phenomena, with significant specificity - and predicting the climate trends - which is averaging general trends globally. Consider, for instance, that it is very hard to stand on a beach and predict the exact height and shape of the next wave and precisely where and when it will break. On the other hand predicting the approximate height and time of the next high tide is rather easier. GCMs are, indeed, currently rather poor at making predictions down to the level of day to day local weather. They have, however, been very accurate at predicting year on year global climate.

They are not sure as to just what influences our weather let alone to what extent. Ask them how much influence the sun or the earths core temp or the annual freezing of the southern oceans contribute to our weather and all they can do is shrug their shoulders and talk in non specifics.

As noted above, contrary to your claim, the models have proved to be remarkably robust and accurate. They are also, contrary to popular perception in some circles, not just a big pattern matching machine that are "trained" on past data. They are models that are fed in physics. Yes, there are some tweakable parameters, as there should be in any model where there is some uncertainty. The greatest area of uncertainty in models currently is clouds, since they can be both a positive or negative feedback depending on the exact nature of their formation. Of course this problem is taken very seriously and there is a lot of study. The last IPCC report had considerable detail summarising that work. The simple reality, however, is that the models have worked pretty well, and have, in fact, made significant predictions that have since been observed.

But when they draw conclusions they are just blowing smoke the more assumptions the more smoke e.g. higher CO2 means higher temperature, therefore the level of CO2 measured in ice cores proves the temperatures years ago were less therefore we have global warming therefore etc etc

Historical temperatures from ice-cores are determined by ratios of hydrogen or oxygen isotopes in the ice. The guts of the issue is that when combined in water the different isotopes, being different masses, fractionate out at slightly different temperatures, thus the exact isotope ratio is a function of many things, but a very signficant factor is the prevailing temperature at the time the water became vapout before precipitting out. Thus the ratio, while not an exact indication of specific temperatures (unless the many other factors are also accounted for), is a good indicator of general temperature trends over long time scales. For more detail see here. The result is that, using ice cores, we can plot temperature and carbon dioxide independently.

Furthermore, more recent temperature reconstructions (as in reconstructions of only the past 1000 years or so) rely not on ice cores but on a wide variety of sources including coral, tree rings, glaciers, and more. Usually many of these different methods are cross referenced with each other to create any single reconstruction. The results can be seen in this plot of 10 different reconstructions by different independent teams. The results, as you can see, while different, all show the same trend. If you're still uncertain, feel free to use the

What is your proposal to completely resolve the problem and avoid the economic and loss of life consequences?

How much will it cost (include high & low estimates) to solve the problem? What is the time scale for the costs?

What confidence level does the solution have in actually solving the problem? Is there a general consensus in the solution, costs, and liklihood of success?

As a last resort... considering this is a global problem and assuming the solutin must be executed on a global level if one country or group of countries refuses to comply with the solution and jeoporadizes the success of the entire solution are military actions acceptable in order to avoid the economic and loss of life consequences?

What is your proposal to completely resolve the problem and avoid the economic and loss of life consequences?

How much will it cost (include high & low estimates) to solve the problem? What is the time scale for the costs?

What confidence level does the solution have in actually solving the problem? Is there a general consensus in the solution, costs, and liklihood of success?

As a last resort... considering this is a global problem and assuming the solutin must be executed on a global level if one country or group of countries refuses to comply with the solution and jeoporadizes the success of the entire solution are military actions acceptable in order to avoid the economic and loss of life consequences?

Since my HTML and proofreading skills apparently suck, here's the link for point 2 again in slashdot format: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/448.htm/

Man... The problem I have with the phrase Global Warming.... [impressive demonstration of Shakespearian rhetorical mastery and Baconian attention to scientific principles deleted] .... Look at both sides of the issue before forming an uneducated opinion.

Wow, the CEO of Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, PhillipMorris, and many other completely innocuous corporations couldn't have said it better. Congratulations for so eloquently explaining so consisely why the effects of pollution are Not Our Fault(TM), and dismissing out of hand the allegations of so-called "scientists" who aim to do nothing more than Stand In The Way Of Progress(TM), Harm The Economy(TM), and Support Terrorism(TM).

I can feel value of my energy-company-laden portfolio rise just based on the eloquence and conviction of your Fair And Balanced(TM) analysis. My Scottrade account thanks you for your efforts!

Speaking of hubris; I am amazed at how people can speak with such authority on this subject when they are not doing any kind of real research into the matter at all. What makes someone think that they know more about this subject than the climatologists who have worked on this for decades? That's like some layman trying to tell me (a physicist) what's wrong with quantum theory.

No one here, including me, knows crap about what they're saying unless they're quoting a sound and well established study. Don't think humans are causing global warming? Then go argue with these scientists. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear where their research went wrong.

There's also some discussion of it on a recent thread at RealClimate.

Monckton's rant is just the usual background noise. It's not hard to make up a story by selecting evidence carefully. The hard job is finding a story that is consistent with all the evidence. While we eagerly await the fourth IPCC assessment, the third IPCC assessment, the consensus of leading scientists in the relevant fields from 2001, is the best big picture we've got.

What some gadfly has to say should always be given due consideration, not less, but certainly not more. In the present case, not much.

How is this any different?

That we're here to worry about it, for one. Climate changes that occurred 50 million years ago didn't affect human civilization; the one we're undergoing now, will.

Today's CO2 concentration is the highest seen since the emergence of Homo sapiens, and likely the highest in the past 20 million years.

do you guys really think that 'man' is actually doing enough harm to this planet??

It is the scientific consensus that human activity is likely a significant factor in global climate change, yes.

There are a few, mostly industry shills, who argue very loudly that this consensus is wrong. Unfortunately they receive press coverage far out of proportion with their numbers.