Slashdot Mirror

Without checking procedures and facts that went into a study, you can never be sure about the results.

Replication studies are completely routine, they're done all the time. Here's an example.

most of the 'studies' I've seen floating around the press smell fishy to me

A free clue: try getting your science from journals or at least popular science publications, rather than the third-hand chinese-whisper versions perpetrated by the mass media (largely staffed with scientifically ignorant arts grads these days, sadly.)

"The Chicago School say that Gov't Won't Help"

Please also make the distinction between the editorial and the reporting parts of the WSJ - they're entirely separate operations and sometimes disagree fundamentally, e.g. on climate change.

Snarfy,

Climate models are built on physics. They make no assumptions about "global warming" (GW) being real or not. They just model the physical processes that occur and output results based on that. At least for some models the source is available but if you don't have at least a Masters in physics it's not likely you'll be able understand them to any degree. Could it be that the reason that work that discounts GW is ignored or declaimed is because it's simply wrong?

For more information about climate models check here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/

I find it bizarre that you think anyone would have to accept those things you listed to accept GW. Of course the sun has a major effect on earth but the changes that have been observed don't explain the observed changes in climate. Of course the yearly carbon cycle puts tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and also removes a basically equal amount too. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere goes up and down by 3-9 ppm each year because of it. But we also know how much the level of CO2 each year (lately about 3 ppm/year) and we know how much human activities produce each year (ex: 1 ton coal at 70% carbon produces about 2.3 tons of CO2 when burned). Of course volcanoes produce GHGs. But in a normal year it amounts to less then 1% of human production. It would take something like the Yellowstone Caldera going off to make much of a difference. And of course temperature has varied over the last 1M years. Otherwise there would have been no ice ages. But it's changing now at a rate not known in the historical record outside of catastrophic events which will be a problem.

The effects of sun and volcanic eruptions are included in the models. One test that was made of the models was against the inputs from the eruption of Mt. Pinitubo and they modeled the effects of it very well.

The fact is that the climate models don't work if you remove CO2 from the equations. If you can come up with a model that does work without CO2 (and is otherwise scientifically defensible) you will be famous.

Snarfy,

Climate models are built on physics. They make no assumptions about "global warming" (GW) being real or not. They just model the physical processes that occur and output results based on that. At least for some models the source is available but if you don't have at least a Masters in physics it's not likely you'll be able understand them to any degree. Could it be that the reason that work that discounts GW is ignored or declaimed is because it's simply wrong?

For more information about climate models check here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/

I find it bizarre that you think anyone would have to accept those things you listed to accept GW. Of course the sun has a major effect on earth but the changes that have been observed don't explain the observed changes in climate. Of course the yearly carbon cycle puts tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and also removes a basically equal amount too. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere goes up and down by 3-9 ppm each year because of it. But we also know how much the level of CO2 each year (lately about 3 ppm/year) and we know how much human activities produce each year (ex: 1 ton coal at 70% carbon produces about 2.3 tons of CO2 when burned). Of course volcanoes produce GHGs. But in a normal year it amounts to less then 1% of human production. It would take something like the Yellowstone Caldera going off to make much of a difference. And of course temperature has varied over the last 1M years. Otherwise there would have been no ice ages. But it's changing now at a rate not known in the historical record outside of catastrophic events which will be a problem.

The effects of sun and volcanic eruptions are included in the models. One test that was made of the models was against the inputs from the eruption of Mt. Pinitubo and they modeled the effects of it very well.

The fact is that the climate models don't work if you remove CO2 from the equations. If you can come up with a model that does work without CO2 (and is otherwise scientifically defensible) you will be famous.

The overpopulation scare turned out to be stupid scaremongering.

The planet is over its sustainable carrying capacity. The fact that we've been able to use unsustainable technologies to support too damn many people for a few years, doesn't mean we're not overpopulated - any more that the fact that you can still use your credit cards doesn't mean you're not broke.

The Global Cooling crisis also turned out to be more stupid scaremongering.

There never was a "Global Cooling" crisis. Never. There were a few extra-cold winters on the East Coast of the U.S. in the mid 1970s which got the popular press all chattering about a returning ice age, but there was never any scientific consensus, or even suspicion, of near-term global cooling. It's a talking point with no basis in reality, and you show your ignorance when you attempt to invoke it.

I think they tried something about a "silent spring" a little before that, but all that did was cause first-world nations to stop selling effective pesticides to the third-world nations who still needed them

You need to stop getting your science news from idiots like Michael Crichton, ok? DDT is still available for mosquito control, but indiscriminate use of insecticides fails for the same reason as indiscriminate use of antibiotics: species adapt.

You mean Realclimate, the website run by, um, Michael Mann...the man who created the "hockey stick" graph in the first place?

Run? He's one of twelve different contributors. Here's what they had to say about Wegman's analysis, by the way. I'll just post the most important parts here:

Wegman had been tasked solely to evaluate whether the McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05) criticism of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (MBH) had statistical merit. That is, was their narrow point on the impacts of centering on the first principal component (PC) correct? He was pointedly not asked whether it made any difference to the final MBH reconstruction and so he did not attempt to evaluate that. Since no one has ever disputed MM05's arithmetic (only their inferences), he along with the everyone else found that, yes, centering conventions make a difference to the first PC. This was acknowledged way back when and so should not come as a surprise.

But, and this is where the missing piece comes in, no-one (with sole and impressive exception of Hans von Storch during the Q&A) went on to mention what the effect of the PC centering changes would have had on the final reconstruction - that is, after all the N. American PCs had been put in with the other data and used to make the hemispheric mean temperature estimate. Beacuse, let's face it, it was the final reconstruction that got everyone's attention.Von Storch got it absolutely right - it would make no practical difference at all.

Oh and this was laughable:

Also, while McIntyre may not be a mathematician, Ross McKitrick, the other side of the MM team, is a professor of environmental economics - and economists spend a lot of time dealing with mathematical models.

Yeah, those economists are great at modeling! Just look at how they predicted the last 6 months!

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Oh, and McIntyre isn't a mathematician. He only holds a Bachelor's in mathematics. I fucking hold a bachelor's in mathematics, but I don't go around calling myself a mathematician.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Oh, and McIntyre isn't a mathematician. He only holds a Bachelor's in mathematics. I fucking hold a bachelor's in mathematics, but I don't go around calling myself a mathematician.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Oh, and McIntyre isn't a mathematician. He only holds a Bachelor's in mathematics. I fucking hold a bachelor's in mathematics, but I don't go around calling myself a mathematician.

I think that MM's claims have been shown to be wrong.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8

Ask and ye shall receiveth:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

Not good enough? Get back to me in another twenty years.

himi

Your comment about clouds was interesting. I looked it up and the best I could find was a response to a comment on RealClimate : Whether clouds are a positive or negative feedback depends on where they form (higher clouds have a net positive forcing), how 'thick' they are and how long they persist. You can make innumerable logical deductions about which way the cloud feedback 'should' go, but our current best observations and modelling have not been able to pin down even the sign of the net response. Some models therefore show small negative feedbacks, some show small positive feedbacks - though in neither case are the responses dominant over the more important feedbacks.

I must ask what made you focus on the Antarctic when the Artic lost 1 million square kilometers of ice two summers ago - or 1/4 of its summer minimum : Cryosphere Today
Also FYI the arctic is cooling meme has expired : Real climate

FYI the 9 years of cooling : Real climate

Agreed - none of the lake, and island anecdotes are useful.

Your comment about clouds was interesting. I looked it up and the best I could find was a response to a comment on RealClimate : Whether clouds are a positive or negative feedback depends on where they form (higher clouds have a net positive forcing), how 'thick' they are and how long they persist. You can make innumerable logical deductions about which way the cloud feedback 'should' go, but our current best observations and modelling have not been able to pin down even the sign of the net response. Some models therefore show small negative feedbacks, some show small positive feedbacks - though in neither case are the responses dominant over the more important feedbacks.

I must ask what made you focus on the Antarctic when the Artic lost 1 million square kilometers of ice two summers ago - or 1/4 of its summer minimum : Cryosphere Today
Also FYI the arctic is cooling meme has expired : Real climate

FYI the 9 years of cooling : Real climate

Agreed - none of the lake, and island anecdotes are useful.

Your comment about clouds was interesting. I looked it up and the best I could find was a response to a comment on RealClimate : Whether clouds are a positive or negative feedback depends on where they form (higher clouds have a net positive forcing), how 'thick' they are and how long they persist. You can make innumerable logical deductions about which way the cloud feedback 'should' go, but our current best observations and modelling have not been able to pin down even the sign of the net response. Some models therefore show small negative feedbacks, some show small positive feedbacks - though in neither case are the responses dominant over the more important feedbacks.

I must ask what made you focus on the Antarctic when the Artic lost 1 million square kilometers of ice two summers ago - or 1/4 of its summer minimum : Cryosphere Today
Also FYI the arctic is cooling meme has expired : Real climate

FYI the 9 years of cooling : Real climate

Agreed - none of the lake, and island anecdotes are useful.

The fact that Mars also seems to be getting warmer and that solar output has been MEASURED to be increasing is not mentioned at all by the IPCCC at all

Why should the IPCC say anything about Mars, Mars is not warming.

Falcon

...Mars is also undergoing global warming...

Mars is not warming.

Falcon

For those who have missed it, Mars is also undergoing global warming.

For those who may have missed it, Mars is not undergoing global warming. But why let a few pesky facts get in the way of good clean coal and oil industry lobbying?

--MarkusQ

...read the Wegman report into the Mann et al. "hockey stick" paper...

Please don't encourage people to waste their time by conflating politics with science. We are talking about trusting scientific papers. Mann's "hockey stick" papers have been published in the journal science (2nd highest in academic journal rankings). The correct way for McIntyre and McKitrick to attack them is to publish contrary journal articles, asking a political committe devoted to 'energy' to act as judge and jury on a particular scientific result is idiotic in the extreme. It demonstrates just how desperate some politicians are to burry what they see as the "smoking gun".

Wegman's report was a request from a political committe to "evaluate whether the McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05) criticism of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (MBH) had statistical merit."

...read the Wegman report into the Mann et al. "hockey stick" paper...

Please don't encourage people to waste their time by conflating politics with science. We are talking about trusting scientific papers. Mann's "hockey stick" papers have been published in the journal science (2nd highest in academic journal rankings). The correct way for McIntyre and McKitrick to attack them is to publish contrary journal articles, asking a political committe devoted to 'energy' to act as judge and jury on a particular scientific result is idiotic in the extreme. It demonstrates just how desperate some politicians are to burry what they see as the "smoking gun".

Wegman's report was a request from a political committe to "evaluate whether the McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05) criticism of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (MBH) had statistical merit."

...read the Wegman report into the Mann et al. "hockey stick" paper...

Please don't encourage people to waste their time by conflating politics with science. We are talking about trusting scientific papers. Mann's "hockey stick" papers have been published in the journal science (2nd highest in academic journal rankings). The correct way for McIntyre and McKitrick to attack them is to publish contrary journal articles, asking a political committe devoted to 'energy' to act as judge and jury on a particular scientific result is idiotic in the extreme. It demonstrates just how desperate some politicians are to burry what they see as the "smoking gun".

Wegman's report was a request from a political committe to "evaluate whether the McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) (MM05) criticism of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) (MBH) had statistical merit."

Try here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/ and here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/.

Try here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/ and here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/faq-on-climate-models-part-ii/.

Those are a few of the inventions that have come from fundamental research into a new type of catalytic antimicrobial. It can be incorporated into just about any type of polymer, which means it can be put into just about any kind of implant. We're now working with a company that will apply our technology to ceramic and metal implants. The dental sealants are scheduled for worldwide release on May 1st of this year. I'd suggest you get in line by April.

That actually sounds quite interesting. I'm a bit sceptical but I'll see what the science says :)

Show me the model that tells me what the average global temperature is going to be next year given X carbon output, and whatever other variables, and we'll see. I haven't seen it. If you can find it, it will convince me.

Sorry, my answer wasn't very helpful. For a retrospective prediction, see Hansen's 1988 prediction. I think the graph is quite impressive (he predicted Scenario B as the most plausible, but see the remarks in the article about the effect of Pinatubo).

Those are a few of the inventions that have come from fundamental research into a new type of catalytic antimicrobial. It can be incorporated into just about any type of polymer, which means it can be put into just about any kind of implant. We're now working with a company that will apply our technology to ceramic and metal implants. The dental sealants are scheduled for worldwide release on May 1st of this year. I'd suggest you get in line by April.

That actually sounds quite interesting. I'm a bit sceptical but I'll see what the science says :)

Show me the model that tells me what the average global temperature is going to be next year given X carbon output, and whatever other variables, and we'll see. I haven't seen it. If you can find it, it will convince me.

Sorry, my answer wasn't very helpful. For a retrospective prediction, see Hansen's 1988 prediction. I think the graph is quite impressive (he predicted Scenario B as the most plausible, but see the remarks in the article about the effect of Pinatubo).

Mars and Jupiter have been experiencing "global warming", too.

Oh yes, you're totally right! I bet you're the sort who argues over accuracy of Earth's temperature records, but you're willing to believe that we have enough data to show global warming on Mars and Jupiter FFS.

Anyway. From Realclimate:

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

A couple of basic issues first : the Martian year is about 2 Earth years (687 days). Currently it is late winter in Mars's northern hemisphere, so late summer in the southern hemisphere. Martian eccentricity is about 0.1 - over 5 times larger than Earth's, so the insolation (INcoming SOLar radiATION) variation over the orbit is substantial, and contributes significantly more to seasonality than on the Earth, although Mars's obliquity (the angle of its spin axis to the orbital plane) still dominates the seasons. The alignment of obliquity and eccentricity due to precession is a much stronger effect than for the Earth, leading to "great" summers and winters on time scales of tens of thousands of years (the precessional period is 170,000 years). Since Mars has no oceans and a thin atmosphere, the thermal inertia is low, and Martian climate is easily perturbed by external influences, including solar variations. However, solar irradiance is now well measured by satellite and has been declining slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum.

Mars and Jupiter have been experiencing "global warming", too.

Oh yes, you're totally right! I bet you're the sort who argues over accuracy of Earth's temperature records, but you're willing to believe that we have enough data to show global warming on Mars and Jupiter FFS.

Anyway. From Realclimate:

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

A couple of basic issues first : the Martian year is about 2 Earth years (687 days). Currently it is late winter in Mars's northern hemisphere, so late summer in the southern hemisphere. Martian eccentricity is about 0.1 - over 5 times larger than Earth's, so the insolation (INcoming SOLar radiATION) variation over the orbit is substantial, and contributes significantly more to seasonality than on the Earth, although Mars's obliquity (the angle of its spin axis to the orbital plane) still dominates the seasons. The alignment of obliquity and eccentricity due to precession is a much stronger effect than for the Earth, leading to "great" summers and winters on time scales of tens of thousands of years (the precessional period is 170,000 years). Since Mars has no oceans and a thin atmosphere, the thermal inertia is low, and Martian climate is easily perturbed by external influences, including solar variations. However, solar irradiance is now well measured by satellite and has been declining slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum.

"Yet for some reason Darwin's theory of evolution gets picked out so that teachers must highlight its weaknesses. Why might this be?"

I agree with the GP's point: Pointing out weakness' in a theory is how it becomes stronger.
I agree with your caveate: All disagreements must be intellectually honest.

Evolution is nowhere near as contraversial as when I went to school in the 60's, a time when tectonic plates and black holes were also contraversial, science has convincingly won all three very public arguments over the last 40yrs (150yrs in the case of evolution). Of more immediate concern is the current FUD from global warming psudeo-skeptics (coinidentally they are also particularly strong in Texas). Not that I have anything against Texas but the reason these people make (subtle) anti-science and greenie bashing a political platform could be due to either power/money/ignorance, regardless of which one it is, ignorance amoungst their followers is the sole reason they get away with it.

IMHO Dawkins and Sagan are correct in that science is taught as a "dictonary of facts", the philosophy of science is largely ignored by the education system and consequently misunderstood/ignored by the public at large. Evidence for this is not hard to find, just count the number of "climate fools" here on slashdot, they espouse all manner of nerdy sounding but thougoughly debunked scientific red-herrings, not because they are stupid but becuase their lack of understanding as to what "scientific skepticisim" means makes them easy prey for intellectually dishonest politicians and their sponsors.

Due to the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence I can no longer belive a politician can (legitimately) keep using ignorance as an excuse to poo-poo global warming and/or evolution. Therefore the root cause of the cherry-picked "science" found in the opinion columns of the mass-media and subsequently regurgitated by a million ignorant bloggers - must be money and/or power.

Premptive Al Gore reply: I'm not from the US, I haven't seen his film. I had already read the IPCC reports and didn't see the point, from the reviews of Gore's film by IPCC scientists, (and later their answers to critics), I would have to conclude his slide show was an accurate representation of the reports. OTOH: Just because the doco is accurate does not mean Gore's motivations for presenting it are intellectually honest.

Just to be clear the second list is made up from individuals while the first only contains scientific organizations, it excludes universities and individuals, including them would make the list unmanageably large. I don't know of a single reputable scientific organisation or university that is seriously at odds with "the consensus", certainly none appear in the list I offered although some of the individuals do hold respectable positions. An interesting excersice is to cross-check the claims of the individual skeptic with the organisations they work for.

As to your questions both have been around for many years and have been thouroughly debunked, but I will have a go. The first one about CO2 levels rising after the ice melts in an ice age is true but the claim that it is evidence against AGW is false. The regularly reccuring ice ages are caused by Earth's orbit (solar forcing), as the ice melts so does the permafrost. The melting permafrost relaeses methane which rapidly breaks down into CO2. Therefore CO2 goes up (feeds back) and ADDS to the warming caused by the shift in orbit. In otherwords CO2 is normally a feedback and that feedback mechanisim will compound the warming from our emmissions (human forcing). None of this refutes the physics that says CO2 is a GHG, nor does it refute the temprature rise expected from increased CO2. What it does tell us is that nature will add to our CO2 spike as the permafrost melts because of our CO2 spike. Personally I think the last sentance is the reason psudeo-skeptics continue to push this particular red-herring in the media.

The medieval warm period and the little icse age are different events and are the favorite fodder of media outlets such as the WSJ, they were real questions at one time and are much harder to debunk, so other than saying the conclusions are from proxy records I will just point to the RC links.

As for accuracy of the models, they have error bars but have a skim though the IPCC reports particlularly the SPM. Being a computer scientists my favorite model link is this movie of a single simulated year from Japan's Earth simulator.

"if you can explain these issues convincingly why do you let the media get away with not covering the counter argument?"

Good question, it's not from lack of trying by those involved and coverage by the media is usually a bit better outside the US (eg:BBC). The two questions you asked are not easy to understand for many people, maybe a better question is why do some people in the skeptics list get so much repeated media attention for their red-herrings and esoteric but misinformed details, despite both points being thouroughly debunked time and again? For instance why do we currently keep hearing about how cold it is the last couple of years when the fact is the hottest 10yrs on record (global average) have all occured in the last 12yrs? Why are the opinion columns (eg: WSJ) full of people who deny the Arctic sea ice is dissapearing when half of it's area and most of it's volume has already gone in just under half my lifetime? Why does the media constantly focus on rising oceans and hurricanes when (IMHO) the major threat from AGW is to agriculture and marine stocks?

I have been refering to the consensus in ambiguious terms above, however when a climatologists refers to "the consensus" they are usually referring to the falsifyable (and IMHO conservative) assertions in the IPCC reports. For seven years now many media outlets have failed to pick that up as

Just to be clear the second list is made up from individuals while the first only contains scientific organizations, it excludes universities and individuals, including them would make the list unmanageably large. I don't know of a single reputable scientific organisation or university that is seriously at odds with "the consensus", certainly none appear in the list I offered although some of the individuals do hold respectable positions. An interesting excersice is to cross-check the claims of the individual skeptic with the organisations they work for.

As to your questions both have been around for many years and have been thouroughly debunked, but I will have a go. The first one about CO2 levels rising after the ice melts in an ice age is true but the claim that it is evidence against AGW is false. The regularly reccuring ice ages are caused by Earth's orbit (solar forcing), as the ice melts so does the permafrost. The melting permafrost relaeses methane which rapidly breaks down into CO2. Therefore CO2 goes up (feeds back) and ADDS to the warming caused by the shift in orbit. In otherwords CO2 is normally a feedback and that feedback mechanisim will compound the warming from our emmissions (human forcing). None of this refutes the physics that says CO2 is a GHG, nor does it refute the temprature rise expected from increased CO2. What it does tell us is that nature will add to our CO2 spike as the permafrost melts because of our CO2 spike. Personally I think the last sentance is the reason psudeo-skeptics continue to push this particular red-herring in the media.

The medieval warm period and the little icse age are different events and are the favorite fodder of media outlets such as the WSJ, they were real questions at one time and are much harder to debunk, so other than saying the conclusions are from proxy records I will just point to the RC links.

As for accuracy of the models, they have error bars but have a skim though the IPCC reports particlularly the SPM. Being a computer scientists my favorite model link is this movie of a single simulated year from Japan's Earth simulator.

"if you can explain these issues convincingly why do you let the media get away with not covering the counter argument?"

Good question, it's not from lack of trying by those involved and coverage by the media is usually a bit better outside the US (eg:BBC). The two questions you asked are not easy to understand for many people, maybe a better question is why do some people in the skeptics list get so much repeated media attention for their red-herrings and esoteric but misinformed details, despite both points being thouroughly debunked time and again? For instance why do we currently keep hearing about how cold it is the last couple of years when the fact is the hottest 10yrs on record (global average) have all occured in the last 12yrs? Why are the opinion columns (eg: WSJ) full of people who deny the Arctic sea ice is dissapearing when half of it's area and most of it's volume has already gone in just under half my lifetime? Why does the media constantly focus on rising oceans and hurricanes when (IMHO) the major threat from AGW is to agriculture and marine stocks?

I have been refering to the consensus in ambiguious terms above, however when a climatologists refers to "the consensus" they are usually referring to the falsifyable (and IMHO conservative) assertions in the IPCC reports. For seven years now many media outlets have failed to pick that up as

Just to be clear the second list is made up from individuals while the first only contains scientific organizations, it excludes universities and individuals, including them would make the list unmanageably large. I don't know of a single reputable scientific organisation or university that is seriously at odds with "the consensus", certainly none appear in the list I offered although some of the individuals do hold respectable positions. An interesting excersice is to cross-check the claims of the individual skeptic with the organisations they work for.

As to your questions both have been around for many years and have been thouroughly debunked, but I will have a go. The first one about CO2 levels rising after the ice melts in an ice age is true but the claim that it is evidence against AGW is false. The regularly reccuring ice ages are caused by Earth's orbit (solar forcing), as the ice melts so does the permafrost. The melting permafrost relaeses methane which rapidly breaks down into CO2. Therefore CO2 goes up (feeds back) and ADDS to the warming caused by the shift in orbit. In otherwords CO2 is normally a feedback and that feedback mechanisim will compound the warming from our emmissions (human forcing). None of this refutes the physics that says CO2 is a GHG, nor does it refute the temprature rise expected from increased CO2. What it does tell us is that nature will add to our CO2 spike as the permafrost melts because of our CO2 spike. Personally I think the last sentance is the reason psudeo-skeptics continue to push this particular red-herring in the media.

The medieval warm period and the little icse age are different events and are the favorite fodder of media outlets such as the WSJ, they were real questions at one time and are much harder to debunk, so other than saying the conclusions are from proxy records I will just point to the RC links.

As for accuracy of the models, they have error bars but have a skim though the IPCC reports particlularly the SPM. Being a computer scientists my favorite model link is this movie of a single simulated year from Japan's Earth simulator.

"if you can explain these issues convincingly why do you let the media get away with not covering the counter argument?"

Good question, it's not from lack of trying by those involved and coverage by the media is usually a bit better outside the US (eg:BBC). The two questions you asked are not easy to understand for many people, maybe a better question is why do some people in the skeptics list get so much repeated media attention for their red-herrings and esoteric but misinformed details, despite both points being thouroughly debunked time and again? For instance why do we currently keep hearing about how cold it is the last couple of years when the fact is the hottest 10yrs on record (global average) have all occured in the last 12yrs? Why are the opinion columns (eg: WSJ) full of people who deny the Arctic sea ice is dissapearing when half of it's area and most of it's volume has already gone in just under half my lifetime? Why does the media constantly focus on rising oceans and hurricanes when (IMHO) the major threat from AGW is to agriculture and marine stocks?

I have been refering to the consensus in ambiguious terms above, however when a climatologists refers to "the consensus" they are usually referring to the falsifyable (and IMHO conservative) assertions in the IPCC reports. For seven years now many media outlets have failed to pick that up as

Just to be clear the second list is made up from individuals while the first only contains scientific organizations, it excludes universities and individuals, including them would make the list unmanageably large. I don't know of a single reputable scientific organisation or university that is seriously at odds with "the consensus", certainly none appear in the list I offered although some of the individuals do hold respectable positions. An interesting excersice is to cross-check the claims of the individual skeptic with the organisations they work for.

As to your questions both have been around for many years and have been thouroughly debunked, but I will have a go. The first one about CO2 levels rising after the ice melts in an ice age is true but the claim that it is evidence against AGW is false. The regularly reccuring ice ages are caused by Earth's orbit (solar forcing), as the ice melts so does the permafrost. The melting permafrost relaeses methane which rapidly breaks down into CO2. Therefore CO2 goes up (feeds back) and ADDS to the warming caused by the shift in orbit. In otherwords CO2 is normally a feedback and that feedback mechanisim will compound the warming from our emmissions (human forcing). None of this refutes the physics that says CO2 is a GHG, nor does it refute the temprature rise expected from increased CO2. What it does tell us is that nature will add to our CO2 spike as the permafrost melts because of our CO2 spike. Personally I think the last sentance is the reason psudeo-skeptics continue to push this particular red-herring in the media.

The medieval warm period and the little icse age are different events and are the favorite fodder of media outlets such as the WSJ, they were real questions at one time and are much harder to debunk, so other than saying the conclusions are from proxy records I will just point to the RC links.

As for accuracy of the models, they have error bars but have a skim though the IPCC reports particlularly the SPM. Being a computer scientists my favorite model link is this movie of a single simulated year from Japan's Earth simulator.

"if you can explain these issues convincingly why do you let the media get away with not covering the counter argument?"

Good question, it's not from lack of trying by those involved and coverage by the media is usually a bit better outside the US (eg:BBC). The two questions you asked are not easy to understand for many people, maybe a better question is why do some people in the skeptics list get so much repeated media attention for their red-herrings and esoteric but misinformed details, despite both points being thouroughly debunked time and again? For instance why do we currently keep hearing about how cold it is the last couple of years when the fact is the hottest 10yrs on record (global average) have all occured in the last 12yrs? Why are the opinion columns (eg: WSJ) full of people who deny the Arctic sea ice is dissapearing when half of it's area and most of it's volume has already gone in just under half my lifetime? Why does the media constantly focus on rising oceans and hurricanes when (IMHO) the major threat from AGW is to agriculture and marine stocks?

I have been refering to the consensus in ambiguious terms above, however when a climatologists refers to "the consensus" they are usually referring to the falsifyable (and IMHO conservative) assertions in the IPCC reports. For seven years now many media outlets have failed to pick that up as

Congratulations, a well reasoned and genuinely skeptical post. Your self-confesed ignorance also implies you are intellectually honest but unfortunately it has let you down in a few places.

There is no consensus: just plain wrong

"So far I have not heard an expert on either side of the debate come up with convincing arguments to explain the other side's evidence." - Try here or here. There are very slim picking on the other side of the fence, but here is a list of individual scientists that disagree with all or part of the consensus.

"The problem with global warming (as I understand it) is that there is conflicting evidence as to the cause." - Multiple uncertainties are catered for by the error bars in this graph of known forcings. There is generally more uncertainty and possibly unknowns in the +ve/-ve feedbacks caused by these forcings although some such as water vapour are well known.

To cut a long story short, humans are NOT responsible for ALL the changes (eg solar flux in the graph above) but we are responsible for most of it. Most so called "skeptics" I have read over the last 25yrs or so subscribe to the "single cause" idea and build their strawmen by painting climatologists with the same brush.

Note that the list of skeptics link also defines the "the consensus" and is worth quoting...

The scientific consensus was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:
1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 C per decade in the last 30 years.
2.There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
3.If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 C to 5.8 C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise of 9 cm to 88 cm, excluding "uncertainty relating to ice dynamical changes in the West Antarctic ice sheet". On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

"Noone mentions it though. Why?"

Same reason that phrenology is not mentioned, ie: it's utter bullshit.

"Here's an idea - Let's ban the release of Oxygen into the atmosphere!"

Here's a different idea, get a clue.

Please document where these proposals were made by serious climate researchers, rather than by Popular Mechanics. Further document that these were serious proposals, rather than "wouldn't-it-be-cool-ifs" of the space elevator variety.*

Enough of the "Scientists predicted global cooling" myth. Even in the days when this belief was supposedly at its peak, the number of papers predicting warming outpaced the number of papers predicting cooling by 6 to 1. The cooling papers were generally ones that predicted a continued rise in atmospheric soot, not sudden onset ice ages.

In other words, your entire post (and by extension, your entire understanding of climate change) rests on a fraudulent foundation.

* Space elevator chatter of the 1970s, I mean. Not the real, legitimate space elevators that we're sure they'll be putting up any day now and it would cost less than a month in Iraq and here's a link to another breakthrough in carbon nanotube production. I'm really not looking to argue over that.

Yes 20yrs ago it was an interesting idea based on the observation that dust from deserts fertilizes the oceans (eg: 40M tons of dust is transported by wind from N. Africa all the way to the Amazon each year, so the Atlantic ocean already recieves a nice dusting in the summer. The results from dumping iron dust have been inconclusive at best, but even if it did work as well as the promoters claim the problem would then be scale and distribution.

The simplest answer given by the overwhelming majority of scientists who have looked at the problem (including Lovelock), is to cut back emmissions from ~10Gt/yr to ~3Gt/yr as fast or faster than we built them up, in otherwords moderate our current uncontrolled experiment in geo-engineering as rapidly as possible. However to some people the idea of emmission controls amounts to social-engineering and an economic acpocalypse, thus we get the political bullshit, half-truths, think tanks, and psuedo-skeptics that have accompanied any discussion of climate over the last couple of decades.

Re: Ice. Yeah, so the melting isn't a perfectly smooth downward trend. In 2008, the minimum ice coverage for the melting season was 4.67M square kilometers, and the year before, it was 4.28M. That doesn't negate the overall trend. In actuality, the next lowest year wasn't 2006, but 2005. In 2006, there was a slight recovery as well.

It's pretty dishonest for sites like NewsBusters and FreeRepublic to be trumpeting a half-million km^2 gain, without pointing out the previous year saw a loss of about 1.2M km^2. They also forgot to mention that the ice-shrinking trend has been statistically significant over the past fifty years of fluctuating year-over-year levels. They also won't tell you that the people who produced the data think that ice volume (as opposed to ice area) is down from last year.

One. Year. Means. Jack.

That goes double for "global warming peaked in 1998." Look at the graph, and notice a couple of things. First, notice that 1998 was a really, really, really weird year. I defy you to find another year on the graph as far above the five year average (though a couple from the 1880s are in the running). 1998 was an El Nino-injected monster of a year, and it's utterly dishonest for anyone to use it as a baseline.

The next thing to note: the sheer amount of noise in the graph. Even the five year averages are full of dips and surges. The progression is anything but steady, yet the overall trend is clear. Individual years? They're all over the map. The record is littered with unusually low years that, in the end, didn't amount to anything significant.

The last thing to note: Even accounting for the fact that 1998 is pulling up the five year average towards the end of the blue line, every single year from 2001 on matched or exceeded that five year average. 2008 isn't on the chart yet, and when it is, it will be somewhat below the average for this decade. But climate scientists aren't sweating.*

Re: computer models. I don't know what you're talking about, and I'm starting to suspect that you don't either.

Watching climate contrarians spin is like watching a compulsive gambler. Sure, you made $1800 that last hand, but if you were thinking clearly you'd notice that you were still down twenty grand for the night. Don't let one offbeat year fool you. The averages are what matter.

* They mention that this year did include a La Nina event, which tends to drop temperatures.

More recently Mt Pinatubo caused a small but measurable drop in global temprature. Several similar events occured in the 20th century, the mesurable effect lasts a few years at most.

Long term? - During the 20th century mankind's GHG emmissions dwarfed those from volcanos and I suspect our areosols (soot,etc) over the same period have done more to keep a lid on warming than the ash from volcanos.

Unlike anthropogenic climate change there is nothing much we can do about a volcanos except get out of the way, the fact that humans exist at all demonstrates primates have managed to do that for millions of years. The industrial age has only been going in earnest for a couple of centuries but already it has caused the sixth great extinction.

The scientist-as-hero meme is a very popular narrative device and is widespread in most discussions of progress in science. While it's clearly true that some breakthroughs have happened through the work of a single person (special relativity is the classic case) and someone has to be the first to make a key observation (e.g. Watson and Crick), the vast majority of scientific progress occurs as the accumulation of small pieces of new information and their synthesis into a whole. While a focus on a single person makes for a good story, it is very rarely the whole or even a big part of the real story.

Um, what? The thermohaline cycle is when the wind-driven surface currents, like the Gulf Stream, move water from the equator to the poles, during which it cools and sinks and heads back to start the cycle over.

The Gulf Stream is one of the wind-driven components of the meridional overturning circulation. The thermohaline circulation is the density-driven component. See here, here, here, and here.

I did neglect to mention that stopping the Gulf Stream would also stop the cool water flowing back in the opposite direction, which could cause various Atlantic islands to get rather more tropical.

The cold water is deep water. If islands get more tropical it's because less surface heat is being transported northward, not because less cold water is being transported southward.

But, regardless, saying the Gulf Stream would shut down is exactly correct.

It's exactly wrong, according to what oceanographers mean by the term "Gulf Stream".

'Europe', no. Northern Europe, yes.

As I said, see Gregory et al., which is one of the main model intercomparison studies. I quote: "Although THC weakening mitigates the CO2 warming in the Atlantic region (see also section 3), there is no cooling over any substantial region in any of the TRANSIENT experiments, because the CO2 effect is larger." When you see those scary temperature anomaly maps with huge cooling, what you're looking at is generally a freshwater hosing experiment which doesn't have CO2 forcing in it, just a freshwater response which is supposed to be analogous to the true warming-induced response.

A northern European "ice age" is not really the main concern with an MOC slowdown/collapse. The main impact is probably shifts in regional precipitation patterns.

And anyone who says we need a 'large amount' of warming to collapse the current is just, essentially, guessing.

That may be a "guess", but it's an informed one, based on oceanographic modeling and paleoclimate evidence. As such, it's at least more credible than someone who says that we need little warming to collapse the current.

We don't know how much it will take, and it's probably very dependent on Greenland glaciers, which are currently melting faster than expected.

See Jungclaus et al., GRL (2006). They find that even in a high Greenland melt rate scenario, the MOC weakening in the 21st century (under a fairly high-forcing SRES A1B BAU scenario) increases from 30% to 42% by 2100. That's not insignificant, but it's not a collapse either, and they predict a recovery in the 22nd century.

It's not the last word on the subject by any means, but most researchers in this field are converging on the opinion that it's hard to collapse the MOC in a modern interglacial period. If you've just come out of an interglacial and still have some of the bigger continental ice sheets lying around, that's different.

If you want to assert it won't happen until the earth heats up that much, well, that's kinda silly.

It's backed up by highly cited published research. It's kinda silly to ignore that research, unless you're aware of any new work which I'm not. If you are, what is the citation?

But, yes, without the Gulf Stream clearing out the warm water, it would essentially keep building up in the Gulf of Mexico, and any hurricane that made it past Florida would get a giant energy boost.

Likewise: what scientific papers back up your claim that every

So you have irrefutable evidence that global warming is due to fossil fuel combustion products and not, say, the output of the sun?

Why, yes, actually, it is fairly well established that solar variation is not enough to account for observed climatic effects, and that fossil fuel CO2 emissions are a significant factor.

Now, "irrefutable evidence"? Evidence is always subject to review and refutation by later observation. If you want "irrefutable" go talk to a Bible literalist.

The fact is that most of the global warming theories are based on poor evidence and conjecture.

No, the fact is that most of the "human activity is not impacting the climate" excuses for inaction are based on no evidence and a load of wishful thinking.

Oh for God's sake, I have been trying to convince slashdotters about the reality of AGW for 8yrs now and have been following the science since the early eighties. I was ridiculed and modded to hell until the tide of public opinion started to change about two years ago and now that you have jumped on the bandwagon you start attacking me as naive?

"I need more than just the bleatings of a CEO in trouble to convince me that an oil company is fighting global warming"

Did you read the rest of the link? - The previous CEO was the one "in trouble". Oxburgh put the wind up Shell in the short time he was there, so much so that on more than one occasion his corporate minders tried to cut interviews short when he started talking about global warming. He was also the first CEO from ANY industry to propose a limit on CO2 concentration, the limit he proposed was 450ppm and it is now accepted by everyone except the US as the ideal target in the UN negotiations. He also played a part in setting up the Stern review which was the first serious report by hard-nosed economists to advocate early and concerted action to reduce CO2 emmission to a sustainable level. I could go on, but in short he has done far more for the cause than you or I could ever hope to achive.

And just for the record I was not trying to convince anyone that Shell are "fighting global warming", I was trying to make a psuedo-skeptics head explode by pointing out a highly respected scientist that advocates emmision controls AND was chairman of an oil company. However since we are on the subject, most oil companies can now see the writing on the wall and are desprately trying to diverify their energy portfolio so as to adapt to the new reality. Even Exonn seems to have ceased it's disinformation campaign, with a bit of luck the lack of funds will finally consign Fred Singer to the dustbin of crooked scientist. I can only hope that the coal industry will catch on soon but until recently they have been very successfull at shifting the blame to oil.

"One can only assume that Shell are trying to clean-up their image after fucking up over a period of time."

That's exactly what they were doing and you don't have to assume anything because is says as much in the link. However the reason the previous CEO and board of directors were "in trouble" had nothing to do with global warming.

"Maybe you shouldn't be so naive."

Maybe you should practice your comprehension skills, try reading what I was replying to, and do some research before shooting your mouth off. As for naivity, I can tell you from experience you won't change the world by shouting at it, it may make you feel better but all you are doing is encouraging people to ignore your very real concerns.

Degrees in medicine and biology do not make one an expert on climate change. We wouldn't be having this discussion if Crichton had written "GOTO Considered Just Fine, Thankyouverymuch."

Crichton botched the science that he was trying to criticize. I think that's a much stronger condemnation than the presence or absence of any given piece of university-derived parchment.

The first article disputes his 0.8C prediction, pointing out that the trend he attributes his predicted rise to should actually have a bit of a cooling effect.

Here is a list of other, specific rebuttals to Crichton (primarily his novel "State of Fear"), in case you're interested.

Degrees in medicine and biology do not make one an expert on climate change. We wouldn't be having this discussion if Crichton had written "GOTO Considered Just Fine, Thankyouverymuch."

Crichton botched the science that he was trying to criticize. I think that's a much stronger condemnation than the presence or absence of any given piece of university-derived parchment.

The first article disputes his 0.8C prediction, pointing out that the trend he attributes his predicted rise to should actually have a bit of a cooling effect.

Here is a list of other, specific rebuttals to Crichton (primarily his novel "State of Fear"), in case you're interested.

Degrees in medicine and biology do not make one an expert on climate change. We wouldn't be having this discussion if Crichton had written "GOTO Considered Just Fine, Thankyouverymuch."

Crichton botched the science that he was trying to criticize. I think that's a much stronger condemnation than the presence or absence of any given piece of university-derived parchment.

The first article disputes his 0.8C prediction, pointing out that the trend he attributes his predicted rise to should actually have a bit of a cooling effect.

Here is a list of other, specific rebuttals to Crichton (primarily his novel "State of Fear"), in case you're interested.

I said "worthwhile". Bestsellers are mostly just ways to pass the time on a commute.

all the anti-global warming stuff is properly cited and logically argued.

Bullshit.

Chrichton wrote great anti-science fiction and was entitled to his opinion. What I find unbelivable is that certain US senators cannot tell the difference between science and fiction, so much so that Chrichton was introduced to a senate commitee as a climate expert.

So far, what I see in the media isn't really convincing

See, that's where you're going wrong. Why, if only there was a global electronic network that made journal papers, raw data, and plain English explanations of what it all means freely available to anyone capable of searching for it.

mars has melting ice caps, explain that one away?

*Sigh* Read up here. In short, the trend of "warming" on Mars is too short, Mars has a higher eccentricity to its orbit (meaning more fluctuation in its distance to the Sun) than Earth, and most importantly...

Solar radiance has been on the decline during this time period. If the Sun is such a dominant force in global climate change (on Earth and Mars), then why have temperatures supposedly been going UP on Mars while the radiance of the Sun has been going DOWN?

You people are just working so hard to maintain your happy delusions that you don't bother digging into the facts behind your claims. "(A) The Sun's output fluctuates. (B) Some glaciers on Mars are melting. That must mean that (I) the Sun's output is increasing, (II) all of Mars is warming (but let's not be too hasty about melting glaciers saying the same thing about Earth!), and therefore global warming is all the Sun's fault! Don't worry, be happy!"

The truth is that we have no evidence of *global* warming on Mars due to insufficient data on the planet's climate, and if the Sun was such an important influence, then the climate there should be *cooling* instead.

Pfft. I could take global warming deniers more seriously if they had ANY interest in getting to the objective truth instead of wrapping themselves in the most whatever scraps of information and half-truths they can use as a security blanket.

This is a complete myth. Read this and be enlightened - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Chriton is a brilliant story teller, the sad part is he belives his own bullshit.