Slashdot Mirror

First, when you call anything you don't like "a religion", you discredit yourself. I, personally, find it amusing that you have the hubris to call the majority of the scientists in the world, and every country's national science body part of "a false religion" because you disagree with them.

Second, neither point is "still out in the debate":
1) Humans are causing it, no other explanations fits the facts.
2) It's a bad thing. On economic grounds, estimates for end of century spending for deal with the effects of Global warming are close to 7.5 trillion, and the costs of averting it less than 2 trillion. Then there's the moral problem of having poor and undeveloped nations shoulder most of the worst consequences of our fossil fuel use.

it is "obviously" not as the supposed "huge increase" in CO2 levels has led to very little actual warming for the climate overall.

Data, not speculation, please

The fears of some kind of runaway reaction have been totally debunked.

Point to a study (by real climatologists, not whackjobs)? I pointed to some. When are you going to?

As for the climate getting slowly warmer, as a species we would be very lucky if that is actually the case

Again, too much of anything... The fear is a runaway effect will produce too much warming.

- but it's too soon to tell, people are trying to use year to year swings to guess what the climate will be like 100 years hence, and so far utterly botched even a simple five or ten year prediction.

5-10 years is not really statistically significant. But in any case, there are some interesting model-data comparisons at RealClimate which show some good comparisons of model with actuals. Interestingly, the climate isn't as sensitive as our worst-case scenario would have us believe, but it can be estimated roughly to 3.4C per doubling of CO2, down from 4.2.

Fairly good performance for a model that "isn't even close" in your words...

It is very important to understand is that climate models don't make predictions, they make projections. The difference is that projections are based on "If A happens then B will be the result" whereas predictions are "B will happen". Most of the inaccuracies come from incomplete matches between A and actual events. For instance, climate models don't account for economic factors so they can't predict events that have had serious implications for the short-term amount of CO2 emissions (such as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the 2008 recession).

Secondly you should be careful about "what [you] have heard that the models have predicted". There are people who make a living from denying that climate change is occurring. They are partly funded for political reasons and partly privately funded by the popularity of their views (appearance fees and such). Obviously, it is therefore in their own economic interest to exaggerate and distort predictions to make themselves look smarter and to increase the size of the audience who is willing to pay to hear them speak. Unfortunately, it is rather common for some of these people to take a projection which least matches actual events and pretend that it is a prediction.

That's not to say that the models are in any way perfect, there is continual effort to improve the models so that they provide better and more accurate projections, however, the models are already reasonably accurate.

Propaganda

Well, scientists have been sidelined by a sustained multi-decade propaganda effort. Frank Luntz was the (modern) author of the war on climate science, but he comes at a long list of propagandists who have a well-oiled machine. (See Merchants of Doubt for a jumping off point on a stupendous amount of evidence for this point.)

The extensive social psychology research on belief and the transmission of information has been used by marketing and political institutions -- but not by scientists. Given the extra-ordinarily bizarre quality of the public discourse on the topic, scientists are finally warming to the idea of making use of science in science communication.

What the scientists are proposing is not really propaganda, but trying to find ways to transmit information that actually work. Frank Luntz and his cohort are going more for the Noble Lie, which /is/ really propaganda.

Every time you deniers "call us on it", we link again and again and again to the real science. You ask for the data, the data is available. You cast aspersions on the data, and it's independently verified. You fund studies meant to show that there's no warming, the study shows that there really is warming.

When we "call you on it", you disappear into the woods.

You really should read that a little closer.

Your claim was that "next year is the year they predicted for the Arctic to be ice free."

That article says "could be," not "will be," and is from one team led by Wieslaw Maslowski, which gained his team "a deal of criticism from some of their peers" according to the BBC (example).

The possible scenario from Maslowski was also about summer ice melt.

In other words, you were lying. You were giving the impression that the entire scientific community was saying that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013 when it was a possible scenario by Maslowski's team alone. You were giving the impression that the Arctic would be totally ice-free, while they were in fact talking about the ice-minimum during summer.

You might want to take a look at what is actually happening.

Now, this is typical of you deniers. You will make claims that are either flat out lies, or claims that may seem to be correct if you don't pay attention, but then it turns out that you're twisting words and basically presenting things as something they aren't.

Just as I thought. And this is the reason why you don't want to post sources. You know they are weak and will expose you as a liar.

If you really think scientists think it's going to get hotter everywhere on the globe every single day, you are delusional. Short-term fluctuations are expected. Indeed, they are part of the models scientists are using.

You are a typical cherry-picker. You claim to want "research with an open mind," but a mind that keeps distorting reality is not open.

...how do you gauge how much is man's fault...

You do attribution studies. There are several links here that eventually lead back to peer reviewed attribution studies.

I agree that any saying global warming is "going to destroy the world" is going way overboard. However, the human influence on the climate can't be denied. According to measurements of natural drivers and anthropogenic ones, humans are causing more than 100% of the observed warming over the past 50 years. During that time, the natural factors have been net acting in a cooling direction, that means that all of the observed warming is caused by human activity.

So humans are doing it, the solution is a matter of paying less now to mitigate the effects, or paying more later to deal with the effects while risking additional unknown potential feedback events. By allowing the industrial terraforming of the earth to run unchecked and unsupervised, the primary risks are famine, pestilence and war. By altering the climate patterns on this planet we could potentially render some of the world's most important crop land into marginally productive or barren land, and of course we already be pushing the oceans towards a massive fish stock collapse through a combination of overfishing and acidification from CO2 emissions. It could take decades to replace that lost food production, during which time, millions could starve. We also risk the spread of tropical and subtropical diseases into formerly temperate areas, we're already seeing some climate related changes in disease propagation. Of course, the biggest threat is likely war over diminished resources. If China ends up with a billion starving people, do you think they won't attack neighbours that have resources that could (even temporarily) help to feed those people?

We won't destroy the world or even humanity, but we could cause a lot of human suffering. The conservative principle says we should stabilise and then slowly reduce the amount of pollution (including CO2 emissions) that we are producing. The biggest threats are not from climate change but from rapid climate change. Plants and animals need time to adapt to change or we may cause another great extinction. It takes nature thousands of years to recover from an extinction event, I doubt humanity is prepared to wait that long for a solution.

Talk about missing the point.

No, he got the point. He was accusing you of being disingenuous because there's a trend of people just like you claiming "we don't know" and therefore "we shouldn't do anything". Of course, they're the exact same people who said "I have proof it's not happening! ...but I left it in my other pants" and "Don't believe the scientists they're all religious fools!". The way you phrased your questions made it obvious that you were only asking them for rhetorical purposes. It certainly looked like you'd already decided what the answers are and were indicating you had no interest in anything that might contradict your views. I would suggest using questions that less obviously one-sided next time. If you don't phrase them in a way that dictates the answer, most people won't assume you're an idiot with an agenda.

"How much does human activity play a part in this?"

Over the last decade it's about 108% human causes. Natural causes have had a net negative effect, and so the human effect has had to overcome a natural cooling trend and warming has continued warming at a slightly slower pace. Surface temperatures appear to have been mostly stable because most of the warming is currently being pushed into the ocean (which continues to warm). This is because the last decade has been dominated by La Nina events. If you look at trends lines categorized by ENSO state (El Nino, La Nina or neutral) much of the short term noise is cancelled out of the resulting graphs showing a clear rising trend in temperatures.

It's that if the issue requires a global response — whatever the cause — then it necessarily must be a global response, not just First World nations sacrificing their entire economic and energy base, thus removing any influence they may have over the issue, leaving "China and India" to create that "world of shit" to which you refer even more quickly.

Of course, there are other options besides "do nothing" and "stop doing anything". A measured response might include, for example, imposing a carbon tax, and then taxing imports at the same rate. That would allow for reductions in emissions without allowing China and India to swamp America with "cheap shit" that breaks the rules.

When you get to the "talking points" BS, basically means you lost this conversation.

No it means that I'm pointing out that you are just spewing the same old denialist talking points.

"talking points" as you put it are there because they distill the whole point into something even an idiot can consume and understand.

The problem with your talking points is that they are blatant lies.

I never said it was globally.

Then what is the relevance? Do you really not understand the difference between local (2% of the planet or so) and global? But you didn't specify the US did you? You wrote: "The warmest decade for the 1900s was the 1930s" - nothing about this only being the US. You have been caught red-handed again.

You did look at what you sent me, right? You do realize that it shows that GW in the past was because of orbits and then we got the heat + co2, right? You do realize that we are in one of those warming orbits, right?

Actually, the sun has had a cooling trend for nearly 40 years. And how did you miss the part of that page which says "bout 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase"? Face it, you were just spewing another denialist talking point because you are clueless, and now you are trying to pretend that the article supports your nonsense.

Finally, about the models. Very accurate eh? I guess you missed this article too

No I didn't. The article is based on a shitty piece of pseudoscience (really, really shitty) by creationist and "God decides the climate on the planet and there's nothing science can do to change that" moron Roy Spencer.

There was a really nice graph showing the UN predictions and reality somewhere.

You mean the very, very old predictions that actually turned out to be rather accurate, and actually predicted less warming than we have seen?

I bet you are STILL not convinced. It's time to get you mad as you realize you've been duped, played for a sucker

Says the moron who blindly believed in creationist loon Roy Spencer's pseudoscience. Your crappy article even repeats the old "they predicted an ice age in the 70s" lie.

Check this out - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Check what out? This crappy list of engineers and other non-scientists who are completely incompetent?

The question is, are you still fooled. Member of Al Gore's/Mr. Strong's church of Man Made Global Warming?

Al Gore is irrelevant. He is not a scientist. I realize that you hate science and can't be bothered to refer to actual scientists, though.

Oh my, you are just a gold mine (or shit mine) of ignorance and denialist talking points...(more BS)...

When you get to the "talking points" BS, basically means you lost this conversation. If you have a point, make it. "talking points" as you put it are there because they distill the whole point into something even an idiot can consume and understand. Sadly, a lot of idiots still don't get it. Moving on...

The 1930s were warm in the US, not globally. You can't even tell the difference between local and global??

I never said it was globally. Good that you found the point I was making. I don't think you understand it though.

Of course, your ignorance and dishonesty compels you to repeat the old "CO2 lags temperature" canard. Once again your ignorance is only too obvious.

You did look at what you sent me, right? You do realize that it shows that GW in the past was because of orbits and then we got the heat + co2, right? You do realize that we are in one of those warming orbits, right? Ever hear of the little ice age? Probably TMI for you. Nice of you to help prove my point.

Where science isn't is if you add CO2 will you get more temperature. In the past all we can say is that CO2 seems to follow temperature. No kidding, less ice, more biological activity. The reverse, adding CO2 (effect) to the atmosphere doesn't necessarily mean you'll get heat (cause). That's the crap science. If you understood anything about science you would know that. We know methane is being released for example and you can show that traps heat. No doubt about that.

Finally, about the models. Very accurate eh? I guess you missed this article too - http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/28/2249238/new-nasa-data-casts-doubt-on-global-warming-models ? There was a really nice graph showing the UN predictions and reality somewhere. Unfortunately I can't seem to find it. They were not even close.

I bet you are STILL not convinced. It's time to get you mad as you realize you've been duped, played for a sucker - http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_History.htm . Read it if you dare. I bet you won't. Too long, too much information, etc.. Then your character flaws will come out again. Check this out - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Don't feel bad. A lot of people are fooled by them. The question is, are you still fooled. Member of Al Gore's/Mr. Strong's church of Man Made Global Warming? Life member maybe? Offended by that statement? Re-read the GW_History article again.

HTH and Best wishes.

Oh my, you are just a gold mine (or shit mine) of ignorance and denialist talking points...(more BS)...

When you get to the "talking points" BS, basically means you lost this conversation. If you have a point, make it. "talking points" as you put it are there because they distill the whole point into something even an idiot can consume and understand. Sadly, a lot of idiots still don't get it. Moving on...

The 1930s were warm in the US, not globally. You can't even tell the difference between local and global??

I never said it was globally. Good that you found the point I was making. I don't think you understand it though.

Of course, your ignorance and dishonesty compels you to repeat the old "CO2 lags temperature" canard. Once again your ignorance is only too obvious.

You did look at what you sent me, right? You do realize that it shows that GW in the past was because of orbits and then we got the heat + co2, right? You do realize that we are in one of those warming orbits, right? Ever hear of the little ice age? Probably TMI for you. Nice of you to help prove my point.

Where science isn't is if you add CO2 will you get more temperature. In the past all we can say is that CO2 seems to follow temperature. No kidding, less ice, more biological activity. The reverse, adding CO2 (effect) to the atmosphere doesn't necessarily mean you'll get heat (cause). That's the crap science. If you understood anything about science you would know that. We know methane is being released for example and you can show that traps heat. No doubt about that.

Finally, about the models. Very accurate eh? I guess you missed this article too - http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/07/28/2249238/new-nasa-data-casts-doubt-on-global-warming-models ? There was a really nice graph showing the UN predictions and reality somewhere. Unfortunately I can't seem to find it. They were not even close.

I bet you are STILL not convinced. It's time to get you mad as you realize you've been duped, played for a sucker - http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_History.htm . Read it if you dare. I bet you won't. Too long, too much information, etc.. Then your character flaws will come out again. Check this out - http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Don't feel bad. A lot of people are fooled by them. The question is, are you still fooled. Member of Al Gore's/Mr. Strong's church of Man Made Global Warming? Life member maybe? Offended by that statement? Re-read the GW_History article again.

HTH and Best wishes.

So even though solar activity has decreased recently, the input is still above the level at which warming will continue to increase. Just like the stove example I gave.

No. This is wrong and it makes no physical sense. Look at the graph again. The solar output has decreased and (while it isn't apparent on the graph), the temperature increase has, umm, increased (ok, that doesn't make much sense - the temperature increase is accelerating). There is absolutely no way for this to occur without a similarly increasing forcing behind it. The sun cannot possibly be that forcing since it isn't increasing. End of story. Maybe the earth would continue to warm, but the warming wouldn't accelerate. Something else must be causing the warming. There are other problems with your logic. For example, the changes in insolation (energy from the sun) are measured (or known by proxy prior to measurements). It is possible to look at those changes and determine how much warming the sun has caused. Look at my link again and look at the intermediate or advanced tab (here's the link to the intermediate tab: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm ). Despite your flawed logic, it really is well known that the sun isn't causing the current warming.

Now don't misunderstand me: I am NOT saying that is the cause of the warming. I make no such claim. This is just a hypothetical example.

What I am saying is that the fact that temperatures have deviated from the sun cycles is not necessarily evidence of man-caused warming. As I have showed, as a logical argument it has a huge hole in it. There CAN BE other explanations.

Of course just because we know with very high confidence (and, remember, in science that's about as good as it gets) that the sun isn't involved in the current warming, that doesn't mean that something else natural isn't causing it. But there's a problem here: none of the natural causes correlate with the warming. It's true that correlation doesn't imply causation, but non-correlation strongly implies non-causation. But what does correlate extremely well with the current warming? CO2 levels do. Again we have the correlation doesn't imply causation, but in the case of greenhouse gases, we have well known physics that indicate causation. Additionally, calculations based on the known climate drivers (including greenhouse gases) are able to very well match the current warming. So throw me a bone here. We have correlation. We have well known fundamental physics which says that given the changes humans have made we should expect this amount of warming. "Skeptics" have been unable to show any other process that: (1) Can account for the current warming, and (2) Can prevent the increased CO2 levels from acting in ways they are known to act. Maybe there's another explanation - that's always a possibility in science. Maybe there's a fundamental flaw in the theory of relativity. But we use it now anyway and our GPS systems work just fine. When the physics matches, and when study after study indicates that the consequences of continuing as we have been are pretty devastating (at least in an economic sense), at some point you have to stop waiting for someone to find a flaw in the science and actually act on things.

By the way, you mentioned a link, but I couldn't find one in your posts. I'd be interested in knowing where you got your "science information". I hope it's co2science - they say the silliest things, but generally provide all the evidence to show that they're wrong.

Kind of like this graph.

"Answer this then: Do you think the water will get hotter faster with the burner turned up, or turned down a bit. Because that's what's happened to the earth. The sun is putting out constant energy (actually slightly decreasing - see http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm [skepticalscience.com] ) and yet the earth is getting hotter faster than before. This is not physically possible if the sun is causing the warming."

I have already explained this. Apparently you didn't get my analogy. Let me explain again, using a graph from your own source. See figure 1.

Notice how, according to the graph, the solar output has increased pretty much steadily since just after 1880 (sure, there are cycles, but the trend has been upward). Now, let's just suppose -- hypothetically -- that the level of solar activity right around 1935 marks the "tipping point", at which the input exceeds the rate at which the earth can cool. In that case, the temperature will continue to increase as long as the input remains above that level. It doesn't matter whether the input goes down; the earth will continue to get warmer as long as the input is above that fixed level.

So even though solar activity has decreased recently, the input is still above the level at which warming will continue to increase. Just like the stove example I gave.

Now don't misunderstand me: I am NOT saying that is the cause of the warming. I make no such claim. This is just a hypothetical example.

What I am saying is that the fact that temperatures have deviated from the sun cycles is not necessarily evidence of man-caused warming. As I have showed, as a logical argument it has a huge hole in it. There CAN BE other explanations.

"You've indicated by your response that you don't really have any knowledge of climate science or, for that matter, science in general."

Haha. Did you even look at the link I supplied? On the contrary, I know a great deal about this subject; I have been studying it for years. And I have a very good science education. On the contrary: YOU showed by YOUR response that you did not understand my stove analogy.

"If you don't mind my asking, how do you come up with the confidence to dispute actual measured data when you have so little knowledge?"

Because you have it wrong: I was not disputing any data at all. In fact I just made the same analogy using data that YOU linked to. I was disputing only some people's interpretation of the cause behind the data, not the data itself. Those are two very different things. How do you have the confidence to question my explanation (which in fact is not my own idea at all: see the link I gave above), when you didn't understand what I was saying?

"When I truly don't understand something (as is the case with you and climate science), I generally back off and ask questions until I do understand."

But you didn't, did you? You misinterpreted my statements, put your own spin on them, then claimed that as a result, I must be ignorant. You are asking NOW, but only after you already said I must be full of sh*t. That doesn't sound like unbiased questioning to me.

"But you don't seem to feel that's necessary. Why is that?"

Because the statements I make here on the subject are actually well-researched, and I can back them up. Once again, see the link I supplied above, which you obviously did not bother to look at before you chose to basically call me a fool.

But just so I am not misunderstood, let me repeat for a third time: I am not saying something like the stove analogy is the cause of the warming. I am saying that the opposite argument (that the sun could not be the cause, simply because the temperature has not recently followed the solar decrease), is based on flawed logic. Once again: the fact that you may not be turning up the stove control all the time does not mean you can't make the water warmer.

Oh my, you are just a gold mine (or shit mine) of ignorance and denialist talking points, aren't you?

Quote from that global cooling article: "This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community"

Good job, denier.

The 1930s were warm in the US, not globally. You can't even tell the difference between local and global??

Of course, your ignorance and dishonesty compels you to repeat the old "CO2 lags temperature" canard. Once again your ignorance is only too obvious.

You, open to science? Hell no. You can't even get simple, basic facts right!

Models are wrong? No, they are in fact very accurate.

You fail again, denier.

Oh my, you are just a gold mine (or shit mine) of ignorance and denialist talking points, aren't you?

Quote from that global cooling article: "This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community"

Good job, denier.

The 1930s were warm in the US, not globally. You can't even tell the difference between local and global??

Of course, your ignorance and dishonesty compels you to repeat the old "CO2 lags temperature" canard. Once again your ignorance is only too obvious.

You, open to science? Hell no. You can't even get simple, basic facts right!

Models are wrong? No, they are in fact very accurate.

You fail again, denier.

Yes, denialist talking points and lies, like the lie that the CERN CLOUD experiment supporting denialist claims. Exactly.

The activity of the sun has had a downward trend for nearly 40 years. At the same time, the global temperature has gone up. Once again your denialist talking points fail miserably because you are too ignorant.

Hahaha.This is one of my most favorite bogus arguments, because it's so easy to show how bogus it really is.

Turn a surface burner on your stove to medium-high. Then put a pan half-full of water on it. LEAVE IT for a while. Guess what? The water continues to get hotter, even though you haven't turned the heat up. If you let it get near boiling, then turn it down just a minor notch or two (as the sun has turned down, just a bit), guess what? The water continues to get hotter.

The argument that the temperature variation has deviated from solar activity for a while, is exactly the same. If the input was enough to warm the earth significantly, it can CONTINUE to warm the earth, even if the input is reduced somewhat.

The idea that the temperature must follow the sun no matter what the input happens to be is just bizarre. Just as with a stove: if you turn it to just warm, then the water will stay warm, and will follow the burner temperature up and down. But once you get to the tipping point of putting more heat into the system than can be bled off, the temperature will continue to rise as long as the input is higher than that point... even if the input is significantly lower than the year before. As long as it remains higher than that point, in other words, you can actually continuously turn the control DOWN, and the water will still continue to get hotter.

Answer this then: Do you think the water will get hotter faster with the burner turned up, or turned down a bit. Because that's what's happened to the earth. The sun is putting out constant energy (actually slightly decreasing - see http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm ) and yet the earth is getting hotter faster than before. This is not physically possible if the sun is causing the warming.

You've indicated by your response that you don't really have any knowledge of climate science or, for that matter, science in general. If you don't mind my asking, how do you come up with the confidence to dispute actual measured data when you have so little knowledge? This is something about the "debate" in climate science that really interests me. When I truly don't understand something (as is the case with you and climate science), I generally back off and ask questions until I do understand. But you don't seem to feel that's necessary. Why is that?

Actually, La Nina years do depress the global atmosphere average temperature by pushing heat down into the ocean. El Nino years do the opposite, they pull heat up from the oceans and increase global average temperature. The effect is small (about 0.04C for each) but when El Nino and La Nina conditions are taken into account, it creates a much clearer picture of the earth's warming trends.

Yup, that's a given, but you have to start somewhere, and temperatures have been roughly flat since 1998.

Take a look at this. How many other "roughly flat" periods do you see in the skeptical view? And yet the long term trend continues to rise.

Regarding point 2 and what is significant, the cooling that caused the Little Ice Age was approximately 1 degree C. Was the LIA significant? Would you expect a 1 degree C rise to be less significant than the equal cooling that caused the LIA?

Again, he claimed that the science said something. I want citations. I then want the data he's basing his claim about what actually happened on.

As a denier, you do not understand the difference between local temperature and global mean temperature. You do not understand the difference between climate and weather. Basically, you are extremely ignorant.

I want those citations. Enough silly excuses. Put up or shut up.

Scientists did not warn about a coming ice age in the 70s. Your ignorance is exposed again.

Being sceptical about theoretical models and extrapolations will not get you labelled a denier. But if you question whether global warming is due to human activity, you're questioning a lot of evidence that goes far beyond theoretical models. There are 13 separate lines of evidence that indicate that global warming is man made. The deniers have no credible alternative theories and can't even agree on which scapegoat to blame.

It's a fact that global warming is caused by humans, we know the mechanism that causes it (greenhouse gases) and we know we're the ones increasing greenhouse gases (industrial measurements and radio-isotope analysis), it's time to accept the truth on that count. There are other things you can question, like exactly how fast temperatures will increase, and what specifically the effects of a warmer climate are. But you need to accept that scientific facts established 30 years ago which have stood up to every question thrown at since aren't going to crumble before your non-expert opinion.

Oh Jesus no, no *atmospheric* warming for the last decade!?!?!?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

ZOMG IT IS TEH HOAX!!!

You should probably check more often, that debate has been over at least a decade. Not that it was ever in much of a debate. While it's true that the natural cycle is larger than human contributions, the natural cycle operates in an equilibrium state. It's kind of like having two big tanks of water with water rushing back and forth between them. If you start pouring additional water into the tanks they will eventually both fill up regardless of how much water flows between the two tanks.

If you want a better understanding of the state of climate change science you should read this big picture overview.

You should probably check more often, that debate has been over at least a decade. Not that it was ever in much of a debate. While it's true that the natural cycle is larger than human contributions, the natural cycle operates in an equilibrium state. It's kind of like having two big tanks of water with water rushing back and forth between them. If you start pouring additional water into the tanks they will eventually both fill up regardless of how much water flows between the two tanks.

If you want a better understanding of the state of climate change science you should read this big picture overview.

The rest of the solar system is not warming.

So your claim is that no one has ever done a temperature reconstruction going back more than 150 years? Or are you upset that all of the reconstructions have come to the same conclusion? Namely that it's warmer now, we passed the medieval warm period's average temperature decades ago. The graphs on the linked articles show many different reconstructions, but they all agree that the current temperatures are warmer than 1000 years ago. The only thing I could find to indicate that the medieval warm period was as warm (or warmer) than today was what appears to be a doodle with no temperature scale on a site that was directly tied to the Heartland Institute. I don't consider doodles with no supporting evidence to be credible and that's before considering that the Heartland institute has a history of support for creationism, smoking, and politically drivel denial of climate change. I think the best evidence shows that we are likely at a warmer temperature than any other time in the Holocene.

This is the crux of my problem with your argument. You've pre-determined the "relevant period" when choosing your time span (i.e., you've already framed the argument in a way to support a CO2 correlated conclusion).

If you want to study the effects of industrialisation, you're going to look at the period of industrialisation. If you want to study something else, then you choose a different period. If you want to accuse someone of cherry-pick you really do need to provide a reasonable explanation of why the data isn't representative.

Given that there are at least a dozens reconstructions of longer periods. I think your claim that climatologists never look at any scale longer than 150 years has been rather thoroughly debunked.

So your claim is that no one has ever done a temperature reconstruction going back more than 150 years? Or are you upset that all of the reconstructions have come to the same conclusion? Namely that it's warmer now, we passed the medieval warm period's average temperature decades ago. The graphs on the linked articles show many different reconstructions, but they all agree that the current temperatures are warmer than 1000 years ago. The only thing I could find to indicate that the medieval warm period was as warm (or warmer) than today was what appears to be a doodle with no temperature scale on a site that was directly tied to the Heartland Institute. I don't consider doodles with no supporting evidence to be credible and that's before considering that the Heartland institute has a history of support for creationism, smoking, and politically drivel denial of climate change. I think the best evidence shows that we are likely at a warmer temperature than any other time in the Holocene.

This is the crux of my problem with your argument. You've pre-determined the "relevant period" when choosing your time span (i.e., you've already framed the argument in a way to support a CO2 correlated conclusion).

If you want to study the effects of industrialisation, you're going to look at the period of industrialisation. If you want to study something else, then you choose a different period. If you want to accuse someone of cherry-pick you really do need to provide a reasonable explanation of why the data isn't representative.

Given that there are at least a dozens reconstructions of longer periods. I think your claim that climatologists never look at any scale longer than 150 years has been rather thoroughly debunked.

There are results out there. It takes some digging to find them. The first thing I found was here.

Take a look at the temperature record over a long period of time you will see several decade long periods where temperatures were flat or they actually dropped. Still the long term trend is for temperatures to go up. The animated graph here illustrates the point nicely.

Climatologists have calculated that you only generally get statistically significant trends over about 17 years. Anything shorter and you're vulnerable to short term fluctuations, particularly ENSO related ones. We've been very fortunate last 10 years, all of the natural factors have been acting in opposition to the anthropogenic factors. For example, we've had a solar minimum, two strong La Ninas and only 2 weak El Ninos. This has led to the appearance of a "stop" in warming for very cursory inspections. However, if you factor out the short term ENSO variations the temperature increases appear to continue unabated.

Analysis shows that La Nina years on average reduce the global average temperature by about 0.5 degrees and El Ninos increase the global average temperature by about 0.5 degrees for that particular year. Give the trend over a decade is about 0.2 degrees you should be able to see how that short term variability can swamp the trend line.

Droll, but not very accurate. The last 100 year or 150 years are often used because the industrial revolution started about 150 years ago and cars are about 100 years old. They're used because they represent the time scale on which humans have been using mass amounts of fossil fuels and thus actually releasing mass amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In other words, it represents the entire relevant period and thus isn't cherry-picked by definition.

Now if you ever saw a study that went from 1994 to 1998, or 2004 to 2007, or even 1994 to 2007, then that would be cherry-picking. Those are all intervals that could be picked to show maximum warming.

Interestingly, temperatures are only flat if you ignore the influence of ENSO (El Nino and La Nina cycle). We've had a decade with weak El Ninos and strong La Ninas which does slow the apparent rise in global temperatures on a short time scale. However, when take into account the three different ENSO conditions (El Nino, La Nina, neutral), you end up with three separate trend lines that are all increasing at a steady rate.

This image demonstrates how a noisy, difficult to read graph becomes pretty clear when the data is partitioned according to the short term ENSO cycles.

Interestingly, temperatures are only flat if you ignore the influence of ENSO (El Nino and La Nina cycle). We've had a decade with weak El Ninos and strong La Ninas which does slow the apparent rise in global temperatures on a short time scale. However, when take into account the three different ENSO conditions (El Nino, La Nina, neutral), you end up with three separate trend lines that are all increasing at a steady rate.

This image demonstrates how a noisy, difficult to read graph becomes pretty clear when the data is partitioned according to the short term ENSO cycles.

Interestingly, temperatures are only flat if you ignore the influence of ENSO (El Nino and La Nina cycle). We've had a decade with weak El Ninos and strong La Ninas which does slow the apparent rise in global temperatures on a short time scale. However, when take into account the three different ENSO conditions (El Nino, La Nina, neutral), you end up with three separate trend lines that are all increasing at a steady rate.

This image demonstrates how a noisy, difficult to read graph becomes pretty clear when the data is partitioned according to the short term ENSO cycles.

Don't take any of this as an attack. I'm hoping that when you say "you're more educated and scientific than most", that you will take my words as an attempt to become yet even more educated. I've chosen the Intermediate explanations from Skeptical Science because I believe you when you say you're more scientific than most.

Water vapor is in equilibrium and has a very short "half-life" in the atmosphere. If you add too much water vapor, it falls out. http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

There are other effects to climate change, aside from "global warming". Increased water vapor doesn't lead to ocean acidification. By increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, more of it will end up dissolving into the ocean, raising the pH. Marine ecosystems are very sensitive to changes in pH, and since we are experiencing a rapid increase in CO2 concentration (in terms of geological time scales), there might not be enough time for marine life to evolve around the changing pH. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm

The solar debate is actually not on. Lots of papers over the past decade have pretty much laid that one to rest. Solar has an influence, and its influence has been calculated, and it is dwarfed by other factors. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

I notice the use of the year "1998". That sets off all kinds of alarm bells. It would be like trying to use the price of gold during 1980 in an attempt to hide the huge increase that it has experienced since 2008. See here for a debunking of the 1998 thing. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

As far as Antarctic ice, you're only half-wrong there. The sea ice is increasing, and this is used to imply that it must be getting cooler down there. But the land ice is decreasing, and the decrease is accelerating. Since sea ice is floating, gaining or losing it would have no effect on sea levels; land ice, on the other hand, will increase sea levels when it melts. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

Don't take any of this as an attack. I'm hoping that when you say "you're more educated and scientific than most", that you will take my words as an attempt to become yet even more educated. I've chosen the Intermediate explanations from Skeptical Science because I believe you when you say you're more scientific than most.

Water vapor is in equilibrium and has a very short "half-life" in the atmosphere. If you add too much water vapor, it falls out. http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

There are other effects to climate change, aside from "global warming". Increased water vapor doesn't lead to ocean acidification. By increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, more of it will end up dissolving into the ocean, raising the pH. Marine ecosystems are very sensitive to changes in pH, and since we are experiencing a rapid increase in CO2 concentration (in terms of geological time scales), there might not be enough time for marine life to evolve around the changing pH. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm

The solar debate is actually not on. Lots of papers over the past decade have pretty much laid that one to rest. Solar has an influence, and its influence has been calculated, and it is dwarfed by other factors. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

I notice the use of the year "1998". That sets off all kinds of alarm bells. It would be like trying to use the price of gold during 1980 in an attempt to hide the huge increase that it has experienced since 2008. See here for a debunking of the 1998 thing. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

As far as Antarctic ice, you're only half-wrong there. The sea ice is increasing, and this is used to imply that it must be getting cooler down there. But the land ice is decreasing, and the decrease is accelerating. Since sea ice is floating, gaining or losing it would have no effect on sea levels; land ice, on the other hand, will increase sea levels when it melts. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

Don't take any of this as an attack. I'm hoping that when you say "you're more educated and scientific than most", that you will take my words as an attempt to become yet even more educated. I've chosen the Intermediate explanations from Skeptical Science because I believe you when you say you're more scientific than most.

Water vapor is in equilibrium and has a very short "half-life" in the atmosphere. If you add too much water vapor, it falls out. http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

There are other effects to climate change, aside from "global warming". Increased water vapor doesn't lead to ocean acidification. By increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, more of it will end up dissolving into the ocean, raising the pH. Marine ecosystems are very sensitive to changes in pH, and since we are experiencing a rapid increase in CO2 concentration (in terms of geological time scales), there might not be enough time for marine life to evolve around the changing pH. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm

The solar debate is actually not on. Lots of papers over the past decade have pretty much laid that one to rest. Solar has an influence, and its influence has been calculated, and it is dwarfed by other factors. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

I notice the use of the year "1998". That sets off all kinds of alarm bells. It would be like trying to use the price of gold during 1980 in an attempt to hide the huge increase that it has experienced since 2008. See here for a debunking of the 1998 thing. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

As far as Antarctic ice, you're only half-wrong there. The sea ice is increasing, and this is used to imply that it must be getting cooler down there. But the land ice is decreasing, and the decrease is accelerating. Since sea ice is floating, gaining or losing it would have no effect on sea levels; land ice, on the other hand, will increase sea levels when it melts. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

Don't take any of this as an attack. I'm hoping that when you say "you're more educated and scientific than most", that you will take my words as an attempt to become yet even more educated. I've chosen the Intermediate explanations from Skeptical Science because I believe you when you say you're more scientific than most.

Water vapor is in equilibrium and has a very short "half-life" in the atmosphere. If you add too much water vapor, it falls out. http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

There are other effects to climate change, aside from "global warming". Increased water vapor doesn't lead to ocean acidification. By increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, more of it will end up dissolving into the ocean, raising the pH. Marine ecosystems are very sensitive to changes in pH, and since we are experiencing a rapid increase in CO2 concentration (in terms of geological time scales), there might not be enough time for marine life to evolve around the changing pH. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm

The solar debate is actually not on. Lots of papers over the past decade have pretty much laid that one to rest. Solar has an influence, and its influence has been calculated, and it is dwarfed by other factors. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

I notice the use of the year "1998". That sets off all kinds of alarm bells. It would be like trying to use the price of gold during 1980 in an attempt to hide the huge increase that it has experienced since 2008. See here for a debunking of the 1998 thing. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

As far as Antarctic ice, you're only half-wrong there. The sea ice is increasing, and this is used to imply that it must be getting cooler down there. But the land ice is decreasing, and the decrease is accelerating. Since sea ice is floating, gaining or losing it would have no effect on sea levels; land ice, on the other hand, will increase sea levels when it melts. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

Don't take any of this as an attack. I'm hoping that when you say "you're more educated and scientific than most", that you will take my words as an attempt to become yet even more educated. I've chosen the Intermediate explanations from Skeptical Science because I believe you when you say you're more scientific than most.

Water vapor is in equilibrium and has a very short "half-life" in the atmosphere. If you add too much water vapor, it falls out. http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

There are other effects to climate change, aside from "global warming". Increased water vapor doesn't lead to ocean acidification. By increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, more of it will end up dissolving into the ocean, raising the pH. Marine ecosystems are very sensitive to changes in pH, and since we are experiencing a rapid increase in CO2 concentration (in terms of geological time scales), there might not be enough time for marine life to evolve around the changing pH. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm

The solar debate is actually not on. Lots of papers over the past decade have pretty much laid that one to rest. Solar has an influence, and its influence has been calculated, and it is dwarfed by other factors. http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

I notice the use of the year "1998". That sets off all kinds of alarm bells. It would be like trying to use the price of gold during 1980 in an attempt to hide the huge increase that it has experienced since 2008. See here for a debunking of the 1998 thing. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

As far as Antarctic ice, you're only half-wrong there. The sea ice is increasing, and this is used to imply that it must be getting cooler down there. But the land ice is decreasing, and the decrease is accelerating. Since sea ice is floating, gaining or losing it would have no effect on sea levels; land ice, on the other hand, will increase sea levels when it melts. http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

Relevant:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

Oh jeez, are you serious?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Okay, I deliberately belittled you. And for good reason, from my point of view. You gotta get over that if you are going to speak to people with different points of view. The point of running your "brilliant" idea past skepticalscience, is because it has almost certainly already been thoroughly debunked, and it will be explained there. If the explanation if wrong, then we can fix it. The people who manage that site want a comprehensive and accurate rebuttal of "skeptic" talking points. Note that I am not saying they are correct.

The reason for belittling you has to do with the emotional quality of debates. The mind protects its beliefs with powerful emotions. If you cannot deal with a little discomfort, how are you going to deal with the rug being pulled out from beneath you.

I can tell you that I have gone through all this myself. When my world model was crushed, it was quite dis-orientating, and I was angry for a very long time at the people who self-righteously taught me various myths for my own good. (They wanted to believe them too.)

To understand just how poor the "skeptics" case is against climate science, I think it helps to read the debunking handbook, which talks purely about the psychological elements of protecting ignorance. This handbook is not specific to any set of beliefs.

Therefore, you could use the information in this handbook to debunk my erroneous beliefs.

Be warned, however, that I really understand these issues extremely well, and will be ahead of you when you are trying to come up with reasons for why 2+2 = 5 or whatever.

Slashdot is not the best place for this type of thing. Send me an email.

I am a scientist, but not a climate scientist. Got degrees in psychology and electrical engineering, and do research in cognitive science.

As such, I know a lot about how the human mind works, and in particular, how the mind protects ignorance. To have a debate, there has to be rules -- rules that believers of any sort can never follow. You /always/ restrict discussion to a single point, and /never/ discuss anything outside of that point until it is settled. The plays directly against the mechanisms of denial.

Personally, I don't think it is worth debating you, since you can find all the arguments already enumerated and answered online. skepticalscience is a good source, but nothing beats reading actual journal publications.

If you want to try this, then find some argument that hasn't already been rebutted on skeptical-science. Furthermore, you must agree to the rule. I will hold you to it, and I will keep score. A failure to stick to the rule is an admission that you are wrong, refuse to admit it, and are wasting my time.

My email is: aaron at pageofswords net

science does not _clearly_ show that it is man made

Funny how 19 out of 20 earth scientists are completely convinced by their observations that it is man-made, then.

Many myths here.

People got alarmist over Global Cooling then Global Warming and then Climate Change when the first two didn't pan out by name at hyped levels.

http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

The biggest problem is that people are fighting the wrong fight, being too concerned about CO2 levels.

http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Climate change is inevitable no matter what we as a species do or don't do. We have a fossil record going back billions of years proving this, forces like plate tectonics and changes from our own solar system or even supernova's all impact our climate.

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
http://skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm

Many myths here.

People got alarmist over Global Cooling then Global Warming and then Climate Change when the first two didn't pan out by name at hyped levels.

http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

The biggest problem is that people are fighting the wrong fight, being too concerned about CO2 levels.

http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Climate change is inevitable no matter what we as a species do or don't do. We have a fossil record going back billions of years proving this, forces like plate tectonics and changes from our own solar system or even supernova's all impact our climate.

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
http://skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm

Many myths here.

People got alarmist over Global Cooling then Global Warming and then Climate Change when the first two didn't pan out by name at hyped levels.

http://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

The biggest problem is that people are fighting the wrong fight, being too concerned about CO2 levels.

http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Climate change is inevitable no matter what we as a species do or don't do. We have a fossil record going back billions of years proving this, forces like plate tectonics and changes from our own solar system or even supernova's all impact our climate.

http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
http://skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm