Ok you wait for TedN5 who will no doubt blame the earthquake in China on AGW – everything else is what not earthquakes?

I will wait for the DATA – for some “scientists” to do the math. What you don’t get yet is may “scientists” sign on to GW without knowing the intricacies of the “models” – which are controlled by a few – and I want to see how they replace a variable like the relationship between CO2 and water vapor that was logarithmic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_scale

With one that smaller than the predicted 1 to 3 deg ratio:
"How does water vapour fit in with CO2 emissions? When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect.

How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000)."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapo...enhouse-gas.htm

When this relationship fall apart all hell breaks lose in the AGW debate.



More fun with GW:

Here at Climate Audit, we occasionally try to solve mysteries that have vexed climate scientists for years. On a previous occasion, we helped UCAR locate the mysterious civilization of Chile, on another occasion the lost city of Wellington NZ and, most recently, helped NASA find the lost city of Cobija, Bolivia. Today we’ll help the climate science community identify the provenance of a graphic shown below, that was produced in 1990 by a mysterious organization known to insiders as IPCC.

IPCC 1990 Figure 7c.
At his blog last year, William Connolley, obviously impressed with then recent CA success in locating Chile and Wellington NZ, appealed for help in solving this outstanding puzzle, specifically challenging me to identify its provenance for the climate science community, even accusing me of being “curiously uninterested in the source [of this graphic], or lack thereof” and worried that I was “ignoring” the provenance of this graphic, leaving the wider community to fend for itself.
One of his readers, obviously of the view that it was not necessarily my responsibility to sort out this particular IPCC conundrum, asked Connolley why he didn’t just determine who the IPCC author was and ask him:
Where does the 1990 graph come from then? I presume the IPCC author didn’t just hand draw it? Who is the IPCC lead author responsible, and if he is still alive, couldn’t one just ask?
http://www.climateaudit.org/

Gee they did make it “go away”.

HERE is part of Realclimates response to the Keenlyside et al. peer reviewed article arguing that there would be a pause in temperature increases followed by a return to the long trend because of continued GG forcing.



I have not received a Realclimate response to my inquiries regarding the Spenser, Christy, et al. paper. Some blogers have offered what I consider to be inadequate answers so I will keep trying to get one of the participating scientists to comment. For anyone wishing to follow my efforts see Realclimate.org, category - instrument record, article - Tropical tropospheric trends, comments - beginning at #117 and continuing at #186 and beyond. (See This Realclimate Article and Comments).



The whole article and some of the comments are relevant to our discussion. See #112 in particular.

I'm still waiting for the article on sensitivity that RC promised so I can submit this in a comment that the author is sure to see.

Thanks for staying on it TedN5. In case you didn't catch it in one of my recent posts, here is the link to a shortened version of Spencer's analysis that I recently discovered. Perhaps you have some thoughts on it. Most of its too technical for me.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

Of course not TedN5 because this is the data that will be hardest to dismiss and will have the greatest impact on the inaccurate “models” now used. And the issue of” clouds” is not as significant as the apparent absence of the multiplier effect of CO2 on water vapor in the upper atmosphere. Without which the “model” crash and burn is a very big way.

The issue is not the fight over “warming”. The slight “warming” since the 1880s is easily in the normal fluctuation range and could have little or nothing to do with CO2 “forcing”.

Let us know if Realclimate ever responds. I won’t my breath.

And the "majority" of scientists thet buy AGW is about over:

http://whatthecrap.wordpress.com/2008/05/1...ing-hypothesis/

And with peer reviewed data:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf

Ted, you constantly seize on any small shred of evidence suggesting some problem with the consensus position of climate scientists. The Spencer, et. al article is a case in point. This is not an earth shaking paper that will revolutionize the study or climate but rather the latest product of a group whose errors in the past alone make their current conclusions suspect. While neither Realclimate nor any other popular defenders of the consensus position, that I know of, have taken this paper on directly, they have now promised to do so. (See How to cook a graph in three easy lessons).



You should read the whole article to get some feel for Roy Spencer's claims. After dissecting the constructing of Spencer's graph purporting to show "internal radiative forcing," the article concludes with the following statement in reference to a Spencer constructed graph in a 1997 WSJ article showing a global cooling.



In science, as in other fields, track records do have a place!

Once again you either avoid the issue or ignore it. The climate “models” that the IPCC depend on rest heavily on an assumption that there is a multiplier effect between CO2 and the main GW gas – water vapor in the upper atmosphere..

The data from the satellite now shows that there may be little or no multiplier effect which, as you can imagine, does serious damage to the predicted temperature rise. Do you see? As I have always said – the “models” are not accurate and they have in them assumptions – like this one – that have a major impact on the “output”

Finally, as you can see, the number of scientists that see the IPCC AGW campaign as the political semi- science creation for what it is – don’t agree with it.

The data from the new satellite doesn't show anything. The analysis of th data by Spencer, et. al suggests a response of cirrus clouds in the tropic different than what GCMs would predict. They were wrong for years in analyzing satellite temperature data, what makes you so sure they are right this time?

Where is the technical rebuttal to his data. He did not make up the satellite data. The RC folks just cannot deal with it and the catastrophic damage it does to the sacred “models” that they have made their case on.

“A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.”

Ken Minschwaner, a physicist at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, N.M., and Andrew Dessler, a researcher with the University of Maryland, College Park, and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md, did the study. It is in the March 15 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate. The researchers used data on water vapor in the upper troposphere (10-14 km or 6-9 miles altitude) from NASA’s Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS).

Their work verified water vapor is increasing in the atmosphere as the surface warms. They found the increases in water vapor were not as high as many climate-forecasting computer models have assumed. "Our study confirms the existence of a positive water vapor feedback in the atmosphere, but it may be weaker than we expected," Minschwaner said.

According to Dessler, the size of the positive water vapor feedback is a key debate within climate science circles. Some climate scientists have claimed atmospheric water vapor will not increase in response to global warming, and may even decrease. General circulation models, the primary tool scientists use to predict the future of our climate, forecast the atmosphere will experience a significant increase in water vapor.

NASA’s UARS satellite was used to measure water vapor on a global scale and with unprecedented accuracy in the upper troposphere. Humidity levels in this part of the atmosphere, especially in the tropics, are important for global climate, because this is where the water vapor has the strongest impact as a greenhouse gas.

"The increases in water vapor with warmer temperatures are not large enough to maintain a constant relative humidity," Minschwaner said. These new findings will be useful for testing and improving global climate models.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...15humidity.html

Ted, your muddying the waters again by bringing up this 2004 study. It was done by respected people and is part of the scientific discussion. All climate scientists would acknowledge that pinning down water vapor feedback is one of the greatest remaining uncertainties. Indeed, Realclimate when discussing the role of WV has referred to the paper you referenced, HERE for instance.



You might be interested to know that Minschwaner and Dessler together with Sawaengphokhai
published a followup study in 2005. HERE is the Abstrct:

(Emphasis is mine).

Right “lingering uncertainties.” From 2004. Positive feedback – and “reasonable accuracy” Sounds like political goblygook to me. What is “reasonable accuracy”. How far off are the predictions? Any data to show me?
Sounds like more data swept under the GW rug.

Ted, you are incredible. First you cited Minschwaner and Dessler's 2004 paper to support your dubious position. Then I cited their subsequent 2005 paper to show that their work largely supports the validity of GCMs. And now you launch into an unsubstantiated diatribe against the way their conclusions were stated in the abstract!

“Largely supports”? Post something for me please that tells me the IPCC has fully taken into account the errors in the “models” that can be attributed to using the incorrect multiplier for the CO2 – Water Vapor relation TedN5 What is the new lower number.

Again – “reasonable accuracy” sure as hell is not good enough when you ask all of us to cough up hundreds of billions in an effort to “reduce” CO2. Knowing of course that all of the current plans that do not include the worlds largest AND fastest growing producer of CO2 are for naught.

Even the Bush Administration is starting to take climate change seriously. They have issued a new report detailing expected impacts on the US in the next 25 to 50 years - a period whose impacts we can't change much even if we had the political will.

See this NYT Summary

And the Complete Report.

We should take “climate change” seriously since we will always have to deal with it. What we should not have to deal with is a speculative political movement disguised as “science”. The Czech President has it right on the subject.


“As the media, the left, and the United Nations become more and more strident about a supposed scientific consensus surrounding anthropogenic global warming, more and more dissenters speak out against the junk science involved in this mythology.
The most recent was Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic.

In an interview with "Hospodářské noviny," a Czech economics daily, Klaus made the following observations (emphasis mine throughout):
Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.
http://newsbusters.org/node/10773

Our only chance is McCain who while, so far, going along with this bunk, has said that he would work with “all” the industrial nations to reduce CO2 emissions (I assume until we know for sure CO2 has little or no effect on GW). By this I glean that he will not be stupid enough to spent 100s of billions while China and India undo all efforts. Obama I am not sure of.

Vaclav Klaus, oh no, a crushing appeal to authority! Did this long standing critic of environmentalism generally learn his climate science from the state Institute of Economics or from the Cato Institute with which which he has a long association? He is a free market ideology of the first rank. You might as well trot out Margret Thatcher. The only thing recent about his criticism is his new book.

The political (left) nature of the debate is obvious. This is not science but politics and sooner or later the facts will kill AGW.

This is far from an open debate – and people who hide the basis for their calculations have something to hide.

“After unveiling the Hadley Center adjustment error that has been used in all temperature compilations for the past 20 years, Phil Jones stated:
Climate scientists should think about data quality more often, says Jones, so that there is no opportunity for incorrect data to sow seeds of doubt in people’s minds about the reality of climate change.

This is the same Phil Jones who said:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.

During the past few years, I’ve posted progress reports on CRU’s obstruction of efforts to find out even the simplest information about how they do their calculations - things as simple as a list of stations in their temperature calculations. These progress reports are scattered through many posts and I’ve collated into a PDF online here, covering two topics:

1) efforts to identify the station data used in CRU temperature analyses, and, once that had been refused, efforts to obtain even a list of stations used by SRU. Two generations of inquiry are shown, first by Warwick Hughes in 2005 and then by Willis Eschenbach in 2006-2007, which after 3 years and countless attempts only resulted in a not quite complete list of stations.

2) efforts to obtain a list of stations used in Jones et al 1990, a prominent study purportedly proving that the UHI effect was inconsequential. Once this list was obtained, an examination of the list of Chinese stations by myself and Doug Keenan, showed that claims in Jones et al 1990 to have selected stations based on careful examination of station history metadata could not possibly be true, as such metadata did not exist, which led Keenan to file a complaint against one of the authors.”
http://www.climateaudit.org/

Some time ago, in keeping with the original topic of this thread, I referenced the Australian drought as a probable candidate for weather events influenced by AGW. (I also referenced this drought and the 90% reduction in Australian rice production in the food crisis forums). Now on Open Mind Tamino has posted an interesting discussion regarding the drought. (Apparently temperature and particularly daily high temperatures contribute as much to drought as low levels of precipitation. Tamino concludes his discussion thusly.

(See the Australian Drought).

Perhaps – I don’t know? - real scientific.

Meanwhile the data battle goes on and the GW crowd continues to fudge, hide and conceal the truth.

“Folland has been the leading IPCC authority on bucket adjustments. Folland et al 1993 carries out a comparison from early 1980s measurements of (presumably predominantly insulated) bucket and non-bucket measurements, arguing that the difference was about 0.08 (less than 0.12-0.18 suggested in 2006 by Kent and Kaplan.
They reported a puzzling situation in the Gulf of Alaska where, according to the data base used for the comparison, Canadian data came from “buckets or unknown instrumentation” (Folland allocates “unknown instrumentation” in with buckets for the purpose of his comparison as shown below and states that Japanese data is classified in their data bases as also coming from “buckets or unknown instrumentation”. He goes on to observe that WMO 47 says that over 90% of Japanese data came from engine inlets and accordingly should have been in the opposite pool. One wonders why they wouldn’t have simply written to the Japanese and asked them to clarify the matter. How hard would that have been?”
http://www.climateaudit.org/

Very scientific, admitting what you don't know and looking for evidence is the essence of science. You would be a lot more credible if you would admit what you don't know once in awhile.

Tamino made this statement about recent precipitation in Southeast Australia because the drastically reduced rainfall there, while probably part of an AGO pattern, was still not less than at least one historical event. There is evidence that precipitation patterns are changing, however. See New Scientist Article).

Very scientific, admitting what you don't know and looking for evidence is the essence of science. You would be a lot more credible if you would admit what you don't know once in awhile.



Yes and I don’t know (happy now?) what is causing this and neither does anyone else. To say this is AGW is pure speculation.

The skeptics (as opposed to deniers) have tried to cling to the uncertainties in projections of future temperature increases by emphasizing the possibility of a low sensitivity of temperature to increasing levels of GHGs. In response I've tried to emphasize that there are even greater uncertainties on the high sensitivity side and a real possibility of crossing a major tipping point from which there is no recovery. Now a new paper is about to be published suggesting that the melt of arctic ice is likely such a tipping point. Tamino at Open Mind has just posted a discussion of this paper.

If we want to speak of current weather events and what they say about the climate, we need only to look at Midwest storms and floods. The Northwestern US is in a cold snap and the eastern US is in a warm snap. Where these two weather systems meet (the Great Plains) there is the inevitable storms associated with a clash of warm air with cold air. Soon, the colder air will camp over the Northeastern US while the west warms. I'm sure this is historically unprecedented...

I also heard that the colder Pacific is also contributing to wildfires in California. Colder water means less evaporation which means drier air.



It's interesting that they stopped in September of 2007, since just after that we had record refreezing of the Arctic sea ice. Of course, green sites emphasize that the ice extent did not reach historic median levels (what, it couldn't go from historic low to median? Doom!)

Also, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today and no magical tipping point occured then.

I'm not sure who you mean by"they stopped" but if you are referring to Tamino's Article, you are distorting the facts. Tamino presents three graphs. The first stops with the record low sea ice in September 2007 as you claim. The second, however, shows a recovery last winter to an area larger than the previous winter. The third shows the melt so far this year to a point where ice coverage is equal or below the area covered at this date in the record low year of 2007. Whether the melt will continue to match or exceed 2007 depends on a number of factors discussed in the article. The real substance of the article and the research it discusses, however, is what effect major changes in sea surface ice coverage will have on arctic air temperatures and permafrost melting whether the melting occurs this year or in the future. HERE is another article with the reaction of another arctic scientist to this research.



References would be nice but I will concede that there were some high temperatures recorded in the 1930s at points near the arctic. However, there is no evidence of any sea ice melt that comes close to 2007.



I'm relatively sure that global warming has played some part in the chaotic whether in the US and elsewhere (Southern China had record rainfall). It adds total energy to a weather system whose pattern is probably established by the El Nina in the Pacific. I alluded to this possibility in earlier posts calling attention to the freakishly early tornadoes in the Northern Midwest. We are now on course for a record number of tornadoes and associated deaths. AGW theory and modeling suggest more droughts, more floods, and more intense storms. However, it is hard to make a scientific case for AGW caused specific weather events. All that can be said is that it creates conditions that make anomalous weather more likely.

And we'll leave unmentioned the fact that increased tornado activity has never been claimed to be a result of AGW.

No, but climate scientist Jim Hansen said practically the same thing that I did when speaking about a freak tornado in Brooklyn, NY in 2007:

(See HERE).

I would ask for backup here but we both know there is none. “It seems” is a meaningless non scientific term common in the GW debate. Real science has left building in favor of this drivel.

Meanwhile the contradiction go on …………..

“The scientists said their data showed that significantly warmer periods and significantly colder periods had occurred during the last interval between glacial epochs, about 115,000 to 135,000 years ago. They said they could not tell whether that meant similar changes were in store. Their findings were reported today in two papers in the journal Nature. [...]
The new studies found that the average global temperature can change as much as 18 degrees Fahrenheit in a couple of decades during interglacial periods, [Dr. J. W. C. White of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research of the University of Colorado] said. The current average global temperature is 59 degrees Fahrenheit. ...
At one point between the last two glacial epochs, the climate melted enough polar ice to raise sea levels some 30 feet. As noted by a member of the drilling team, Dr. David A. Peel of the British Antarctic Survey, it was so warm in England that hippopotamuses wallowed in the Thames and lions roamed its banks....
In his commentary, Dr. White wrote: "We humans have built a remarkable socioeconomic system during perhaps the only time when it could be built, when climate was sufficiently stable to allow us to develop the agricultural infrastructure required to maintain an advanced society. We don't know why we have been so blessed, but even without human intervention, the climate system is capable of stunning variability.http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ge-past-climate

Have you comprehensively searched the matter inorder to confidently make such a grand statement. I personally don't have a clue but others do in fact relate increased tornado frequency to global warming. They may have been impressed with this chart.

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2008...es1950-2007.png

The general direction seems just the opposite of hurricanes. Unlike hurricanes the number of tornadoes increases while the intensity trends down.

And the whole difference may be due to better reporting and tracking of tornados. Notice in your graph that strong and violent tornados have actually decreased. The weak ones are just getting picked up more now because of weather radar and better reporting.

I agree with this: increased radar has increased our ability to detect and document smaller and smaller "storms". EF0 and EF1 storms make up over 85% of all tornados.

Those low grade storms are ones that very little damage occurs.

ADers have witnessed many of your weak references but this one is classic. It's quoted from a "denier site" that in turn refers to a NYT article from 1993 (more than 1-1/2 decades ago). Surprisingly, however, the conclusions of the study are similar to those of more recent and elaborate studies. The conclusions that most climate scientists have drawn from such studies, however, are dramatically different than your blasé one, that the natural climate is so variable that we shouldn't worry about what impact we have. Rather they conclude that that the climate system is delicately balanced and that small changes can push it beyond tipping points into dramatically change climate systems and that we should be very careful in disturbing it. The melting of arctic sea ice may be just such a tipping point!

I have tried to be very careful in discussing tornadoes because the historical data is so subject to population changes and technological detection techniques. It is also unclear theoretically how global warming will effect the number, intensity, and distribution of tornadoes in North America. NASA did modeling that indicated more severe storms with potential for more tornadoes in a globally warmed world. (See USA Today Article or the Abstract). There is some evidence that wind shear at high altitudes reduces the formation of tornadoes accounting for more frequent major tornadic outbreaks during La Ninas and fewer during El Ninos. There is also evidence that tornado patterns may be shifting both geographically and seasonally with more activity in northern states and Canada and more activity earlier in the year.

Edited to change 2 decades to 1-1/2 per Amlords correction.

TedN5


Well if that is a classic weak reference as you say, its a bit odd the data even according to you is comparable to what your saying are more elaborate studies.
The the data is very similar, why is it a weak source?

What I see here are to varying view points based on similar evidence, your conclusion TedN5 is that your pretty sure the planet is warming and man is having an impact, while Ted is less than convinced.

Anybody who has looked into Global warming closely knows the following............

1. Co2 levels are up

2. temperatures are slightly up

3 the amount of severe storms and tropical storms is up on average, although this is less easy to point out due to inconsistency. For example the last two hurricane seasons have been particularly mild, while there is record flooding in the mid-west.

4. Without mans presence in the past we have gone through a constant cycle of glacial and interglacial periods, and its been recently discovered that climate shifts are far more frequent than ever before thought. Your both right in acknowledging past climate shifts, and minor fluctuations which have always happed in the past.

5. Lastly there are a number of known things that can trigger global warming or cooling. The most predictable thing is how elliptical our orbit is around the sun, thats the number one thing that can cause a predictable ice age. Other than that there are a number of things that can trigger less predictable climate shifts, such as volcanic activity, the condition of earths ocean conveyor, and increase in greenhouse gases from underwater sources could even trigger a shift, as well as an asteroid impact, among other things. This is a very complex issue.


Now personally I believe that human activity could indeed be a new contributor to climate shift. We are doing a number of things that could have lead to this increase of Co2 and other gases so I'm in a position where I say expect the worst and assume that man can have an impact, because the consequences of not taking that scenario seriously could be severe to say the least. Some people are more skeptical than others but I didn't see how that link Ted presented is a weak source when it supports a well known fact. So your taking a difference in conclusion to tell him his information is not creditable? All that does is give him more reason to be skeptical, because now he has reason to believe that he gets a different treatment from you based on politics, see what I'm saying?

Well they are today you mean – the “believers” are behind this notion with literally no backup.

Statements like “The new studies found that the average global temperature can change as much as 18 degrees Fahrenheit in a couple of decades during interglacial periods, [Dr. J. W. C. White of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research of the University of Colorado] said. The current average global temperature is 59 degrees Fahrenheit. ...
At one point between the last two glacial epochs, the climate melted enough polar ice to raise sea levels some 30 feet”

Tell us that climate change is a constant and our influence on it may be very, very small. What was the “tipping point” between the last 2 glacial epochs? What proof do we have that CO2 has squat to do with it – then or now.


If you are saying the NYT story is inaccurate you will need to post more than saying “its from a denier site” – do you get how elitist and stupid that statement sounds?

A report led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) makes it clear that science supports the proposition that our freakish weather has a lot to do with AGW. (See This Washington Post Article or The 162 Page Report itself).



We know Ted, the hundreds of scientists involved in preparing the research that was reviewed and the reviewers themselves and their agencies are all part of some vast conspiracy to promote global warming fears.

.

Of course if storms increase – its GW? What else –

The fact that the same people said hurricanes frequency would increase and were dead wrong should not bother us. They will be right some day.

Meanwhile they continue to cook the data and live with temperature reporting stations on top of hot buildings or in parking lots.

This is a political movement TedN5 and you know it. And it will not succeed.



I love the “likely” part in this quote. And of course this is very nice and something we should look at – but it may have no impact on the AGW debate since we are a long way from proving CO2 is the culprit and we are at fault. And since "warming" seems to have stalled and may not resume for 10 years or more ...............

Ted

The question of just who is conspiring may be coming to a head.

(See Guardian Article on Common Dreams)

Some open minded ADers might also want to look at this January 2007 Press Release about a report on Exxon's role in sewing doubt prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Be sure to link to the PDF of the Full Report.

The usual ludicrous argument by a blind fanatic.

I think we could do the same thing to Mann and others who have skewed data and misled the public for years.

“spreading doubt” – as if they are the only ones who doubt this crap!

Thanks for posting this – shows just how wacked out the proponents of this are.

Funny that they are not going after Steve McIntyre and others looking at the "data" of "believers". Guess that would not like to argue with him in public. How about all the “deniers” – why no suites against them?

[Taking a page from the AGW crowd...]

Bah-- Hansen and Seth Shulman are both well known "natural variability" deniers and as such have no credibility.

/sarcasm

Actually Hansen's case is illustrative-- he works for the government and yet has seen no backlash despite NASA's policy of its employees being non-political. Far from an Orwellian hero, the fact is that the government gives him his position which makes him free to criticize the government and Big Oil.

Here's some more from the second link.


Great to see efforts being made to get these corporations put on the docket like the cigarette companies for employing disinformation to wreck the health and future of their countrymen in a Devils bargain to keep the short term profits rolling in. Future victims of global warming should be able to sue their behind if deliberate disinformation can be legally established. The cigarette and asbestos companies provide a good precedent for establishing legal accountability for engaging in knowing harm to the public while pretending otherwise. We have to do something to make these folks afraid, very afraid.

Apparently the Exxon CEO behind much of this obscenity just got a Golden Parachute in his retirement of 400 million dollars. Incredible!

Can you attribute cause to the use of one product? Is it coal fired plants or gasoline burning that is responsible for global warming?

"Future victims of global warming should be able to sue their behind"...

Seriously--do you drive a car? Ride a bus? Use electricity? If so, then YOU are complicit, according to your logic.

We have 600,000 years of proof of a close correlation between CO2 and temperature from ice core studies. And who questions the modern human source of increased CO2 in the atmosphere? As far as the inconsistent temperature changes what about other influencing factors don't you get? The argument is that the temperature will go up over the long term consistent with the CO2 rise but with short term variability.

If one evened the process out it might look like a sine curve representing the varying temperature, with the roughly straight CO2 line cutting through the center of the sine curve and moving at a slight angle above parallel. A large part of the time the temperature in this scenario would be on a downward trajectory but the average would be upward. That is what we are seeing, a very roughed out temperature sine curve moving sometimes downward but on average upward, guided by the trajectory of the CO2 line.



You left out promoting misinformation to enhance the sale of a product. If I was selling arsenic as medicine and folks took it and got sick then I would be liable. That is a better analogy. Exxon promoted oil as not being harmful in GW terms when apparently they had good information that showed otherwise and in response conducted a campaign of deliberate disinformation. If that could be proven they definitely should be liable for at least some of the negative consequences.

The earth is 4 Billion years old, 600,000 years is .015%.

Can you show me ANY scientific process where they produce concrete results with a sample size of .015%?

I'm a little sorry that I opened this can of Exxon worms, I would have like to have seen more serious discussion of the NOAA led study of the association between AGO and extreme weather in North America. Nevertheless, having opened the discussion, Here is a Summary from Greenpeace of past and current Exxon giving to various denier and skeptic organizations. The site includes giving for recent years, total giving, and characterizations of the organizations' history of spreading disinformation. It would be interesting to go back inTed's posts to determine what fraction were sourced to material put out by these groups and institutions. But that is just what the network is designed to do - provide an echo chamber so they can quote each other and sound authoritative and have bloggers like Ted pick up and amplify their spiel.

Here are a few quotes from the opening of the paper that I found interesting"







In short, the paper concludes that, under its new chairman, Exxon/Mobil has made some cosmetic changes in response to pressures from places like the Royal Society and has dropped its funding of some denier organizations (while continuing to fund others) and has tempered its own recent public statements while continuing on the old course.

Can you show me where a 600,000 year consistent record isn't considered an adequate sampling size? I think any serious scientist would laugh you right out of the ballpark. We haven't measured gravity on every celestial body in the universe so by your lights we can't draw any conclusions about gravity.



Here, here!

A further paragraph from TedN5's NOAA linked article.



It's interesting that they also make reference to increased hurricane intensity as viewed by some scientists but don't offer that as part of the present consensus like the above because of continuing scientific argument on the matter.

Actually, the latest ice cores now go back 800,000 years. (See this BBC Article for example).







This is ludicrous, scientists can't draw any conclusions about the world we live in and its atmosphere from evidence that covers a period 3 to 4 times longer than homosapiens have been around and and 1/3 of the period when the genus homo has existed? For much of its 4.5 billion years the earth didn't have an atmosphere that resembled the current one. For much of the remaining eons continents were in different positions and configurations and the earth was climatically a totally different planet.

600,000 Must impress you because it's a big number.

Let's take a 60 year old man. That is 21900 days. 21900 days x .015% is 3.285 Days.

By observing this man for 3.285 days you would be able to tell me based off those 3.285 days, exactly how the other remaining 21892.715 went?

The science is not and most likely never will be settled.

I have yet to see any PROOF that this recent and very slight warming trend is caused by carbon dioxide.

I simply have to assume your joking. Practically everything we know is through small samples. The building blocks of a human being can be derived from one cell extracted from many billions. It goes on and on.

As far as you not seeing any proof of a relationship between present warming and human caused CO2 rise have you looked at a chart documenting the relationship along with the accompanying scientific explanations? At this point I would have to say, unless you have done no study on the subject, if you can't see the relationship it is because you don't want to. That's not the fault of the evidence.

.

Right and the “correlation” is exactly OPPOSITE what we are seeing today.



Right. They are what imo has caused the warming and will be responsible for the cooling as well – whereas CO2 will be a minor factor.

And the attack on Exxon Mobil is so ludicrous. If anyone is distorting data it is the people like Mann and the “believers”.



Ya sure. As a minimum we all know gas guzzling cars use precious oil and produce real pollution as well as CO2 – no mystery there. And yet people know this and buy them. So spare me the “misinformation” line.

Check the annual loss of world ice if you want to see the continuity of global warming. As I indicated before short term air temperature variation is to be expected.


Interesting faith statement based on nothing.


Many of the public were misinformed about AGW based on Exxon's campaign of disinformation. Some like yourself of course choose to stay misinformed. The driver doesn't bare responsibility because they don't produce the product and then engage in a misinformation campaign to profit from it at the expense of the public. Did the analogy of the cigarette companies escape you? Your protective feeling toward Exxon is touching.

Take a look at the CO2 vs. temperature graphs extracted from the ice cores:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Now, focus on 325,000 years ago and what do you see? Temperatures dropping with CO2 levels rising.

Now focus on 140,000 years ago: temperatures increases leading the CO2 rise. Then 110,000 years ago--a temperature spike with decreasing CO2 concentrations.

75,000 years ago: temperature increases leading CO2 increases. It happens again at 50,000 years. At 25,000 years, temperature once again leads CO2 rise.

Let's go back further: 625,000 years ago (EPICA core--all the previous was in the Vostok core). Temperature leads the CO2 rise. 580,000 years: temperatures rising while CO2 is falling, followed by a CO2 "bounce" which follow the temperature rise.

515,000 years ago: temperatures rise once again leads CO2 rise and at 500,000 years ago temperature falls (followed by a CO2 fall) and then rises again (followed by a CO2 rise).

Temperature is the leading indicator. CO2 concentrations follow the temperature.

Historically, the greenhouse effect of CO2 (or methane for that matter) were not primary forces. Why should we expect them to be so today?

Actually my quote was focused on the relationship of CO2 and temperature from 1880 but I'm quite willing to accept your challenge. The correspondence between CO2 and temperature in your chart is simply overwhelming. That doesn't mean other forces weren't in play to divert from that tight correspondence but that doesn't detract from the close fit that usually prevailed.

One thought is the temperature was being measured from an area which might have had for an extended period a very different temperature trajectory from much of the other areas of the world. For instance since 1880 the highest recorded temperature year for the US is 1938, which some folks use to claim global warming isn't happening. Local conditions can be very different from the earth as a whole.

Then of course once again there are other forcings. A period of high volcanic action which would have been both contributing to cooling and adding to CO2 density might have been in play. There are a lot of unknowns but Occam says go with the best theory based on the available evidence. Got anything better?

The question about whether CO2 caused warming or warming caused CO2 rise is another question. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gasses as they increase trap radiation which produces warming. Warming has the effect of releasing dissolved CO2 in the water and other sources like exposed peat. So it works both ways. I think where the matter gets confused is usually the process is started by an orbit change which causes warming or cooling depending on whether it pulls the earth closer or farther from the sun. From then on the mutually reinforcing process between warming/cooling and CO2 increasing/decreasing occurs.