I just found an additional resource for your consideration, it's from a source whose credibility is golden, and it's free:

National Academy of Science report

It has short summaries as well as detailed explanation of the science. It's all you could ask for! I'm certain that, after reading it, you'll agree that anthropogenic global warming is a demonstrated phenomenon.

Okay - but WHY would the scientific community (and lets say for simplicity's sake that there IS a homogenised scientific community) decide not to use fossil fuels? They don't benefir from living in a world where we can't burn fossil fuels either! What is their motivation?

Secondly, acid rain WAS a huge problem - it didn't 'fall on its face' at all! Rather, the EPA and the EU equivalent implemented extremely stringent controls on the amouns of SO2 or NOx that could be emitted by industry or automobiles. The auto industry was up in arms about it at the time, however they were forced to comply and the acid rain problem was largely resolved.

The problem did NOT go away because it didn't exist. It went away because a LOT of time and money were spent solving it! You can go to Scandinavia (and I would guess Canada too) and still see large areas of woodland that were heavily damaged by acid rain.

You are right in saying that there have been 'environmental disaster' theories which have fallen falt on their face. But there have also been those which haven't - the ozone layer, acid rain, mercury toxicity, pesticide accumulation in wildlife etc and a lot of time and money needed to be put in to solve them.

In the case of global warming, I would say that the body of scientific opinion lies with, rather than against the existence of global warming and that we should respect experts. I can't really argue with you on particular climate change theories because I'm not a climatologist.

I don't see where the supposed 'financial motivation' comes from either. If scientists were really purely financially motivated, then they would probably spend their time developing something that would be commercially viable!

Thus, you have twice posted a reference which is not the same as the one mentioned as "Proof".

I'm not interested in sorting through 20MB of charts, graphs, and raw data.

I know that the earth is warming. That's not the issue. The issue is whether there is PROOF that MAN is causing it.

The "Oxford Study" was offered as proof.

Let's see it.

Sometimes it is back to take a few steps back and look at the entire debate with some perspective.

For example, this book was published in 1997.

Sun's impact in climate change

So, isn't it logical to ask a simple question? The impact of the sun is just NOW starting to be considered as part of the global climatic system?? What about the oceans? When will we factor that in?

It's clear to me that the "mass of scientists" that you keep referencing (as though proof is dependent on consensus, which it isn't) have started with a foregone conclusion that CO2 is the dominant factor causing the earth to heat up.

But, have they proven that? Not at all if they haven't fully understood the SYSTEM to understand the impact of the sun, the oceans, and frankly the NATURAL temperature dynamics of our planet.

You stated unequivocally that the "Oxford Study" PROVES that man is causing global warming.

Then post the section of that report that does that.

If nothing else, post the executive summary of the report. I'd be interested in the qualifiers that they put in this study. I'm sure it lowers the result far below the level of "proof" that you claim.

The debate on global warming has been politically motivated from the start. It now has taken on a life of its own and the few people who still maintain a healthy skepticism have been trampled by the mass of people jumping on a bandwagon heading down a road that could end anywhere.

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. The climate of the earth has fluctuated wildly during the planet's lifetime. Even as lately as 10,000 years ago. Yet, these so-called experts know understand the dynamics to the point that they can PROVE what the average temperature will be in 95 years? They can PROVE that the average sea level will be more than 2ft higher and that all sorts of calamities will result in desert areas?

These same people can't tell me if I'll miss my golf league TONIGHT due to rain with more than a 20-30% certainty.

I await your "proof" that man is causing global warming.

It is not the same one mentioned by Vermillion as proof. But it is proof, too. It is readily available. It is free. It has been offered to you three times now and three times you have refused to consider it. Your reason:

Then you are not interested in the proof, nor the science behind the proof. Is this logical?


If you are sincere in this request, then go down to your local library and consult it. It's not available on the web without a subscription fee. To reject the evidence because you refuse to purchase it and refuse to go to the library is illogical. To insist that this is the only evidence you will consider is illogical.


This is grossly incorrect, as I have already pointed out. I repeat myself: insolation has been part of climatology from the very beginning, more than a century now. Oceanic heat capacity has been taken into account for many decades. I myself, in a simple exercise as an undergraduate, calculated the net thermal capacity of the earth more than 30 years ago. You assume that your own ignorance of science applies to climatologists, an assumption that is illogical. You ignore facts that have already been presented in this debate. That is illogical.

Moreover, the very source you provide:

includes this statement: "This book reviews the physics of the concept of solar forcing, from its beginnings in the early 1800's and apparent success in the 1870's, to its near demise in the 1950's and recent resurgence. " Thus, the very source you provide declares the ancient history of the idea that you insist scientists have been unaware of. This is illogical.


Have you any evidence to support this claim?


"So-called" experts? Do you question their expertise?

Their analysis yield results far more complex than your simplistic assertions. Their calculations yield a range of temperate values over various time scales. Some of the models show little change, but most models indicate temperature increases of about 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next hundred years. If you have objections to these models, by all means present them. Some are described in the IPCC reports you refuse to look at.

Now we are into that old online debate game, where you just repeat assertions that you made pages back, were challengesd and defeated and you never responded to, and now bring them up again as if they had merit.

I stated at least twice that this statment is fiction, that these things have been considered for a LOT longer back then you would 'guess', and furthermore, that they ARE taken into account in all of the most recent studies, including those cited here. You know, the ones you have not read.




It is clear to you is it? So clear to you? I have asked you this repeatedly, and you refuse, utterly [i]refuse[.i] to answer:

Why is it'clear to you'? Based on what evidence is it 'clear to you'? Based on which of your own relevant credentials is it 'clear to you'? Care to provide ANYTHING to back up your repeated comments, care to provide a SINGLE non-partisan academic study supporting your case? care to explain to all of us why it is 'clear to you' that you are right and the planet's scientific community is wrong?

It has also been asked repeatedly (and ignored by you repeatedly) where on earth you came up with the idea that these studies, all of them, were started with a foregone conclusion of any kind?



And NOW: Lorhelmet will provide us just a single shred of evidence, any at all, that all of these scientists do NOT understand their topic, do NOT understand the subject they have all their doctorates in, do NOT take into account elements like the sun the oceans and the temperature systems of the planet.

He will do this spectacular feat completely regardless of the fact that the Oxford study is BASED in the fluctuating temperature of the planet, and cites all of these issues at great elngth (of couse, he would not know that, since he has never read any of these studies)

Finally, LordHelmet will demonstrate to us not only that the world's environmental scientific community knows nothing about their topic, but that HE, lordhelmet, knows more and better then all of they do.

well?




I would ask you for a shred of evidence to back up this luducrous claim, but I think you have made it pretty clear that you just don't "Do" evidence. Still, even in the face of repeated failures to ask you to justify any of your statements, hope springs eternal:

Care to provide a single smidgen of evidence at all of this fact? Or even how this silly theory would be possible, given the diverse and unconnected nature of the scientific communities in different countries around the world?



I end with a great quote I founf about Lordhelmet which is very fitting here, from CruisingRam:



The evidence exists in spades, in dozens of studies. You have at various times claimed that all scientists are politically motivated, you have ALSO claimed that all scientists are financially motivated, you have ALSO claimed that all scientists are part of a massive conspiracy, and then claimed that all scientists are completely incompetent.

Would you be so kind as to pick just one one of your self-contradicting, impossible fictions, and then provide even a tiny bit of evidence to back it up? Pretty please?

Ok, I'll call your bluff. From the IPCC report (the most recent one on-line). Quote



So what does this mean to someone as "simplistic" as me? First off, it's a fancy way of saying "we don't know much" about the dynamics of the climate because it appears to be "chaotic". If the dynamics were understood, the level of observed "chaos" would be far less. Yet, these scientists take the leap and say, even though we can't really see beyond 2 weeks and that there is no "proportional cause and effect", we MAY be able to predict the "human-induced" climate change. That is a LONG way away from "proof". As I said before, term papers are not to be graded on the basis of their physical "weight". They could post 20 Terabytes of fancy charts, graphs and "observations" of the coupling, feedback, etc., that they are GUESSING at drives their models.

Furthermore, their 2 week "limit" on seeing the future isn't even true. I once charted (for this forum) 2 weeks of predicted weather and their forecast ran off the rails in 2 days.

And, if you dig into their latest study a little further....



So these people list the problems with their models (whoops! The data doesn't match the models in many cases), yet have the audacity to claim that it's highly unlikely that they still are wrong. But, they still need better observational data sets and model improvements. Can you believe these people? Well, our data doesn't match the models and their is a lot of uncertainty, but we're still absolutely RIGHT!

What did these people do before they got into this racket? Sell stocks via telephone cold calls???

And with respect to the sun, or excuse me, "solar forcing"...



To decode for the rest of the neanderthal, right-wing, reactionary, "simplistic" crowd... "When you go back further than 20 years, we really don't have any idea how the sun and volcanos impact the data..... You see words like "appears" and "speculative" used a lot in here....

Yet, it doesn't stop them from publishing the one sentence in this waste of prime timber that the politicians will actually read....



Yeah, that's "Proof". The debate is over. And it only took me 15 minutes of reading this stuff.

We must trust these "experts". After all, they're smarter than we are (in the voice of Dr. Science....).

And to add some evidence for my charge that this entire global warming debate has been politically motivated......

From Novak's most recent column

Novak Global Warming



Now that makes sense. How better for the EU economy, hogtied by insane labor and social-security-blanket laws to compete with the US?

[quote=lordhelmet,Jun 13 2005, 01:56 PM]
[quote]"Many processes and interactions in the climate system are non-linear. That means that there is no simple proportional relation between cause and effect. A complex, non-linear system may display what is technically called chaotic behaviour. This means that the behaviour of the system is critically dependent on very small changes of the initial conditions. This does not imply, however, that the behaviour of non-linear chaotic systems is entirely unpredictable, contrary to what is meant by “chaotic” in colloquial language. It has, however, consequences for the nature of its variability and the predictability of its variations. The daily weather is a good example. The evolution of weather systems responsible for the daily weather is governed by such non-linear chaotic dynamics. This does not preclude successful weather prediction, but its predictability is limited to a period of at most two weeks. Similarly, although the climate system is highly non-linear, the quasi-linear response of many models to present and predicted levels of external radiative forcing suggests that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate change may be predictable, although as discussed in Section 1.3.2 below, unpredictable behaviour of non-linear systems can never be ruled out. The predictability of the climate system is discussed in Chapter 7."[/quote]

So what does this mean to someone as "simplistic" as me? First off, it's a fancy way of saying "we don't know much" about the dynamics of the climate because it appears to be "chaotic". If the dynamics were understood, the level of observed "chaos" would be far less. Yet, these scientists take the leap and say, even though we can't really see beyond 2 weeks and that there is no "proportional cause and effect", we MAY be able to predict the "human-induced" climate change. That is a LONG way away from "proof". As I said before, term papers are not to be graded on the basis of their physical "weight". They could post 20 Terabytes of fancy charts, graphs and "observations" of the coupling, feedback, etc., that they are GUESSING at drives their models.

Furthermore, their 2 week "limit" on seeing the future isn't even true. I once charted (for this forum) 2 weeks of predicted weather and their forecast ran off the rails in 2 days. [/quote][/quote]

That may be YOUR way of understanding what was written, but it's not correct. You've committed two predictable (and easy to make) blunders. First, you have missed the point of the aforementioned passage entirely. All it is saying is that, "Yes, climate is NONLINEAR, but that does NOT make it inherently unpredictable." I'm not sure how you arrived at the reading that you have shared with us, but if anything it belies your politics in the manner that you attribute to the scientists in question. You obviously either didn't read the passage close enough, or you are unfamiliar with the language therein. If you tell us which terms you are unfamiliar with, we can probably clarify them for you.

The second blunder you have committed is one that is far less forgiveable because it is one that you and others have made on this forum repeatedly, and insist on engaging in. You have confused WEATHER and CLIMATE; which is inexcusable to the point that I find myself getting angry when people mix up the two. CLIMATE is the study of the workings of the planet's environment on a global scale, weather is certainly an element of the climate in general, but the STUDY of weather is an entirely distinct exercise. Weather prediction isn't based primarily on questions of thermal load and atmospheric conditions, but rather on previously established patterns and measurements of current LOCALIZED conditions. To mistake the two is infuriating enough in a general debate. To mischaracterize the two as you have done is downright insulting. What the passage you 'qupted' is merely saying is that WEATHER PREDICTION is not exact because there are non-linear variables which accumulate and prevent accurate prediction beyond two weeks. The purpose of introducing this example is to reinforce to the reader (or at least the impartial one) that non-linear variables can influence a model, but at the same time CAN be compensated for to a reasonable degree.

Now, I said "impartial" for two reasons. First, you're one of the most partial people I've ever encountered. Secondly, to someone who is reading with an agenda that statement appears to lessen the value of their work. To someone who DOES read with an open mind however, it has a different meaning. Climatology and Meteorology are two entirely different studies, with different objectives, scopes and values. A climatological variable has an entirely different value than a meteorological variable. Your continued attempts to connect the two accomplishes nothing but demonstrate either a profound ignorance of the two sciences, or a self-imposed blindness regarding the facts.

That may be YOUR way of understanding what was written, but it's not correct. You've committed two predictable (and easy to make) blunders. First, you have missed the point of the aforementioned passage entirely. All it is saying is that, "Yes, climate is NONLINEAR, but that does NOT make it inherently unpredictable." I'm not sure how you arrived at the reading that you have shared with us, but if anything it belies your politics in the manner that you attribute to the scientists in question. You obviously either didn't read the passage close enough, or you are unfamiliar with the language therein. If you tell us which terms you are unfamiliar with, we can probably clarify them for you.

The second blunder you have committed is one that is far less forgiveable because it is one that you and others have made on this forum repeatedly, and insist on engaging in. You have confused WEATHER and CLIMATE; which is inexcusable to the point that I find myself getting angry when people mix up the two. CLIMATE is the study of the workings of the planet's environment on a global scale, weather is certainly an element of the climate in general, but the STUDY of weather is an entirely distinct exercise. Weather prediction isn't based primarily on questions of thermal load and atmospheric conditions, but rather on previously established patterns and measurements of current LOCALIZED conditions. To mistake the two is infuriating enough in a general debate. To mischaracterize the two as you have done is downright insulting. What the passage you 'qupted' is merely saying is that WEATHER PREDICTION is not exact because there are non-linear variables which accumulate and prevent accurate prediction beyond two weeks. The purpose of introducing this example is to reinforce to the reader (or at least the impartial one) that non-linear variables can influence a model, but at the same time CAN be compensated for to a reasonable degree.

Now, I said "impartial" for two reasons. First, you're one of the most partial people I've ever encountered. Secondly, to someone who is reading with an agenda that statement appears to lessen the value of their work. To someone who DOES read with an open mind however, it has a different meaning. Climatology and Meteorology are two entirely different studies, with different objectives, scopes and values. A climatological variable has an entirely different value than a meteorological variable. Your continued attempts to connect the two accomplishes nothing but demonstrate either a profound ignorance of the two sciences, or a self-imposed blindness regarding the facts.

First off, your tone is very condescending which I find remarkable from a "moderator". Second, I read the passage and was struck by the contradiction. The authors speak of the non linearity of the system, the interaction of the complex variables that are not understood, yet claim that they still can see into the future. You don't have a problem with that?

What I'm addressing is another posters assertion that studies like this are "proof" that man-made global warming is a "fact". As in a criminal defense, I just have to point out "reasonable doubt" with respect to the "proof" claim. This alone PROVES that the state of understanding is FAR from proven. There is some evidence pointing one way and yet other evidence that may point another. And, there is lot that is not understood one way or the other.

I'd be happy to clarify the word "proof" since that was the issue I was addressing.



Well, please do try to keep your anger in check. You cannot separate the weather and the climate anymore than you can seperate biology and chemistry. Those definitions are "man made" and totally independent of the interactive system that represents the entire globe and all of its processes; known and unknown.

Your differentiations are meaningless with respect to the earth's system. The fact that different areas are studied by different groups of humans doesn't change the dynamics of the earth one bit. Those differences just point out that man's understanding of the earth is far from comprehensive. It's divided along university departmental lines.




Well, thanks for the statement on partiality. I don't pretend to be "impartial" in this forum or anywhere else. I have strong opinions and I present them. Of course, to a liberal, "impartial" means that one may be open to liberal truth... a partisan is someone who doesn't see the liberal light, right?

Again, you made my point again with your statement about "two different studies".

Yes, you are right. But the earth's system is ONE ENTITY. It cares not a whit about the different departments objectives, scopes, and values. It also cares nothing about politics, nationality, or whatever theories may be bounded about.

It just IS. And it HAS been for over 5 billion years.

First, I want to express my appreciation for your addressing the science itself. However, you misinterpret what is written.

No, that isn't what it says. It says, in short form, "human-induced climate change may be predictable" although "unpredictable behaviour... can never be ruled out."
They are not saying that they don't know much. They are saying that they may be able to predict the future behavior, but they can't rule out unpredictable behavior. To put it even more simply, they have a good idea of what's going on, but they can't rule out surprises yet.

Moreover, your quote is irrelevant to the issue being discussed. You wanted proof that anthropogenic global warming is a reality, and your quote discusses predictions of the future, not analysis of the past. The IPCC website is down just now, so I'll have to defer reference to that until they come back up.


Well, gee, if you have proof that weather predictions aren't any good, why don't you write up a paper and educate the rest of the scientific world as to your discovery?


Where do they say that they're absolutely right? And what do they say that they're absolutely right about? They state their conclusions with forthrightness and honesty. I'll try to provide you with quotes from their conclusions, when their website comes back up.



Again, your grossly misinterpret the statement here. They are not saying that they have no idea what's going on, they are noting that they do not have solid data on the tiny changes in the sun's radiative output. The basic value of the solar constant has been known to better than 1% for at least 150 years.


Here they are talking about a different subject: the role of CO2 in global warming. You're mixing together factors that have nothing to do with each other.


The Kyoto Protocols are policy matters worked out by politicians, not scientists. We are debating the science, not the politics. You are bringing in a consideration that is irrelevant to the topic. That is not logical.


There is indeed a scientific basis for distinguishing climate and weather: time. Weather studies the atmosphere on the time scale of days to weeks. Climatology studies the atmosphere on the time scale of millenia and eons. Making such a differentiation is entirely proper, because the fundamental laws that govern the two subjects are very different. For example a change in the value of the solar constant during the development of a thunderstorm is insignificant, while it is significant to the study of climatology. Many fields break up their subjects based on differences of scale. Newtonian physics works very well on spatial scales of 10**(-6) meters up to 10**19 m, but outside of that range it doesn't work very well.

What's signficant here is that you claim that an inability to predict weather well suggests that climatology is entirely wrong. That is an illogical conclusion.

Let me highlight a few of your own words for you if I may....

"They are saying that they may be able to predict the future behavior, but they can't rule out unpredictable behavior."

Yes, they may be able to predict future behavior. Therefore, using logic, they also may NOT be able to predict future behavior. The world "may" does not equal the word "can".

This thread veered into the area where you and another poster claim that these studies "prove" that man-made global warming is real and represents the majority of the "warming" observed over the short-term.

Yes, they can't rule out surprises all right. Like the earth cooling in the future.

This study is not PROOF. I doubt the "Oxford Study" is much better.

I agree with our current administration's take on global warming. It's a pseudo crises designed to hurt the US economy for the sake of the EU and other nations.

I commend Bush for sticking to his guns on this in spite of tremendous pressure from his political opponents. The global warming debate has been corrupted by science. It's oversold, overhyped, and under-understood.

This morning, my climatological forecast said that it would be raining and storming this afternoon and thus I would miss my golf league.

I'm happy to report that the sun is shining and my tee off is in about 1.5 hours.

When these people develop even a LITTLE credibility, I may listen to them. Until then, they can continue to twiddle with their inaccurate computer models to their heart's content and I'll consult the more accurate "Farmer's Almanac".

You wanted proof that the current increase in global temperatures is anthropogenic. That is, after all, the topic of this thread. You created the topic; you worded the question for debate. the thread didn't veer anywhere. You veered off topic by bringing up a study about predictions of future temperature increases, and then clung to the fact that the scientists who wrote that study remind the reader that their predictions are not absolutely certain. The evidence you cite is irrelevent to the topic in question. This is not logical.


You don't know anything about the Oxford study other than the fact that it produces results that you disagree with. Intellectual integrity requires you to withhold judgment until such time as you have obtained information on the contents of the study, not just its conclusions. Your doubt is unjustified.



Again your raise an irrelevant point. Meteorology is not the same thing as climatology. Twice now you have been presented with this point and the only defense you offer is that the earth is holistic. This is not logical.

If you would look at the graph you would see that previous slopes are not only identical, but they show greater sustained warming and cooling at those rates. But you're right that the earth has experienced warmer times than we are in today.

I remember reading recently that we are still a couple of decades away from having a more complete understanding of world climate. I think this is why a large 25% of climate researchers remain skeptical about the premature conclusion that mankind is the primary cause of global warming. So my answer to the question for debate is that both global warming and global cooling are real and natural components to planet earth. History shows this. And whether mankind is the main cause of the recent warming trend is still to-be-determined.

But the theory is defended, frequently, entirely, by independent sources and academic institutions around the globe. It has been the subject of severn massive in-depth, independent studies conducted by academic institutions around the world in the last three years, all with the same conclusion.

Defended from whom, by whom? The first answer is no one (because the people who question it don't have a voice, due to various controls on what can be published), and the second answer is a bunch of scientists, who I have seen use misleading data at every opportunity. Whether it be failing to take into account that the world has been heating for 150 years (not 100 like one of your "credible" sources above misleadingly states), or saying that we should all be in a big civil war over reduced crop output by now, or it is about how the Alps are not supposed to ski-able now, or it is showing a chart that carrys the temperatures from the past 100,000 years, and pretending the spike at the end (a.k.a the last 15,000 years) is our current global warming. None of these sites seem to even acknowledge the fact that in the past 5,000 we have undergone 4 other heat spikes that are almost identical to the one we are in now, none of these sites mention that CO2 only makes up .00035% of the atmosphere, none of them (as I said earlier) point out that warming preceded major industrialization, and as a result, none of these sites are objective. Reading this stuff is like reading a political speech, because it is riddled with misleading statistics and half-truths, that are created to fool people who don't know any better, into coming to false conclusions. This is politics, not science.

You were told this before, and your answer was: "yeah, but scientists have been wrong before", and gave as example the fictional anecdote that once-upon a time, all scientists were worries about an inevitable ice age.

Actually that was someone else.

Worse, its clear you have not bothered to read any of these studies, you at one point attempt to make the point that we are 'just in the middle of an inter-glacial period'.

Well we are, and I gave sources pertaining to that.

Do you honestly think this has not been taken into account?

You seem to be under the misconception that I was using the interglacial period thing, as a way of disproving global warming. I was merely refuting the guy who claimed that scientists had been wrong to worry about an incoming Ice Age, by pointing out were still in one (IAs last millions of years, and are made up 100,000 year periods of coldness, 10,000-20,000 year periods of relative heat).

Atmospheric composition is changing rapidly,

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere as a whole, is increasing (on average) by 1.1 millions of a percent annually. You call that rapid?

and the warming effect is not the millennia long gradual effect you were referring to, but a short, sharp and suddent increase.

Short term changes happen as well. Our current spike is only the 5th one that has happened in the past 5000 years. There was also a cool spike in the mid-midevial ages, known by many as "The little ice age". It completely the destroyed the Greenland Norse, who had already been living in a agriculturally marginal enviroment.

Did you know, that since regional ambient temperature started being recorded, over 170 years ago around the world, the 10 hottest years in that entire time happened in the last 15 years?

Which merely proves that the spike we are currently on has not leveled off yet. Whats your point?

The evidence exists in chapter and verse, and as I said, can you point to a single non-partisan study by an academic institution that disagrees with it? Even one?

As I said, unpopular science is not published. That doesn't mean its invalid.

Your not bothering to read the studies does not make them not exist.

I read the one of the sources you posted previously, but didn't learn much accept that it was unobjective.

Actually, there have been a few spikes, especially some local spikes. Greenland ice cores show some temperature changes of as much as 10 degrees C in just 50 years -- a gigantic increase. However, these are local spikes. If we confine ourselves to global averages, then the current rate of change remains higher than anything yet measured, with one possible (and very complicated) exception. The safest overall conclusion: the current rate of increase might not be the fastest in earth's history, but it's already close and we already know that it will accelerate over the next 50 years. This is a significant event in terrestrial history, something if not unique then quite odd.


I followed your link, which led me to another page that merely quoted that statistic without actually offering the data. I'd appreciate it if you could find the original source of that claim. I once found a similar poll and went to work to research the names on the list. It turned out that their list of "climate experts" consisted of executives from oil companies, a housewife, a lawyer, a forestry scientist, and not one person with a background in climatology. I examined every signatory from Alaska, and there was only one scientist in the list. This was not a reliable poll, but a highly biased sample of advocates.

Your link did take me, eventually, to a nice article by David King laying out some interesting material. For example, while lordhelmet spews his wild claims about climatologists just now learning about insolation, this link traces the history of the concept back to 1827. In 1896, Svante August Arrhenius calculated that a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would lead to a 5 degree C increase in global temperatures, not that far off from modern calculations. I highly recommend this article.

There's also the mass IPCC reports that lordhelmet finds too tiresome to actually read. Their site is back up now and I got this nice IPCC report providing an executive summary of their findings. Here's a quote from their summary:

By the way, this is only the executive summary and it's 34 pages long!


This is a misleading statement. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280 ppm in the pre-industrial period to 368 ppm in the year 2000. That is an increase of 88 ppm over 250 years, or less than a third of a ppm per year. But the aggregate increase in total CO2 concentration is 31% over that period. Moreover, we are looking at a curve with a large second derivative, so the rate of increase is accelerating.


But the current changes are larger in magnitude than any of these little spikes you note.


That's a pretty wild statement. Can you provide any evidence to support it?


Can you tell us about this source? What was unobjective about it? Do you fault the IPCC reports?

This is a misleading statement. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280 ppm in the pre-industrial period to 368 ppm in the year 2000. That is an increase of 88 ppm over 250 years, or less than a third of a ppm per year. But the aggregate increase in total CO2 concentration is 31% over that period. Moreover, we are looking at a curve with a large second derivative, so the rate of increase is accelerating.

No, using parts per million is misleading, because it fails to exhibit just how little CO2 is in the atmosphere.

But the current changes are larger in magnitude than any of these little spikes you note.

Quite frankly, no it isn't. In fact, one change (around 3000 BC if I remember correctly), ended up becoming twice as hot as our current spike (so much for "little"). To state it frankly, we are coming up with out of the ordinary conclusions, for an ordinary situation.

That's a pretty wild statement. Can you provide any evidence to support it?

Previously in this thread, we have heard that 25% of climatologists doubt global warming. Surely that is a large enough portion of the scientific community to have a voice, if censorship were not enforced.

Can you tell us about this source? What was unobjective about it? Do you fault the IPCC reports?

There is the part I already mentioned, which is:
Surface temperature measurements recorded daily at hundreds of locations for more than 100 years indicate that the Earth's surface has warmed

This statement is technically true, but it doesn't tell the whole story, because it does not mention that warming preceded 1900 by 50 years. Even your average layman would probably stop and think "wait a minute, we emitted CO2 during the civil war?". As a consequence, the site gives a half-truth to sidestep such doubts. Science is about finding truth, and politics is about implanting conceptions into others (a.k.a trying to make your side of the argument look like the right one at all costs). This site is obviously about politics, not science.

You argue that 368 ppm of CO2 is such a tiny figure that it is insignificant. Very well, would you agree to my injecting just 20 ppm of western diamondback snake venom into your bloodstream? It would surely kill you, but you could argue with your last breath that, since it is only 20 ppm, only 5% as much as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, that you will be perfectly healthy -- just before you died.

No, the signficant value here is how much the CO2 concentration has changed as a result of human activity. It has increased by 31% because of our efforts. That's the relevant figure.


You can find a complete temperature history of the earth in five scales here. You will note that the maximum changes in temperature for the last thousand years were +0.3 C in the medieval warm period, and -0.5 C during the Little Ice Age. Compare this with the +0.5 C change already observed in the last 150 years and the estimated +1.0 to +3.0 C change predicted over the next hundred years, and you can see that this change is pretty serious. As the author says:

For the last 15K years, the greatest upward change is about 1.5 C; downward change is about -4.0 C. You are incorrect in stating that the Holocene maximum was twice the size of our current spike, because the graph clearly shows a Holocene maximum of about +1.5 C. The height of the current spike is about +1.0 C (some debate here) and, more important, is still rising and in fact accelerating. The absolute smallest that this spike will be, if we stop all greenhouse gas emissions, is about +2.0 C, and could easily reach +5.0 C. The tricky part here is the rate of change. The steepest rise, at the beginning of the Holocene Interglacial, was maybe 2 C over about a hundred years -- but that figure has some uncertainties. It is comparable to the 1.0 C - 3.0 C change predicted for the next century -- which is what I wrote earlier.


First you provide a figure (25% of scientists) that you can't back up with the original data. Then you claim that science publications are censored. Now you use your unsubstantiated figure to support your unsubstantiated claim that scientific publication is censored. Can you provide any foundation for your claims here?


So you provide a single quote out of context, admit that it's correct, and then fault it for failing to include other information. Meanwhile, lordhelmet refuses to examine the IPCC studies because there's too much information there for him to digest. It is not the responsibility of any given study to examine the entire spectrum of information on global warming, and faulting a study for failing to include everything is not logical. The best way to address this problem is to examine the IPCC papers or the works that claim to be comprehensive.

You argue that 368 ppm of CO2 is such a tiny figure that it is insignificant. Very well, would you agree to my injecting just 20 ppm of western diamondback snake venom into your bloodstream? It would surely kill you, but you could argue with your last breath that, since it is only 20 ppm, only 5% as much as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, that you will be perfectly healthy -- just before you died.

A venom acts by overloading your nerve receptors with instructions that you did not give them. Through this, it forces you to stop breathing and immobilizes you. Hence you die.

However, there is no equivalent to nerve receptors in the atmosphere, and consequently you cant equivocate CO2 with venom. While venom institutes massive changes by ordering your body to cease to functioning (via nerve receptors, a.k.a it a small thing that starts a domino effect), CO2 must cause all of the change on its own.

No, the signficant value here is how much the CO2 concentration has changed as a result of human activity. It has increased by 31% because of our efforts. That's the relevant figure.

Thats only a relevant figure, if you assume that CO2 was already having an effect on the atmosphere to begin with. If indeed it was not a significant factor, then proportional changes are irrelevant.

You can find a complete temperature history of the earth in five scales here. You will note that the maximum changes in temperature for the last thousand years were +0.3 C in the medieval warm period, and -0.5 C during the Little Ice Age. Compare this with the +0.5 C change already observed in the last 150 years and the estimated +1.0 to +3.0 C change predicted over the next hundred years, and you can see that this change is pretty serious. As the author says:

Go here, and look at page 7:
http://www.uah.edu/News/climate/25years.pdf

If my eyes aren't deceiving me, it would look like we are still recovering from the little Ice Age. You will also see on that graph, the fact that 4,000 years ago, we had warming trend (though it was more gradual then our current one) which was twice as hot as our current trend, and you will also see that the rate of descent for the little Ice Age, is about equal to our current rate of ascent out of it.

As for your article, I tend to prefer charts to text, because charts are much harder to skew then words.

First you provide a figure (25% of scientists) that you can't back up with the original data. Then you claim that science publications are censored. Now you use your unsubstantiated figure to support your unsubstantiated claim that scientific publication is censored. Can you provide any foundation for your claims here?

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-129-2490.jsp#
"A recent survey among some 500 international climate researchers found that “a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes”

Indeed, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), an international organization of more than 30,000 Earth scientists, has formally rejected the view that anthropogenic factors are the main drivers of global warming, stressing: “The earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time”

Thus my claim remains standing: Why don't we ever hear much from these people, if censorship is indeed not in place?

So you provide a single quote out of context, admit that it's correct, and then fault it for failing to include other information. Meanwhile, lordhelmet refuses to examine the IPCC studies because there's too much information there for him to digest. It is not the responsibility of any given study to examine the entire spectrum of information on global warming, and faulting a study for failing to include everything is not logical. The best way to address this problem is to examine the IPCC papers or the works that claim to be comprehensive.

I did, and I said, I didn't learn much new. It basically just showed that CO2 concentration is getting higher (though only proportionally), and the Earth is getting warmer. That doesn't constitute evidence, because it does not prove that the two things are correlated.

The site does not contain refutations any of the arguments made here (and elsewhere, by a quarter of all climatologists) against global warming, and it more or less pretends they don't exist. That isn't objective, and neither is using a 100, when it should be 150.

The CO2 does indeed affect the atmosphere, and it does so through a mechanism called 'absorption'. CO2 has a characteristic absorption spectrum. That is, it absorbs some photons and does not absorb other photons. It has a low absorbtivity for visible light coming down from the sun to the earth. However, it has a high absorptivity for the infrared light emitted by the earth. Thus, some of the infrared radiation from the earth is intercepted by the CO2, which absorbs it, jumps into an elevated energy state, and then re-emits it after some tiny period of time. That re-emitted light can go in any direction; half goes up and half goes down. Thus, half of the IR from the earth that is intercepted by CO2 gets bounced right back to the earth. More CO2 means more intercepted IR, which means less IR escaping the planet.


We don't assume that CO2 is having an effect on the atmosphere; we conclude it based on the absorption spectrum of CO2. It is indeed a significant factor.


One of the complexities here is the difference between local climate change and global climate change. The literature on this is vast. However, here's an excellent overview from the National Academy of Sciences:

Your own article observes that we have seen a 0.19 C change in the last 20 years -- that's five times the rate cited as a maximum by the NAS. Now, there are some complexities here that I won't go into, but it turns out that the changes in global mean surface temperatures are not as reliable an indicator of global warming as other indicators, such as the oceanic temperature profile -- which does support the hypothesis of sudden global warming.


Look, if you have an objection to the text, make it. Don't slither around with mealy-mouthed insinuations.


You are merely repeating the behavior I objected to. This is a second-hand source; I'd like to see the original. What survey? Of which 500 international climate researchers? What were the detailed results? If you can't provide some details about the original, then let's dump this source.


And what claim do expertise do petroleum geologists have on climatology? There is simply nothing in their training that gives them any more expertise on this issue than you or me. You might as well be offering a quote from the Duluth Kiwanis Club.


We don't hear from these people because they don't have anything to say that passes the basic tests of peer review. It has nothing to do with censorship.

The CO2 does indeed affect the atmosphere, and it does so through a mechanism called 'absorption'. CO2 has a characteristic absorption spectrum. That is, it absorbs some photons and does not absorb other photons. It has a low absorbtivity for visible light coming down from the sun to the earth. However, it has a high absorptivity for the infrared light emitted by the earth. Thus, some of the infrared radiation from the earth is intercepted by the CO2, which absorbs it, jumps into an elevated energy state, and then re-emits it after some tiny period of time. That re-emitted light can go in any direction; half goes up and half goes down. Thus, half of the IR from the earth that is intercepted by CO2 gets bounced right back to the earth. More CO2 means more intercepted IR, which means less IR escaping the planet.

I already knew that, and I dont deny that CO2 can have an effect on an atmosphere. What I question however is, the idea that something which makes up only 3.6 ten thousands of a percent of the atmosphere, can remit enough photons to the surface, to significantly effect the Earths temperature.

We don't assume that CO2 is having an effect on the atmosphere; we conclude it based on the absorption spectrum of CO2. It is indeed a significant factor.

If I droped a grain of salt in the middle of a lake full of pure water, sure I could call it saltwater (as it does contain salt), but that doesnt make it significantly conductive.

One of the complexities here is the difference between local climate change and global climate change. The literature on this is vast. However, here's an excellent overview from the National Academy of Sciences:

QUOTE(NAS)
Temperature variations at local sites have exceeded 10 C in association with repeated glacial advances and retreats that occurred over the past million years... ...evidence suggests that global warming rates as large as 2 C per millenium have occurred during the retreat of the glaciers following the most recent ice age."

Your own article observes that we have seen a 0.19 C change in the last 20 years -- that's five times the rate cited as a maximum by the NAS. Now, there are some complexities here that I won't go into, but it turns out that the changes in global mean surface temperatures are not as reliable an indicator of global warming as other indicators, such as the oceanic temperature profile -- which does support the hypothesis of sudden global warming.

Oceans cool down and heat up very slowly, so how could they be a accurate source for determining the temperature of the world at a particular point in time? Also, (due to the fact that oceans do not cover the entire planet) how could this ocean profiling effectively caculate the average world temperature as a whole?

Look, if you have an objection to the text, make it. Don't slither around with mealy-mouthed insinuations.

I made my objection and I explained my reasons, which apparently you consider "mealy-mouthed".

You are merely repeating the behavior I objected to. This is a second-hand source; I'd like to see the original. What survey? Of which 500 international climate researchers? What were the detailed results? If you can't provide some details about the original, then let's dump this source.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...,342376,00.html
The public statements made by well-known German climate researchers create the impression that the scientific fundamentals of the climate problems have essentially been solved. They claim that the scientific community has already established the conditions for taking concerted action. In this case, concerted action means reducing greenhouse gases as much as possible.

This is a view that in fact does not correspond to the situation in the scientific community. That's because a significant number of climatologists are by no means convinced that the underlying issues have been adequately addressed. Last year, for example, a survey of climate researchers from all over the world revealed that a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes.

Due to the fact that this website is a published magazine, it is subject to libel law.

And what claim do expertise do petroleum geologists have on climatology? There is simply nothing in their training that gives them any more expertise on this issue than you or me. You might as well be offering a quote from the Duluth Kiwanis Club.

Now that I come to think of it, I didnt properly analze that. Obviously petroleum geologists (who drill for fuel), arnt going to like constraints on their products use.

Anyways these people dont have political motivations:
As David King points out in his contribution to the openDemocracy debate, the majority of scientists and science organisations endorse the view that humans are to blame for recent climate change. Nevertheless, this support is not universal. A number of distinguished scientific organisations – such as the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS)or the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) – remain sceptical. (This is from the first of my two sources with confirm the 25% statistic)

We don't hear from these people because they don't have anything to say that passes the basic tests of peer review. It has nothing to do with censorship.

Peer review is censorship when its abused, and I find it irrational to think that 25% of all climatologists dont believe in global warming for any good reason.

Look, ALHP, now you're questioning basic physics. If you want to understand this stuff, read a physics book. There is nothing controversial in the greenhouse effect. If you refuse to accept everyday science, then there's nothing I can do to help you.


This is not an appropriate comparison, as you comparing two phenomena whose properties have differing dependence on densities.


That's just the point. Oceans have high thermal capacity, so they respond slowly to changes in the global temperature, smoothing out temporary jiggles. That gives them more accuracy.


Because the oceans interact closely with the atmosphere.


That doesn't make them accurate, nor does it provide the original source. Without the source, this evidence cannot be verified, and so is discredited. Let's dump it.


Yes, the RAS and the AASC are valid sources. However, if you just want to appeal to authority, then you have to put more weight on the statement " the majority of scientists and science organisations endorse the view that humans are to blame for recent climate change."


Your 25% number has been discredited. You have no evidence that the peer review process is abused.

Erasmussimo said:


Now wait a minute here.. It is ok for you to correlate Snake venom to a human body as CO2 effects the atmosphere, but LHP's comparison is not appropriate?
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy??

Look, ALHP, now you're questioning basic physics. If you want to understand this stuff, read a physics book. There is nothing controversial in the greenhouse effect. If you refuse to accept everyday science, then there's nothing I can do to help you.

I am not denying the greenhouse effect, I am merely denying that we have anywhere near enough CO2 in our atmosphere to experience it.

This is not an appropriate comparison, as you comparing two phenomena whose properties have differing dependence on densities.

And your evidence for this is?

That's just the point. Oceans have high thermal capacity, so they respond slowly to changes in the global temperature, smoothing out temporary jiggles. That gives them more accuracy.

It could take decades for the oceans to completely adapt to a new temperature, and consequently that would make things look a lot more gradual then they really are. While i'm sure there is someway around that (temperature required to heat the ocean by such and such an amount, after such and such an amount of time), the end result is that the more specific you get, the larger the margin of error gets. When used for a broad overview however, this method of temperature measuring is probably fairly accurate.

Because the oceans interact closely with the atmosphere.

I was talking about world temperature, not atmospheric temperature (which I remember hearing, was not heating right now), and you haven't addressed my question. How can you measure the temperature of the world, when you only have access to a portion of it?

That doesn't make them accurate, nor does it provide the original source. Without the source, this evidence cannot be verified, and so is discredited. Let's dump it.

Well it took some doing, but I found the original source:
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html...Fs/Science2.pdf

The survey asked climatologists on a scale of 1 to 7 "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?

9.4 % said 1 (Strongly Agree)
25.3 % said 2
21.1 % said 3
14.2 % said 4 (this means unsure)
8.5 % said 5
10.8% said 6
9.7% said 7 (strongly disagree)

Thus with some simple arithmetic we find that:
55.8% of climatologists (to some extent or another) think that global warming is a result of humans.
14.2% of climatologists are unsure
and 29% of climatologists (to some extent or another) think global warming is not man made.

It doesn't say the margin of error, but seeing that when the media does polls of around a thousand people they say there is 3% margin of error, we may be able to infer that this polls margin of error is about 6%.

If somehow you are still in denial about polls validity, I suggest you look at the references listed at the bottom of the site above.

Your 25% number has been discredited. You have no evidence that the peer review process is abused.

I have just given you what you asked for, and my 25% number has been validated. As a result my original argument about abuse still stands, and heres a bit off additional proof:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

The analogies were used for different purposes. The snake-CO2 analogy was a disproof of ALHP's claim that there exists some threshold of CO2 below which no effect can take place. The snake venom example demonstrates that even at very low concentrations, chemicals can have profound effects.

ALHP's salt-CO2 comparison was another attempt to establish the threshold idea, in this case from the bottom up. He argued that microscopic amounts have no effect whatsoever. Basically, ALHP is trying to establish the notion that there is some threshold below which no effect takes place. So first he claims that an effect requires "a lot of" CO2, without ever declaring his threshold. Then when I demonstrated that tiny amounts can have a big effect, he goes in the opposite direction to show that exceedingly tiny amounts have no effect. His logic was equivalent to this:

CO2 concentration < Threshold => no effect
salt concentration = 0.00000000000000000000000000001 => no effect

In reality, both phenomena are, at low values, linear in response:

greenhouse effect = CO2 concentration * proportionality constant
conductivity = salt concentration * a different proportionality constant

Hence there is no discrepancy here.

The less CO2 concentration there is in an area of the atmosphere, the less often photons will rebound towards the surface of the earth. While yes, sometimes small things can cause big changes, those small things do so not through their own power, but instead do them by manipulating larger things to create the change. CO2 does not effect larger things (and if you disagree with this, tell me what those larger things are), and consequently, the venom analogy is false.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Yes, CO2 molecules are very very tiny. You can't even see them with a microscope. Yes, one CO2 molecule affects just one photon at a time. But 10 gazillion CO2 molecules affecting 10 gazillion photons can cause a piece of the planet to grow warmer. That's the whole idea of the greenhouse effect!

If CO2 only makes up 3.6 ten thousandths (effectively this is even less then it sounds, because half the photons it receives still go out into space) of a percent of the atmosphere, then the overwelming majority of all photons are going to escape into space. Yes if you add all of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere together, you will get "gazillions" of them, but they are to widely dispersed for that to really matter.

Look, ALHP, if you want to question basic physics, then take a physics course. This is not debatable material. It is teachable, yes, and if you want to learn it, I encourage you, and I would even do so, were you to evidence the desire. But I will not argue elementary concepts with you.

This not about elementary concepts, this is about how much concentration of CO2 is required to have a significant effect on the atmosphere. Once more, I am not denying that greenhouse theory is valid (as you seem to continuously imply), I am merely denying that it can work (to any measurable degree) in a system with as little CO2 as the Earth.

You have yet to provide any evidence to disprove the above statement.

Also are you forfeiting on the censorship, and ocean profiling debates, or are you actually going to get around to refuting my last post on those?