What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

To quote Ian Plimer Sr. :

"The oceans will go acidic when we run out of rocks."

See Tom Segalstad's work for proof of this.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

by the way I notice none of the deniers were willing to go over what the basics are that allow for an understanding of cloud albedo

We have already 'cut to the chase' on this issue by showing that the end result is a negative feedback for water vapor, not a positive feedback.

That's where the cutting edge of this debate is, that's where its always been. That's why I've continuously steered the thread to this issue; I only let you believe you were important to the thread with your postings. I tried over and over to let you prove your relevancy to the thread by posting something that is relevant to the question at hand, but you steadfastly refuse to do so.

Even now, you want to go off into tangent land on the mechanics of cloud albedo instead of cutting to the end and determining by observational data whether the albedo drivers sum to negative or positive feedback with water vapor.

The data shows they sum to negative feedback. If you have some data that shows something different, data that shows positive feedback such that outgoing LW radiation decreases in response to an increase in temperature, please post that, as that would be relevant to the question at hand.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

although the stuff you posted that I was referring to specifically starts about post 2369
after a long and sometimes heated discussion the point is finally driven home in post 2391
and go's from there

Which is , again, YOUR misinterpretation of Tom Segalstad's graph. Since he authored the graph, his explanation should be considered authoritative, rather than mine or yours.

His explanation of the graph is that the atmospheric CO2 concentration rose over a period of 150 years, while anthropogenic CO2 only began to rise significantly since about 1950. The rises do not match. They do not correlate. There is no causation.

I'll re-post both the PPT and the audio so anyone can see for themselves who is right on this. I don't expect any of the AGW people to look at this as it may pollute their spotless minds with blasphemy from the devil oil companies, but those with open minds might want to have a look.

For the PPT:
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/n..._Segalstad.ppt

For the audio:
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/n..._Segalstad.mp3

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

A recent and interesting debate on the 'warm' side:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=97998613

Transcription here:
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org...ions011309.pdf

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

About science:

"Science is married to evidence and bathes in modest uncertainty at the boundary of what we know and what we don’t know. The nature of science is skepticism and science encourages argument and dissent. A dogmatic view on climate change can only damage science, the only methodology we have for solving environmental problems. Scientific evidence is derived from reproducible and validated observation, measurement, experiment and calculation. Scientists engage in healthy argument about the veracity of evidence. On the basis of evidence, an explanation called a scientific theory is constructed. A scientific theory is the best available explanation of evidence, it may change with new evidence and it must be coherent with the existing body of knowledge. Evidence in geology is interdisciplinary, terrestrial and extra-terrestrial and shows the complex and fascinating intertwining of evolving natural processes on a dynamic planet and a concept of human-induced global warming is not in accord with a wholistic view of Earth using geology, astronomy, archaeology and history. By failing the coherence test, the idea of human-induced global warming cannot be scientific but may serve other purposes. To argue that human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere in a dynamic evolving multicomponent system is ascientific.

Scientists also argue about scientific theory. Scientific theories are testable and once the scientific theory has been tested over time, it becomes accepted into the body of knowledge. The word belief is not used in science because belief is untestable and consensus is the language of politics and religion, not science. This process has not taken place with the construction of what is popularly called the greenhouse effect. Science is unable to make judgments about what is good or bad and the intertwining of alleged human-induced global warming with ethics is disingenuous. These judgments vary with time and are based on contemporary politics, religion, aesthetics and culture."

Professor Ian Plimer, Fellow, is Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide.

(Bolded are mine)

[fasteddy106]

Guess these guys missed the memo from Boston........






Skeptical Scientists


Return to Climate of Bias


These are names of some scientists who are questioning the global warming hysteria.

Report released December 20, 2007: U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee’s list of more than 400 prominent scientists who question man’s impact on climate change. This list includes detailed information about each scientist and his objections.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, Scientist and head of space research for Pulkovo Observatory, Russian Academy of Sciences
Alexandre Aguiar, Meteorologist, MetSul Weather Center forecaster for Ulbra TV, Brazil
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Physicist and former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute and International Artic Research Center
David Aldrich, Meteorologist
Kjell Aleklett, Physics professor, Dept. of Radiation Sciences and Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group, Uppsala University, Sweden
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, University of Pretoria
Dr. Claude Allegre, Geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics
Chris Allen, Meteorologist, WBKO Fox affiliate in Kentucky
David Archibald, Geologist, Summa Development Limited, Australia
Scott Armstrong, forecaster who jointly challenged Al Gore to a bet regarding computer model predictions, Wharton School, UPenn
Dr. August H. Auer (d. 2007), Former professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming
Dennis Avery, Environment economist, Center for Global Food Issues
Dr. Sallie L. Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Dr. Timothy Ball, Climatologist and Former Professor, University of Winnipeg
Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr., Climatologist, Arizona State University
Dr. Jack Barrett, Chemist and Spectroscopist, Formerly with Imperial College London
Don Barron, Soil scientist
Vladimir Bashkirtsev, Solar Physicist of the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Steve Baskerville, Chief Meteorologist Chicago CBS affiliate
Joe Bastardi, Chief Meteorologist, AccuWeather
Ernst-Georg Beck, Biologist
Gary S. Becker, Economist, nobel-prize winner, senior fellow at Hoover Institution and Professor of Economics and Sociology, University of Chicago
Paul G. Becker, Meteorologist. a former chief meteorologist with the Air Force and former Colorado Springs chapter president of the American Meteorological Society
Dr. David Bellamy, Botanist, Famed UK environmental campaigner and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, former lecturer, Durham University
Justin Berk, Meteorologist, asserted that the “majority of TV meteorologists” are skeptical of dire man-made global warming claims
Andre and Sally Bernier, Meteorologists, of WJW-TV, in Cleveland, Ohio
Dr. Edward F. Blick, Retired Air Force atmospheric scientist and Professor of Meteorology and Engineering, University of Oklahoma
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, University of Hull; and Editor of the science journal Energy & Environment
Dr. Norman Borlaug, Agricultural scientist, father of “Green Revolution” and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal
Daniel Botkin, Marine Biologist and President of the Center for the Study of the Environment and Professor Emeritus in the department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California
Dr. Simon Brassell, Geologist, University of Indiana
Bob Breck, Chief Meteorologist of WVUE-TV New Orleans
Dr. John Brignell, Professor Emeritus of Engineering, Northampton Engineering College and publisher of www.numberwatch.co.uk
Frank Britton, Chemist
Dr. John W. Brosnahan, Research physicist who develops instruments for NOAA and NASA
Georgia D. Brown, Geologist and instructor of Geology & Oceanography, College of Lake County Illinois
Harold Brown, Agricultural scientist and Professor Emeritus, University of Georgia
Dr. Reid Bryson, “Father of Meteorology,” founding chairman of the Dept. of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Donald S. Burke, Dean of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health
Dr. Tony Burns, Chemical Engineer, University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia
Mr. Nigel Calder, Former Editor, The New Scientist Magazine
Dr. Robert M. Carter, Geologist and paleoclimate researcher, James Cook University
John L. Casey, NASA consultant and former space shuttle engineer, Verity Management Services, Inc.
Dr. Ian Castles, Fellow, Australian National University
Dr. Christopher L. Castro, Climate scientist, a Professor of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona
Tom Chisholm, Chief Meteorologist of WMTW ABC Portland, Maine
Dr. John Christy, Alabama State Climatologist, University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001
Dr. Petr Chylek, Physics and Atmospheric Science Adjunct Professor, Dalhousie University
Dr. Ian D. Clark, Paleoclimatologist and Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Jim Clark, Meteorologist
Roy Clark, Aeronautical Engineer
Robert Cohen, Meteorologist and member of the American Meteorological Society
John Coleman, Meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel
Dennis Compayre, Polar bear expert
Joseph Conklin, Meteorologist who launched Climatepolice.com
Dr. Paul Cooper, Professor Emeritus, Laurentian University
Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist of UK’s Weather Action
Dr. Paulo N. Correa, Biologist and Biophysicist, has published extensively in scientific journals, co-authored a recent paper entitled “Global Warming: An Official Pseudoscience
Larry Cosgrove, Meteorologist
Dr. William R. Cotton, Atmospheric scientist, Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University
Vincent Courtillot, director of the Institute de Physique du Globe de Paris, a member of the Academy of Sciences, a geomagnetism scientist, and president of the Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism Section of the American Geophysical Union
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, Climate and Atmospheric Science Consultant, UN IPCC expert reviewer
Dr. Susan Crockford, Evolutionary Biologist and Paleozoologist, University of Victoria in Canada has published papers in peer-reviewed academic journals
Tim Curtin, Economist, a former advisor with the EU, World bank, and an Emeritus Faculty member, Australian National University
Grant Dade, Meteorologist and member of American Meteorological Society and National Weather Association
Dr. Robert E. Davis, Climatologist, a Professor at University of Virginia, a former UN IPCC contributor and past president of the Association of American Geographers, and past-chair of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Biometeorology and Aerobiology
Joseph D’Aleo, first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation and served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting; Founder of Icecap.us Web site
Luc Debontridder, Climate scientist, Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium
Dr. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor and Climate Scientist, The University of Auckland
Dr. A.T.J. de Laat, who specialized in atmospheric composition and climate research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Willem de Lange, Oceanographer of the department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Waikato, New Zealand
Dr. David Deming, Geophysicist and associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma
Roger Dewhurst, Consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, Official Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
David Dilley, Founder of Global Weather Oscillations, Inc.
Dr. David Douglass, Climate scientist, University of Rochester
Dr. Donald DuBois, Computer modeler with PhD in Philosophy of Science who has spent career modeling computer networks for NASA, GE Space Systems, the Air Force and the Navy
Robert Durrenberger, Climatologist and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Denis Dutton, Associate Professor, University of Canterbury in New Zealand
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; fellow of American Physical Society; member of U.S. National Academy of Science
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Geologist and Professor Emeritus at Western Washington University
Dr. Michael J. Economides, Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at Cullen College of Engineering at University of Houston and the author of numerous books and over 50 scientific studies
Alexander G. Egorov, Researcher, Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia
Robert Ellison, Environmental scientist and flood hydrologist
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Physicist/Meteorologist, Formerly with Livermore National Laboratory
Lance Endersbee, Professor Emeritus and former dean of engineering and pro-vice chancellor, Monash University
Gary England, Meteorologist, pioneered the use of Doppler radar weather-forecasting, dismisses climate fears
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, Professor of Energy Conversion, The Ohio State University
Dr. Christopher Essex, Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario
Bill Evans, Senior Meteorologist, WABC-TV New York; winner of the Outstanding Meteorologist Award from NWS
Dr. Cal Evans, Geochemist and researcher who has advised the Alberta Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Dr. David Evans, Mathematician and Engineer, carbon accountant for Australian government
Ray Evans, Global warming author and engineer, one of the founders of the Australian Lavoisier Group
Jesse Ferrell, Meteorologist, AccuWeather
Eduardo Ferreyra, Aeronautical engineer and president and founder of the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology
Dr. Wilson Flood, Royal Society of Chemistry
Frederic Fluteau, Geomagnetism scientist with the Institute de Physique du Globe de Paris
Bob Foster, Geologist, director of the Lavoisier Group in Australia
Dr. Michael R. Fox, Nuclear scientist and analyst, Grassroots Institute of Hawaii
Dr. Neil Frank, Atmospheric scientist, hurricane expert and former director of the National Hurricane Center
Stewart Franks, Hydro-climatologist and Associate Prof. of Environmental Engineering, University of Newcastle in Australia
Amy Frappier, Paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology and Geophysics, Boston College
Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Climate scientist and co-author, research scientist at Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryspheric and Polar Processing, University of Colorado
Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen, Space Physicist, Director of the Danish National Space Center, member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, member of a NASA working group and of the European Space Agency.
Dr. Ivan Frolov, Polar expert and head of Russia’s Science and Research Institute of Arctic and Antarctic Regions
Brian Fuchs, Climatologist, National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Serge Galam, Physicist and director of research for Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment (CNRS) and the École Polytechnique, France
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, Geologist, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas; UN IPCC reviewer
Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, Physicist of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig, Germany
Dr. Robert Giegengack, chair of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania
Tony Gilland, Economist and science and society director of the UK based Institute of Ideas
Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman, Applied Physicist and Engineer, wrote an October 24, 2006 paper entitled “The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide.” In the abstract of the paper appearing in Rocket Scientist’s Journal
Indur M. Goklany, Ph.D, represented the United States at the International Panel on Climate Change and in the negotiations leading to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Dr. Mel Goldstein, Ph.D Meteorologist on Connecticut’s TV News Channel 8
Sergei Golubchikov, Environmental expert and Vice President of Russia’s National Geocryological Foundation
Jim Goodridge, Former State Climatologist, California; consultant for California Dept. of Water Resources
Dr. Laurence I. Gould, Physicist and chair of Physics Dept., University of Hartford. Former chairman of the New England section of the American Physical Society
Dr. William Gray, hurricane forecaster and Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University
Dr. Vincent Gray, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Kesten Green, jointly challenged Al Gore to a bet regarding computer model predictions, Monash University, Australia
Dr. Howard Greyber, Astrophysicist, Fellow Royal Astronomical Society and member of International Astronomical Union
Dr. Michael Griffin, Aerospace engineer and physicist, top administrator of NASA and former head of the Space Department at Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory
Mr. Eugenio Hackbart, Chief Meteorologist of MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo, Brazil
Dr. Keith D. Hage, Meteorology Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta
Robert W. Hahn, Chemical engineer, dismissed climate fears in an article titled “Global Warming Skepticism”
Jeff Halblaub, Senior Meteorologist, WSI Corporation
Morten Hald, Geologist and Arctic expert, University of Tromso, Norway
Michael Hammer, Research scientist/Engineer for a high technology Australian manufacturer
James Hammond, Chemist and councilor for American Chemical Society’s San Gorgonio section
Dr. Peter Harris, Engineer
Dr. Howard Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility
David Henderson, Economist and professor at Westminster Business School; former chief economist for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
Dr. Ben Herman, past director of Institute of Atmospheric Physics and Head of the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at University of Arizona
Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Retired Navy meteorologist with Ph.D in Physical chemistry
Dr. Robert Higgs, a Senior Fellow for the Independent Institute and who has been a visiting scholar at Oxford University, Stanford University, and a fellow for the the National Science Foundation
David Holland, Engineer and author of November 2007 study “Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process …”
Art Horn, Meteorologist operating The ‘Art’ of the Weather business
Dr. Douglas Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, co-author The Role of the Sun in Climate Change. He has worked at NOAA and NCAR.
Dr. Andrei Illarionov, Chief Economic Adviser, Russian President Vladimir Putin
Dr. Olafur Ingolfsson, Quaternary Geologist and professor, University of Iceland
Yury Izrael, the director of Global Climate and Ecology Institute, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and UN IPCC Vice President
Albert F. Jacobs, Geologist and co-founder of the group Friends of Science
Craig James, Chief meteorologist of a Michigan NBC TV affiliate
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Physicist and Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the UN committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection
Dr. Dennis Jensen, Nuclear Physicist and former researcher for Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization (CSIRO) in Australia
Dr. Ola Johanneseen, Professor, Nasen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center
Wm. Robert Johnston, Physicist, who co-wrote the scientific paper in 2007 “Observations of the Ionospheric Projection of the Plasmapause and Comparisons with Relativistic Electron Measurements”
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, Geologist and Professor Emeritus of Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University
Dr. Joel M. Kauffman, Chemist, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
Dr. David Kear, Geologist and former director of geological survey at the Dept. of Science and Industrial Research in New Zealand
Douglas J. Keenan, Mathematical researcher
Dr. Aynsley Kellow, IPCC contributing author and Professor, University of Tasmania
Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy
John Kettley, Atmospheric scientist, formerly of the Met Office and the Flued Dynamics Dept. at the Bracknell headquarters
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Meteorologist, IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer and scientist with Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Mr. William Kinimonth, Former Head, National Climate Centre
Jasper Kirkby, Particle Physicist and research scientists at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research
Dr. James P. Koermer, Atmospheric scientist and Professor of Meteorology and the director of the Meteorological Institute at Plymouth State University
Dr. Gerhard Kramm, Atmospheric scientist, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Dr. George Kukla, research scientist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at University of Columbia
Ray Kurzweil, Legendary inventor described as “an inventor whose work in artificial intelligence has dazzled technological sophisticates for four decades
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, Economist, Former Advisor to the Executive Board, Clingendael Institute and UN IPCC reviewer
Dr. Christopher W. Landsea, Atmospheric scientist and hurricane expert at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center
Dr. Thomas Lavin, Biochemistry researcher
Dr. Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Dr. David R. Legates, Climatologist, the Delaware State Climatologist and the Director, Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, has authored or coauthored 45 peer-reviewed scientific studies
Arther E. Lemay, Computer systems specialist
Dr. Marcel Leroux, Former Professor, University of Jean Moulin; Former Director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment (CNRS) in Lyon, France. Author of Global Warming – Myth or Reality? – The Erring Ways of Climatology
Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier, Hydrology Professor, University of Washington
Brian Leyland, Engineer and head of the International climate Science Coalition
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Meteorologist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; UN IPCC 2001 lead author and reviewer
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, Author and Professor, Copenhagen Business School
Jonathan Lowe, Australian Scientist, who specializes in statistical analysis of climate change and holds masters in science, is currently working on his PhD
Dr. Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Dr. Richard Mackey, Statistician
Augusto Mangini, Paleoclimate expert
Rob Marciano, CNN Meteorologist who noted in October 2007 that there are scientific errors in An Inconvenient Truth
Nigel Marven, UK wildlife documentary filmmaker who spent three months studying polar bears
Galina Mashnich, Solar Physicist of the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Prof. Francis Massen, Physics Laboratory in Luxembourg
Dr. John Maunder, past president of Commission for Climatology
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, International Economist, Downing College
Peter McGurk, Senior Meteorologist with WSI Corporation
Stephen McIntyre, Climate data analyst of ClimateAudit.org
Dr. Ross McKitrick, Associate Economics Professor, University of Guelph
Dr. John McLean, climate data analyst
Dr. Owen McShane, Economist and chair of the policy panel of the New Zealand based International Climate Science Coalition
Bill Meck, Chief Meteorologist for an NBC affiliate and Emmy winner
Dr. D. Bruce Merrifield, Organic Chemic and former Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs; Prof. Emeritus at Wharton School of Business at University of Pennsylvania
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; Virginia State Climatologist and UN IPCC reviewer
Dr. Fred Michel, Associate Professor, Carleton University
Dr. Daniel W. Miles, Chemist and former professor of physics
H. Michael Mogil, Atmospheric scientist and 30-year veteran of NOAA, owner of “How the Weatherworks” consulting firm
Lord Christopher Monckton, climate researcher
Des Moore, deputy secretary of the federal Treasury in Australia and current director of the Institute for Private Enterprise
Dr. Patrick Moore, Ecologist and founder of “Greenpeace”
Sir Patrick Moore Astronomer, fellow of the U.K.’s Royal Astronomical Society and BBC “Sky at Night” host
Dr. Thomas Gale Moore, Global warming author, economist, former professor at Michigan State University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institute
Dr. Dick Morgan, Climate scientist and former director of Canada’s Met/Oceano Policy and Plans, researcher at Exeter University and Bedford Institute of Oceanography
Dr. M.R. Morgan, Climate Consultant, First Minister of Wales
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, Emeritus Professor who headed the Dept. of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University
Dr. Lubos Motl, a string theorist and professor at Charles University in the Czech Republic; former Harvard University physicist
Dr. Tad Murty, Adjunct Professor, University of Ottawa
Prof. David Noble, York University, Canada
Gary Novak, Microbiologist, publishes a website detailing his skepticism of man-made global warming
Mr. David Nowell, Fellow, Royal Meteorological Society
Dr. Jim O’Brien, State of Florida Climatologist and professor emeritus at Florida State University. Director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies
Peter R. O’Dell, Professor Emeritus of International Energy Studies, University of Rotterdam
Dr. Cliff Ollier, Geologist a Research Fellow at the University of Western Australia
David Orrell, Mathematician
Mr. Nikolai Osokin, Glaciologist with Institute of Geography and member of Russian Academy of Sciences
Jim Ott, Meteorologist , formerly of WTMJ-TV in Wisconsin, a member of the American Meteorological Society and a former lecturer at University of Wisconsin
Dr. Norman J. Page, Geologist, a retired independent geological consultant, rejected climate fears
Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Morgan Palmer, Meteorologist of Texas TV KLTV
Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist and professor of Earth Sciences, Carlton University in Ottawa, Canada
Dr. Garth W. Paltridge, Director, The Cooperative Research Centre for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean
Dr. Benny Peiser, Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University
Dr. Al Pekarek, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric sciences, St. Cloud State University
Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., Meteorologist and Senior Research Scientist with Cooperative Institute of Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado in Boulder; Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University
Dr. Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology, University of Adelaide and University of Melbourne
Brian R. Pratt, Geologist and professor, University of Saskatchewan; award-winning sedimentologist and paleontologist
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, Emeritus Professor, Utrecht University
Gwyn Prins, London School of Economics and co-author of a skeptical article in the UK journal Nature
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, Adjunct Professor, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tom Quirk, Research physicist and former University lecturer, fellow of three Oxford Colleges, board member of the Institute of Public Affairs based in Australia
B. P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India
VK Raina, India’s leading Glaciologist
Dr. Denis G. Rancourt, Professor of Physics and an Environmental Science researcher, University of Ottawa
Steve Rayner, Oxford and co-author of skeptical article in the UK journal Nature
Bernie Rayno, Senior Meteorologist with AccuWeather
Josef Reichholf, Biologist, National Zoological Collection in Munich
Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor, Institut Pasteur
Dr. Jose Rial, Climatologist/seismologist, University of North Carolina
Dr. Peter Ridd, Reader in Physics at James Cook University, Australia and scientific adviser to Australian Environment Foundation
Rolf Riehm, Climate change author and engineer
Thomas Ring, Chemical Engineer
Erich Roeckner, Veteran climate researcher, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
Dr. Art Robinson, Founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Dr. Alex Robson, Economist and professor, School of Economics in the College of Business and Economics, Australian National University; former economist at the Federal Treasury
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University
Dr. Hugh Ross, Astronomer and physicist, has conducted research on quasars and galaxies
Arthur T. “Terry” Safford III, Meteorologist ,a retired Lt Col. of the U.S. Air Force
Gabriel Salas, Geologist and leader of UN High Commission for Refugees funded team
Dr. Rob Scagel, Principal Consultant, Pacific Consultants
Jeffrey P. Schaffer, Scientist and professor, Dept. of Science & Mathematics, Napa Valley College in California
Tom Scheffelin, Air resources engineer who estimates on-road vehicle emissions for the California Air Resources Board
Mark Scirto, Chief Meteorologist KLTV, Texas; approved by AMS and NWA
Dr. Chris Schonveld, Geologist and retired exploration geophysicist
Hans Schreuder, Analytical chemist and publisher of ILoveMyCarbonDioxide.com
Joel Schwartz, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
Bruce Schwoegler, Atmospheric scientist and former U.S. Navy meteorologist
Peter Sciaky, Geologist
Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, Geologist/Geochemist, professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC
Dr. Vladimir Shaidurov, Physicist and Mathematician, Russian Academy of Sciences, has published more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed journals
Dr. Gary Sharp, Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Dr. Nir J. Shaviv, Astrophysicist, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Glen Shaw, Atmospheric scientist and Professor of Physics at the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, an MIT educated physicist, author and writer of the popular newspaper column "Ask the Everyday Scientist"
C. Robert Shoup, Geologist and author of 2007 scientific study for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Dr. Fred Singer, Climatologist, The Competitive Enterprise Institute
Paavo Siitam, Retired professor of chemistry, agronomy, biology and physics, and researcher in soils and microbiology
George E. Smith, Physicist, a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Institute of Physics
Dr. Graham Smith, Associate Professor, University of Western Ontario
Lenny Smith, Statistician, London School of Economics
Dr. Joe Sobel, Senior Meteorologist of AccuWeather
Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center Astrophysicist and chief science advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute
Dr. Oleg Sorochtin, scientist with Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences
James Spann, Chief meteorologist of an Alabama ABC TV affiliate
Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; Former senior scientist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center
Karl Spring, Chief Meteorologist certified by American Meteorological Society and National Weather Association
Dr. Walter Starck, Australian marine scientist, rallied around NASA's top administrator Michael Griffin’s skeptical climate comments
Bill Steffen, Meteorologist
Herb Stevens, Meteorologist, one of the original meteorologists at The Weather Channel and founder of Grass Roots Weather
Don Stewart, Researcher in geological and biological history and former New Zealand Science Ministry analyst
Prof. Philip Stott, Biogeography, University of London
Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Physicist, Danish National Space Center
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Alberta
Dr. Elwynn Taylor, State Climatologist, Iowa; Professor of Meterology, Iowa State University; former project scientist with NASA
Mr. George Taylor, State climatologist, State of Oregon
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Biologist and director of wildlife research with the Artic government of Nunavut
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, Retired Director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Alan Titchmarch, Horticulturalist and prominent naturalist who hosts “The Nature of Britain” on the BBC
Tim Thornton, who holds degrees in Meteorology and Computer Science, publishes the website “The Global Warming Heretic.”
Dr. Richard Tol, Director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science and economist with Hamburg University, Germany
Anton Uriarte, Professor of Physical Geography, University of Basque Country in Spain
Dr. Brian G. Valentine, Chemical Scientist, U.S. Department of Energy and professor at University of Maryland, has studied computational fluid dynamics and modeling of complex systems
Brian van de Graaff, Meteorologist
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations
Dr. G. Cornelis van Koten, Environmental and Climate Change Professor, University of Victoria
Dr. Jan Veizer, Environmental geochemist and Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa
Dr. Hans von Storch, Director of Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre and Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg
Dr. Chris Walcek, Atmospheric scientist and Professor, University of Albany (N.Y.); Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center
Dr. James Wanliss, Space Physicist, of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, who received a prestigious award from National Science Foundation in 2004
Dr. Fred Ward, Meteorologist, formerly of Boston TV
Anthony Watts, Meteorologist formerly of CBS affiliate in Redding, California
Dr. Charles Wax, State Climatologist, of Mississippi State University and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Edward J. Wegman, Professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University and chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics
Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist
Kevin Williams, Meteorologist, WEATHER-TRACK and WHEC-TV Rochester, N.Y.
Dr. Ian Wilson, Astronomer, University of Southern Queensland, Australia; specialist in statistical analysis and astrophysics
Dr. Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London and Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modeling
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, Retired Senior Marine Researcher, Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki
Bruno Wiskel, Geologist, University of Alberta
Dr. David Whitehouse, Astronomer and author of The Sun: A Biography
James Woudhuysen, a professor of Forecasting and Innovation at De Montfort University in Britain
Dr. David E. Wojick, UN IPCC expert reviewer and co-founder of Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie-Mellon University
Sun Xian, Scientist and co-author of 2007 study on CO2 Impact and warming
Yury Zaitsev, Analyst with Institute of Space Studies, Russia
Lev Zeleny, Director of the Institute of Space Research, Russian Academy of Sciences
Lin Zhen-Shan, Scientist and co-author of 2007 study on CO2 Impact and warming
Dr. Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists and retired professor of Advanced Physics at University of Bologna
Dr. Jeff Zweerink, Astronomer at University of California Los Angeles

[Boston]

not a real impresive list given the half million PHD's that could be considered as scientists and that 97% agree
that leaves 3% that should have been on your list
looks like you landed 400 when you should have been able to show 15,000 or some significant fraction thereof

Jim the idea that you proved anything in your diatribe about co2 is simply false
science works by a consideration of preponderance of evidence and you consistently show mostly industry sources for you evidence. Those industry sources do not qualify as scientific evidence so what your generally arguing is agnotology not science

I would admonish folks to actually go read starting from post 2369 as it is pretty clear that a review of the basics is going to be needed in order to understand where the deniers begin there denial

and the deniers clearly are refusing to involve themselves in a honest discourse of those basics

ask yourselves why

why would the people who uphold a standard of scientific accuracy want to review the basic physics involved in the consideration of feed backs and reflectivity ( albedo ) and the deniers refuse to participate

[Boston]

Jim since you and your industry minions refuse to discuss the physics involved in understanding the issues

how about a look at the history of the saturation question that was laid to rest about a hundred years ago

by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert

The simple physics explanations for the greenhouse effect that you find on the internet are often quite wrong. These well-meaning errors can promote confusion about whether humanity is truly causing global warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Some people have been arguing that simple physics shows there is already so much CO2 in the air that its effect on infrared radiation is "saturated"— meaning that adding more gas can make scarcely any difference in how much radiation gets through the atmosphere, since all the radiation is already blocked. And besides, isn't water vapor already blocking all the infrared rays that CO2 ever would?


The arguments do sound good, so good that in fact they helped to suppress research on the greenhouse effect for half a century. In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That's not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström's result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius' wild ideas.

Still more persuasive to scientists of the day was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the infrared spectrum, the main bands where each gas blocked radiation overlapped one another. How could adding CO2 affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that H2O (not to mention CO2 itself) already made opaque? As these ideas spread, even scientists who had been enthusiastic about Arrhenius's work decided it was in error. Work on the question stagnated. If there was ever an "establishment" view about the greenhouse effect, it was confidence that the CO2 emitted by humans could not affect anything so grand as the Earth's climate.

Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the "greenhouse" analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.

What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet's heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth's surface."

Even a simple explanation can be hard to grasp in all its implications, and scientists only worked those out piecewise. First they had to understand that it was worth the trouble to think about carbon dioxide at all. Didn't the fact that water vapor thoroughly blocks infrared radiation mean that any changes in CO2 are meaningless? Again, the scientists of the day got caught in the trap of thinking of the atmosphere as a single slab. Although they knew that the higher you went, the drier the air got, they only considered the total water vapor in the column.

The breakthroughs that finally set the field back on the right track came from research during the 1940s. Military officers lavishly funded research on the high layers of the air where their bombers operated, layers traversed by the infrared radiation they might use to detect enemies. Theoretical analysis of absorption leaped forward, with results confirmed by laboratory studies using techniques orders of magnitude better than Ångström could deploy. The resulting developments stimulated new and clearer thinking about atmospheric radiation.

Among other things, the new studies showed that in the frigid and rarified upper atmosphere where the crucial infrared absorption takes place, the nature of the absorption is different from what scientists had assumed from the old sea-level measurements. Take a single molecule of CO2 or H2O. It will absorb light only in a set of specific wavelengths, which show up as thin dark lines in a spectrum. In a gas at sea-level temperature and pressure, the countless molecules colliding with one another at different velocities each absorb at slightly different wavelengths, so the lines are broadened and overlap to a considerable extent. Even at sea level pressure, the absorption is concentrated into discrete spikes, but the gaps between the spikes are fairly narrow and the "valleys" between the spikes are not terribly deep. (see Part II) None of this was known a century ago. With the primitive infrared instruments available in the early 20th century, scientists saw the absorption smeared out into wide bands. And they had no theory to suggest anything different.

Measurements done for the US Air Force drew scientists' attention to the details of the absorption, and especially at high altitudes. At low pressure the spikes become much more sharply defined, like a picket fence. There are gaps between the H2O lines where radiation can get through unless blocked by CO2 lines. Moreover, researchers had become acutely aware of how very dry the air gets at upper altitudes — indeed the stratosphere has scarcely any water vapor at all. By contrast, CO2 is well mixed all through the atmosphere, so as you look higher it becomes relatively more significant. The main points could have been understood already in the 1930s if scientists had looked at the greenhouse effect closely (in fact one physicist, E.O. Hulbert, did make a pretty good calculation, but the matter was of so little interest that nobody noticed.)

As we have seen, in the higher layers where radiation starts to slip through easily, adding some greenhouse gas must warm the Earth regardless of how the absorption works. The changes in the H2O and CO2 absorption lines with pressure and temperature only shift the layers where the main action takes place. You do need to take it all into account to make an exact calculation of the warming. In the 1950s, after good infrared data and digital computers became available, the physicist Gilbert Plass took time off from what seemed like more important research to work through lengthy calculations of the radiation balance, layer by layer in the atmosphere and point by point in the spectrum. He announced that adding CO2 really could cause a degree or so of global warming. Plass's calculations were too primitive to account for many important effects. (Heat energy moves up not only by radiation but by convection, some radiation is blocked not by gas but by clouds, etc.) But for the few scientists who paid attention, it was now clear that the question was worth studying. Decades more would pass before scientists began to give the public a clear explanation of what was really going on in these calculations, drawing attention to the high, cold layers of the atmosphere. Even today, many popularizers try to explain the greenhouse effect as if the atmosphere were a single sheet of glass.

In sum, the way radiation is absorbed only matters if you want to calculate the exact degree of warming — adding carbon dioxide will make the greenhouse effect stronger regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere. But in fact, the Earth's atmosphere is not even close to being in a state of saturation. With the primitive techniques of his day, Ångström got a bad result, as explained in the Part II . Actually, it's not clear that he would have appreciated the significance of his result even if he had gotten the correct answer for the way absorption varies with CO2 amount. From his writing, it's a pretty good guess that he'd think a change of absorption of a percent or so upon doubling CO2 would be insignificant. In reality, that mere percent increase, when combined properly with the "thinning and cooling" argument, adds 4 Watts per square meter to the planets radiation balance for doubled CO2. That's only about a percent of the solar energy absorbed by the Earth, but it's a highly important percent to us! After all, a mere one percent change in the 280 Kelvin surface temperature of the Earth is 2.8 Kelvin (which is also 2.8 Celsius). And that's without even taking into account the radiative forcing from all those amplifying feedbacks, like those due to water vapor and ice-albedo.

In any event, modern measurements show that there is not nearly enough CO2 in the atmosphere to block most of the infrared radiation in the bands of the spectrum where the gas absorbs. That's even the case for water vapor in places where the air is very dry. (When night falls in a desert, the temperature can quickly drop from warm to freezing. Radiation from the surface escapes directly into space unless there are clouds to block it.)

So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here's all you need to say: (a) You'd still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it's the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It's not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn't overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there's little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

Then you can heave a sigh, and wonder how much different the world would be today if these arguments were understood in the 1920's, as they could well have been if anybody had thought it important enough to think through.

so I guess my question would be
why are deniers refusing to review the basic physics involved in the debate and instead raise hundred year old questions that have long ago been answered

explained in 1862 to be precise and quantified in the 1940's

[fasteddy106]

Another pesky guy who disagrees with Boston.............

From David Evans:

“Is there any observational evidence in favor of AGW? As of 2003, none at all.

The only supporting evidence for AGW was the old ice core data. The old ice core data, gathered from 1985, showed that in the past half million years, through several global warmings and coolings, the earth’s temperature and atmospheric carbon levels rose and fell in lockstep. AGW was coming into vogue in the 1980s, so it was widely assumed that it was the carbon changes causing the temperature changes.

By the late 1990s ice core techniques had improved. In the old ice cores the data points were a few thousand years apart, but in the new ice core data they were only a few hundred years apart. In the early 1990s, New Scientist magazine anticipated that the higher-resolution data would seal the case for AGW.

But the opposite occurred. By 2003 it had been established to everyone’s satisfaction that temperature changes preceded corresponding carbon changes by an average of 800 years: so temperature changes caused carbon changes - a warmer ocean supports more carbon in the atmosphere, after delays due to mixing. [4] So the ice core data no longer supported AGW. The alarmists failed to effectively notify the public”.

[fasteddy106]

Originally Posted by Boston

not a real impresive list given the half million PHD's that could be considered as scientists and that 97% agree
that leaves 3% that should have been on your list
looks like you landed 400 when you should have been able to show 15,000 or some significant fraction thereof

Jim the idea that you proved anything in your diatribe about co2 is simply false
science works by a consideration of preponderance of evidence and you consistently show mostly industry sources for you evidence. Those industry sources do not qualify as scientific evidence so what your generally arguing is agnotology not science

I would admonish folks to actually go read starting from post 2369 as it is pretty clear that a review of the basics is going to be needed in order to understand where the deniers begin there denial

and the deniers clearly are refusing to involve themselves in a honest discourse of those basics

ask yourselves why

why would the people who uphold a standard of scientific accuracy want to review the basic physics involved in the consideration of feed backs and reflectivity ( albedo ) and the deniers refuse to participate

This 97% number intriques me. Where did it come from, was it a poll, if so who conducted it, who sponsored it, and how were the questions framed, and what methodology was used to come up with the results? Who was polled? How were their creditials determined? Can the names of those polled be verified, along with their answers? Seeing as how the AGW proponents are the ones who want to change the world into a social model as complex as a meerkat colony it is incumbent on them to provide the answers to the above.

[Boston]

Fasteddy
that last was a well stated question
way to go
let me attempt to clarify a misleading assertion from a previous post and Ill get back to you soonest on the poll

the following is a letter to a DR Jeff Severinghaus, and his response; it's in direct regards to your exact assertion that climate science was not able to account for the lag in co2 and temp

Dear Jeff,

I read your article "What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?" You mention that CO2 does not initiate warmings, but may amplify warmings that are already underway. The obvious question comes up as to whether or not CO2 levels also lag periods when cooling begins after a warming cycle…even one of 5,000 years?

If CO2 levels on planet Earth also lag the cooling periods, then how can it be that CO2 levels are causally related to terrestrial heating periods at all? I am not sure what the ice core records are related the time response of CO2 to the cooling trends. If there is also a lag in CO2 levels behind a cooling period, then it appears that CO2 levels not only do not initiate warming periods but are also unrelated to the onset of cooling periods. It would appear that the actual CO2 levels are rather impotent as an amplifier either way…warming or cooling. We are talking about planet Earth after all and not Venus whose atmospheric pressure is many times larger than Earth's.

If there is also a time lag upon the onset of cooling, then it appears that some other mechanism actually drives the temperature changes. So what is the time difference between CO2 levels during the onset of a cooling period at the end of a warming period and the time history of the temperature changes in the ice cores?

Dear John,

The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth's orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called Milankovitch hypothesis [this really should say "theory" — eric], which you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.

But do not make the mistake of assuming that these warmings and coolings must have a single cause. It is well known that multiple factors are involved, including the change in planetary albedo, change in nitrous oxide concentration, change in methane concentration, and change in CO2 concentration. I know it is intellectually satisfying to identify a single cause for some observed phenomenon, but that unfortunately is not the way Nature works much of the time.

Nor is there any requirement that a single cause operate throughout the entire 5000 - year long warming trends, and the 70,000 year cooling trends.

Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.

Think of heart disease - one might be tempted to argue that a given heart patient's condition was caused solely by the fact that he ate french fries for lunch every day for 30 years. But in fact his 10-year period of no exercise because of a desk job, in the middle of this interval, may have been a decisive influence. Just because a sedentary lifestyle did not cause the beginning of the plaque buildup, nor the end of the buildup, would you rule out a contributing causal role for sedentary lifestyle?

There is a rich literature on this topic. If you are truly interested, I urge you to read up.

The contribution of CO2 to the glacial-interglacial coolings and warmings amounts to about one-third of the full amplitude, about one-half if you include methane and nitrous oxide.

So one should not claim that greenhouse gases are the major cause of the ice ages. No credible scientist has argued that position (even though Al Gore implied as much in his movie). The fundamental driver has long been thought, and continues to be thought, to be the distribution of sunshine over the Earth's surface as it is modified by orbital variations. This hypothesis was proposed by James Croll in the 19th century, mathematically refined by Milankovitch in the 1940s, and continues to pass numerous critical tests even today.

The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. By the way, the lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds rather closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.

The response time of methane and nitrous oxide to climate variations is measured in decades. So these feedbacks operate much faster.

The quantitative contribution of CO2 to the ice age cooling and warming is fully consistent with current understanding of CO2's warming properties, as manifested in the IPCC's projections of future warming of 3±1.5 C for a doubling of CO2 concentration. So there is no inconsistency between Milankovitch and current global warming.

Hope this is illuminating.

Jeff

so the whole point is as has been stated by myself and others many times in this thread that although co2 is the predominant green house gas aside from h2o the rapid clime in co2 levels amounts to such a radical deviation from the norm that it has disrupted the typical cycle
IE
man has altered the climate

I can play the quote papers game all day long and have numerous times but untill we can establish what science is and why some sources can and should be considered and others not there is no point in it
however
the science of ice core data is alive and well and the permeability of the ice well known
so the issue of lag has not been any part of questions on any other than the layman deniers pages
because it takes a little more than the typical layman to understand permeability and its effects as well as the feed back cycle
certainly not one of contention on the science end of things

I appreciate your attempts to discuss this in a little more reasonable a tone
B

[Boston]

what science is

science has a code of ethics that plays a critical role in how it is conducted

think of it like a court room

if a witness gets called
and the credibility of that witness is lacking
if they can be showed to be in the employ of say one or the other of the litigants
then there testimony will be held in question
and generally have little consideration in the outcome of the case

likewise in the case of science

and so the study of agnotism

I typically hate to quote wiki but in this case it was succinct

Agnotology, formerly agnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Robert N. Proctor,[1][2] a Stanford University professor specializing in the history of science and technology.[3] Its name derives from the Greek word ἀγνῶσις, agnōsis, "not knowing"; and -λογία, -logia.[4] More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.
A prime example of the deliberate production of ignorance cited by Proctor is the tobacco industry's conspiracy to manufacture doubt about the cancer risks of tobacco use. Under the banner of science, the industry produced research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty.[4][5] Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness.[6]
Agnotology also focuses on how and why diverse forms of knowledge do not "come to be," or are ignored or delayed. For example, knowledge about plate tectonics was delayed for at least a decade because key evidence was classified military information related to underseas warfare.[4]

similarly it would be reasonable to say that the oil and gas industries attempts to conduct a similar campaign in regards to the byproducts of there industry and I might add actually hire a lot of the people who had previously worked for the tobacco industry can be considered classic examples of agnotism

[Boston]

although the answers to the previous questions concerning the numerous polls that were in agreement can be found in many places throughout this thread the length of the thread may make it difficult to find so Ill post again but I urge all of you to do a search on "97% of scientists agree" and see for yourselves

A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences who conducted the survey late last year with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

Doran said wide support among climatologists does not come as a surprise.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

Writing in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Doran and Zimmerman conclude, "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

The remaining challenge, they write, "is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
*The authors contacted 10,200 scientists listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments and received 3,146 responses to their two questions: "have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?" and "Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

that will be one of the many studies conducted to determine a consensus among scientists
these studies are common and done regularly so as to determine a consensus view of various theories and hypothesis that may be in Vogue at any given time

there are more and I will reproduce several more as the discussion moves ahead

in light of recent events it might be prudent to point out that
since deniers are clearly using agnotology as a basis for there tactics and since deniers have recently shown an unwillingness to review the basic physics involved; it would be hard to believe they are not aware of the deception they are attempting. Even being unwilling to discuss the basics in any reasonable way is tantamount to admitting they are ignoring those basic tenets (thanks for the correct spelling) in an effort to make there denial possible.

there can be no doubt that basic optical physics dictates the qualities of reflection and refraction a given substance will have,
and that an inability or unwillingness to understand what those basics are prevents a discussion concerning various albedo effects

if there is an interest in actually understanding climate science then there must be an interest in understanding the basics of physics involved

a lack of that willingness in that regard might suggest to the casual reader that the one side is

denying

something

[Jimbo1490]

by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert

The simple physics explanations for the greenhouse effect that you find on the internet are often quite wrong.....

Boston,

This is just the regurgitation of the 'Mikey Mann Virgin Stratosphere" theory. If the mechanism/scenario they are positing is indeed real, then please answer me this one little question:

Why do we observe cooling "In the layers so high and thin" rather than warming?

A bit problematic for the theory, wouldn't you say?

Another problem I noted on that page when I first read it back in '07 is this statement:

"The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates "

This is false. Look at the observations of Christy, Spencer and Lindzen. Outgoing LW is NOT decreasing during periods of thermal pertubation; in fact it was found to [i]increase[/] temporarily during those periods. They've outlined the mechanism, published the papers and the papers were peer reviewed and accepted, unlike the MMVS thingy you keep throwing up.

This whole page is just a blog fantasy; nothing more. Furthermore, we've already covered it and how it collides head-on with observed data from satellites which show no warming where the MMVS theory says there should be warming.

you consistently show mostly industry sources for you evidence.

Trying (once again ) to answer a scientific question by painting all your detractors as industry hacks just shows that Mr Boston is an *******. It does not show that either the point of contention lacks scientific merit or that the opposing expert lacks integrity, but rather, just that you are an *******.

So keep on keeping on, Boston! The only two people impressed with you answering scientific objections with paranoid rants about the oil industry is the scarecrow and the cowardly lion (and you both know who you are )

Jimbo

[Boston]

here is another poll this time a Harris poll
it is about the lightest on the numbers and reflects a low end of the scale on results
in a purely scientific approach to mapping the results of the various polls this one might have been thrown out as the low
but Ill include it anyway
this one contains answers to many of the questions you posed
and I hope begins to make clear that there is a consensus that the consensus is growing and that it is substantial

Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change
S. Robert Lichter, Ph.D, April 24, 2008
STATS survey of experts reveals changing scientific opinion on global warming, extent of pressure to play up or down threat.

Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The researchers also report that belief in human-induced warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American climate scientists in 1991. However, the survey finds that scientists are still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming, and only three percent trust newspaper or television coverage of climate change.

The survey, which was conducted for STATS by Harris Interactive®, also found increased concern among climate scientists since the Gallup organization asked them many of the same questions in 1991.

Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science. A random sample of this size carries a theoretical sampling error of +/- four percentage points. A detailed description of the study’s methodology as well as that of the earlier Gallup survey is available on request.

Major Findings

Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

Climate scientists are skeptical of the media
Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast news is “somewhat reliable,” compared to 25% for cable news. (The remainder rate TV news as “not very” or “not at all” reliable.) Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3% and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable.


Are climate scientists being pressured to deny or advance global warming?
Five percent of climate scientists say they have been pressured by public officials or government agencies to “deny, minimize or discount evidence of human-induced global warming,” Three percent say they have been pressured by funders, and two percent perceived pressure from supervisors at work.

Three percent report that they were pressured by public officials or government agencies to “embellish, play up or overstate” evidence of global warming: Two percent report such pressure from funders, and two percent from supervisors.

Changing scientific opinion
In 1991 the Gallup organization conducted a telephone survey on global climate change among 400 scientists drawn from membership lists of the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union.

We repeated several of their questions verbatim, in order to measure changes in scientific opinion over time. On a variety of questions, opinion has consistently shifted toward increased belief in and concern about global warming. Among the changes:


Methodology
The 2007 study was conducted by mail within the United States by Harris Interactive on behalf of Statistical Assessment Service between March 19 and May 28, 2007 among 489 professional scientists who were either a member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) or the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Weighting was done to correct for the fact that a respondent with dual membership in the organizations had a greater chance of being included in the sample.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with non-response, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.