A Few Things Ill Considered: How to Talk to a Global Warming Sceptic

Sunday, February 19, 2006

How to Talk to a Global Warming Sceptic

(View a list of all topics by Category)
(jump to topics in this article)
I have spent about 18 months now rather obsessed with the controversy over Global Warming. Firstly, as a matter of disclosure, IANACS (I Am Not A Climate Scientist) but rather an intelligent layman who is concerned about an issue with ramifications for all of us. That said, I have read and discussed and enquired about a great deal of the scientific material that is out there and quite easily accessible. The scientific case is actually not that difficult to follow even if you lack the specific and highly technical knowledge required to create it.

One thing I have noticed over these months is that there are a very limited number of objections or attacks on what is really very sound and well resolved science but they come up over and over again on sci.environment, alt.global-warming and the blogs I visit either regularily or occasionally. I think this is an important debate and I want to help fight the good fight.

Now there are already a few very good FAQ's out there about the science, so I don't feel the need to create yet another. Rather what I would like to do is provide a layman's guide to defending against the assorted specious attacks that are out there, both by pointing out the basic logical fallacies they are based on and providing some appropriate reference material to avoid the typical "is too, is not" exchanges these things frequently devolve into. Nothing like a nice link to an authoritative resource to refute the factually incorrect pontifications. Nothing like a calmly presented and solidly logical rebuttal to put the scaliwags in their place!

I invite suggestions for other Guide topics and any and all scientific corrections or clarifications. Any advice I do take up, I reserve the right to delete from the comments just to keep a coherent page.

So without further ado here are links to the best responses I can think of for the following climate sceptic arguments, please feel free to refer to, paraphrase or quote as desired:

(View a list of all topics by Category)

There is no real evidence of warming, just model predictions.

Global Warming is nothing but an environmentalist hoax.

One warmest year on record is not global warming.

The surface temperature record is so full of assumptions and corrections that it only says what the scientists want.

In the 1970's they said a new ice age was coming.

Global temperatures over just one hundred years doesn't mean anything.

Glaciers have always grown and receded. A few glaciers receeding today is not proof of Global Warming.

Climate scientist are trying to hide the dominant role of water vapor in Global Warming.

H2O is the only significant greenhouse gas.

There is no proof that CO2 is what is causing the temperature to go up.

The current warming is just a part of natural variations, humans have nothing to do with it.

It was even warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum

The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as it is today.

All in all, a warmer climate sounds like a good thing.

Reducing fossil fuel usage is mass suicide.

Even if we fully implemented the Kyoto protocol it would have virtually no effect on the temperature even by mid 21st century.

Why do India and China get a free pass? That's not fair, no wonder the US did not join.

But there is Global Warming on Mars, without any SUV's or human influence at all.

It was very cold in Wagga Wagga today, this proves there is no Global Warming.

The ice core records show clearly that CO2 rising is an effect of rising temperatures, not a cause.
There is no consensus yet on the cause or even the reality of Global Warming.

Ice sheets in the Antarctic are growing which proves Global Warming isn't real.

Volcanoes emit way more CO2 than people, so emissions controls would be useless.

Global Warming is an illusion caused by the Urban Heat Island Effect.

We can't even predict the weather next week, forget about 100 years from now!

Greenland used to be nice and warm and the vikings lived there happily until the Little Ice Age.

Climate is a chaotic system and just like the stock market, forget about predicting where it will go.

The models are unproven and therefore unreliable.

Satellites are more reliable and they show cooling.

But the temperature dropped all through the 40's and 50's while CO2 rose, there must be something else going on.

The Null Hypotheis says the warming is natural.

Geological history is full of periods where CO2 was high and temperatures were low and vice versa.

The climate is always changing, no reason to think it is our fault.

Natural emissions of carbon are 30 times bigger than human emissions, so any reductions are useless.

CO2 is measured on Mauna Loa, which is an active volcano. That is why the levels are so high

Global Warming began about 20,000 years ago, humans have nothing to do with it.

Even if the ice caps melt, the water will go into the ground underneath.

CO2 has risen on its own before, no reason to assume it is our fault.

The Hockey Stick is broken, global warming theory falls apart.

No one knows how confident the models really are.

There is no historical precedent for CO2 causing warming, it is the opposite.

James Hansen is being an alarmist, just like before.

Position statements hide legitimate scientific debate.

Climate Models don't even take cloud effects into consideration.

Global Warming stopped eight years ago!

Global warming is caused by the sun, of course.

The United States actually absorbs more CO2 than it emits.

Most of the glaciers are growing, just a few are shrinking.

If we don't understand the past, how can we understand the present?

Global Dimming is stronger in the north, so how come it is not warming more in the south?

"Probaby", "likely", "evidence suggests". Even the scientist aren't sure AGW is real!

Sea ice in the Antarctic is growing.

This alledged consensus is just because scientists are afraid to speak out.

Some locations are actually cooling, which shouldn't happen if there is global warming.

The small observed warming shows that the climate models are overestimating CO2's importance.

Sea level measurments in the Arctic Ocean show that it is falling, not rising!

Today's warming is just a natural rebound from the Little Ice Age.

AGW theory is not even scientific because you can not do experiments and make predictions.

(more to come!)

(View a list of all topics by Category)

Labels: Sceptic Guide

222 Comments:

At February 23, 2006 6:13 PM, Stephen Gloor said…

Hi

Like you I am an layperson who believes in AGW and have engaged in many battles with AGW skeptics where the same arguments come up again and again. I like how you have summerised the arguments.

One that you have not mentioned is the Hockey Stick/MWP argument. Usually it goes that the MWP was warmer than today so therefore present warming cannot human caused and as grapes grew in Greenland during the MWP then warming is good. My rebuff to this is that ALL studies show that the MWP was not warmer than today - links to MBH99 or the wikipedia summary or the real climate dummies guide. Also there is no real evidence that the MWP was global or overall beneficial. There are studies that show droughts etc during this time so the overall effect might have been bad.

To the Hockey Stick - my standard answer is:
MBH98 is an inteesting study that place recent warming in an historical context. It has been replicated by several teams using that same data that MBH used and also different data and methods. The data was always available from day 1 as the teams that replicated the data were able to do so from the published data. MBH99 is not the only evidence for anthrpogenic global warming nor it is the main evidence.

Anyway some of my stuff is at
stevegloor.typepad.com
At February 23, 2006 8:37 PM, coby said…

Thanks Steve. Have added a couple more, MWP there now (I'm only getting started! ;)

The hockey stick will come too, but I actually punt on that one as the arguments are very technical. Hopefully you will like my approach.
At March 14, 2006 2:05 PM, Cindy B said…

In this debate we need to stand back a little. Think about the "wise" words of republican pundit Frank Luntz in his famous memo to the Republicans on how to deal with global warming.

I quote him:

"The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”

http://www.luntzspeak.com/memo4.html

Don't get me wrong. This guy is scary. But he has a point. By buying in to a debate at all, we are continuing to keep that window open and to have the public think there IS a debate, and therefore not push for action.

So what should our response be? Check out http://www.exxonsecrets.com and find out just how many of the climate sceptics are either funded by the oil industry or have very strong links.

Would you believe a scientist funded by or strongly associated with the tobacco industry who says that smoking doesn't cause cancer? The same should be said for the sceptics.

Scientists tend to enter into this debate about the veracity of global warming.

The problem, though, is that it's an essentially political debate, not a scientific one. It's the politics of the fossil fuel industry refusing to admit that its core business is causing climate change.

And so far, the fossil fuel industry is winning. Kyoto is pathetically small compared with the size of the problem.

Scientists tend not to want to get into politics, and stick to the science. So they continue debating, thus continuing to contribute to confusion.

Michael Mann's getting dragged through the US senate hearings is a perfect case in point. All the sceptics contributing to Inhofe and others' arguments were those connected with the oil industry.

It's not rocket science. It's politics.

My plea is to the "AGW" scientists is to take a leap and talk of politics and funding and oil money, not of hockey sticks. Of tainted money and tainted science.

Otherwise, your debate is simply stoking the coffers of the groups who make their money from the oil industry.
At March 14, 2006 2:18 PM, coby said…

Hi Cindy, thanks for the comment.

I think you raise some good points, only I see downsides with your approach as well. I think scientists are stuck and have to answer the attacks on science whatever the motives for them are. Your advice at the end is where journalism is failing, they are the ones who should be taking note of the funding and motivation of the obfuscators. Sites like exxonsecrets and sourcewatch are important.
At March 15, 2006 11:28 AM, Anonymous said…

Comment to Cindy B.:

First off, it is www.exxonsecrets.org, not .com. Secondly, corporate donations listed in public tax filings are not "secrets".

Secondly, let's take a look at one donation Exxon made that environmentalists like to say shows Exxon's influence. The Cato Institute is often mentioned, but in total, Exxon donated a grand total of $90,000 to this organization. $90,000!!! That's it?

And Cindy, you fail to address why scientists funded by government to prove global warming should be trusted. There is a serious bias in government funding simply towards proving AGW instead of funding good science only. This inherent political bias in the awarding of grants is a serious unaddressed issue.

You are wrong in blaming the fossil fuel industry. Blame the people. It is we who want two or three cars in our garage and who want to take twice yearly vactaions in Mexico. Somehow I doubt you are really that much different. But you neatly avoid any personal responsibility by deflecting all blame to oil companies.

And Michael Mann was hardly "dragged" through the Senate hearings in the US, he was thoroughly questioned on the subject as the Americans do to any person appearing before one of those committees.

It is not the oil companies that are "winning", it is we, the public, who are not seriously committed to Kyoto. The only impediment to the implementation of Kyoto in Canada is Canadians general apathy to the accord; our public voicing of support for it notwithstanding.

=Paul=
At March 15, 2006 12:46 PM, coby said…

Hi Paul,

You said "you fail to address why scientists funded by government to prove global warming should be trusted. There is a serious bias in government funding simply towards proving AGW instead of funding good science only. This inherent political bias in the awarding of grants is a serious unaddressed issue." I would sure like to see some substantiation for this. I find it very hard to believe that the Bush administration, or any US federal gov't body, *wants* GW to be true. And they are the largest funders of climate research. This accusation is common, but seems self-serving, and as I said, I would love to see some evidence.

Re Michael Mann and the senate, sure everyone called has to answer questions, you need to wonder why this particular scientist was called and why this particular panel is pretending to investigate one 8 year old study in paleoclimatology.
At March 15, 2006 1:46 PM, Anonymous said…

Coby, my main point is that oil companies do not fund climate research. And a piddly $90,000 grant to the Cato Institute does not have the power to change the public's views on this issue.

Oil companies are a convenient scapegoat for individuals to avoid personal repsonsiblity for their own consumptive lifestyle.

I should not say there is a bias in the government research; I am guilty of overreach there, instead that there is heavy, serious, much needed and ongoing effort in this area. It is ongoing because there is still so much to learn.

Senate hearings are often tough on the participants in the US. Since advocates of AGW propose the most draconian measures imaginable to address this issue, they are naturally going to be grilled very thoroughly. Science that advocates massive upheaval in people's lives deserves heightened scutiny.

Adherence to the Kyoto Accord has much less to do with oil companies and much more to do with you and I as individual consumers. And my personal observations are that most Canadians support Kyoto in an abstract manner but continue with their current lifestyle unabated.
Cindy's musings on AGW illustrate this basic refusal of individuals to own up to their own environmental responsibility.

=Paul
At March 16, 2006 4:44 PM, Stefan Jones said…

One talking point you need to address:

"In the 1970s scientists were telling us we were all going to be crushed by glaciers in a new ice age! Whey should we believe them now?"

Now, I'm old enough to remember the "new ice age" talk. They were pretty speculative, based on the observation that, historically speaking, we were overdue for one. It wasn't a warning based on direct observation. Nothing, in other words, like the concern over global warming.

My perception is that this rather tepid speculation is being exaggerated into a dire threat by denialists for use as a talking point.

Keep up the good work,

Stefan
At March 16, 2006 5:04 PM, Stefan Jones said…

Paul, the F.U.D. campaign is designed to enable people to continue to be irresponsible.

It's a lot like the tobacco industry's abominable campaign to muddy the health problems associated with smoking.

Yes, absolutely, the decision to smoke and keep smoking is a personal decision . . . but how can you make an informed decision when you're being fed bullshit?

Particularly when that bullshit is the kind that is emotionally sympatico?

That is, when the F.U.D. lets you off the hook . . . when it lets you defer making a difficult decision or painful lifestyle change?

When it tells you there's nothing wrong with that filthy, expensive habit.

When it tells you there's nothing wrong with commuting alone in a giant gas guzzler.

The wonderful part of this for the industries who run F.U.D. campaigns is that it gives them a legal "out:"

When the lawsuits start, they can point out that scientists had been warning people for decades about (tobacco, global warming). So if people are unhappy about their lung cancer or drowned coastal cities, well, don't go trying to sue us, s'okay? It was your responsibility to read scientific papers and keep informed about this, wasn't it?

I hope someone, somewhere, is keeping careful records of every loaded editorial, every argument advanced by bought-off pundits, every paid-for position paper. It'll come in handy when we have truth and reconciliation hearings.
At March 16, 2006 8:48 PM, coby said…

Thanks, Stephan.

Here's the Global Cooling argument, it was definitely on the short list!
At March 17, 2006 10:52 AM, Anonymous said…

Stefan, I fully believe individuals are able to act on this issue, and it is not oil companies that are stopping people from doing it. As with smoking, the transference of individual responsibility onto others is a convenient way for us to avoid our own culpability.

We have signed Kyoto; it carries full legal force, and yet we refuse to comply. I believe the responsibility for this failure rests upon us. Having failed to comply, a scapegoat is needed and you've already chosen yours.

If individuals continue to behave in an irresponsible manner Stefan, blame Canadians, not some mythical bogeyman you have invented to take the fall for your beliefs.

=Paul=
At March 21, 2006 3:38 AM, Anonymous said…

Cindy et al,
It's not www.exxonsecrets.com, but www.Exxonsecrets.org
At March 23, 2006 3:38 PM, El Niño said…

Hi Coby,
I am a climate scientist, and I cannot tell you how good it makes me feel to see "laypeople" like yourself getting the message. Massive congratulations to you. It is so important that the message gets out from the tiny climate community, to touch the widest possible audience. It is best done by people avoiding technical language, like you.

I think the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is as hard as any other accepted physical theory. No one doubts that gravity is what made the apple fall on the head of Isaac Newton... So why would they refute innumerable lines of evidence for the anthropogenic cause of global warming ?

Because some of them have already made up their mind about a *political* issue, and they will do whatever it takes to refute the facts and theories that contradicts their belief - even if it takes using faulty logic or disingenuous rhetorics.
This is connected to many other issues that bring together religion, conservative politics and science on the public place.
Unlike other political and religious debates, this is where Reason should triumph over Passion - and hasn't, unfortunately.

I am so glad that your blog provides keys for rational people to fight this nearly-religious obscurantism. It is one of the few ways truth can triumph.

Keep up the good work ! We will win. Only with patience, honesty and compassion, but we *have* to win this one. There is just too much at stake for our planet and mankind as a whole.
At March 23, 2006 3:57 PM, coby said…

Thanks for the encouraging words, El Nino! Don't forget to keep me honest if I make any scientific slips. Yes, we will win the public debate, but will we beat the clock? I remain hopeful...
At March 27, 2006 4:12 PM, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

To start from nearer the 'top' the real issue with the 'hockey stick study' is its poor methodology. As such little that is discussed from inference OF the 'graph' is infact based on a VALID study.

Within the study, 'outrider points' where discarded, this has not been disputed; infact that practice was being defended regularly as 'valid statistical process'. Within the 'climate science' fraternity it is seemingly however not realised the import of such an action in the particular case of the mentioned 'study''.

In a study looking for anomalies (as 'climate alteration' is), the 'outrider' points are infact the OBJECT of study, not those 'nice points' that give a 'nice graph'. By 'dropping' those outrider points the study infact removed the 'source objects' of it's 'research' and in reality only produced a 'nice graph', NOT valid results.

The continuance of discussion of the 'graph' immediately lost validity in SCIENCE, as do inferences made from such a 'graph' or other 'uncorrelated' methodologies.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At March 27, 2006 6:51 PM, coby said…

Hi Peter,

You say that "outrider" points are the purpose of the study. On the contrary, what is being look for are anamolous trends, not anamolous points. Discarding aberations is correct procedure.

BTW, this comment is better. It is focused on one issue and makes a clear point (though still unsupported, oh well)
At March 27, 2006 10:16 PM, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

Hello all.

You cannot discard points whilst developing 'trends' for irregularly periodic processes.

Infact, the procedure of determining the behavior of such processes, a Statistical analytic process titled a "Time series" uses all data points that are collected within the method determined by the pre-procedure of 'Experimental Design', made to facilitate the analysis in a manner of known (and best) correlation.

This method is used to define, as example, complex manufacturing procedures to minimise and predict 'run errors' and so enable better 'fault trapping' with directed sampling of 'real items' in a 'process time line'. Taking items from 'production systems' has 'real' costs, best to take them when the process is thought to be at its 'worst'.

The problem exposed by the 'Hockey Stick' is the overly simplistic methodology used to produce 'nice graphs' and the over emphasis of inference within the poor correlations produced by the methodologies.

So it is not valid, in the context of the situation being researched, to remove those points Cody. The ANALYSIS needs to notice what the reality being studied 'is', NOT try to fit 'the reality' to a 'convenient study method'.

Not 'unsupported', just perhaps the best i can do to describe complex mathematical processes that have developed correlations to 'Reality' and the contained systems.

As such there is little inference that can be made from the 'stick graph' that has a value correlated to the reality being 'attached' by opinion, predominately.

Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At March 28, 2006 11:08 AM, coby said…

The various criticisms of the Hockey Stick have been dealt with add infinitum on Real Climate, check the side bar, highlights section. Of particular importance is the posting what if the hockey stick were wrong?.

In short, there are dozens of other studies that have arrived at the same conclusions and the past is the past, what is happening now is better understood than any past climates.
At March 28, 2006 5:29 PM, coby said…

Peter, you are welcome to comment here if you can do so in a focused and coherent way, one point at a time. I am not interested in the kind of info-pollution your unsubstantiated 1000 word pontifications contribute to the site.

If anyone is interested in Peter's theories of climate science, he has offered the following links:
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
and...no just those two, over and over.
At March 30, 2006 2:00 AM, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
At April 05, 2006 11:03 AM, Mikel Mariñelarena said…

Hello Coby,

Taking advantage of your skills talking to sceptics like me, I’d like to see if you can clarify a couple of issues that I don’t see have been directly addressed in your blog yet.

1) According to climate scientists as diverse as Lindzen or Annan, a theoretical doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would only cause per se a minor temperature increase of about 1C:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/07/overview-of-probabilistic-climate.html

The rest of the IPCC-estimated increase in temperature up to the famous range of 1.5C-4.5C would depend on the feedback effects of this CO2 doubling, and most notably that of dominant greenhouse gas H2O, whose feedback mechanisms the IPCC considers uncertain but likely positive.

With all this being the case and considering that the increase in CO2 has been taking place for a long time now, has the associated increase in atmospheric H2O been already OBSERVED? Since basically all catastrophic forecasts depend on water vapour acting to amplify the effect of CO2 it strikes me that knowing what is happening with this gas now, a thrid of the way to a CO2 doubling, would be key to finally validating those predictions.

2) My second concern has to do with the hockey stick graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
The one thing that has always caught my attention in that graph is not the warming of the last decades, that we already know so much about, but the warming, comparable in size and speed, that took place between approx 1910 and 1945. In the context of the past millennium (according to that graph) that warming seems as unusual as the one we’re now under and it took place at a time when the increase of atmospheric CO2 was still small. If you add to that the forcing-warming lag of 20-30 years, it definitely looks like CO2 was not what caused that considerable warming. Indeed, the IPCC only speaks of the last 50 years when making likely anthropogenic attributions. What do you then AGW-adherents propose as a cause for the warming of those years? And, of course, whatever was that caused it, don’t you think that it may still be playing a major role in the current warming trend?

Many thanks,

Mikel
At April 05, 2006 12:40 PM, coby said…

Hi Mikel,

Could you please be rude and illogical next time, it makes it easier for me to keep sceptics in a box! ;) But seriously...

I don't think you are quite correct in claiming any uncertainty about water vapor feedback being positive or negative. In its role as a GHG, as you correctly state the dominant one, its effect is clearly positive and the most significant amplifier of CO2 warming. You may be thinking of clouds, but we need to seperate this kind of water from the well-mixed gaseous form. It is true that clouds are a big uncertainty and have both positive and negative effects, the net of which the IPCC considers uncertain but likely positive.

James Annan et al. recently published a paper that has pegged the climate sensitivity to 2x CO2 at 1.7-4.9oC with a most likely value of 2.9oC (please see this article for a quote and references). Please note this sensitivity includes H2O vapor feedbacks and sea ice albedo feedbacks. Lindzen's 1oC prediction for doubling and general beliefs that CO2 effects will be negligible, (which he refuses to make any personal committment to, BTW) are based on his "Iris hypothesis." It is over a decade old and lacks any evidence.

I think some work has been done trying to measure the expected increase in atmospheric water content but it is apparently not simple. Alot of the confirmation of expectations comes from model simulations (sorry) of real events, such as Pinatubo. The observed temerature response depends on the drop in humidity that the cooling should have caused. Please see the last two paragraphs in this Real Climate article.

Re: early 20th century warming, have look at this nice graph. Early 20th century warming was primarily about 50-50 solar influences and CO2 forcing. I understand what you mean about the lag, but I'm not sure this means no response for a couple of decades rather than a couple of decades to finish responding. Solar variations are pretty closely monitored since the last few decades and there is no trend observed. Try Max Plank institute for a 20th century reconstruction and for satellite measurements since 1978.

There has been other solar work very recently that ascribed 10-30% of the recent (post 1980) warming to solar influences, though I don't think it is yet widely accepted. Regardless, I don't think anyone claims that CO2 is the only factor. Real Climate talks about solar forcing here.

Thanks for the comment!
At April 07, 2006 11:41 AM, Mikel Mariñelarena said…

Hi Coby,

Thanks a lot for your very fast reply. You sure have a good arsenal of links ready for any GW issue we throw at you.

I guess we sceptics come in many flavours. Maybe you haven’t had much luck with the ones you’ve met. What I can’t understand is how anyone, whatever they decide to believe, cannot be genuinely interested in knowing what’s happening with our planet and whether the dire predictions we constantly hear are true or not. In that sense, more than a sceptic I am someone trying to understand things and still not very convinced about the scientific process that has given rise to all this (sometimes hysterical) propaganda.

Reviewing the IPCC papers, I see that you are right about the feedback uncertainty being more related to clouds rather than water vapour, although they also state that the precise mechanisms of water vapour feedbacks are quite complex and the form its spacial distribution would take is still not well understood.

In any case, I have been studying the links you provided and I’m not convinced about your explanation for the 2 issues I brought up.

1) Atmospheric water vapour increase due to GW: I can imagine that it must be somehow difficult to measure this effect, otherwise we would have one of the best possible validation tools for the future GW predictions, wouldn’t we? But I’m missing a clear explanation of why this is so. In fact one of the best links on this topic I have found is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BAMS_climate_assess_boulder_water_vapor_2002.gif As it happens, they are measuring water vapour increases at different heights in the atmosphere but failing to find any significant trend, especially in the troposphere, where it would count the most as regards the GW feedback. Failing any further explanation, I would dare to interpret this as the predicted water vapour feedback not taking place or not having been observed on a global scale yet. Where does this leave the projected temperature increases?

2) GW in the 1910-1945 period: I find this statement of yours: Early 20th century warming was primarily about 50-50 solar influences and CO2 forcing a bit too audacious. You’re definitely going beyond the IPCC consensus there. Do you consider this to be reasonably proven? Just take a look at the 2 graphs in your links (Wiki and Max Plank). Don’t you see a big difference between both trends? Where in the Max Plank graph do you see the trough around the 30s visible on the Wiki one? As the RC article you mention and your last paragraph suggest, anything solar is pretty much uncertain (which, as a sceptic, I have no problems at all agreeing with).

Besides, the 50% CO2 attribution for the GW of this period is quite difficult to believe. Starting with your very Wiki link, note the significant difference (almost 40%) for the modelled-observed warming in the period 1900-1940. But if you go to another Wiki link more directly related to GHG emissions for that period: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png the said attribution looks even more unlikely. Especially if you add to that the thermal inertia of the oceans (however it works exactly, I’m also not sure about that) and the natural carbon sinks. BTW, these two effects are amply used to explain why the current GW is not yet as large as it will be in the future. How come they didn’t prevent a GW in that 35-year period comparable in size and speed to the one we’re experiencing now?

So again, we are left with a seemingly unprecedented warming the causes of which are at least very uncertain (if not basically unknown). As long as we are unable to give a sound explanation to this recent GW episode, predictions for the future based on computer models (incredibly intelligent though these may be) will sound rather unreliable to me.

Best regards,

Mikel
At April 08, 2006 3:47 PM, coby said…

To Mikel:

I know that models are not a very satisfying thing to point to for confirmed predictions, but sometimes until observations are available, this is the best we can do. With that in mind, the models can very successfully hindcast the 20th century and events like the eruption of Mt Pinatubo. In doing this, they incorporate the large effects of H2O feedbacks that the theories predict. Now, if definitive measurements across the globe become available and they show no increase, that will obviously have to be dealt with. Until then 1: the rather straightforward physics that predicts H2O increases and 2: no known mechanism that might replace the positive effect that is now attributed to H2O (and is required to explain observed warming) together are a very strong reason to believe that the effect is actually there.

New evidence to the contrary is always possible. I am not familiar with the Colorado study you cited, either its direct meaning o any implications. At the risk of being too cocky, let's take this moment to recall the ultimate victor in the MSU readings vs modeled tropospheric temperature debates! : )

Re early 20th century, I tried to say too much in too few words. I meant solar and CO2 seem to have been equal and that together they were the primary cause of warming. Comparing the wiki solar forcing line and the Plank Institute's reconstruction we should note the later appears more smoothed. But I agree there do seem to be some differences, though nothing that strikes me as too significant. There is also this data from GISS that is similar but seems different yet again even subtracting out the 11 year cycle. The truth is out there somewhere!

With respect to confidence in the future based on hindcasts of the past, I would only say that even with The Perfect Model(tm) the hindcasts can only be as good as the data they are given. Perhaps, maybe even probably, if solar reconstructions of the 20th century become much better understood then the discrepancies that we can see between observation and model over this period will go away.
At April 09, 2006 5:18 PM, Mikel Mariñelarena said…

Hi Coby,

In fact, the IPCC-TAR has 2 pages dedicated to atmospheric water vapour measurements. The results are, as usual, far from conclusive:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/079.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/080.htm

I think that you are a bit too enthusiastic when nominating “victors” and “losers” in the MSU data correction conundrum. Still MSU data show smaller warming in the troposphere than on the surface and you need to resort to an “overlapping” of a completely disparate range of model results with the available satellite-radiosonde observations in order to make both “non-inconsistent”.

In any case, there’s no denying that you have gathered a very comprehensive collection of explanations, generally backed by pertinent links, for most arguments AGW-sceptics may come up with. If the idea is to defend what currently appears to be the position of most (but not all) experts and relevant scientific institutions against ignorant criticism, I don’t have anything against it. That’s what I would do myself in most any scientific debate.

However, when I’m asked to BELIEVE that the world is headed to a catastrophic warming due to the wrong-doings of us industrialized societies and that we need to do something now to stop the disasters, I’m faced with several problems:

- More often than not, when I’ve tried to analyse the concrete evidence to support such claims I have found logical inconsistencies or severe uncertainties that you don’t need to be an expert to perceive. We have discussed a couple of them.

- As an economist, I’m all too familiar with seemingly well-founded predictions that eventually never materialize. I think that this is a feature common to sciences where chaotic, difficult to model variables (in our case nothing less than human behaviour) play a leading role.

- As an economist again, I do not buy the idea of scientific efforts conducted independently of politics and ideology. This global warming scare we’re now under comes in a row with many other disaster predictions promoted since the 60s-70s by environmentalists and certain political groups. I cannot forget the gloomy scenarios painted by the Rome Club, the Zero-Growth advocates or the very global-cooling scare of the 70s (have you actually read in-depth Connolley’s work on the subject? I find it ironic that this article is often cited to refute sceptic criticism, it actually illustrates very well how deep-rooted that scare got to be at the time). Speaking of which, my attempt to participate in the RC forum with critical opinions has done nothing but reinforce my suspicion of leading climate scientists being ideologically biased. I encountered gratuitous hostility and got my posts censored or truncated while those of certain ideological tint were given free pass even though they violated most posting guidelines.

Keep up the good work but be open-minded. Scepticism is in general a sound attitude in science and one I find very lacking here in Europe as regards any politically correct agenda.

Thanks for letting me express my ideas.
At April 10, 2006 7:48 AM, coby said…

You have correctly identified my purpose, Mikel. I don't deny there are legitimate uncertainties and controversial aspects in this debate, and I do purposely target the "low hanging fruit" so to speak. You are welcome to bring up those things that you think I might be sweeping under the rug and help keep me honest! I might not always satisfy your concerns, but I will surely try to either concede the point or provide an argument.

I'm sorry to hear you feel censored at RC and hope you will continue to raise any concerns you have, I think they are evolving as traffic increases. So far I have ony deleted comments from one particular poster simply because they are excessively long, off topic and repetitive of his other comments and don't really feel the need to moderate at all besides that so far. But this is a luxury of not having as much traffic as RC.

I have an article on cooling predictions in the 70's if you want to raise some points there, I'm curious because I do think of that one as pretty conclusively refuted.

Thanks for the comments.
At April 11, 2006 8:20 AM, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

The ENTIRE production of 'greenhouse support' is based in supposition and inference with regard to the 'measure of temperature' and 'CO2 quantity', not in any manner is noticed the actual PROPERTIES of CO2 as they are now known.

There is also the msot obvious censorship of discussion, often justified within labels of actions by 'moderators'.

Perhaps if there was discussion of, and not deletion of, posts there would not be need to repeat these postings.

See:-
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments
-:for further comments.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At April 11, 2006 3:11 PM, coby said…

Hi Peter,

It is clearly untrue that AGW is based on measures of temperature and CO2, ie correlation only. I think a clear and irrefutable proof of this is the fact that the first scientific paper to discuss this issue was written in 1896, long before any global temperature analysis, certainly before warming, and long before any globla CO2 monitoring. Please see this paper by climate pioneer Arrhenius

I am happy for your new style of short and to the point comments, thanks.

BTW, it looks to me like your graphs of radiation absorbtion by species of gas are correct, and it confirms tha observation that the atmosphere is transparent to visible light, which is where the bulk of solar radiation is.
At April 13, 2006 2:01 AM, Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm) said…

It is the 'greenhouse theory' that was failed, NOT that there was a dispute that there was 'warming evident'.

It is that the 'greenhouse theory' cannot validly explain the observed warming that is the basis of the problems, not that there is 'skeptics trying to ignore' the observations.

It is that inferences dealing with the observations in terms of 'greenhouse' concepts are invalid in the applications of SCIENCE made within such inferences.

Valid theory does still need to be applied within its valid limits, this situation is often NOT observed in applications of 'greenhouse science' where too often the 'fine print detail' is directly 'overlooked', or explained over with use of (gu)es(s)timates.

Your's
Peter K Anderson aka Hartlod(tm)
At April 13, 2006 10:26 AM, coby said…

"where you will see the great failure of the 'greenhouse theory' in NOT noting the KNOWN remittance behaviors of these material. Absorbance is only HALF the situation."

Okay, I think I may see the source of your confusion about GH theory. You are correct that absorbtion is ony half the story, but you are completely wrong that reemittance is not noted or otherwise overlooked. GHE does *not* warm the atmosphere via GHG absorbtion of infrared radiation as its primary mechanism. You are correct that the majority of this absorbed energy is almost immediately reemitted. But what happens is that in the randomness of the direction of reemittance, half of the energy is radiated *back* to the surface of the earth. This further warms the surface, and the atmosphere is warmed further primarily via conduction and convection. This is well understood and it is the basic physics that is represented in the models. And BTW, re-emittance occurs at the same wavelength spectrums as absorbtion.

That is a misconception I have come across before. Do you know where you read it by any chance?

To review the process please see here and note the in picture caption "Some of the infra-red radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by the greenhouse gas molecules".

For further reading see Chapter 1 of the IPCC, and in particular section 1.2
At May 22, 2006 9:05 AM, coby said…

Seems posts keep disappearing when answers cannot be found

Peter, firstly, my name is Coby not Cody. I have deleted your comments for the same reasons I have repeated to you probably a dozen times. They are excessively long, not focused or on topic, and completely repetitive of material you have already presented. I will quote and respond to a bit, and perhaps you can try actually responding instead of lecturing.

however as has been already noted Cody, the assertion that 'half' of the 'radiation' is directed to the surface is also false, and I have given this situation treatment already. Also, remittance is NOT of Photons with the same overall properties as the 'original' incident Photon.

I have already corrected you on this point. The GHE does not work primarily through the direct heating of the atmosphere via IR absorbtion. Yes, some energy is absorbed and transfered into kinetic energy of surrounding air molecules via conduction but the maority is in fact reemitted as radiation in the same bandwidths that the absorbtion occurs. You have correctly noted that reemittance can be in any direction in 3d space, but this can be divided into two equal parts by the horizontal plane, up and down. The higher you go, the smaller is the proportion of the "down" direction that the earth fills, but this is a small adustment, half is a decent aproxiamation for a discussion such as goes on here.

H2O however has a poor remittance rate, H2O itself is becoming heated and so producing directly a 'hotter' atmosphere. H2O's distribution IS governed however by its freezing and condensation point altitudes to the 'lower' atmosphere. The lower atmosphere gets 'heated' and turbulence redistributes that kinetic energy.

This is just wrong, sorry. The mass of H2O in the atmosphere is just a few percent. That small amount of matter being warmed does not have a very large effect on the atmosphere as a whole. The warming primarily occurs by conduction from the earth's surface directly to the atmosphere. The GHE results in more radiation warming the earth's surface.

I recommend the wikipedia articles for understanding the basics of this topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect and links therein.
At May 23, 2006 1:05 PM, Anonymous said…

Here's one http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html

Listed 1st on that page. A speech by Mr. crichton.

It's Titled
"Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management in the 21st Century"

Very interesting.
Thanks
Matt
At May 25, 2006 1:28 PM, http://www.pressthenews.com said…

great job on the global warming issue. particularly the list of excellent links.

handling of global warming by bush administration is consisten with an overall environmenatl policy that the many links therein show is generally considered to be the worst of any administratio in history.
At May 27, 2006 3:07 PM, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm) said…

Do you think so 'press the news'? Generally, the many are seeing the unsupportable claims there in made within the 'links' so repetitively produced as only attempting to contrive an unnatural effect from NATURAL climate change.

This 'greenhouse syndrome' is being produced and perpetuated by disaffected individuals and lobbies of minority value and little knowledge. The generally developing attitude to these disaffect 'global warmists' is that they are trying to produce Natural effects as somehow 'Human produced', attempting to contrive a platform involving CO2, but with no regard to the actual abilities of CO2 and SCIENCE.

The sooner these individuals (and lobby sets of) find less interest directed to them, the sooner we can all get back to practical AND realistic remediations of REAL and existent problems. If such IS the desired conversation, then there is no need for more 'groups', it can be discussed 'here'.

Which probably brings us all to a mention of another area of my interests, to wit:-

=====================================
'Individual Psychological Development'
-a Population based study of the 'greenhouse syndrome'.
=====================================

A warmer or colder climate is neither unnatural nor threatening; it is simply that a few would seem to have a need to fulfill, and to find problems to platform seems to fulfill a psychological need within them.

Some link this to the alienation of the individual in the technological 'society' that is growing. The need to feed the 'id' is become the management of 'issue identification', even when the problem is not actual.

Such is the generator of the 'greenhouse clamor'. Even when the 'opinion' flies in the face of all reason and SCIENCE, the 'few' that see themselves as 'needed organisers' just demand that 'we' all realise the 'importance' of their 'problem issue'.

This individual psychological development in modern society is also seen within overly litigious attitude, where the need to BLAME is become over developed so as to assuage feelings of personal fault or under performance.

The need to be better constantly is driven into children too often in modern society, and such is how adult manifestation of these developed physiologies is behaviorally expressed.
========

It is simple; there is not a real need to believe that there is any unnatural alteration to natural Climate Processes. Such natural processes are constantly and persistently producing an altering climate. That there is NOW some alterations are simply that NOW is when they are occurring, nothing else can be otherwise validly shown.

That Humanity is rematerialing vast amounts of surface and altering kinetic energy induction IS however observable and this IS leading to alterations in regional weather patterning and behavior. This can be remediated by alterations to HOW Humanity builds, with what MATERIALS Humanity builds and WHERE Humanity builds.
See linked article with slides at:-
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/113579/index.php#comments (*)

=====================================
It seems that for some REALITY is simply not sufficient a problem already however, and all these few produce is a shortening 'yellow brick road' leading to wide spread use of Uranium...
=====================================

Replicating an outcome, using the same flawed belief system (that the 'greenhouse platform' attempts to label 'models') by use of the same 'data' (of equally questionable validity) is not in SCIENCE a 'valuable ability'.

If the IPCC was closed tomorrow, it would not be missed....

Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At May 30, 2006 10:52 PM, Anonymous said…

Hi Coby. Many thanks for doing the spadework on this; you're doing an important thing. Keep up the good work.

I can't help thinking, though, that for a lot of global warming deniers, it's not about looking at the science objectively, it's about an emotional *need* not to believe in global warming, and I hope you don't harbor any illusions about that. The Republicans in charge (in the U.S.) have proven over and over they'll lie, cheat, and steal without conscience--Peter's claim "piddly $90,000 grant to the Cato Institute does not have the power to change the public's views on this issue" is evidence of that.

Hey, Peter, is that the *only* money Exxon's donated? No? You wanna come back with a figure as to how much Exxon and the other oil companies have *really* spent muddying the waters on gloabl warming? Didn't think so. Troll.

Jesus, Peter, Exxon's a *business.* It knows what it's doing. If it didn't have a pretty good idea it was going to get a return for its investment, it WOULDN'T SPEND THE MONEY! To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

Those bad, bad environmentalist liberals are promoting global warming--so they must be wrong! Look--Democrats & Al Gore say global warming is occuring! They must be wrong!

I just tend to tune these people out. While I respect you for engaging Peter, I think he's more troll than not; neither he nor Cheney or Bush is likely to accept reality any time soon. You have far more patience than I do.
At May 31, 2006 7:44 AM, coby said…

Thanks. I tried to engage Peter long ago but don't bother anymore, there is no point and I don't think his arguments are likely to confuse anyone.
At June 01, 2006 1:44 AM, Peter K. Anderson said…

The 'game' has never been tween 'oil and 'environment'; it has ALWAYS been tween 'Oil' and Uranium. It is very real, all the material outlined in relation to WHAT the ‘Kyoto Signatories’ are doing all again in public reporting within newspapers. It is very easy to see where the major ‘Kyoto Signatories’ are taking the “Kyoto Treaty" within the politicking attached.

The major signatories to Kyoto are all lining up to form a Uranium fuel production and supply cartel. There are already relatively cheap and rapidly deployable Uranium fuelled Utility designs available, 200 Mw for $300 Million most likely with maintenance and refueling contracts for 'unit lifetime' as part of the deals.

Then there is the Uranium issue in the USA, quietly behind the 'greenhouse platform' for years (as I have been warning of) with now all sides of American politics looking for lobby monies in a more obvious manner.

Then there is the sudden involvement of the World Bank. Realise that most of Eastern Europe still has aging, if not decrepit, brown coal based infrastructure. It is not only about 'developing Asia' that is the target for renewal of utilities.

As to 'global greenhouse warming effects', there is SCIENCE that needs your consideration 'anonymous'. This SCIENCE begins with noticing that it is kinetic energy (KE) that is not involved directly within the processes of Turbulence that can be measured as a Temperature of the mass being affected by turbulence, be it within the Ocean and/or the Atmosphere. The Land surface median rise in temperature is only that residual, retained within the surface after the processes of Conduction and Convection have transported that induced KE away from that surface. It is that the actual real rise in inducted Land surface KE, as is the total KE 'systemic additions' actually made over the past 400 years, are much higher than is noted by simple measure of temperature (in the cumulative manner these additions are really produced).

To consider the claims of 'greenhouse warming' from one arena of SCIENCE then, if you also look at the atmospheric absorbance of energy (see link below), you will see how relevant the behavior of atmospheric water actually is in shaping the scavenging of IrR (especially Microwave Spectrum) energy BEFORE surface incidence is achieved. Realise that H2O has a very low remittance behavior, retaining absorbed energy as a gain in intrinsic KE manifested as increase in kinetic velocity of the molecular unit.

The very existence of Humanity in its current bio-form indicates that 'Infrared energy' has NOT been surface incident with any great intensity, and for at least 5 Million years (to allow for 'Human progenitor species'). Realise that most surface life is made of over 90% saline WATER. The (microwave) energy within the Infrared Region (IrR) will not produce 'sun burn' (a mild radiation burn from UV-A and UV-B) but would induct too much intrinsic KE (measured as temperature) in outer cellular structures, stopping internal cellular processes, killing those cells, and preventing even the formation of 'life' not only 'as we know it', but as 'we are'. The remainder of 'life' indicates that due to evidenced bio-forms there could not have been any intensity within supposed 'greenhouse radiation' that could have produced an induction of KE within the surface to produce the needed temperature, and still allowed for the production of 'life' as 'we are' and 'as we know it'.

The issue is NOT about 'monies' anonymous, but ENERGY. There is NOT possible a situation where the TOTAL KE inductance needed to produce not only the base temperature but any MODULATION of measured temperature could ever be produced by a 'greenhouse effect'. The RADIATION would never have permitted life as 'we are' and 'as it is known' to have evolved with the bio-form it presents with NOW.

So the surface is simply becoming hotter as the surface materials are altered by Humanity, these new materials producing the rising median surface temperature whilst more KE is available to processes of Turbulence and with the 15 year lag seen there is a muted but similar trend in Ocean median surface temperatures in a near match for the original Land surface rise. All whilst there is no sign of any possible 'greenhouse effect' in any real manner for the entire time that present life was bio-forming.

Perhaps it is your political viewpoint that is the problem 'anonymous', there is only SCIENCE to consider, and SCIENCE shows very clearly there is NO 'greenhouse warming effect' or then any attached 'climate alteration' present.

I have placed outlines with slides at http://hartlod.blogspot.com/ ...(*)
But it is only a new project so there are only two outlines there at present.

PS: It is observed that all these attempts at vilification are instead of any engaging discussions. Coby, you have never attempted to 'engage me' in discussion at any time.

Your's
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
At June 16, 2006 11:12 AM, aaaaaaron said…

Thanks. This is absolutely awesome.
At June 16, 2006 11:59 AM, coby said…

Thanks Aaron! If you have any suggestions for making it more useful please let me know!
At June 20, 2006 12:16 PM, )@~3773 said…

Very, VERY, VERY interesting...

I'm more than a layperson, I'm a dispassionate, tired (read lazy) American. I rarely read/research the issues and end up not knowing what I am voting on or have a worthwhile opinion when debates actually do find me in their presence.

What I depend on, then, are the people around me who have taken it upon themselves to forage on in the pursuit of knowledge.

In case you haven't seen it, please visit Mighty Rex's blog on this topic. (Thank god I'm friends with him, otherwise, I'd just continue my blissfully ignorant existence as an American).

Global Warming Pt. 1
Global Warming Pt. 2

Thanks!
Janelle M. Lannan
At June 21, 2006 11:49 PM, Anonymous said…

Coby!

Did you respond to that Matt guy who posted the link to Michael Chriton's speach?

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html

(top one)

Read it and get back to me on your thoughts.

Thanks,
Joel
At June 22, 2006 10:57 AM, coby said…

Hi Joel,

Yea, I've seen that stuff before. Upcoming developments here will attempt to provide a one-stop debunking of that kind of stuff, but not for a month or so.

Real Climate has done a few posts on his misconceptions, such as this one about one of those speeches.
At June 23, 2006 5:53 PM, Anonymous said…

Here an argument I have always wanted to make and I would like to see if there is anything wrong with it.

Fact: The amount of carbon dioxide released by natural sources is far greater than that released by humans

Fact: The carbon dioxide released by naturals sources is almost exactly matched by carbon dioxide released by natural sinks

Fact: For the most part the sinks and sources are not directly "linked"

Therefore there must be negative feedback on carbon dioxide in order for sinks and sources to be matched. Otherwise what accounts for the precise matching. How does nature exactly synchronize emission and absorbtion of CO2 such that there is almost no excess?

Therefore can't we just rely on the negative feedback to save us which I have basically proved must exist.

BTW - what is the feedback? Oceans or plants or some mix of both. I think plants since we had a lot more carbon in the atmosphere before there was life.
At June 23, 2006 6:29 PM, Anonymous said…

I would like to gain a better understanding of water vapour and positive feedback.

Suppose there is a positive feedback between water vapour and temperature increases. Then isn't there a possibility that the climate is fundamentally unstable. For instance if a 1 degree increase in T leads to lets say a further 3 degree increase through positive feedback with water vapour then shouldn't this 3 degree increase lead to a further 9 degree increase and then a 27 degree increase etc. I am assuming of course that positive feedback is linear and leads to a larger increase in temperature then the original forcing.

Now the argument against this is the effects of water are temporary because water vapour is quickly absorbed but carbon dioxide isn't. I don't really understand this argument so let me try to turn it into something I do understand and maybe somebody can tell me if I am right.

Basically forcings take a long time to effect temp. So increase in water vapour will cause an increase in temp but 20 years later. This is because of thermal lag due to the ocean's acting as a storage device for energy. However water vapour's residence time in the atmosphere is only about a week (wikipedia) so temporary increases in water vapour tend to equilibriate before they can increase temperature and cause a further increase in water vapour. I understand this argument.

However if there was and increase in temp and this increase lasted a while - lets say 20 years. Then this would lead to an increase in water vapour. This vapour wouldn't reequilibriate back to the old level because the temp remains at the higher level due to some forcing (e.g. CO2). Eventually this water vapour will cause temp to increase. This temp increase will eventually cause more water vapour to be released and so you have a runaway effect (assuming of course that the water vapour can cause a larger increase in temp then the original forcing). So you have a runaway system. All you need if for the temp increase to last for enough time for the water vapour to have time to effect the climate. Then you will have a positive feedback. This seems to indicate that climate system is unstable.
At June 23, 2006 7:56 PM, Lab Lemming said…

1. Your search doesn't work effectively.

2. Can you make it easier to find the critiques and refutations of the calculations thrown up by people such as junkscience.com?
At June 23, 2006 8:09 PM, Lab Lemming said…

3. If http://www.exxonsecrets.org/ is serious about getting their message out, maybe they should consider not requiring flash for their site.
At June 23, 2006 8:24 PM, coby said…

I agree flash heavy sites are a bit of a pain. BUT they do offer an html only link right on that front page.
At June 23, 2006 8:30 PM, coby said…

1. Your search doesn't work effectively.

That search box in the side bar kind of stowed away with the Technorati stuff, I will see if I can remove that. Did you try the Blogger search box at the top of the page?

2. Can you make it easier to find the critiques and refutations of the calculations thrown up by people such as junkscience.com?

I am planning a cross referencing facility, proposed
here, do you think this would help you? If not please make a few suggestions, this is a priority task and I want to do it well.
At June 23, 2006 9:59 PM, coby said…

I would like to gain a better understanding of water vapour and positive feedback.

I think you have it basically right, but at the beginning of your post you came up with and discarded the reason it is not a runaway effect:

I am assuming of course that positive feedback is linear

Wrong assumption! The effect of a unit of water vapor is logarithmic and diminishes as total concentration increases. This is due to saturation of absorbtion bands, eventually all IR is being absorbed (in the frequency bands where H2O is radiatively active) so it doesn't matter how much more is put into the system. This is the same with CO2, the first 280ppm added by us are a doubling, the second 280 ppm will have a bit more than half again the same forcing.

There is a further limiting factor in the case of H2O and that is cloud formation. Eventually a thick enough layer of cloud would build up and increase the earth's albedo leading to a cessation of warming and perhaps a reversal to cooling again.
At June 23, 2006 10:08 PM, coby said…

Therefore there must be negative feedback on carbon dioxide in order for sinks and sources to be matched.

I think to a point and on some timescales there is. More CO2 in the air means more CO2 going into the oceans for example. We are seeing alot of this already as only about half of the CO2 we are emitting is showing up in the rising atmospheric concentration. Most of the rest is showing up in the oceans but IIRC there is actually a missing sink, somewhere we don't know about that is sequestering some of this etra carbon.

However, once temperature starts rising, there are other positive feedback effects. This was clearly seen in the glacial cycles. It remains a bit speculative just what they are, but there are a number of plausible mechanisms: outgassing from warming ocean waters, carbon released from warming soils, methane from thawing permafrost, methane from clathrates in ocean sediment.
At July 02, 2006 1:04 AM, Anonymous said…

Sorry to rain on the parade of your little end-of-the-world religious cult, but: Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe. Perhaps you can join in with the creation "scientists" for a giant pity party.
At July 02, 2006 8:22 AM, coby said…

Kind of ironic for you to mention creationist scientists, because that is actually where you are apparently casting your lot. Roy Spencer, Fred Singer, the Idso's...there are many creationists among the denialist crowd. On the other hand, you can see a list of the "cultists" here.

That article you mention is a load of crap, which you would know if you had any critical thinking capabilities. This might help you.
At July 12, 2006 6:46 AM, Anonymous said…

Many sceptics point to the temperature increases and subsequent decreases from the 1920s through the 1970s.

Is it merely a coincidence that those temperature changes happened to coincide with the begins of using CFCs (chloroflourocarbines), the eventual concerns over things like ozone, and the gradual switch to alternatives for CFCs?
At July 13, 2006 11:15 PM, coby said…

What temperature drop from the 1920's to the 1970's?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B_lrg.gif

I see a drop from 1945 to 1970 in the northern hemisphere only. It was enough to dominate the global trend, but did not start in 1920.