What Should Believers in Manmade Global Warming be Called?

Read comments

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

NBers

February 18, 2008 - 21:19 ET by Noel Sheppard

NBers,

As of this posting, over 4,500 people have responded to our “What Should People That Don't Believe in Manmade Global Warming be Called?” poll, and “Climate Realists” has won with an alarming 79 percent of the vote (pun intended!).

We at NewsBusters thank you.

However, your work isn’t done, for now we need to decide what to call folks that believe man is indeed responsible for warming the planet. With this in mind, all those that gave suggestions in today’s Open Thread are humbly thanked. Your assistance is greatly appreciated, as several of your suggestions made the options list.

Before we get there, some folks from my e-mail chat groups need to be recognized for their contributions to both polls:

England’s Richard Courtney stated:

Please feel free to say that I prefer the description "climate alarmist" for a person who shares the views of e.g. Al Gore.

In my opinion, the descriptions "climate realist" and "climate alarmist" are the most accurate of the non-emotive terms for those in the two groups.

Anthony Watts, who we are all indebted to for his fabulous work exposing the absolutely abysmal weather stations around the country, added a choice that hit the options list:

Warminators. (because the application of their ideas terminates our standard of living).

Delicious!

Marc Morano, of EPW fame, interjected:

I like climate realist, but I also like dissenters from so-called consensus.

Skeptic is still not a bad word and will be included into mix.

For the other side, I often use "promoters of fear" or "promoters of a climate crisis."

Alister McFarquhar humorously added:

I really think labels are counterproductive. Bound to be parodied by the enemy.

"Realists" begs the question…with my science hat on I am an Agnostic, with my statistician hat I dont [sic] see reliable evidence that climate has changed in any meaningful sense of the word.

The climate debate seems driven by religion and mammon…so whats [sic] Science got to do with it? [pace Tina Turner]

Bryan Leyland from New Zealand also quipped:

From my friend Dr Jim Sprott:

Climate gullibles.

Conveniently abbreviates to "C-gulls".

Exquisite!!!

Alfred Pekarek marvelously asked (and added an option for us!):

How about warmophobe? And warmophobia? Or is that too politically correct?

Hardly! Arthur Rorsch also offered a suggestion that had to be included as a poll option:

Over the last months I have used in our country [the Netherlands], in correspondence and articles, to identify the believers as IPCC- adherents, or shorter as ‘warmers’. And the opponents as IPCC critics, not as ‘sceptics’.

Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen offered a variant that deserves consideration as a “skeptic” alternative: "I like the neutral IPCC/consensus critics."

I do too, Sonja.

Finally, out of the Open Thread, the best suggestion I saw – and one that deserves very serious consideration – is “Greengos” from NBer zf. I like this one on a lot of levels.

Thanks to all for your suggestions, and happy voting.

Noel: thus far, none of the above

February 18, 2008 - 22:15 ET by lotr

None of the above.  All these terms are all pejorative.

American Geophysical Union Position on Climate Change

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080125154628.htm

Excerpt:

"Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956--2006."

Actually they got a bit of

February 18, 2008 - 22:58 ET by Apache

Actually they got a bit of 'heat' for that statement as it was not formed as a result of polling it's members but just a statement from their board.

A statement such as this is

February 19, 2008 - 11:02 ET by lotr

A statement such as this is based upon the vast number of research papers published in AGU publications: Eos Transactions AGU, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres and Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans; it can't be formed by polling thousands of members.

An oreskes style search?

February 19, 2008 - 17:13 ET by Apache

An oreskes style search? Haha

This is pure nonsense. 

February 19, 2008 - 17:24 ET by NL207

This is pure nonsense.  Professional societies routinely poll their memberships.  In most of them, usually once a year, there is a general election to select officers, dircetors, etc.  Many times there are specific propositions.  An endorsement of this moment is something that would be a likely candidate for a poll of the membership.

Obviously you don't belong to one of these associations.  No surprise there.

Really?  For what it's

February 19, 2008 - 17:47 ET by lotr

Really?  For what it's worth, I have been a Member of AGU and AMS for the past 8 years, and I read their publications (Eos, BAMS).  I am also a regular voter in both the AGU and AMS annual elections, and I carefully base my votes on the candidate bios.  I am ususally quite impressed with the credentials of the candidates.

Look, if you want to dismiss the position statements of these professional societies, there's nothing I can do to stop you.  I'm just bringing your attention to them FYI.

If you really ARE a member

February 19, 2008 - 18:56 ET by NL207

If you really ARE a member of these bodies, then you must also have a fair picture of what the rank-and-file membership actually thinks about the proposition that AGW is a critical problem worthy of the crippling government intervention.  My guess is it does not concur with what this 9 man policy committe at AGU thinks. 

AMS is similar. Their policy committe also has about 8 or 9 permanent members, only two of whom are actually Phd meteorologists.  Look at their website.  It has a bio on all these people.    I have met at different times about two dozen regular members of the AMS.  If YOU really are a member of the AMS and you also agree with the position statement of the AMS policy committe as well as the AGU's, then you are the ONLY rank-and-file AMS member with whom I have ever discussed the topic that does support the AGW-is-crisis thesis.

Now, since YOU are a member in good standing of these societies, it should not be difficult for you to explain what the Beer-Lambert Law is and why it is germaine to this discussion. 

Beer's Law

February 20, 2008 - 15:15 ET by lotr

That's funny -- I can't think of one person whom I associate with (and respect), both in my office or any of our collaborators, or anyone else I have come into contact with at professional meetings, who does not acknowledge the anthropogenic CO2 forcing to the earth radiation balance. This is not to say that there are no skeptics out there (I am aware of precisely 2 whom I know and respect, both retired faculty), just that they are a distinct minority.

Beer's Law describes the attenuation of radiation, dI_v, through a medium.  The differential form of the equation is as follows:

dI_v / ds = - a_v(s) * I_v(0),   (1)

where v (nu) is wavenumber (1/cm), ds is the path length, a_v is the volume extinction coefficient (comprised of a scattering term and an absorption term), and I_v(0) is the incident radiant intensity in units of mW/m2/sr/cm-1.  This equation may be solved for the radiance at an arbitrary point s':

I_v(s') = I_v(0) * exp(-tau_v),   (2)

where tau_v is the optical depth (the integral of a_v(s) over the path).

Your point?  Let me venture to guess, though.  The clear-sky atmosphere is virtually transparent (small optical depth) to the solar spectrum, but not for the infrared spectrum where the peak Earth emission occurs.  From Eq. (2), what that means is that in the case of the solar spectrum, the radiance reaching the surface, I_v(s'),  is close to I_v(0) (the incident radiance at the top-of-atmosphere).  In the case of the IR Earth-emitted spectrum, however, there is a prominent CO2 absorption band in the longwave portion (around 600-700 cm-1), where the optical depth is large (approaching infinity).  In this spectral band, the radiance leaving the surface reaching the top-of-atmosphere is practically zero.  Of course, the intervening atmosphere also emits its own radiance to space, but it is at a cooler temperature, which, from the Planck law, contains less energy -- the remaining energy is retained, eventually realized as thermal kinetic energy.  This is the essence of what is coined the "greenhouse effect" (actually a poor terminology -- "atmosphere effect" would be more acurate, but so it is with convention).  The larger the quantity of the absorbing gas (CO2), the more net absorption of upwelling infrared radiation.  Intuitively, we would expect a global warming in surface temperatures.

I really do not wish to be drawn further into this somewhat hostile discussion -- I am not a climate specialist, but my intent has been to provide access to what professional scientists (the specialists, so to speak) are saying.  You are free to take it or leave it -- just know that evidence continues to mount in our circles.

So are you claiming only

February 20, 2008 - 15:52 ET by dscott

So are you claiming only CO2 is absorbing energy in the IR band?  What about water vapor? What about Nitrogen and Oxygen?  How many more times is water vapor in the air than CO2 by volume or weight?  Surely even you recognize that attributing all change/effect to one component in a multi-component system is a logical fallacy? Claiming a change in the smallest component of the atmosphere is causing the whole system to change defies logic and ignores feedbacks and other variables.  The butterfly effect is a logical fallacy as it is based on circular reasoning. 

The whole claim of CO2 based climate change is based on an elaborate structure of circular reasoning and it starts by assuming the claim "all things being equal".  All things are not equal as history teaches us.  The fact that the Little Ice Age ended around 150 years ago demonstrates all things are not equal, never mind static.  Everything is constantly changing, from the output of the sun (TSI, solar wind, cosmic rays, etc.), the tilt of the earth, the shape of earth's orbital path, the precessional movement of the earth, vulcanism gas & particle output, etc. Until science can definitively explain the cause of the Ice Ages, Roman Warming, Medieval Warming, Little Ice Age, etc. no one has any business trying to claim AGW for this current period.  AGW doesn't just fly in the face of logic, it makes a mockery out of science itself. 

One should never confuse the difference between an assertion, hypothesis and theory.  Elevating an assertion based on circular reasoning to the level of theory destroys the very foundation of science because to do so requires denying the sum total of all the facts.  Science is not some courtroom where a judge dismisses various facts on the basis of some perceived relevance. Once done, it destroys the credibility of logical thought and reason.  We might as well go back to using beads and rattles or tea leaves if assertions are treated as fact.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

Lord Vader

February 20, 2008 - 16:38 ET by lotr

First off, no, I have not claimed CO2 is the only absorbing gas, but it is the one most germane to the discussion of AGW.  It is correct to say that H2O is the primary absorbing gas -- thing is, though, H2O readily precipitates out of the atmosphere on meso-timescales, whereas CO2 does not -- CO2 has a centuries-long residence time.  A miniscule amount of time on a geologic time scale, to be sure, but many generations on the human time scale.

Secondly, everything you have just said in the second paragraph is correct enough (although I would disagree that the Ice Ages haven't been explained).  That's why we devise physical models.  Mind you, a physical model not about the computer -- only the human intellect comes up with models -- computers are introduced to solve numerically equations that usually are not amenable to analytical solution.  In the case of climate models, all the factors you have mentioned, to varying degrees, are taken into account.  That's not to say it's perfect -- they aren't -- but I cannot emphasize enough that they represent the very best anyone can say about the subject.  We can use little thought experiments like above as a sanity check, but ultimately everthing we say here is nothing more than handwaving in comparison.  One can have a mistrust of the individuals who work on this stuff -- that they have some sort of agenda, but again, science is the toughest place to get away with this sort of thing.  For one thing, there are numerous modelers out there -- I don't think they are all out with an agenda, and even if they do have one, their results are always and forever subject to scrutiny.

Regarding assertion, hypothesis and theory, again, I completely agree.  My personal (and professional) opinion is that AGW is certainly a hypothesis, but it is coming very close to theory as we continue to gather data.

Respectfully, lotr

Thank you for raising the

February 20, 2008 - 17:59 ET by dscott

Thank you for raising the subject of models versus analytical solutions.  All models use the assumption of "all things being equal" in omitting variables such as clouds and albedo.  The willingness of a computer technition to excuse omitting variables because they are too complex speaks to the incredible complexity of climate itself and thus lowers not inceases the confidence factor of the results.

You have heard of garbage in equals garbage out?  I have a favorite saying similar to this based on the concept of "false proof" in Geometry.  "Start with a false assumption, apply flawless logic and come up with a flawlessly false conclusion."

When it comes to computer models one doesn't need a conspiracy theory to question their results when all the data is not entered.  The bottom line is unless the model can run "all" the variables of a particular system, any omission of a variable is misleading at best and subject to circular reasoning at worst.  If you will remember Chaos Theory, this is where the true butterfly effect occurs, where was it discovered? IN COMPUTER MODELS by omitting some decimal places: http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html  The butterfly effect is a metaphysical description using a butterfly flapping it's wings to make a minute change which in turn causes something else to change in computers, it doesn't work that way in nature with individuals but it does with systems and variables. 

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

Last point

February 20, 2008 - 22:25 ET by dscott

Last point lotr, http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1  Scientists are beginning to call for the disbanding of the IPCC due to systematic analytical and ethical failures.  As a professional yourself who depends upon the judgement of others and must give the benefit of the doubt, i.e. not being mistrustful, what Dr. Gray reports of his first hand experience in being a reviewer involved at the IPCC should give you pause for concern as to the information that is being disseminated by the IPCC.  All Science depends upon accurate, ethical handling and gathering of the data.  I suggest you read what he found, what he says here is damning.   Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

dscott

February 21, 2008 - 12:56 ET by lotr

I've taken a quick link at Dr. Gray's letter.  While he may raise valid points about IPCC procedures based on first-hand knowledge, I simply disagree with his dismissal that there is even a measured warming trend -- he would fall into an extreme minority on that one -- virtually everyone recognizes there has, in fact, been a warming over the past century.  Following his line of reasoning, we cannot make any statements whatsoever about climate, nor Earth history for that matter.  If he has problems with taking the average of two daily thermometer measurements, then he would have even more problems with so-called "proxy" measurements, the ones that allow us to reconstruct climate from the prehistoric past.  I think it is a copout to insinuate that "because we don't have global, onboard-calibrated, validated, hourly satellite measurements of the earth's atmosphere prior to the 1970s, we cannot say anything about the climate."

I believe I've read somewhere on this blog that you, dscott, are an engineer, so I would presume that you are a "real-world problem solver."  We simply don't have the data-perfection that Dr. Gray requires (and even if we had a satellite dataset as I described above, there could still be ill-founded skepticism, since there are old-fashioned types who altogether reject satellite data as being valid: "How can you measure the earth's temperature from space?!") -- maybe in a classroom we can impose such demands, but not in the real world.  So, we do the best with what we have; these data (proxy and weather station thermometers), while they are flawed, do provide valuable information about the earth's climate (mean atmospheric state).

Yes, as an enginer my

February 21, 2008 - 17:07 ET by dscott

Yes, as an enginer my career is mainly solving problems.  But the problems that should be solved should be real or significant ones, not those measured by tenths of a degree.  When I went to school eons ago when the calculator was just beginning to supplant the slide rule, we were shown how to use a slide rule.  One of the most innocuous of lessons we learned in math class was "significant digits" in reference to the accuracy of any result of calculation.  I find it amazing that such a lesson is lost in today's world.  The concept of significant digits was lost when calculators came into vogue. When you start multiplying numbers together, the accuracy of any result is determined by the least accurate number (fewest digit places).  E.G. when you multiply 10.1 x 2.46 x 5.736 you get 142.51665 by the calculator, however that result while technically accurate as to the mechanical computation is not any more accurate than 142.5  As you can see with Chaos Theory in computer models, omitting digit places can radically change the results of the model. 

This is even more so where error bars are concerned, when the results of any calculation fall into the range of the error bars, the results are an esoteric exercise of math.  Such a result is merely a curiousity not a firm number to base policy upon. This doesn't give me any confidence in the results nor should anyone base policy on such a modeled result. All computer model results are basically esoteric points of interest that must be validated against the real world.  All of the IPCC models don't even predict past climate without adding fudge factors (adjustments), so why should anyone accept such results for the future? A fudge factor or adjustments is just another way to say, "all things being equal", as stated before, that in itself is a logical fallacy.  In fact, computer modeling as used by the IPCC is just another logical fallacy, extrapolation is not prediction any more than correlation is causation.

I have a saying borrowed from a very wise man, Engineers are concerned with not swallowing camels while scientists busily strain gnats. 

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

dscott

February 21, 2008 - 18:03 ET by lotr

I know we are beating a dead horse at this point, but I just want to say that I have a great deal of respect for engineers, especially those who grew up using slide rules as opposed to calculators.

You are absolutely correct about significant digits.  Although I've never used a slide rule, I was fortunate to go to a public school that was, believe it or, very conservative and therefore very rigorous (by today's standards).  Calculators were absolutely forbidden, and they were useless anyway in our high school math classes.  Computers are a powerful tool, nothing more.  The science lies in our models (again, "model" here means a set of state equations, rooted in theory).

Anyhow, there was one other thing I wanted to mention in response to concerns you raise about "chaos."  Unfortunately, I can only go by what I learned in graduate paleoclimate, but I recall the professor telling us that numerical climate models are fundamentally different from numerical weather prediction models in that the latter are "initial value problems" whereas the former are not.  This means that while weather predictibilty is limited by chaos, this is not necessarily the case with climate.  It may seem counter-intuitive, but my understanding was that climate models "spin-up" to an equilibrium state in a way that is not "chaotically" sensitive to initial conditions.  Of course, I could be totally wrong about this -- I'll admit I am stepping a bit out of my league here (relaying my recollections of a graduate class that I took over 10 years ago), for what it's worth....

This is the essence of what

February 20, 2008 - 16:06 ET by dscott

This is the essence of what is coined the "greenhouse effect" (actually a poor terminology -- "atmosphere effect" would be more acurate, but so it is with convention).

I'm glad you acknowledge this poor terminology since the greenhouse effect works both ways not unidirectionally.  Just as a greenhouse "traps" heat due to a lack of convection, thus causing the temperature of the enclosure to rise above the ambient in the daytime, the reverse happens at night when the heat in the greenhouse radiates out of the enclosure causing the temperture to DROP BELOW the AMBIENT at NIGHT (Black Body radiation).  Thus the other intuitive expectation is the diurnal temperature difference must increase. Has it?  NOT!  The properties of CO2 or any other gas don't change by the hour or time of day, again it's circular reasoning to pick and choose the properties of any substance in order to prove an assertion.  The validation of a hypothesis is based on all the facts, not the exclusion of some of them.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

You expect to sally in here

February 25, 2008 - 14:56 ET by NL207

You expect to sally in here and dump your pseudo-scientific, liberal pablum on this board under the guise of 'providing ...what professional scientists are saying' without getting into a debate? If you quoted the Climate Realists one-for-one with your quotes of the politically corrupt IPCC, Dr. Michael Mann, Jim Hansen, the political policy committees of AGU and AMS, etc. you might avoid a debate. But I haven't seen you quote anything from the Realist side. You, sir, are by your actions a partisan, a Climate Alarmist partisan. Expect to be received as a partisan.

Faculty? Most of the AMS members I know are Meteorologists. Almost all of them agree that metrology shows a warming over the last century and a half and all to the last man reject the notion that man is the primary term in the warming function. Maybe you should expand your circle of aquaintances to include people who actually do meteorology instead of just talk about meteorology?

Now, to the Beer-Lambert Law. I think what you wish to avoid is one of the salient fallacies of the CO2-as-catastrophe Global Warming thesis, nor do you see my point at all.

Let's look at your equation (2). It may be re-written in terms of absorbance as

                                 A = a(lambda) * b * c

In fact, this is the more common representation of the law where a is the molar absorpation of the absorbant species as a function of wavelength, b is the thickness of the cuvette and c is the molar concentration of the absorbant species in the medium.

Applying this to the atmosphere, is nontrivial because there is more than absorbant species, their a(lamba) functions overlap and these species are not all uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Consider the product b*c, if you will as it applies to the atmosphere, where c is a function of b. When you do, I think you will see that variations of CO2 where the concentrations in solution remain small, as they are in the atmosphere, will produce a diminishing absorption effect as CO2 increase in concentration where the absorption effect rapidly saturates and further increases produce little or no net effect.

I will continue on another thread, since this one is more or less dead.

Lotr. I got my

February 19, 2008 - 20:15 ET by danbo

Lotr. I got my undergraduate degree back in ancient times. Continental drift was not fully accepted yet. Though we occasionally heard the words plate tectonics. It hadn't yet morphed into what we call plate tectonics yet.

As a result I got a a bit of both and the older theories.

 I remember my old geology professor discussing the theory that the crust due to changes in the mantel and apparently deeper. Would flex down ward to cause the oceanic rift valleys. Then after they filled with  sediments. The pressure from under would shift. Pushing them upward  in the reverse. Causing oceanic rift valleys to bulge upward and become mountain ranges. Thus according to that old theory, oceanic rift valleys were the locations of future mountain ranges, and the locations of present mountain ranges where the location of past oceanic rifts. 

It's one of those discarded theories. But I can't remember the name of it. And I'm a also a history buff and would like to look it up. What was the name of that theory?

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

danbo

February 20, 2008 - 14:50 ET by lotr

I always found plate tectonics interesting.  I can't be sure if the process you describe is still valid, or what its name might be -- I could probably find the answer in one of my undergrad textbooks, but I really just don't have time.  I will say that on the surface the process would seem to make sense given the fact that the sediments, originating from the continental crust, are less dense.  As they get subsumed below the crust (from the collision of the two plates), they melt, but because of their low density, they then obtain a buoyant force to push them upward, possibly resulting in volcanism and the building of new land masses.  But this is a stab in the dark -- I am not a geologist, so don't quote me on it.

Seems they approved two

February 19, 2008 - 21:51 ET by Apache

Seems they approved two position statements at the same meeting. Guess which one the alarmists use and which one they ignore? This is the problem I have with alarmists. Every "fact" they use traces back to another fact they like to hide. It also seem the choice was made by about nine members for each position. So they have the same weight. Granted the weight for both is nothing.

 http://climatesci.org/2008/02/01/position-statement-of-the-agu-on-meeting-the-challenges-of-natural-hazards/

Except for all these Papers from their Journals of Course...

February 19, 2008 - 21:52 ET by PopularTech

It must be convenient for the 9 member panel to ignore all these papers...

Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, No. 10, 2003)
- Stefan Rahmstorf

Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis

The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

Effects of bias in solar radiative transfer codes on global climate model simulations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L20717, 2005)
- Albert Arking

Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
- Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L15707, 2007)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy, Justin Hnilo

Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, 2006)
- Petr Chylek, M. K. Dubey, G. Lesins

Recent cooling in coastal southern Greenland and relation with the North Atlantic Oscillation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2003)
- Edward Hanna, John Cappelen

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L03710, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

Evidence for a 'Medieval Warm Period' in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand
(Geophysical Research Letters. Vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 12-1 to 12-4. 15 July 2002)
- E. R. Cook, J. G. Palmer, R. D'Arrigo

A mechanism for sun-climate connection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, 2005)
- Sultan Hameed, Jae N. Lee

Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, D21114, 2006)
- Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk L. Yung

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110, A08105, 2005)
- Nir J. Shaviv

On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 1527–1530, 2001)
- Dominic R. Kniveton and Martin C. Todd

Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L05708, 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L17718, 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 22, No. 23, PAGES 3195–3198, 1995)
- Judith Lean, Juerg Beer, Raymond Bradley

Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, NO. D2, Pages 2835–2844, 1991)
- George C. Reid

Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L08203, 2007)
- H. B. Hammel, G. W. Lockwood

Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L14703, 2007)
- Charles D. Camp, Ka Kit Tung

Variations in Radiocarbon Concentration and Sunspot Activity
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 66, p.273, 01/1961)
- Stuiver, M.

Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L16712, 2005)
- Willie W.-H. Soon

Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 31, L13207, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels

Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures since 1979
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 28, NO. 1, PAGES 183–186, 2001)
- Christy, J.R., D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel, W.B. Norris

Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L03209, 2004)
- Willie W.-H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas

Natural signals in the MSU lower tropospheric temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, No. 18, pp. 2905–2908, 2000)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D06102, 2007)
- John R. Christy, William B. Norris, Roy W. Spencer, Justin J. Hnilo

What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L06211, 2004)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

lotr

February 18, 2008 - 23:37 ET by Noel Sheppard

lotr,

So, what do you suggest? ns

Noel

February 19, 2008 - 11:11 ET by lotr

Sorry for the delay in reply -- I posted that last post before retiring last night.

Not sure -- I, for one, am a "believer."  I wasn't a believer in the 1990s -- I was a skeptic then (although even then I knew there was an observed warming, but I was not convinced it was anthropogenic).  I wouldn't use any of those terms to describe myself.  Here's a stab, though: "AGW theorists."

lotr

February 19, 2008 - 12:23 ET by Noel Sheppard

lotr,

You can't use AGW, for a very small percentage of the population knows what it stands for.

Look, I understand your position. I'm probably not pleased with the choices either. Sadly, no one has come up with anything better. Keep trying. :-) ns

a better choice..

February 19, 2008 - 13:16 ET by wizardjr

how about "moron" ?

anyone who deliberately ignores solar cycles and orbital mechanics in favor of cow farts and mammals exhaling qualifies

lol!

February 19, 2008 - 13:22 ET by RJ

Nicely put.

Disregarding juvenile insults, FYI:

February 19, 2008 - 13:58 ET by lotr

Climate Warmer Than in Past 400 Years, Panel Confirms

Eos Trans. AGU, 87(27), 4 July 2006, p. 266. 

Except: 

The Earth’s climate in the late twentieth century was the warmest in at least the last 400 years and likely the warmest in the last millennium, a U.S. National Research Council (NRC) panel confirmed in a 22 June report.

“The committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the twentieth century than during any comparable time during the previous millennium,” said panel chair Gerald North, a geoscientist at Texas A&M University, College Station.

The U.S. Congress requested the report after controversy arose over a 1998 Nature article by Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann and colleagues that concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the Northern Hemisphere in the past 1000 years. The paper also presented the ‘hockey-stick’ curve that has since been widely used to illustrate rising temperatures.

Again, these are the published findings of scientists, which have nothing to do with liberal media bias.

Another 9 Member Conclusion that is WRONG

February 19, 2008 - 14:30 ET by PopularTech

20th Century Climate Not So Hot (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
Greenland's Ice Yields Further Clues About Climate Change (Science Daily)
Marshes Tell Story Of Medieval Drought, Little Ice Age, And European Settlers Near NYC (Science Daily)
Middle Ages Were Warmer Than Today, Say Scientists (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Tree Rings Show a Period of Widespread Warming in Medieval Age (The New York Times)
Tree rings show Earth was warm 800 years ago (USA Today)
Warmer Periods In Alaskan Area Not Confined To Modern Times (Science Daily)

A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability
(Annals of Glaciology, vol. 39, p.127-132, 2004)
- P.A Mayewski, K. Maasch, J.W.C White, E.J. Steig, E. Meyerson, I. Goodwin, V.I. Morgan, T. van Ommen, M.A.J. Curran, J. Sourney, K. Kreutz

Coherent High- and Low-Latitude Climate Variability During the Holocene Warm Period
(Science, Vol. 288. no. 5474, pp. 2198 - 2202, 23 June 2000)
- Peter deMenocal, Joseph Ortiz, Tom Guilderson, Michael Sarnthein

Evidence for a 'Medieval Warm Period' in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand
(Geophysical Research Letters. Vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 12-1 to 12-4. 15 July 2002)
- E. R. Cook, J. G. Palmer, R. D'Arrigo

Evidence for the existence of the medieval warm period in China
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, March, 1994)
- De'Er Zhang

Glacial geological evidence for the medieval warm period
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, March, 1994)
- Jean M. Grove, Roy Switsur

Late Holocene surface ocean conditions of the Norwegian Sea (Vøring Plateau)
(Paleooceanography, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1044, 2003)
- Carin Andersson, Bjørg Risebrobakken, Eystein Jansen, Svein Olaf Dahl

Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability
(Science, Vol. 295. no. 5563, pp. 2250 - 2253, 22 March 2002)
- Jan Esper, Edward R. Cook, Fritz H. Schweingruber

Medieval climate warming and aridity as indicated by multiproxy evidence from the Kola Peninsula, Russia
(Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Volume 209, Issues 1-4, Pages 113-125, 6 July 2004)
- K. V. Kremenetski, T. Boettger, G. M. MacDonald, T. Vaschalova, L. Sulerzhitsky, A. Hiller

Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay
(Global and Planetary Change, Volume 36, Issues 1-2, March 2003, Pages 17-29)
- T. M. Cronin, G. S. Dwyer, T. Kamiya, S. Schwede, D. A. Willard

Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal
(Energy and Environment, Vol. 14, Issues 2 & 3, April 11, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso, David R. Legates

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea
(Science, Vol. 274. no. 5292, pp. 1503 - 1508, 29 November 1996)
- Lloyd D. Keigwin

The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa
(South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126, 2000)
- P. D. Tyson, W. Karlén, K. Holmgren and G. A. Heiss

The 'Mediaeval Warm Period' drought recorded in Lake Huguangyan, tropical South China
(Holocene, Vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 511-516, 2002)
- Guoqiang Chu, Jiaqi Liu, Qing Sun, Houyuan Lu, Zhaoyan Gu, Wenyuan Wang, Tungsheng Liu

The Medieval Warm Period in the Daihai Area
(Journal of Lake Sciences, Vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 209-216, Sep 2002)
- Z. Jin, J. Shen, S. Wang, E. Zhang

Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the little ice age in southern South America
(Climatic Change, Volume 26, Numbers 2-3, March, 1994)
- Ricardo Villalba

Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?
(Science, Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1497 - 1499, 23 February 2001)
- Wallace S. Broecker

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

warmest in at least the

February 19, 2008 - 14:52 ET by dscott

warmest in at least the last 400 years and likely the warmest in the last millennium

Except in how they are presented it in glossing over the surface by distraction from critical thinking.  The statement examined by critical thinking says the temperatures were the same or warmer 400 to 1000 years ago.  By claiming a time line, the writer admits it was warmer before then even though the implicite intent was to say that todays temperatures are warmer than during the last "interval" of 400 to 1000 years.  No one disputes it is warmer now than during the Little Ice Age, Maunder and Dalton Solar Minimums.  A simple exercise in logic, that's why AGW falls flat when examined.  In order to accept AGW you must only accept the statement at face value without examining the underlying facts.  That lotr is how propaganda works. 

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

I for one will not say

February 19, 2008 - 18:14 ET by danbo

I for one will not say it's the warmest it's been in 400 years. I'm not sure about the 30's. If may be slightly warmer now, it may have been warmer then.

The surface records have been so adjusted and manipulated I can't say which was warmer. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

OK, this is a valid point

February 19, 2008 - 18:24 ET by lotr

OK, this is a valid point -- it was warmer during at least one period in the historical past.  However, I don't take it as propaganda -- I didn't dig this stuff up out of Newsweek.  Our best physical models predict a warming (in agreement with physical intuition), and, interestingly, we observe a warming, one that has accelerated over the past century.

Computer Models are Irrelevant

February 19, 2008 - 21:30 ET by PopularTech

What part of it does not matter what the models show do you not understand? If those models include 1 thing that does not relate to the real world 100% exactly then their results are meaningless. I already explained this to you. Computers cannot fill in the blanks for the climate physics you are missing or have gotten wrong. They can also be programmed to get any result you want. Only a fool or a computer illiterate would believe them as proof of anything.

What dishonest scientists such as yourself are doing by lying to those who do not understand computer models is beyond maddening.

What you stated is propaganda and not based on science.

Recently observing a warming of 0.6c over 100 years is not proof of anything other than what it is. Kind of hard for the warming to "accelerate" when it dropped after the 1940s.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

In case you missed it. Mann

February 19, 2008 - 16:07 ET by danbo

In case you missed it. Mann has been shot to hell. Just ask Steve McIntyre. There are other reconstructions of climate history, as. 

And for the last 17 years of satellite data.

Source

Since these experts disagree with Mann. Seems we don't have a consensus.

 Everyone else. I found Spencers "Disclosure" at the bottom sad but funny. It shows how science has stooped.

 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

danbo

February 20, 2008 - 16:56 ET by lotr

Interesting web site -- thanks.  I will say that it doesn't "shoot Mann to Hell" -- it claims that he "erroneously minimized the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)".  The Figure 2 is consistent with the RNC panel conclusion.

Michael Mann may not be

February 19, 2008 - 16:21 ET by NL207

Michael Mann may not be directly associated with the MSM, but he is most ceratinly imbued with liberal bias.

As has been pointed out before to NB poster, 'Giles Winterbourne', Mann's paper of 1998, which is what is being quoted by your expert, has been thoroughly debunked.   Aside from its staistal flaws which are sufficient to invalidate it by themselves, Mann grafted instrumentation data onto the end of his proxy reconstruction.  Even YOU should be able to recognize the fallacy this represents.

wrong reference

February 19, 2008 - 17:59 ET by lotr

If you take a look at the excerpt, you will note that this clip is not about the 1998 Mann paper, but rather about a 2006 U.S. National Resarch Council panel findings in response to his paper, published in the AGU journal Eos Trans. AGU. 

Again, I am just providing information found in professional journals FYI.

Irrelevant

February 19, 2008 - 21:32 ET by PopularTech

I posted an excess of citations proving your excerpt irrelevant.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Exactly the point.  Your

February 20, 2008 - 00:05 ET by NL207

Exactly the point.  Your quote is BASED ON THE MANN PAPER.  Its validity rests on the validity of MBH99, which has been debunked, proven invalid.  Therefore, conclusions based on MBH99 are by implication, also invalid.

Again, I am employing critical thinking.  You should try this sometime instead of swallowing the opinion of some committee of policy wonks who are prostituting the good name of a scientific society.

I will ask you yet again, What is the Beer-Lambert Law and what does it have to do with this debate.  You can't answer?  Then you are no scientist with any sort of credentials consistent with the AGU or AMS.  In case you have trouble understanding this, you've just been called out.

Ok NL, given I am just an

February 20, 2008 - 11:36 ET by dscott

Ok NL, given I am just an engineer, I did a search on it and came up with this: http://teaching.shu.ac.uk/hwb/chemistry/tutorials/molspec/beers1.htm

So, if all the light passes through a solution without any absorption, then absorbance is zero, and percent transmittance is 100%. If all the light is absorbed, then percent transmittance is zero, and absorption is infinite.

I assume you are referring to CO2? So could you "enlighten" us on the topic?   This radiation deal is a little out of my league.  I'm more familiar with radiation in terms thermodynamics of a heat transfer method like convection and conduction rather than optical qualities.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

Obviously you have not

February 20, 2008 - 14:36 ET by lotr

Obviously you have not employed critical thinking, else you would've caught on that NRC panel is not "based upon" the Mann paper -- it was formed to examine the findings of that paper, in light of the so-called "controversy," and it found, quite independently, that "the conclusions of the Mann study are 'essentially valid' for the last 400 years, but the evidence from further in the past is more 'murky'."  So, according to this 2006 study, highlighted in the Eos Trans. AGU (one of many I have "stumbled upon" during the past 8 years as I browse them) the Mann paper is not fully debunked -- in logic, this is called "begging the question."

Regarding Beer's Law -- see above.  I do have work to attend to outside of this blog, so you'll pardon that I threw it together during lunch.  While you are free on this blog to employ a patronizing tone, realize that it does nothing for intellectual discourse aside from creating hard feelings with those who actually care enough to have it with you.

Except that the 'debunking'

February 26, 2008 - 14:01 ET by Giles Winterbourne

Except that the 'debunking' of Mann, et al has been debunked.

Which is why their studies, along with several others are in IPCC4th corroborating the evidence.

 

Mann, et al was reviewed and found to be basically accurate. My bet is that you know that and have chosen to either ignore it or hope that the general reader will take you at face value.

 

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th
century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at
least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been
supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional
large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes
in a variety of local proxy indicators," http://books.nap.edu...

 

"Altogether new reconstructions over 1400-1980
are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which
demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the
proxy-based criticisms addressed." http://www.cgd.ucar....

 

Some points about using 'the hockey-stick' http://www.realclima...

NRC Confirms Heating, "Hockey Stick" Study

http://www.heatisonl...

"

It has been repeatedly attacked by Republican lawmakers and some
business-financed groups as built on cherry-picked data meant to create
an alarming view of recent warming and play down past natural warm
periods.

At a news conference at the headquarters of the National
Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said they
saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or
methods to get a desired result.

"I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation," said one member, Peter Bloomfield, a statistics professor at North Carolina State University. He added that his impression was the study was "an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure." http://www.nytimes.c...

"

 

 

 

 

Noel

February 19, 2008 - 14:05 ET by lotr

Thing is, it's an ill-posed survey question.  If it is aimed at a media label for "believers," then I suppose "global warming proponents" might be another option (I don't like "proponents" because it is a political term, but it does sound like a catchy media label).

I wonder how long the

February 19, 2008 - 01:33 ET by NL207

I wonder how long the AGU will continue to support this crap. 

The important points are these: 

1. The warming rate observed recently is neither unprecedented nor is it outside the range seen in the recent geologic past during comparative interglacial periods.

2. There is no proof that man has caused the majority of this warming.  Indeed, there have been numerous papers published, some in the AGU's own journal, demonstrating that at least half of the warming seen over the last century is solar in origin.

3. There is no proof whatsoever that such warming as has been seen recently, or enough more to equal the peak of the last three previous interglacial periods [that's right, it was warmer than the present at some point in all three of them] is in any way of net harm to this planet and the life upon it.

To prove the case of the AGW'ers means proving all three of these assertions false, and YOU sure as h*** can't do it.

 Notice that there is nothing in this position of the AGU that contradicts what I have just said.  The facts they have presented are consistent with this picture.  They simply have restricted their discussion to the last 150 years.

I'll agree with point 3, but

February 19, 2008 - 18:08 ET by lotr

I'll agree with point 3, but not point 2.  Most of the reputable sources I turn to, for the most part, agree that the warming is, at least partially, anthropogenic in origin.  Hence the position statements....

Then please provide the proof

February 19, 2008 - 21:36 ET by PopularTech

If you disagree then please provide the proof via the scientific method that man is causing climate change.

Position Statements from 9 member panels are not Scientific Proof BTW.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

AGU Position Statement Represents 9 Not All 50,000 Members

February 19, 2008 - 09:40 ET by PopularTech

How much longer are these lies going to go on? Why do they continue to lie about an imagined consensus that does not exist and keep using committee member decisions to lie about the position of an organization's membership? This deception is dishonest and needs to be exposed.

"...we often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But what you don't hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations buckled to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science." - James Inhofe, B.A. Economics

CO2 Science Challenges AGU’s Official Position on Global Warming (Canadian Free Press)

AGU Climate Consensus Statement: 9 Speak for 50,000? (The Politics and Environment Blog)

"The AGU Board issued a statement on climate change without putting it to a vote of the group's more than 50,000 members. Its sweeping claims, drafted by nine committee members, rely heavily on long term computer model projections, cherry-picking of data and a one-sided view of recent research. As with the recent statements by the AMS and the NAS, this is the product of a small circle of scientists who all share the same point of view, and who failed to put their statement to a vote of the AGU members on whose behalf they now claim to speak. As such it amounts to nothing more than a restatement of the opinion of a small group, rather than a consensus document."

Should Scientific Societies Issue Position Statements? (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics)

NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Pop Tech. I really liked

February 19, 2008 - 09:48 ET by danbo

Pop Tech. I really liked this photo. Thank you. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Right to the point

February 19, 2008 - 10:46 ET by PopularTech

Yeah, that says it all in nut shell.

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

AGU is a professional scientific society -- MSM it is not

February 19, 2008 - 11:30 ET by lotr

I suppose then that we should disregard position statements of other professional societies?  Here's a good one:

AHA Scientific Position: Cigarette Smoking and Cardiovascular Diseases

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4545

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/9/3243

There must be thousands of members of AHA -- I don't think they conducted a straw vote to arrive at this wording -- someone wrote it on behalf of the thousands of members.