There are a host of scientists that don't buy into the IPCC findings; let's argue about the science on these posts and editorials!

Why do you think the latter process will produce a more reliable result?

grist.org

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The authors make it clear, and some of the participating scientists in IPCC, that they were railroaded.   Some scientists who quit the IPCC still had their names in there as supporting it!  Other raised dissent and asked for other less concrete language, and they were squelched.  Still other "participants" are not real scientists, but pundits, editors, policymakers.

J. Bailo Participant Texeme.Construct()

When confronted with an editorial like the offending one, you have the choice of either arguing the scientific facts or arguing the process.  The problem with arguing facts is that most people tune out --- it's just too boring.  And the fact have been argued before.  We decided that an argument addressing process would be more effective. The simple fact that a massive conspiracy involving thousands of people is so much less likely than one guy with no knowledge being wrong needed to be pointed out.

jabailo-

FYI, the great global warming swindle is, of course, itself a swindle.  See here and here.

I am on record in a number of places complaining about the over-dramatization and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts. Thus the notion that the Gulf Stream would or could "shut off" or that with global warming Britain would go into a "new ice age" are either scientifically impossible or so unlikely as to threaten our credibility as a scientific discipline if we proclaim their reality [i.e. see this previous RC post].

I believe that climate change is real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component.

House Oversight and Government Reform (10 a.m.): Holds a hearing on "Allegations of Political Interference with the Work of Government Climate Change Scientists. (PART TWO)" Philip Cooney, former chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality; James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; George Deutsch, former public affairs officer for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, testify. 2154 Rayburn.

It's nice to have Rep. Waxman in charge of the oversight committee doing some real oversight.

Here is part 1 of the series.

This site also includes a good discussion of the CO2 lag issue.  (Note to Coby:  The linked article has a reference to "Milankovitch and other" orbital cycles.  The article linked through "other" actually refers to Milankovitch cycles as well.  Milankovitch cycles are the only three orbital cycles that affect insolation (and thus climate).  One of the other three (inclination) was at one time postulated to have an effect on climate by causing the path of the Earth to periodically pass through dust clouds, but that idea seems to have been abandoned.  Also, while that "other" article has some nice explanations, I think the kind of number he came up with for initiation of the next ice age under "business as usual" is a little controversial.)

Finally, you asked for a model that tracks the relationship between CO2 and the glaciations.  This one does an impressive job, although of course it's not perfect yet.  

Well, then there must be another "component" right?   And while we're twiddling our thumbs with silly programs like Carbon Exchanges, the real "component", The Sun, is baking us like potatoes.

J. Bailo Participant Texeme.Construct()

I mean, since CO2 went up exponentially, shouldn't the temperature of the Earth be something like 155F degrees right now?

J. Bailo Participant Texeme.Construct()

We have measurements of the output of the Sun for the last 30 years and it shows no increase other than the well-known 11-year cycle.

So it's not the Sun.  In fact, there is no reasonable hypothesis besides CO2 to explain the recent warming.

Way back when the Iraq war was but a glimmer in W's beady eye, experts in Middle Eastern culture attempted to explain to him that Iraq was not East Germany and civil war was a likely outcome.  They were dismissed - after all, what could someone who'd spent a lifetime studying these cultures possibly have to contribute that any random schmoe couldn't come up with?

This same contempt for and distrust for expertise underpins the "climate change is a hoax" mentality.

Engaging point-by-point is a waste of time.  One argument is dealt with, then someone else says, "I read on contrariannutjob.org that overproduction of coffee is actually the cause of global warming - why don't you people ever talk about THAT, hm?  It's a big coverup!"

Then some overly patient scientist wastes 15 minutes of his or her day painstakingly explaining particular elements of climate science to someone who, quite frankly, has little or no desire to understand the explanation.  

Until someone is convinced that an expert's opinion is (gasp!) more valuable than that of a self-appointed pundit no matter how high his self-esteem, and that the opinion of an overwhelming expert majority is a valid guide to action, engaging on the science is pointless.

The best analogy I've seen is medicine.  Ask "You're in the hospital after a major heart attack.  Would you rather have the cardiac treatment that 99% of MDs agree is best, or the experimental treatment proposed by 52 doctors who believe their point of view has been unfairly pushed aside by modern medicine?"

Even those who derive deep pleasure from being reflexively contrarian would pick the first option when real consequences to themselves are involved.  (They might not admit it, but that's another story...)

Such claims of solar variation insufficiency survive because indications of feedback mechanisms were supported only by historical records and statistical associations but were not empirically demonstrated (never mind that situation applies particularly to the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis, the simple fact is that hypothesis is currently politically correct and hence requires no evidentiary support). This situation has now changed because Svensmark and the team at the Danish National Space Center have experimentally demonstrated the very mechanism they proposed a decade ago.

The Svensmark result is interesting, and it (or something like it) might indeed turn out to be right.  However, the vast bulk of evidence supports CO2.  That's why the scientific community says that there's a 90% chance that CO2 (and other gases) are driving the current warming, and a 10% chance that some off-the-wall theory like this will turn out to be right.

However, junkscience has misrepresented the science badly.  The Svensmark result is hardly
"proven."  There are, in fact, many reasons to believe it is not right.  See here, for example.  That's why it's unlikely to eventually overturn the CO2 theory.

For jabailo, 10% maximum = not bloody likely.

Thanks for the clarification.

The Svensmark result is interesting, and it (or something like it) might indeed turn out to be right.

It's the only answer that correctly interprets and aligns with all of the temperature trends.

However, the vast bulk of evidence supports CO2.

Excuse me, but that's completely untrue.   You Gristers simply refuse to consider any other answer.

That's why the scientific community says that there's a 90% chance that CO2

How do I refute thee?  Let me count the ways.   Policy commissions are not science.  I have challenged Grist time after time to present real articles from the scientific journals, lets say five articles, that conclusively prove that CO2 drives warming.   I have yet to see these articles.   I again exhort Grist -- let's have a references section that clearly organizes the best articles in scientific journals regarding global warming mechanisms.

and a 10% chance that some off-the-wall theory like this will turn out to be right.

Again, I only see one "theory" that has an explanatory mechanism and can accurately account for all the data and that's Svensmark's.   So, to me, there's only one horse in the running worth consideration.

J. Bailo Participant Texeme.Construct()

Gristers know the dodgy history of that site, who paid to set it up, and who runs it.

Whiskerfish

So, Jabailo-

The scientific case that CO2 is causing most of the warming is laid out in the IPCC reports.  

You can look at chapter 12 of the TAR here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/439.htm
This chapter is entitled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes" and it contains lots of references to original literature.  If you read this, I think you'll be convinced.

If you want more recent papers, check out:
Stone et al., A multimodel update on the detection and attribution of global surface warming,
JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 20 (3): 517-530 FEB 1 2007

Hegerl et al., Detection of human influence on a new, validated 1500-year temperature reconstruction, JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 20 (4): 650-666 FEB 2007

Check out their reference lists for a more complete list of the recent work on this topic.

The best and most rigorous analysis will be contained in the full IPCC WGI report, which will be released in a few months.

You'll find that the anthropogenic greenhouse gas case is quite strong.  I'm surprised that you say only the Svensmark theory explains the warming --- that indicates you are not well versed in the science of climate change.  

I again exhort Grist -- let's have a references section that clearly organizes the best articles in scientific journals regarding global warming mechanisms.

Wait.

We already have that.

It's called the IPCC.

We already have that.

It's called the IPCC.

Ok...since I'm sure you've read the IPCC report extensively cover to cover, let me ask:

Give me a page number in the IPCC report, or a link to the online version, which references a study from a mainstream scientific journal that conclusively links anthropogenic CO2 gas as the primary cause of global warming.

Not a summary.   Not "90%".  But a set of real articles from science journals referenced by the IPCC that support its assertions.


J. Bailo Participant Texeme.Construct()

Am I asking too much to ask you to read an entire chapter?  

I also gave you two references to J. Clim. papers.  Were those papers not sufficient?

Name one of the 3 previous assessments that has any significant factual data included, just one.  They are all a complete mess because politics is not science.  Saying the solar output, specifically any of the decadal oscillations, isn't a major (if not largest) contributor to global warming is 100% unacceptable.

The 4th assessment DOESN'T EVEN MENTION decadal oscillation as a contributor!!!!  How irresponsible is that?  There are several other major climate change phenomena that aren't mentioned in the assessment as well.  Truthfully, I am quite disgusted with their "report".

I will read those and respond!   Should take a while though.

Also, I would ask that you not label me by titling your posts with "trolling".  I find that very insulting and unnecessary.

J. Bailo Participant Texeme.Construct()

http://www.kcls.org

And here's an article for you:

Global 'Sunscreen' has Likely Thinned, Report NASA Scientists; NASA
PR Newswire   03-15-2007

A new NASA study has found that an important counter-balance to the warming of our planet by greenhouse gases -- sunlight blocked by dust, pollution and other aerosol particles - - appears to have lost ground.

The thinning of Earth's "sunscreen" of aerosols since the early 1990s could have given an extra push to the rise in global surface temperatures. The finding, published today in the journal Science, may lead to an improved understanding of recent climate change. In a related study published last week, scientists found that the opposing forces of global warming and the cooling from aerosol-induced "global dimming" can occur at the same time.
"When more sunlight can get through the atmosphere and warm Earth's surface, you're going to have an effect on climate and temperature," said lead author Michael Mishchenko of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York. "Knowing what aerosols are doing globally gives us an important missing piece of the big picture of the forces at work on climate."

The final paragraph in this post's referenced article is a version of a common assertion amongst denialists that the general agreement among accredited climate scientists about the cause and range of probable consequences of global warming represents a financially-motivated conspiracy to further their own ends. I am surprised how seldom and how weakly this assertion is challenged.

First, the folks who are sounding the alarm pretty much by definition already have jobs (you don't get to play with the big dogs of the IPCC as a freelance), and their careers will hardly be furthered by promoting a phony theory that will sooner or later be disproved.

Second, there will certainly be some serious money to be made and advantage to be gained from a worldwide acceptance of the anthropogenic climate change model, but it won't be made by climatologists. Those who invest either their money or their career in mitigation and adaptation technologies will certainly stand to benefit: absent as far as I know is even a hint of demonstrated connection between these interests and the scientists accused of "conspiracy".

Third, the really big bucks are actually on the side of denialism: not the pittances allotted to paid shills but the the existing billion-dollar cashflows that stand to be disrupted either sooner, by a change in global energy policies, or later, by bitter reality. There's a serious margin to be played in pushing for delay. If there's a conspiracy to be found, here's the place to scratch.

Having said all that, I am also amazed that this pitiful article in a local paper is even considered worthy of comment from reputable scientists like Andrew and Chris. Or is their something I need to know about the disproportionate global influence of the Newport Daily News?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

The lake is reportedly an inch lower than it was at this time last year, and 17 inches below its long-term average, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported.

Lake Superior and Lake Huron are also below their average levels, the newspaper said.

http://www.physorg.com/news93498585.html

J. Bailo Participant Texeme.Construct()

The phrase reads "Greenhouse gas and solar irradiance changes are found to have contributed to a best guess of ~0.8 and ~0.3 K warming".

Uh...what's that?   Solar irradiance?   So, this, your best article, is citing solar irradiance?

I mean, yes, they lump CO2 gas in there, but all that means is it can be 99.8 percent solar irradiance and 0.2 percent CO2 causing the warming?

It's like one of those adds for a diet product...where they say that you can lose weight by eating Product X...along with a sensible diet and execise program!   What they don't tell you is that you'd lose just as much weight with the exercise and diet and just skipping Product X (CO2).

J. Bailo Participant Texeme.Construct()

The sentence you quote is about 2/3rds of the way through the abstract.  Does that mean that you read a whole 200 words of the paper?  Good job!

I'm not sure you understood this paper, so let me say it a little more simply for you:
Over the last 100 years, greenhouse gases increased the surface air temp by 0.8 deg C.  Solar contributed 0.3 deg C of warming, a far smaller contribution than GHGs.  Sulfate aerosols cooled the planet by about 0.4 deg C.  This gives a total change of about 0.7 deg C, in agreement with observations.

Clearly, greenhouse gases are the dominant factor warming the climate.  This is in good agreement with the IPCC's statement that humans are responsible for MOST of the recent warming.  The IPCC does not say ALL of the warming --- because it's clear that solar has likely played a small role.  Most people don't appreciate how carefully nuanced the IPCC's statements are (see here).

I'm not sure where you get the idea that 99.8% of the temperature increase is solar ... that's clearly not a correct conclusion of the paper.  Of course, I foolishly made the mistake of reading the entire paper ... perhaps if I only read a few sentences of the paper, your statement would make more sense.

If this is the depth of your scientific understanding, I think I'll skip anything else you write.