Let's see...well, I guess that just wasn't a discipline for us back in the day...but I'm sure it is now...right?

Nope, I don't see any "Department of Climatology"

http://www.princeton.edu/main/academics/departments/

So, if the nation's top undergraduate school doesn't recognize "Climatology" as discipline of study, what does it matter is a lot of really intelligent people are voicing opinions on it.

As far as I can see, being a "Climatology" in the 21st Century is about as real as Mesmerism was in the 19th Century.

Dr. Castro is in an atmospheric sciences department, as am I.  

Hmm...that sounds like rather a punt.

Atmospheric science seems rather...of the moment.

Climatology is a forecast that can range several years, or several centuries.

I guess that I feel that these criticisms of people's expertise in "climatology" are unjustified because the field is so new.

A person who has a skill in Long Range Planning (or whatever) who can take an abstract set of numbers and make a prediction is as good a climatologist as someone who understands the Chemistry of air.

Atmospheric science seems rather...of the moment.

If the nation's top undergraduate school recognizes "atmospheric sciences" as discipline of study, then the opinions of experts in the field should count --- according to Princeton at least.

As far as I can see, "atmospheric sciences" in the 21st Century is about as real as "physics" or "chemistry" was in the 19th Century.  And we all know how those turned out.

The denier list is history.  Once we found out the bushies had the climatoligist heading up the IPCC replaced with an economist, these qualification arguments aren't working.

At least we can say that despite the economist leadership, the IPCC still stuck to climate science.  That's about it.  And  Wolfowitz was not appointed IPCC head yet.  Maybe President Huckabee can get that done.

Economists are not even scientists!  Incredible.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Climatology is to new to know anything?   Isn't being a global warming denier also new?

What, in your view, are the very best 3 scientific papers that establish a link between CO2 and warming (I don't care if its AGW or NGW, just CO2).    

If possible, I would prefer papers that are experimentally based rather than computer simulation based.   And I am looking for primary research, not summaries of synopsis (and please don't tell me to read the IPCC report).

Sadly, trolls don't read, and they don't do homework.   (One sometimes wonders if they can.) They exist to waste the time of otherwise productive members of the community such as yourself.

You should read the latest IPCC report for a detailed and peer-reviewed discussion of the evidence supporting the link between CO2 and warming.

Thanks.  

Now I can rest quietly knowing that there is no link between CO2 and warming.

You obviously don't know that there were PRINCETON faculty contributing to the IPCC.  If the nation's top undergraduate school contributes to the IPCC, then it's clearly the gold-standard of what we know and how confidently we know it.  

You obviously don't know that there were PRINCETON faculty contributing to the IPCC.

No.

I did not know.

Can you tell me their names, their fields of study and exactly what their contributions were?

That's what people who are losing an argument do.  

But back to the question you so lazily posed to me.  Why don't you check out Micahel Oppenheimer.  His web page details his expertise.

Again, he's a PRINCETON faculty member.  If the nation's top undergraduate school has both an atmospheric sciences program and a faculty member who's a lead author for the IPCC, then that's the proof that AGW is correct.  

Which...after pulling about 8 posts, you finally did!   Was it really so hard ?!?

And now I finally have the prima facia evidence needed to try and understand where the data is coming from...chat with you later.

Oh, and thank you.

This dude has been in science since 1970 -- check out his CV:

http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/mo-cv-12%2001%2007. ...

But the coolest part is what he has to say about "premature consensus"

[Note: Grist featured Oppenheimer in a September 2007 post, http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2007/9/14/13511/0270?sho ... ] He sounds more like he's warning us about the IPCC more than CO2!!

Risks of Premature Climate Change Consensus

While acknowledging that since its establishment in 1988, "the IPCC has made progress over four assessment cycles in its treatment of uncertainties," the authors detail four new prescriptions for avoiding the pitfalls of premature consensus on climate change:

Firstly, they uphold that "increased transparency, including a thorough narrative report on the range of views expressed by panel members, emphasizing areas of disagreement that arose during the assessment, would provide a more robust evaluation of risk."

Second, the article recommends that the IPCC should "guard against overconfidence" by modifying its procedure for expert review. Ideally, "external reviewers should ferret out differences between chapters or author sub-groups, and a special team of authors could be instructed to examine the treatment of unlikely but plausible processes."

Third, the authors propose that the IPCC "formalize a process of continuous review of its structure and procedures."

Finally, a factor that the authors cite as perhaps of paramount concern is that "national governments now need to confront a more fundamental question of how often they need comprehensive assessments of climate change." To this end, the authors recommend that "special risks entailed in particular aspects of the climate system, like ice sheets or the carbon cycle, might be better approached by increasing the number of concise, highly focused special reports."

Here's the reference to the original article.  It's not freely available, but I intend to visit the Kent Central Public Library and read it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/317/5844/15 ...

What worries is this:  since 1798, humanity has been warned repeatedly about the threat to humanity, to life as we know it, to the viability of recognizably frangible global ecosystems and to the integrity of Earth and its limited resources that could be posed to humankind by the unbridled growth of absolute global human population numbers.  Because we want human beings to be fed and to have jobs so they can feed themselves and their families, the growth of human numbers has lead great thinkers and scientists to remind the human community of the impacts of unregulated human propagation, unrestrained consumption and rampantly expanding production activities upon our planetary home.  

Every possible bias, rhetorical device and "spin" appears to have been employed to deny the mounting evidence of the potential for catastrophic consequences from the near exponential growth of human numbers worldwide. Recently, good science about the way the world works has been systematically discredited; leading elders of the political economy have consciously conspired to mislead the public by misreprenting the science and by turning the science into a "political football" of sorts; ideological groups have spread uncertainty and confusion in discussions about the nature of the biophysical world in which we live; and controversy has been manufactured where none would have otherwise existed.

The illusion of meaningful debate has been foisted upon the public by leaders who are evidently intent on "poisoning the well" of public discourse by knowingly, selfishly, transparently fostering disinformation campaigns for the purpose of enhancing their own financial interests....come what may for our children, coming generations, global biodiversity, the environment, and the Earth as a fit place for human habitation.

The elder guarantors of a good enough future for the children appear to be leading our kids down a "primrose path" along which the children could unexpectedly be confronted with sudden, potentially colossal threats to human and environmental health that appear to be derived from human-driven, converging global challenges such as pernicious impacts of global warming and climate change, pollution of the air, water and land from microscopic particulates and solid waste, and the reckless dissipation of scarce natural resources. All the while, these leading elders remain in denial of the fulminating ecological degradation by willfully declining to acknowledge, much less begin to address, humanity's emerging, human-induced predicament.

One day, perhaps sooner rather than later, our children could have extraordinary difficulties responding ably to that with which they could soon come face to face; that is to say, because their leaders have so adamantly refused to acknowlege God's great gift of the good science of biological and physical reality, our kids will not even know what "hit" them, much less why it is happening.

Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

Back to the Lead Article: Christopher Castro Down and Gone

Naughty naughty Dr Desssler; you selectively quote the professor's opinion from ONLY slide 4 in one of his lectures:

1)      The conclusion of the 2007 IPCC is reasonable given the paleoclimate record, the available empirical evidence from the observed climate record, and agreement with global model results simulating the climate of the past 100 years.

It goes like this doctor:  A topic line is screened to focus the students, and then some elaboration, do you agree?   OK, the next slide, please, that you neglected to mention:

2.      How can we attribute the recently observed global warming to human activity?

3.      What are the projections for the future?

4.      What are some of the caveats and uncertainties in these projections?

5.      What are some of your [the students] thoughts?  I'd like to know!

Did he discuss caveats and ask what do you guys think?  Why would he do that? And, what about the concluding slide 25, Headed: LARGE Uncertainties remain!  (Notice his emphasis on the word large!).

6.      Climate change projections may be very different with higher resolution models.

7.      How may global warming influence natural climate variability?  For example, would there be a greater frequency of El Niños?

8.      Are there feedbacks in the climate system which we don't know about and are not represented in models? Are all the known feedbacks being represented correctly?

9.      What are the roles of other human-caused factors which may also contribute toward climate change.  These may actually be more important on the regional and local scale than greenhouse-gas associated global warming...

Dr Dessler, let's edit your oraclic truth on YOUR perception of the innermost secrets of the mind of Castro;  

Your point mystifies me.  He says on slide 4 he agrees with the IPCC.  Case closed.  His next slide is simply an outline of the seminar. He answers all of those questions in the rest of his talk.

Most reasonable scientists, including me, agree with his enumeration of uncertainties.  These are well discussed in the IPCC, in fact.

Naughty naughty Dr Desssler; you selectively quote the professor's opinion from ONLY slide 4 in one of his lectures:
The conclusion of the 2007 IPCC is reasonable given the paleoclimate record, the available empirical evidence from the observed climate record, and agreement with global model results simulating the climate of the past 100 years.

You know the procedure Dr, don't you?  A topic line is screened to focus the students, and then some elaboration?
OK, the next slide, says:

How can we attribute the recently observed global warming to human activity?
What are the projections for the future?
What are some of the caveats and uncertainties in these projections?
What are some of your [the students] thoughts?  I'd like to know!

Did he mention caveats and ask what do you guys think?  Why would he do that? And, what about the concluding slide 25, Headed: LARGE Uncertainties remain!  (No emphasis added to large).

Climate change projections may be very different with higher resolution models.
How may global warming influence natural climate variability?  For example, would there be a greater frequency of El Niños?
Are there feedbacks in the climate system which we don't know about and are not represented in models? Are all the known feedbacks being represented correctly?
What are the roles of other human-caused factors which may also contribute toward climate change.  These may actually be more important on the regional and local scale than greenhouse-gas associated global warming...
Let's edit your oraclic conclusion Dr Dessler;  Hmm. Doesn't look like a disastrous AGW believer to me!

An entertaining aspect of your expose Dr, is that you Emailed the professor asking; "...about [him] being on this [Inhofe] list"
I guess it is an absence of humility on your part that you fail to see that you have suffered what is known-in-the-trade *(at least here in Australia) as "the brush off".  Can't you figure-out that the professor did not answer you with spontaneous favor?

"...my [Castro's] "official" position on global warming is given in my series of lectures... (NOTICE: "Official" position....WITH QUOTES, and "go look for it"....why did he not simply say; I agree with the IPCC!)
Do you have a record of what was discussed in that lecture, which allows you to draw any conclusions, beyond the bare prompts?
How did the professor express his feelings to you about being on Inhofe's list?   Does he want to be removed?
Are you aware of some coalition between the professor and Roger Pielke Sr, whom you might describe as a Skeptic?
Do you think that all Skeptics are black, and that Believers are white, and that there are no greys, agnostics or others forced to political (funding) or conformity?
If you look around in his work, you will see that he agrees that warming is caused in part by human factors which he does not quantify, and that the greenhouse aspect of it may be relatively unimportant.

1.    A small subgroup of the IPCC authors summarized to policymakers, that THEY THINK there is a 90% probability that there is significant human influence within the current global warming. (This amounts to an admission that they could be wrong in their estimation....in the other arbitrary 10%.)

2.    Detailed reading of the IPCC report with its many contributions from the many sciences such as glaciology, mixed paeleo-sciences, oceanography, etc, indicate a wide scope of regional warmings, past and present, but there is no direct indicator as to the cause in each case. (There is BTW, a dearth of historians and archaeologists)

3.    Computer models are employed to try and pin-it on CO2, based on an array of assumptions, some of which the IPCC admits to carrying a low level of understanding. Against this it is useful to remember that meteorologists use much simpler and less assumptive computer models which are not famous for being reliable beyond days. Thus a useful and worrying comparison can be made to the IPCC ambitions.

So here are just three points, but dozens more could be made.
Surely! It only takes a modicum of analytical ability from say a chemist, chess player or engineer, whomever, to see that there is rather doubtful reliability in the IPCC claims? Anyone technically capable: such as geologist and economist; Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick who looked at the finer detail, soon proved discrepancies, and even apparent fraud in the IPCC.
No Dr. Dessler, you are wrong to emphasize elitism. You should be encouraging cross fertilization of ideas. That way you might be able to understand all of the IPCC report rather than just your chosen very narrow specialty!

I guess it is an absence of humility on your part that you fail to see that you have suffered what is known-in-the-trade *(at least here in Australia) as "the brush off".

Aw, c'mon, Andrew, this is starting to get boring.

You're trying to show us that all the individuals on the"Inhofe 400" list are not qualified by "cherry picking" individuals one at a time and making an example of them.

You know very well that there are around 100 individuals on this list that are well qualified by your own narrow and elitist standards, and another 50 or so that are meteorologists, who also have a valid opinion on what is going on.

Your approach of "cherry picking" and making an example of one or another individual that does not meet your narrow specification and thereby attempting to discredit the whole list is not fitting for a renowned climate scientist like you.

For shame, Andrew.  Display some scientific objectivity.

Regards,

Max

your citation of Prof. Andrew Dessler's articles at Grist is amusing. Dessler has monumentally embarrassed himself by recently claiming there were only two dozen scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears. Dessler is now trying desperately to salvage his unsupportable assertions over at Grist with increasingly shrill and comical posts.

It is made clear you have not read the Senate report when you parrot Dessler's claims that Dr. Christopher Castro "unabashedly and explicitly endorses the IPCC consensus." If you took the time to read Castro's entry in the Senate report you would find that even though he accepts the idea that mankind is responsible for most of the recent warming, he has serious doubts about future dire predictions of warming. Excerpt from report:

Castro, who studied under skeptical climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. "agrees that `other possible forcings to the climate system besides CO2 (like land-use change, aerosols, etc.) are not accounted for well, if at all' and "models are highly sensitive to parameterized processes, like clouds, convection, and radiation, and these processes can have significant impacts on their results.'"

Remember, many skeptical scientists believe the Earth has already seen most of the warming impact of rising CO2, so agreeing that a 20th century CO2 rise has caused some warming is not the same as believing future catastrophic climate projections.

You know very well that there are around 100 individuals on this list that are well qualified by your own narrow and elitist standards.

The bottom line is this: you admit that the Inhofe list is at least60% bogus.  On the other hand, you are unable to produce even one author of the IPCC WGI that is similarly non-qualified (out of hundreds).

I don't find this boring in the least.  Look for another post tomorrow!

You wrote: :"just because someone is qualified and listed on Inhofe's list does not mean they are actually skeptical".

Many of the 100 or so qualified individuals on Inhofe's list have made statements, as have many of the 50 meteorologists, whom you personally do not consider qualified to have an opinion.

The objections expressed by the individuals are not all the same, but they are essentially all skeptical of some aspect of the current "majority view" on AGW, either in the science or the IPCC process or the projections that are being made.

In going through these rather quickly it looks like there are many who question the science behind IPCC claims:  many say there is no scientific evidence that CO2 is driving the current warming trend, others that say the current rise in temperatures is natural and not unusual, and some others that object to the exaggerated projections of IPCC.  Many state that the climate model predictions are not confirmed by observations and that the models are unable to realistically include the impacts that water vapor and clouds will have on climate.

Then there are those that question how the IPCC works, including the peer review process, the political review process and the way in which the SPM report was written.

And there are also many who object to the disaster scenarios that may not be directly coming out of the IPCC reports, such as James Hansen's "tipping point", the "almost overnight" 6-meter sea level rise caused by a major ice sheet breakup, etc.

So I don't really know how you would classify a "skeptic".  Do all these categories fit your definition?

I would say so, but maybe you see this differently.

Andrew, I do not agree with your statement that this report was "60% bogus", just because you feel that 60% of the 400 individuals listed were not qualified to have a valid opinion.

Inhofe was obviously trying to make a political point with this report, and that was that there is no scientific consensus on AGW and that the debate is not yet over.  It was clearly a political ploy (and not a scientific report), but I believe he made his point, even though there are probably some weak spots in his evidence.

Regards,

Max

I am looking forward to your next post, as you promised, because I find this exchange interesting in many ways.

But I would like to come back to a statement you made in an earlier post.

You wrote: "Why is it that when people are losing an argument, it's suddenly boring?"
(To which I explained that this exchange is nor "boring" at all for me.)  

What would become "boring" would be a one-by-one ad hominem trashing of all the individuals on Inhofe's list that somehow do not meet the level of qualification you feel is necessary in order to have a valid opinion in the ongoing debate surrounding AGW.

But I could also paraphrase you with "why is it when someone is losing an argument they refuse to answer posts?", i.e. those from Chris Schoneveld, Black Wallaby, Jabailo, and myself, mostly at http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/21/112933/48, but also here.

I know you are a busy man, Andrew, and have a lot more to do than just defend the AGW theory to the people out there who are skeptical, but it would help your cause if you did take the time, as an expert, to answer posts that are specifically addressed to you on your lead article site regarding the scientific debate surrounding AGW.

Just a tip.

Regards,

Max

In attempting to refute the validity of the Inhofe report, you have used the approach of cherry picking individual names on the list and discrediting them as being not "qualified" to have a relevant opinion in the current scientific debate on climate change.

This approach of "ad hominem" attack (rather than debating the issues) is a favorite of the supporters of the "mainstream" view when it is challenged.

It appears you are having fun with this approach, so we may have to see you continue with it until you have run through the list (or people get bored with this tack).

Andrew, what you should be doing, as a recognized expert in climate science, is addressing the scientific objections stated in Inhofe's report, in particular those that come from individuals that are clearly "qualified" to have a valid opinion even by your own rather restrictive and elitist standard.

You should also respond to valid questions with regard to his lead article, which have been expressed on this site as well as the others you kicked off.

But so far you have chosen not to go down that slippery path.

Are you afraid that you might lose in a rational debate of the issues?

Let us see if we can move the discussion into that direction and away from the "ad hominem" trashing approach.

Jabailo has asked you the specific question, to which you have not replied: "What, in your view, are the very best 3 scientific papers that establish a link between CO2 and warming (I don't care if its AGW or NGW, just CO2)."

He added: "If possible, I would prefer papers that are experimentally based rather than computer simulation based.  And I am looking for primary research, not summaries of synopsis (and please don't tell me to read the IPCC report)."

Chris Schoneveld and Black Wallaby have asked you similar questions regarding the evidence for this link.

As it turns out many of the experts on Inhofe's list have the same doubt as expressed by the above individuals.

Below is a list of climate scientists that are quoted in Inhofe's report as having reservations that man-made CO2 is a principle driver of global warming.  This does not include many others quoted in Inhofe's report who take issue with some other IPCC claim regarding climate change.  It only includes those that specifically do not believe there is any scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing or will cause significant warming.

Dr. David Wojick
Dr. George Kukla
Dr. Ben Herman
Dr. Gerhard Gerlich
Dr. Tom V. Segalstad
Douglas V. Hoyt
Dr. Boris Winterhalter
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes
Dr. Howard Greyber
Dr. Nir Shaviv
Dr. John W. Brosnahan
Dr. Marcel Leroux
Dr. Reid Bryson
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm
Dr. Tim Patterson
Dr. Zbigniev Jaworowski
Dr. Ian D. Clark
Dr. Jan Veizer
Luc Debontridder
Dr. Timothy Ball
Dr. Richard Lindzen
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov
Dr. Ian Plimer
Dr. Vincent Gray
Dr. John Christy
Dr. Anthony Lupo
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard
Dr. Roy W. Spencer
Dr. Willie Soon
Dr. Martin Hertzberg
Dr. Michael R. Fox
William R. Kininmonth
Dr. Yury Izrael,
Dr. Joel M. Kauffman
Dr. Augie Auer
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels
Dr. Cal Evans
Dr. Petr Chylek
Dr. Ian Wilson
Dr. George Chilingar
Dr. David Douglass
Dr. S. Fred Singer
Dr. Richard Courtney
Thomas B. Gray
Dr. Philip Lloyd
Dr. Oleg Sorochtin
Dr. Nathan Paldor

Now, don't go telling me this list is "80% bogus" because it "only has a few dozen" individuals or this or that individual is not a "qualified" expert, but answer Jabailo's question.

Where are the experimentally based scientific reports that establish a link between CO2 and warming?

Don't give me the "read the IPCC report" brush-off.  I have read it and what Jabailo has asked you for is not in there.

Time to talk facts, Andrew.

Regards,

Max

NSaggie wrote: "You could point the ignorant folk to Tyndall and Arrhenius as a starting point."

Good idea. Let's go to Physics 101 to establish the theoretical temperature increase from doubling CO2 levels from 280ppmv, which they were in 1900, to 560 ppmv, which they are projected to be in 2100, assuming there are no natural or other anthropogenic forcing factors (which is obviously not the case).

Arrhenius Law tells us
dE = [alpha] ln ( [CO2] / [CO2]orig ),
where alpha is 5.35 (Myhre et al.)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm
dE is change in forcing
using Stefan-Boltzmann:
dT/dE = 1 / (4 [sigma] T^3)
then:
dT = [alpha] ln ( [CO2] / [CO2] orig) / 4 [sigma] T^3)
A doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv,
And substituting T = 15 degrees C = 288.16K
dT = 5.35 ln (560 / 280) / (4 *5.6705E-08 * (288.16^3))
or
dT = 0.6833 centigrade for a doubling of CO2
for simplification, let's call that 0.7 degrees C
That's the physics behind anthropogenic global warming due to CO2.  All the rest is models and hype.
You can do the same calculation based on the CO2 level of 381 ppmv, as measured in 2006

Then you arrive at a dT of around 0.3 degrees C, by increasing CO2 from 280 to 381 ppmv.

This means there is about 0.4 degrees C warming to be expected from today to the year 2100, if CO2 increases to the anticipated 560 ppmv.

And the really good news is that, since the relationship is logarithmic, CO2 will have to double again, to 1120 ppmv for another 0.7 degrees C to result.  This might happen by around the year 2400, if current rates of increase continue. No "tipping point" here. Isn't that good news?

All of the above assumes that there are no significant natural forcing factors.

You can do the same calculation for methane, which IPCC tells us doubled from 1900 to 2006 and is expected to double again by 2100, with an alpha of .036, resulting in 0.05 degrees C increase for each doubling.

So much for Arrhenius.

Regards,

Max

Like I said, a starting point, and followed by the 'yah, buts'

The Arrhenius theory is what it is - no more, no less.  It tells us we will get some minor warming from doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration, plus a bit less from the other GHG - no more, no less.

Tell me all about the "feedbacks", NSaggie.  Which ones are positive and which ones are negative and which ones are just hype based on computer "GIGO"?

Where is the scientific evidence, NSaggie?

Show me some facts.

Regards,

Max

I am so relieved that someone has come forward whom obviously understands what CO2 does, and how much it contributes to AGW.   Several of us on Andrew's various blogs have been asking him for some time if he could point to some actual evidence, (rather than theory or intuition), linking CO2 to global warming, and so far despite many follow-ups, he seems unable to respond.  We are of course aware of some correlations, (such as obesity in humans etc), intuitive statements, and assumptive computer modelling, but are unable to locate any actual evidence.  Since you know all about it, perhaps you are not as shy as Andrew, and can provide us with the evidence that he cannot?

Thanking you kindly in anticipation, Black Wallaby

The question was posed, and then pointed out where the science began, and the poser answered his own question. I didn't actually sort anything out, just helping someone answer there own question :)

The intuitive response that I know all about it is very impressive, from my one post in here no less. Bravo! Though I wish I had your optimism.

Seems my help wasn't needed. You folks seem knowledgeable enough to answer your own questions.

Thanks for your message.

You wrote (I suppose to Black Wallaby and me): "Seems my help wasn't needed. You folks seem knowledgeable enough to answer your own questions."

Looks like you may be right on that one.

Since you brought the subject up, I was just hoping you could shed some light on the mystical "feedbacks" that change Arrhenius' 0.4 deg C warming (by 2100) to 10 to 15 times this amount.

I've read the various "climate for dummies" sites that attempt to rationalize these feedbacks, but I am missing the actual specifics as well as the scientific evidence.

But I guess you don't have the answer, either.

I wonder whether IPCC does?? (Or are they just guessing??)

Regards,

Max

Have you heard of Real Climate? It's hard to imagine you haven't. They seem to be pretty good at providing links to people's queries. That is the aim of that blog. It's very useful for interested people, skeptical and otherwise to have those resources. Take it for what it is.

Like I said, you asked a question about the establishment of the science relevant to greenhouse gases, but then you seemed to know about that already. So, nice bait, perhaps that is why Dr. Dessler doesn't respond to your  I'm by no means an expert, never claimed to be.

Just curious. You are skeptical, fair enough. What is your alternate hypothesis to the many scientific theories that form the foundation of climate study?

Or more succinctly: don't feed the trolls.

grist.org

Thanks again, message received.

This is a great question, NSaggie.

Since I am not being paid to "publish in peer-reviewed journals" to support the current "mainstream" viewpoint (i.e. potentially alarming AGW), and am also not in the pay of some nefarious institution, such as Exxon-Mobil, I can keep an open mind.

"The many scientific theories that form the foundation of climate study" (as you put it) are unfortunately not all in agreement, as can be seen from the fact that there are serious climate scientists that do not support one or another part of this "mainstream" belief.  So the "foundation" is apparently not as solid as it might seem at first glance.

On top of this it is more likely than not that what we do not know about the reasons for climate change exceeds by at least an order of magnitude what we (think we) do know, with apologies to Andrew Dessler and all the "climate scientists" out there, who (I am sure) are learned and intelligent individuals but just don't know everything yet.

When I confirm that IPCC has ignored published data that do not support its message, I become rationally skeptical that maybe something is not quite in order.  Then I ask myself, "Is the quest of the IPCC to find scientific truth about climate change or is it to find scientific proof for its theories on climate change?"

So when I ask an expert, like Andrew, for scientific input supporting the (for me) somewhat strange and alarmist IPCC claims, I do so in the hopes of getting a rational scientific response based on hard experimentally derived data.

So far this has been lacking.

Regards,

Max

Hmmm...  So Andrew Dessler wants to "legislate questions of science" on a blog site (BTW he has also issued peer-reviewed articles)?  And, if so, does he want people to respond or just ignore his blog site?  Or is David Roberts suggesting that Andrew only wants responses from those who agree with him and praise him for his brilliance in the lead article?

I just cannot believe these postulations are true.

Now, about feeding "trolls", I checked "troll" out in my handy Webster.

Troll:  a hawker's cart, trolley; the lure used for fishing from a moving boat; a slovenly or loose woman; a song sung in successive parts; a supernatural being.

So leaving out the inanimate objects, David is apparently referring to "a slovenly or loose woman" or "a supernatural being".

Golly, I wonder what he could have meant by that?

David's wisdoms come in enigmatic riddles (like those of the Sphinx).

Max

Oh, but it's not enough to point out that the IPCC reports contain clear summaries of the latest research (up to the cut-off date for inclusion anyway), with all the citations right there. Do you want to be hand-held to find the right chapter, and decide which articles are the best?

Then Max derives a climate sensitivity of 0.7K for 2xCO2 using Arrhenius' late 19th century formula. Nice, but not enough (as you should know if you got that far in the research!) There are feedbacks, particularly water vapor. To move a little bit beyond Arrhenius, check out Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" which traces some of the subsequent thinking of less than a century ago, through Callender and Keeling up to this generation of atmospheric physicists.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Some of you guys' comments seem to go toward "convince me that the climate is as sensitive to CO2 as the IPCC estimates" - a tall order for just 3 articles. That might be better met with an intro course on atmospheric physics, such as Ray Pierrehumbert's at
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook. ...

But you did say you just wanted the best three articles. For myself, I've just taken three undergrad courses on this, which did assign many relevant articles (but my course notes aren't nearby so I can't just pull those out.)

Here are a few things you could do to find three good scholarly articles on climate sensitivity:

Option A) Go to scholar.google.com and search on "climate sensitivity" with the quotes. Notice that this returns about 9300 articles. How to narrow that down to just three? Dr. Dessler might well be so immersed in this literature that he could have named his three favorites, given a bit of time he evidently did not want to spare to a cheeky debating challenge from someone with a lot of attitude. I can understand that. But just for the record, I'll suggest how to pick three.

The first page brings up the top hits sorted by most cited. That's a good filter right there. Try the Hansen et al. 1984 article "Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms" at your local library (it's old so I don't see a copy online) This is most cited with 261 cites.

Hit #4 is very apropos:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JGR...10622605A
Andronova & Schlesinger, "Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity"
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 106, NO. D19, PAGES 22,605-22,611, 2001
The web link gives the abstract and a link to the full text that would cost $9; you can walk in to a local university library and get it for free in the stacks.
This is one that you will find "alarmist" in that it argues the climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 may well be higher than the IPCC range.

Round out the set of three with hit #7, which has full text online for free in PDF format:
http://tinyurl.com/32fhxe
Gregory, Stouffer et al. "An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity"
Journal of Climate, Volume 15, Issue 22 (November 2002)

Option B)
Open this recent article by my climatology prof, Danny Harvey of Univ. of Toronto, and go to Table 1 on the 2nd page. This is a table of more recent work on constraining the climate sensitivity to 2xCO2, listing seven different papers since 2001. The citations to those papers are linked in the table as PDF hyperlinks, for your ease of reference. Pick any three of those papers ad libidum and give them a try. You could even read through this paper itself, though it is a bit past the stage you wanted.

http://tinyurl.com/3dxrcs
Environ. Res. Lett. 2 (2007) 014001 (10pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014001
L D Danny Harvey, Allowable CO2 concentrations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as a function of the climate sensitivity probability distribution function

Okay, now you've got two choices for your three articles. Please spare us any speeches on "why couldn't Dr. Dessler just give you this right away" I'll give you my three guesses:
a) he doubted you really wanted to find them
b) he was turned off by your snarky slapdown style of defiance
c) he saw the futility of trying to pick just 3

I hope one or more of you will impress us by saying something that demostrates you have read and considered the arguments made in one or more of these papers.

To all the real people on this page - please accept my apologies for feeding the trolls. I just felt like showing that the big challenge was not unanswerable.

http://birdbrainscan.blogspot.com/

Lots of talk.  No scientific evidence.

Feedback hypotheses are nice, but you have to include both positive and negative feedbacks.

The "troll" reference is childish and stupid.

Max

1.  How much of global warming is from the pre-existing trend and how much from human activities?
   
2. Do the existing models include this natural warming effect, and provide a mechanism for it?
   
3. Carbon Dioxide is both absorbed and produced by the world's oceans. That suggests some sort of equilibrium. How does that affect humanity's contribution to the atmospheric content?
   
4. Has this effect been included in the models?  
   
5. How fast is ocean water level rising compared to pre-existing natural trends?

He is as much as skeptic as I am.  Science is not a matter of opinions, as is politics.  Science is based on theories, experiments, results and a review of the facts compared to the theories.  Scientist are still at the theories stage. Politicians have simplified the process by going directly to conclusions.

1. Nolmahalo did not claim to have read all the articles (You used the strawman approach)
   
2. Nolmahalo must have written the prior note based only  on what is written in this blog.  Incorrect, I have been looking at this situation from a multidisciplinary approach for about 10 years.  I cannot reach any conclusion as a scientist and engineer because there are not enough facts, we are not sure that we have identified all the variables, and it appears highly unlikely that global models which cannot predict the weather a month from today is able to predict climate years into the future.

Go to scholar.google.com and search on "climate sensitivity" with the quotes. Notice that this returns about 9300 articles.

You mean like the first article in the list,

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987JGR....9213315W

Title:
 A doubled CO2 climate sensitivity experiment with a global climate model including a simple ocean

Authors:
 Wilson, C. A.; Mitchell, J. F. B.

Publication:
 Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 92, Issue D11, p. 13315-13343 (JGR Homepage)

Which purports:

The sensitivity of a global climate model to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations is presented, assessed, and compared with earlier studies.

So, most if not all of these studies are about "models" being sensitive to CO2.  Big deal...I can do that in one line of math.  Here's a model:

T = CO2 x BsubK

This model shows that increased CO2 (CO2) will increase Temperature (T).

BsubK is the Bailo Constant Carbon Fudge Factor.     Everytime you show me a new data series, I will change BsubK to fit each and every data point.

Case closed.   CO2 only affects models...not the Earth.

Results 1 - 10 of about 887 for "climate sensitivity" -model. (0.14 seconds

So, suddenly the number of papers drops to 1/10th of the previous voluminous weight of evidence.  And when I started to look through some of them, they still used the word "model" (Note to Page and Brin: Check that Scholar search algorithm).

Is it correct for me to assume that your comment was addressed to Nolmahalo?

Take a look at "manacker's" last post, dismissing "birdbrainscan's" documentation... now take a look at "birdbrainscan's" last post, listing documents... now calculate the time difference between the post... did you get eleven minutes too?

Get it?

http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus

Then it emerges that convection and uneven distribution of water vapor are important, so a more realistic treatment requires a three-dimensional picture of what is where. This gets to the modern models like GISS, modelE and others. Note that these make no claim to predict where it will rain on what day decades into the future, but they DO claim to realistically project the statistical properties of the atmosphere - what kinds of weather occur at any particular latitude, time of year. Recent versions even include factors like orography (effects of mountain ranges) and ocean circulation. This requires vast numbers of computations.

There are hard data against which to validate what comes out of the computer - all the weather and air sampling observations that have been archived from many decades of balloon sondes, plus satellite data.

I've looked at the work of the modellers, and I know some profs involved in the field. They are realistic about what the models can and cannot do. I've seen them speak to the public about this and they are up front about where the models do or do not "have skill."

So the "models" you so casually scorn are not wild guesses tossed together willy-nilly. They have been carefully examined and tested against actual data first.

The reason most articles on climate sensitivity refer to models is that the models are genuinely useful and testable. If they can't reproduce the known history of the climate in the 20th century, they're sent back for more work.

I think you don't do yourself any credit by suggesting, it seems, that you thinking is closed to what the 7000+ articles with "model" in the title even have to say. Please open your mind a bit and go read the full article of at least a few of the top cited articles.

I have already seen most of the (seemingly) contrary articles you eagerly cite. I've read many more articles with a range of viewpoints and different takes on questions like Antarctic mass balance.

If you are really seeking to understand the science and not just score debating points, please set aside your abhorrence for the term "model" and look at the evidence in the scientific literature.

http://birdbrainscan.blogspot.com/

You wrote: "I've read many more articles with a range of viewpoints and different takes on questions like Antarctic mass balance."

Did you catch the study by Duncan Wingham et al that concluded that the Antarctic Ice Sheet gained mass overall of 27 Gt/year over the period 1992-2003, based on hundreds of millions of satellite altimetry readings taken 24/7.

This is the report that was ignored by IPCC when it claimed in its 2007 SPM report that the AIS lost mass overall equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the time period 1993-2003 (equivalent to a loss of mass of 71 Gt/year).

IPCC apparently missed that one.  Did you?

Regards,

Max

Don't come down too hard on birdbrainscan because he likes models.

There are some good ones out there.

How `bout Cindy Crawford, Claudia Schiffer, Elle MacPherson or Tyra Banks?

Shoots those boring GIGO models cited by IPCC right out of the saddle.  Wouldn't you agree?

Regards,

Max

BlckWallaby at 8:47 PM on 11 Jan 2008

Nucbuddy at 10:23 PM on 14 Jan 2008

nomahalo at 6:27 PM on 29 Jan 2008

Perhaps Andrew and his followers cannot comprehend that a belief system may be graded anywhere between black and white.    The professor and many of us so called skeptics, are clearly of the grey variety.  That is to say, that we are aware that CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation, but that it is only a tiny part of the total "climate thermostat" including massively more water in its three phases, and massive heat transfer from the tropics pole-wards etc.  Yes, CO2 may well have some warming effect, but there is only intuition based modelling and opinion to SUGGEST how much.

I'm also amused that some of us skeptics, are now being called trolls, which initially puzzled me after looking in my large 2007 English/Oz dictionary.   However, The MS Works dictionary now gives:

online false statement used as Internet lure: a carefully worded but incorrect statement that is designed to lure other Internet users into sending responses (informal)

Well, well, well, So Dr Andrew Dessler IS A TROLL.

His statements in the lead article are false, and designed to make people respond.  

Of course his rules for response, and those of his true believers, are not the norm for a blog.  Just jeer, dismiss, or ignore, if you don't think you can win the debate.

Keep it up guys, put aside anything that shows softer evidence for things being not as bad as you hope they are

Re: Why isn't NSaggie answering?
Perhaps it is an absence of humility on your part that you fail to see that you have suffered what is known-in-the-trade *(at least over in Australia) as "the brush off".

Smart words.  The author should take them to heart.

What you suggest above did pass through my mind, amongst several thought processes, but I think it is rather unlikely to be relevant.  You may leap to that conclusion, as you typically demonstrate in your many simplistic assumptions, but me, no.
I have deeper thought processes, and sort through the various possibilities.

My conclusion is that the most LIKELY explanation for his withdrawal from debate, not only with me, but with the several other rationalists herewith is that he has realized that he has no rational intelligent contribution to make.

If I was a 'shrink' I could probably make something out of that and pronounce............

He has now referenced it severally, what I said:

"Perhaps it is an absence of humility on your part [Dr. Dessler] that you fail to see that you have suffered what is known-in-the-trade *(at least over in Australia) as "the brush off"."

This was concerning his unthinking misrepresentation of the views of professor Chris Castro.  He even went to the trouble to locate it on an old blog and cut-and-paste it here

Seems something reeeeally memorable took hold in his grey matter!

A large part of what is worrying me is this: the family of humanity appears not to have more than several years to make necessary changes in its conspicuous over-consumption lifestyles, in the unsustainable overproduction practices of its big-business enterprises, and its overpopulation activities. Humankind may not be able to protect life as we know it and to preserve the integrity of Earth for even one more decade.

If we project the fully anticipated growth of increasing and unbridled per-capita consumption, of rampantly expanding economic globalization and of propagating 70 to 75 million newborns per annum, will someone please explain to me how our seemingly endless growth civilization proceeds beyond the end of year 2012.

According to my admittedly simple estimations, if humankind keeps doing just as it is doing now, without doing whatsoever is necessary to begin modifying the business-as-usual course of our endless-growth-oriented economy, then the Earth could sustain life as we know it for a time period of about 5 more years.

It appears to me that all the widely shared and consensually validated chatter, including what is heard in "normal science" circles, of a benign path to the future by "leap-frogging" through a `bottleneck' to population stabilization in 2050 is nothing more than wishful and magical thinking.

Unfortunately, even top rank scientists have not found adequate ways to communicate to humanity what people somehow need to hear, see and understand: the reckless dissipation of Earth's limited resources, the relentless degradation of Earth's frangible environment, and the approaching destruction of the Earth as a fit place for human habitation by the human species, when taken together, appear to be proceeding toward the precipitation of a catastrophic ecological wreckage of some sort unless, of course, the world's colossal, ever expanding, artificially designed, manmade global economy continues to speed headlong toward the 'wall' called "unsustainability" at which point the runaway economy crashes before Earth's ecology is collapsed.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

You have severally ignored many humanitarian issues asked of you elsewhere, (e.g. Africa) and I for one fearfully wonder what your real agenda is.  Could it be population reduction by whatevever means possible?  

Rather contrarily, if I THINK I read you correctly, the solution may be in IMPROVING the living standards of the poverty stricken, rather than hoping they will die off.  

Whatever your agenda is, this is not the forum for it anyway.  Please stop taking-up unfertile page-space and go eleswhere.

Whatever your agenda is, this is not the forum for it anyway.  Please stop taking-up unfertile page-space and go eleswhere.

Would that they would take their own advice...

Yes that's right, gristmill is black wallaby's blog and black wallaby decides who can make comments here and what the comments should be. For someone who likes to talk about free speech its odd to tell people to stop speaking out. Maybe the only free speech black wallaby wants is his own.

Black wallaby needs to read gristmill's posting rules, particularly #1, #2, #3, #4 and #6.

Steve Earl Salmony don't listen to black wallaby.

The Grist 61:

1. Adam Browning
   
2. Adam Stein
   
3. Aimee Witteman
   
4. Alan Durning
   
5. Andrew Dessler
   
6. Andrew Sharpless
   
7. Anna Fahey
   
8. Ashley Braun
   
9. Ben Tuxworth
   
10. Billy Parish
    
11. biodiversivist
    
12. Brian Beutler
    
13. Charles Komanoff
    
14. Clark Williams-Derry
    
15. David Roberts
    
16. Edward Mazria
    
17. Emily Gertz
    
18. Eric de Place
    
19. Erik Hoffner
    
20. Frank O'Donnell
    
21. Gar Lipow
    
22. Glenn Hurowitz
    
23. Grist
    
24. Guest author
    
25. Jason D Scorse
    
26. Jerome Woody
    
27. JMG
    
28. John McGrath
    
29. Jon Rynn
    
30. Joseph Romm
    
31. Josh Dorner
    
32. Kate Sheppard
    
33. Katharine Wroth
    
34. Katy Balatero
    
35. Ken Ward
    
36. Kevin Doyle
    
37. Kif Scheuer
    
38. Kit Stolz
    
39. Kristina & Jason Makansi
    
40. Kurt Michael Friese
    
41. Lisa Hymas
    
42. Mark Pawlosky
    
43. Matthew Dillon
    
44. Nathan Wyeth
    
45. Patrick Mazza
    
46. Peter Donovan
    
47. Representative Ed Markey
    
48. Ryan Avent
    
49. Sarah K. Burkhalter
    
50. Sarah van Schagen
    
51. Sean Casten
    
52. Sir Oolius
    
53. Summer Rayne Oakes
    
54. Tia Ghose
    
55. Todd Hymas Samkara
    
56. Tom Athanasiou
    
57. Tom Philpott
    
58. Trina Stout
    
59. Van Jones
    
60. Vinod Khosla
    
61. Youth Movement

Your personal support means a lot; it also inspires me to say that I am the father of three grown children, two are now married, so I think of myself as the father of five.  They mean everything to me. If I had my life to live again, I would not want to do anything differently.  Life has been wonderful to people in my circumstances.

The recommendation of a "One Child Per Family" plan of action is not one I take lightly or make easily.

If I was to sit here and say what I wish could be, I would begin by saying simply that the world we inhabit should be flat (and therefore unbounded) and human beings could be invited to continue doing exactly as we like, doing what we are doing now forever. Freedom and dignity of the individual are cornerstones of my life and I would extoll these virtues above all else.

Unfortunately, the world God has blessed us to inhabit is not flat. Earth is a bounded celestial orb, set among a sea of stars. Human beings evolved here. Sometimes we forget that we are a part of this Earth and members of a species that is often not adequately recognized for its distinctly human creatureliness. Until very recently, a mere two hundred and ten years ago, no one had publicly discussed, just as we are doing again now, the potential threat to humanity, life as we know it and the integrity of Earth that could one day be posed by the growth of absolute global human population numbers.  

That day when the human species poses a threat to the future of humanity and life as we know it on Earth appears to have come.  Here and now the human community appears to be challenged as never before by the unbridled growth of its propagation, production and consumption activities, ones we can see rampantly overspreading the surface of our planetary home.

As much as I would like to suggest we continue with "business as usual", that option may not be open to us for much longer.  Good scientific evidence from many sources indicates with remarkable clarity that humankind desperately needs to accept both human limits
 http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/8647/letter.html

and Earth's limitations

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYP/is_17_112/ai_ ...

If only humanity could keep doing as it likes, and as it is doing now, without threatening human wellbeing, environmental health and a good enough future for our children, then please be assured you and other Gristmill participants would be spared my contributions to this and other discussions on the internet.  After seven years of going to conferences, sponsoring Earth Day Summits on Human Population, writing letters to editors, sending thousand of emails and blogging, I would honor my long-suffering spouse by fulfilling a promise I made to her in 2001: end the AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population

http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

Jo, thanks again.

Sincerely,

Steve