Climate Science Under Fire

The drizzle of allegations that climate scientists have fudged data, drawn on dodgy sources, withheld information and frozen out dissenters has now become a downpour. Just before the Copenhagen summit there was the damaging leak of documents from the University of East Anglia's influential Climate Research Unit, revealing less than honest research practices there. In January the UN's International Panel on Climate Change was forced to retract its claim that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 after a piece in the New Scientist revealed that it was based on a single interview, given by one glaciologist to the science journalist Fred Pearce in 1999. The IPCC has said it "regrets" the error, but its chairman Rajendra Pachauri at first dismissed questions about the claim as "voodoo science."

This week, in an extensive Guardian investigation of the CRU emails, the same Fred Pearce (who was as surprised as anyone to find his old article taken as gospel, or at least peer-reviewed science, by the IPCC) has reported serious holes in a 1990 research paper by Phil Jones of the CRU and an American colleague, Wei-Chyung Wang. That paper, another key source for the IPCC, claimed to prove that urbanization's impact on warming is negligible, using data from 84 Chinese weather stations. But Jones and Wang have been unable to say where most of the stations are, and at least 18 are know to have moved during the study--possibly from the outskirts of a sweltering city to the breezy countryside.

So what's going on? Are these revelations part of an evil conspiracy by the deniers of man-made climate change to discredit climate science? Or do they show (as my learned colleague Alexander Cockburn argues) that anthropogenic warming is just one big snow job?

Science is a way of asking questions, but policymakers demand instant answers. On a subject as politicized as this, it's not surprising that scientists have been found guilty of hoarding data, smoothing a graph or two, shutting each other's work out of peer-reviewed journals; the same goes on in far less controversial fields, where what's at stake is only money and careers. On this topic there's pressure from both sides--from campaigners and politicians who believe that climate change is the most pressing threat to humankind and from sceptics (or deniers--all these words are loaded) who think it's a left-wing fantasy, or a threat to the oil industry, or a mere misguided manufactured panic. Many of the CRU emails have a beleaguered tone, as if the scientists clutching secrets to their chests were protecting their work from misuse or unscrupulous attack--as they well may have been. Why, they might ask, do they have to be Caesar's wife, always and impeccably above suspicion?

Unfortunately that response isn't nearly good enough. Their sloppy use of data and fudging of evidence has set back efforts to understand climate change and harmed the wider cause of sustainable development. We know that the earth is warming; the evidence convincingly suggests that human activity plays a significant part in this. (Take a look at the blog www.realclimate.org for informed, accessible commentary on what we know so far.) But whoever released the CRU documents just before Copenhagen knew what they were doing: nothing makes people angrier than the feeling that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes. Every research paper and data set produced by climate scientists or cited by the IPCC is now fair game for the fine-toothed comb, whether it's wielded honestly or with malicious intent. Nit-picking takes the place of conversation.

Some campaigners have called for a purge at the IPCC and heads may be sent rolling, but I'm not sure that will help, or even if it should. The deeper problem has to do with how science is practiced--not collaboratively but competitively, not following questions but seeking profitable answers--and with its skewed relationship to politics. As Professor Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia wrote in a Guardian forum,

"The scientific process offers a wonderful method for probing, critical and fearless inquiry into the way the physical world works. But scientific knowledge can never determine policy. Policy emerges through political processes, where interpretations, judgments and compromises are made by individuals and groups of individuals as they weigh uncertain and changing scientific knowledge against normative criteria. It is foolish to state ‘the science demands' anything. It is people who demand things, not science."

We expect scientists to be arbiters of truth instead of model makers, shrugging off responsibility for deciding what we want. Of course it matters whether warming is caused by human agency; we need to have evidence on which to base rational policies. But we can't know for sure how climate change will develop; there are too many variables. (For a glimpse of what the science might look like if it wasn't so politicized, take a look at Wikipedia's article on the Ice Age.) The experts have to open up the research, be honest about the uncertainties, known knowns and known unknowns, and the rest of us have to stop expecting them to tell us what to do. The argument over global warming stands in for conflicts about many other things: the relationship between the developed and developing worlds, the economic model of infinite growth, extractive versus sustainable use of natural resources, who pollutes and who gets polluted. There is little to lose (except, perhaps, for oil and mining corporations) and everything to gain by switching to sustainable energy, gradually consuming less, leaving the odd tree standing. It is much easier to bicker about botched graphs--important as they are--than it is to confront the politics.

Comments (101)

1. Maria Margaronis remains a true believer.

   Even though all the "climate change" research and "facts" are now in question, and that Ms. Margaronis admits as such, she declares anyway:

   "......We know that the earth is warming; the evidence convincingly suggests that human activity plays a significant part in this......."

   So despite the fact that some scientists have fudged things to try and "prove" global warming, and that this is still an unsettled question that scientists are a long way from reaching a consensus on, with the scientists trying to push global warming having been proven a wee bit disingenuous, Ms. Margaronis declares the matter settled, nonetheless.

   I guess libs "know" global warming is happening, and they believed they had the "proof"....but now even they know they don't, but they remain committed to finding it, to validate what they already "know".

   If the scientific facts aren't there, however.......how do libs "know" about global warming?

   Posted by sjchermak at 02/05/2010 @ 5:21pm

2. "If the scientific facts aren't there, however"

   if scientists are working, and if science is happening, then why wouldn't there be scientific "facts"?

   are there not scientific facts, sjchermak?

   or have you fallen so deep inside an orwellian hole, that suddenly, science doesn't even exist any longer?

   i'm guessing that latter....

   Posted by darladoon at 02/05/2010 @ 5:35pm

3. darladoon,

   If scientists are now and have been in disagreement on this subject for a long time now, with no consensus having been reached amongst the scientific community as to whether warming is happening or no, whether it is bad or not if it were happening, and what causes it or not or is whatever does happen normal climate fluctuation that has occurred since the earth has existed............

   THEN

   Whatever points that are brought to bear on this subject can not really be called facts, can they?

   A fact would be something that is proven.

   It certainly does seem that nobody has yet offered up facts that have "proven" global warming. And actually, just in the recent months, a lot of the so-called "proof" has been exposed to be fraudulent.

   Thus, the "facts" aren't there, which is why I said they aren't there.

   Posted by sjchermak at 02/05/2010 @ 7:37pm

4. I think many journalists don't really know that the only presently undisputed science, viz that change in temperature is proportional to the natural logarithm of the ratio of the CO2 concentrations at any considered two concentrations, almost rules out any possibility that significant anthropogenic global warming is occurring. That of course leaves only one possibility, as a culprit, for the increases in temperature over the last 40 years or so; natural climate variability.

   Maria really strikes about the best possible note. viz effectively saying: Give us good sound true "consensus" science that is not fabricated or skewed in the interests of a pseudo moral agenda.

   Here is an interesting slant on how the IPCC with the connivance of some governments impinges far more than any 5-4 US court decision does, on democratic freedoms:

   "A Vatican of the Laboratory"

   "The scandals have revealed that leading lights in the climate change story sought to suppress debate and demonise their opponents, and allowed their moral conviction about humanity's hubris bringing about the end of the world to sprint ahead of the "scientific facts".

   "The scandals reveal that many climate change alarmists are intolerant and censorious. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has attacked the sceptics who are asking entirely rational questions about some of the IPCC's claims, accusing them of indulging in "skulduggery of the worst kind".

   "Behaving more like a secular Vatican than a genuinely enlightened, open-minded, inquisitive gathering of investigative scientists, the IPCC's overlords treat dissent as something disgusting."

   http://tinyurl.com/yh6htjg

   Posted by lrjones4 at 02/05/2010 @ 7:40pm

5. More from Climatologists who say we are now in global cooling

   http://www.longrangeweather.com/climate_change.htm

   OSU Climatologist George Taylor

   http://tinyurl.com/4p98vj

   From the BBC

   <Five major climate centers around the world agree that average global temperatures have not risen in the past 11 years, according to the BBC. In fact, in eight of those years, global average temperatures dipped a tad.>

   http://tinyurl.com/ylrr4ur

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

   Posted by antisocialist at 02/05/2010 @ 7:45pm

6. "Don't count your trees, forests aren't that green"

   "CLIMATE change policy just got a whole lot harder. Once again, the culprit is the science."

   "New research suggests that forests are not the carbon sinks they were assumed to be."

   "Climate change policy-makers will have to return to the drawing board."

   http://tinyurl.com/yjbwntm

   Who said the science is settled?

   Posted by lrjones4 at 02/05/2010 @ 8:25pm

7. I notice that the deniers' strategy is subtly shifting. Rather than dispute that the climate is changing, they concentrate on casting doubt on the claim that human-created CO2 has anything to do with it.

   Sadly, if these two claims are true, that is, if the planet is warming rapidly AND we have nothing to do with it, then we simply have to accept the inundation of our coasts, the growth of deserts, the melting of glaciers, and the die-offs of forests as climate belts recede from the poles. There's nothing we can do about it.

   I believe it comes down to this: Some people would rather accept global disaster than global responsibility.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 02/05/2010 @ 9:10pm

8. I notice that the deniers' strategy is subtly shifting. Rather than dispute that the climate is changing, they concentrate on casting doubt on the claim that human-created CO2 has anything to do with it.

   Sadly, if these two claims are true, that is, if the planet is warming rapidly AND we have nothing to do with it, then we simply have to accept the inundation of our coasts, the growth of deserts, the melting of glaciers, and the die-offs of forests as climate belts recede from the poles. There's nothing we can do about it.

   I believe it comes down to this: Some people would rather accept global disaster than global responsibility.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 02/05/2010 @ 9:10pm

   you seem confused. Most of us who call Anthropogenic Global Warming a hoax have consistently stated that we accept that the earth has warming and cooling cycles. That is at the core of our argument. I certainly have been making that point as long as I've beeen posting here.

   Posted by antisocialist at 02/05/2010 @ 9:39pm

9. There's no point in preaching to the permanently, intentionally self-deluded (Cherm, LR, and Anti), but for those that would like to look at actual scientific information that addresses most of the malarkey that these simpletons purvey in the name of ignorance (Cherm), the coal industry (LR), and opposition to taxation of any kind (Anti), please consider looking at this site:

   www.skepticalscience.com

   It addresses each of their points ("there's no consensus", "the science isn't settled", "it's the weather", "it's the sun", "it's not humans", etc ad nauseum) with the relevant science related to each in an accessible fashion and often has links to the most recent papers and findings of the climate science community.

   The deniers are welcome to take up their quixotic quest to keep their hands over their eyes and ears by tilting at (power-generating) windmills in the comments section therein.

   Posted by snowball777 at 02/05/2010 @ 9:58pm

10. Posted by snowball777 at 02/05/2010 @ 9:58pm

    Must be the cold weather over there 21 as you seem to have more trouble than usual in getting your brain in gear. I think you tried this scam once before?

    Let us remind the listeners that skepticalscience is run by a very minor amateur player who did a science degree in one of Australia's less important universities.

    He is not even a climatologist. He is an unashamed mouthpiece for the IPPC, so 21 you are being very naughty in trying to give the impression that this site is anything but biased:

    "About Skeptical Science"

    "The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming."

    "About the author"

    "Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible)."

    "There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife."

    Don't like to be unscientifically triumphalist jockey 21 but I think you are flogging a dying horse. You could join Lefty Cockburn.

    If some of you true believers want an outlet for a bit of aggro or something to get your adrenalin flowing here's the place:

    http://joannenova.com.au/

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/05/2010 @ 11:24pm

11. Posted by snowball777 at 02/05/2010 @ 9:58pm

    Must be the cold weather over there 21 as you seem to have more trouble than usual in getting your brain in gear. I think you tried this scam once before?

    Let us remind the listeners that skepticalscience is run by a very minor amateur player who did a science degree in one of Australia's less important universities.

    He is not even a climatologist. He is an unashamed mouthpiece for the IPPC, so 21 you are being very naughty in trying to give the impression that this site is anything but biased:

    "About Skeptical Science"

    "The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming."

    "About the author"

    "Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible)."

    "There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife."

    Don't like to be unscientifically triumphalist jockey 21 but I think you are flogging a dying horse. You could join Lefty Cockburn.

    If some of you true believers want an outlet for a bit of aggro or something to get your adrenalin flowing here's the place:

    http://joannenova.com.au/

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/05/2010 @ 11:49pm

12. Sorry about that. Don't know how it happened as I don't think I double clicked.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/05/2010 @ 11:56pm

13. Worked out that I posted the duplicate under the impression I was posting the following from the same page on word.

    I did have a look at some of Skeptical Sciences' rationalisations of the recent "climate gate" scandals and found them unconvincing. However SS and its spin on climate gate events are irrelevant because sceptics, like everyone else, have direct internet access to the IPCC documents.

    You need to get with it 21 and improve your detective skills. Sceptics don't argue about the validity of the "evidence" unless it is obviously fraudulent like the Himalayan fiasco but say that over all, the credible evidence does not support an anthropogenic cause (because of the basic temperature change/CO2 concentration relationship (which is confirmed science) and indicates AGWs insignificant calculable effect) but rather supports natural climate variation as being the more likely, significant factor producing that evidence.

    Not sure if you knew this but evidence does not come saying Hi I'm caused by AGW or by NCV. Sceptics and impartial scientists know this and look for the most likely cause of the evidence.

    My suggestion to you before was to go to genuine climatologists who are working at the cutting edge of that area where an AGW hypothesis is most susceptible to falsification and argue with them. Names like John Christy and Roy Spencer are pretty significant, in understanding the nature of the feedbacks without which the whole AGW hypothesis is very fragile.

    I think I mentioned them before but going to a site whose principal claims he has no education or any hands on experience in the science is hardly the way most intelligent persons would go about getting informed. Particularly when he tells you he is a true believer.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/06/2010 @ 12:54am

14. "There is little to lose (except, perhaps, for oil and mining corporations) and everything to gain by switching to sustainable energy, gradually consuming less, leaving the odd tree standing. It is much easier to bicker about botched graphs--important as they are--than it is to confront the politics. "

    Obviously the writer of this article knows little or nothing about economics and science. This is befitting a publication like The Nation, where hope and imagination so often replaces reality.

    There is, in fact, a lot to lose by 'switching to sustainable energy' when the technology needed to obtain such energy is at such a level where it will impoverish the nation that tries to replace fossil fuel power with it. This is more of the happy bunny theory we have become so used to from both The Nation, Chairman Obama, and the hordes of happy liberals that engage in the requisite happy talk mythology surrounding this scene.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/06/2010 @ 01:00am

15. I've got a bit of a conspiracy theory that doesn't auger well for true believers.

    Rupert Murdoch as you may know got true believers religion a few years ago. Prior to that his paper "The Australian" treated the sceptics a little more favourably than it did AGWers. But when he got saved that all changed and "extremists" were sidelined.

    It seems that Rupert didn't take too kindly to the recent dirty con jobs the IPCC got caught out perpetrating. One thing he can't stand, so it seems, is being taken for a ride. Evidence? His Aussie paper has in the last month or so joined in taking the IPCC to task and in asking for the sceptical voices to be heard. Further, sceptics seem to be getting the numerical advantage on the opinion pages by a big margin.

    Not sure about his WSJ but I suspect the same thing is happening there, if on a lesser scale.

    Has Rupe apostatised? If he has, then given his vast global media empire, he is in a unique position to sink the IPCC boat. Wonder if science speech should be free speech.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/06/2010 @ 02:03am

16. "We know that the earth is warming; the evidence convincingly suggests that human activity plays a significant part in this. "

    That is what I love about the leftist they cling so tenaciously to their idealouge fantasies for so long after they have been totally discredited and proven to be politically driven simply to "force" others to accept their slobbering for power drivel as fact!

    It is humorous to watch these sheep hypnotized by their delusions continue in them bleating until some new contrivence distracts them!

    Thanks, and keep entertaining us with your insanities!

    Posted by BigPasture at 02/06/2010 @ 02:58am

17. Has anyone seen ALGORE?

    Or his G-5?

    Or his limosines roaring down the road with lights and sirens ?

    Is he hiding in one of his mansions trying to keep from freezing his ass? But then again he requires a small coal fired plant just to keep his compound lights on.... Ah, for the people, of course.

    Maybe he is having the bolts in his neck tightened on an annual basis.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/06/2010 @ 05:59am

18. nothing makes people angrier than the feeling that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes

    posted by Maria Margaronis on 02/05/2010 @ 4:59pm

    one thing does: a person's realization that no matter how hard they try, they'll never see through the wool or around it; that is, the realization that they just don't 'get science'.

    this makes ignorant people upset, swells up an antiscientific schadenfreude and causes them to distrust (mysterious) science.

    then yesterday's snowfall is just deep enough for them bury their heads.....

    http://tinyurl.com/yleehbr

    Posted by Blair Wooff at 02/06/2010 @ 08:38am

19. Still have yet to read any reason we should not be CONSERVing energy and resources.

    Unless the cons are into "if it feels good...DO IT!"

    They whine and cry about using up their kids money to pay off the Iraq war they wanted, but think NOTHING about using up their kids natural gas and oil. -

    ---

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/06/2010 @ 05:59am

    He is with ACORN!!!!

    Meanwhile....back at the ranch...

    Iraq still has stolen billions of dollars you borrowed from your kids...

    and you worry about an ex VP.

    And how to use more of your kids oil.

    too rich!

    Do you know where Capt Nguyen is? Do you know how much he stole from you?

    VS how much ACORN "stole" from you?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/06/2010 @ 09:17am

20. Posted by lrjones4 at 02/05/2010 @ 11:49pm |

    "Must be the cold weather over there 21 as you seem to have more trouble than usual in getting your brain in gear. I think you tried this scam once before?"

    Scam? LOL

    Funny how linking to actual peer reviewed science is considered a 'scam' to the deniers, but it does fit with their condemnation of all scientists as power-grabbing crooks (until they need one to lie on their behalf, in which case they're the one scientist who wouldn't grab for power or lie...and certainly not to sell books to deniers).

    I've accepted that this debate won't be centered on or resolved by objective science and instead will be a culture war based on how many deniers can lie loudest and longest to support their fear, uncertainty, and doubt tactics.

    You idiots want to self-destruct in the name of short-term convenience to your chosen energy sources?

    Have a good time, but the heat content is still rising, the ice is still melting, and the C13/C12 ratio still has our fingerprints all over it.

    Posted by snowball777 at 02/06/2010 @ 09:19am

21. Let us go back a few years and apply the SAME logic the cons used to the GW debate...

    Niger documents forged...it does not matter, the cons KNEW Saddam had wmd's.

    The man in charge of Iraq wmd programs tells us that they were destroyed in 1991..it does not matter...the cons KNEW Saddam had wmd's...

    Weapons inspectors find no signs of wmd's or wmd programs...it does not matter..cons KNEW Saddam had wmd's.

    No connections between Saddam and AQ..it does not matter...cons KNEW Saddam was working with AQ

    OIF has not reduced Islamic terrorism or produced a functioning democracy...it does not matter..the cons KNOW spending a trillion dollars of borrowed money was the RIGHT thing to do...

    But, reducing energy consumption based on current science would KILL America, even though Europe is making billions on "alternative" energy businesses.

    So, using con logic, even if GW is a ...hoax... IT DOES NOT MATTER because we believe at the time we are doing the right thing.

    the cons taught us that.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/06/2010 @ 09:25am

22. Do you know where Capt Nguyen is? Do you know how much he stole from you?

    VS how much ACORN "stole" from you?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/06/2010 @ 09:17am

    The past stealings are dead and gone...and can not do anything about them, but I can do something about Obama and ALGORES present and future stealing on a scale to dwarf the past fellows you seem to want to focus on...plus Bush fault...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/06/2010 @ 09:26am

23. The past stealings are dead and gone...and can not do anything about them, but I can do something about Obama and ALGORES present and future stealing on a scale to dwarf the past fellows you seem to want to focus on...plus Bush fault...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/06/2010 @ 09:26am

    Funny how you guys do not want to discuss the past, unless it involve Clintons penis (SJCHERM) or Jimmy Carter (PONTI).

    ACORNS deeds are in the past, but you still bring it up, having zero proof that ACORN!!! stole a dime.

    Iraq is currently stealing money from your kids, your willing blindness does nothing to prevent it.

    At the time, we tried to tell you your kids money was being stolen, but you decided it was just liberal lies and you turned a blind eye to it. Now, after your kids have been stolen blind, and YOU should pony up the money via your taxes, all of a sudden it is "the past".

    "May 27, 2008 |

    The Pentagon cannot account for nearly 15 billion dollars in payments for goods and services in Iraq, according to an internal audit

    "American taxpayers are picking up the tab for Iraqi ministries, coalition governments, U.S. and foreign contractors, Iraqi security forces, and Blackwater and other U.S. security companies," Henry Waxman"

    Tell us about the evils of socialism, Mr Tancredo!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/06/2010 @ 09:33am

24. Look to Asia- advice from JOMAMMA last year...

    " By Alison Pruitt on January 8, 2010

    While the White House is still trying to convince Congress to pass his energy bill, China is moving forward with improvements to its energy policies.

    On December 26th, the National People's Congress, China's national legislative body, passed amendments to its Renewable Energy Law designed to improve the country's energy efficiency and compliance. The law requires electric grid enterprises to buy power from renewable sources. The amendments also mandate that grid companies must upgrade their equipment to accommodate power from renewable energy generators and improve their smart grid capabilities.

    China's goal is to have renewable energy sources make up 15 percent of its power generation capacity by 2020, up from about 9 percent currently. "

    So, the advice is to look to Asia, unless it happens to agree with AL GORE!! Because ALGORE is a hypocrite, Newt the Philanderer or John McCain the Family Values Man (and user of the "F" word on his wife) or many many other examples to myriad to list.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/06/2010 @ 09:53am

25. oops..

    ..."unlike Newt the Philanderer, Packwood the Philanderer, Strom the Philanderer, Foley the Child protector...

    oh, wait, all in the past.

    John is right, let us not discuss how we got where we are...that would require too much looking in the mirror and it is far easier to blame Obama for TARP.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/06/2010 @ 09:57am

26. Stimulus Package 2009....

    in the past, we can do nothing about it. Why bring it up?

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/06/2010 @ 10:02am

27. China should improvbe their energy efficiency and growth...they will be the largest energy user and importer...

    and they need to go after all sources, which they are around the world...including oil...and so should we...every drop we don't use to conserve instead of invest, the Chinese and Indians will...and they will run ALGORES ass out the door, as we should...but they will encourage ALGORE to go forward...over here....for his cap and trade horseshit will cripple and hamper our eco0nomy while India and China support ALGORIAN policies...over here.

    That is the point...

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/06/2010 @ 10:18am

28. ALGORE Posted by YourJomamma at 02/06/2010 @ 10:18am

    What is this ALGORE to which you keep referring? If it's the ex VP, Al Gore likely does more in five minutes than you will manage in five lifetimes.

    But then, hey, your buddy Winfield punched that Ohio State guy in the face five times unprovoked. By the way, Steinbrenner hated Winfield, who could not perform in the clutch, so badly, he hired some slime bag to dig up dirt on your hero.

    Posted by kennyboy at 02/06/2010 @ 10:50am

29. Ah Kennybaby,

    Another blistering near miss as the ball is dribbled to the pitcher as you set up another 3 and out ....

    You gotta stop sliding head first...... Into the dugout.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 02/06/2010 @ 11:07am

30. "That paper, another key source for the IPCC, claimed to prove that urbanization's impact on warming is negligible," I've been trying to comment on this phenomena on Nation blogs for 2 years now. In a series of papers starting with a letter to Nature in 1990, Phil Jones systematical under represented the portion of measured warming due to urbanization or heat islands. This contradicted a great deal of existing research on the topic. This exagerated the rate of global warming by about a factor of two for a significant portion of the temperatue record. It didn't fabricate global warming, it just exagerated it. If you want to read a god, nonpolitical analysis of Climategate, try Climategate: the CRUtapes by Mosher and Fuller, www.createspace.com/3423467 .

    Posted by lnh at 02/06/2010 @ 11:48am

31. It is entirely disingenuous to suggest readers reply upon "www.realclimate.org for informed, accessible commentary" when that site was established and operated by CRU and friends whom you concede conducted "less than honest research"! Readers should at a minimum be advised honestly.

    CRU and friends so muddled and fabricated climate science that global warming and anthropomorphic global warming are indeterminate. Honest scientists relied upon the CRU foundational work product. Their subsequent scientific works are placed in doubt as well as their careers as the rot in the foundation is exposed.

    Posted by RallyR at 02/06/2010 @ 12:03pm

32. 'Not sure if you knew this but evidence does not come saying Hi I'm caused by AGW or by NCV. Sceptics and impartial scientists know this and look for the most likely cause of the evidence.'

    Ah, but you see, "lrjones24," rather than admit that greenhouse gases, the products of human industrial activity, ARE the most likely cause of the evidence, the deniers go looking, as you say, for some explanation, which really hasn't appeared yet.

    Deniers is what they are. Don't go telling me that there are some "impartial" scientists and others who are "partial." Every scientist wants his or her theory to succeed, and that's that. The corrective is not "impartiality," but peer review.

    There is no explanation that accounts for observed phenomena better than the greenhouse theory. If there were, the deniers would be trumpeting this explanation from the rooftops.

    As it is, they can't even co-ordinate their message. "Maybe it's the clouds." "Maybe it's sunspots." Sure, but you either have no data to support these "maybes" or the data that exist don't correspond to observed climate change data nearly as well as the history of humans burning stuff over the last 500 years.

    Sure, correlation is not the same as causation. But where are the other data that correlate with climate change better than greenhouse gases? Don't know, better go looking, eh?

    The problem is, I'm not the one the deniers need to convince. It's the scientists of the various National Academies of Science (NAS) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) whom you need to convince. These two organizations, both of which endorse a robust anthropogenic greenhouse-gas theory of global climate change, together represent more scientists than any other. Convince them, and I'll follow suit.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 02/06/2010 @ 12:46pm

33. JakobFabian, you explained that beautifully.

    Posted by Denise29 at 02/06/2010 @ 1:12pm

34. Posted by YourJomamma at 02/06/2010 @ 11:07am |

    What are you talking about, drunky?

    Posted by kennyboy at 02/06/2010 @ 1:13pm

35. The worst nightmare possible would be a solution to AGW that was social justice neutral. Imagine the angst if the climate could be stabilized, but wealth wouldn't need to be redistributed? Probably just better to let the planet crisp itself.

    Posted by sntauri at 02/06/2010 @ 1:17pm

36. Ah, but you see, "lrjones24," rather than admit that greenhouse gases, the products of human industrial activity, ARE the most likely cause of the evidence, the deniers go looking, as you say, for some explanation, which really hasn't appeared yet.....

    The problem is, I'm not the one the deniers need to convince.....

    Posted by JakobFabian at 02/06/2010 @ 12:46pm

    JF may not `deny' greenhouse gases as "the most likely cause" of (debatable) warming...in fact, he is a devout believer that Jesus would be proud to have.

    But he is absolutely a denier of the thousands of warming cycles over billions of years when, holy toledo, man did not walk the earth and the photplanktons in the pea soup (we call seas) had yet to mount their In Quest of Fire!

    Posted by Happy at 02/06/2010 @ 1:21pm

37. Not sure about his WSJ but I suspect the same thing is happening there, if on a lesser scale.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/06/2010 @ 02:03am

    The WSJ is the only large-circulation Legacy Media keeping abreast of the death of the AGW Religion!

    My own Houston paper, part of the Hearst (Left-wing) media chain, hasn't had a single article....or if it did, it's tucked so far out-of-sight, even a daily reader, like me, hasn't seen it.

    Gotta give some credit to UK's Guardian, left-wing to be sure and an ex-AGW stalwart, it's got the wool off its eyes. Brits overall are still believers but the latest poll show significant awakening.

    Good to see it is now more `profitable' to take apart past `studies'!

    Posted by Happy at 02/06/2010 @ 1:51pm

38. Gotta give some credit to UK's Guardian, left-wing to be sure and an ex-AGW stalwart, it's got the wool off its eyes. Brits overall are still believers but the latest poll show significant awakening. Good to see it is now more `profitable' to take apart past `studies'! Posted by Happy at 02/06/2010 @ 1:51pm

    Before rushing to judgment on the hapless scientists involved, though, it is as well to recall the peculiar pressures that climate researchers face. The climate clock is ticking on civilisation and it falls to them to answer the all-important question about just how much time there is left to act. Providing the answer necessarily involves forecasting the future, inevitably a less certain business than making sense of the present, and yet as much certainty as possible is urgently required. The blatant foul play of the deniers invites a tit-for-tat response as a matter of human instinct, while the well-grounded suspicion that their aim is squandering precious time provides a seeming rationale for simply cutting them out of the debate.

    The Guardian Feb. 6, 2010

    That is from today's - as in this particular day in which we are now present - Guardian editorial page. "The climate clock is ticking" is hardly a denial that real scientists have found a serious cause for alarm regarding climate change. Do we have to start giving Mr. Happy a remedial reading course?

    Note also the phrase "The blatant foul play of the deniers..."

    Of course, we can always rely on good ol' Rupert Murdoch's perpetual news cycle to put his two cents in when his own profits might be at risk.

    Yeesh!

    Posted by kennyboy at 02/06/2010 @ 2:14pm

39. "His boy, ElRoy" Jones to Snowball777:

    "Must be the cold weather over there 21 as you seem to have more trouble than usual in getting your brain in gear. I think you tried this scam once before?

    Let us remind the listeners that skepticalscience is run by a very minor amateur player who did a science degree in one of Australia's less important universities.

    He is not even a climatologist...."

    And you would be......what, Jonesy?

    A mathmagician I expect, based on your supercomputer-like powers of arithmetic. Certainly not a climatologist, but who f#ckin' cares?

    The consensus of experts was in years ago, Barking Duck [Buffoonis extremis] from down unda'. The howling duck has virtually nothing to crow about, yet insists on doing so.

    In the northern hemisphere we call that, "laughable". Keep 'em coming McDuck.

    ***********************************************

    First, that was a finely crafted post by Ms. Margaronis.

    Concise quote:

    The experts have to open up the research, be honest about the uncertainties, known knowns and known unknowns, and the rest of us have to stop expecting them to tell us what to do. The argument over global warming stands in for conflicts about many other things: the relationship between the developed and developing worlds, the economic model of infinite growth, extractive versus sustainable use of natural resources, who pollutes and who gets polluted. There is little to lose (except, perhaps, for oil and mining corporations) and everything to gain by switching to sustainable energy, gradually consuming less, leaving the odd tree standing.

    Second, thanks to Snowball and the ever fine gent, Jakob Fabian for the nice posts here.

    Finally, the underlying conundrum in this case and so many others is the inherent intransigence of, and marked

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/06/2010 @ 2:49pm

40. susceptibility to unchecked propaganda.

    It's the problem that Carl Sagan addressed so beautifully and eloquently in one of his last great books, "The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark".

    In brief, in a world where technical achievements are ever increasingly at the heart of how society functions, we cannot afford to have a citizenry that is not able to function on an intellectual level above "NO" and "MINE".

    We see evidence of the damage everyday here on the blog pages of The Nation.

    Dog help us.

    Oh and also briefly, "God" is not a particularly rational term since it has no meaningful definition beyond "that which is beyond our comprehension".

    At a certain point, society might want to acknowledge that fact as well, and then pull its collective head out of its ass and figure out how to survive and thrive in a world where life is a complex web of interdependent creatures.

    Peace to all, and my sincere best regards,

    ~B

    One last thing....

    I believe ad nauseum is actually ad nauseam. Although I would be curious to visit the Nauseum. Check that, I believe that's the planet of my current residence.

    ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/06/2010 @ 2:49pm

41. correction:

    "the underlying conundrum in this case and so many others is the inherent intransigence of, and marked susceptibility to unchecked propaganda of such a vast cohort of human individuals."

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/06/2010 @ 2:53pm

42. Posted by JakobFabian at 02/05/2010 @ 9:10pm

    Jakob, the dispute has not been whether there's climate change. The dispute is and has been whether that change is anthropogenic. I'm amazed that someone with your intelligence can pretend that isn't the truth.

    Anthropogenic GW is a hoax designed to usher in global governance to combat "climate change".

    When the truth is, unseen by the millions of useful idiots, the enemy being attacked by the global environmental leadership and its benefactors isn't "climate change". Their enemy is human liberty.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 02/06/2010 @ 3:15pm

43. "freiheit1" is a hoaxer designed to usher in global ignorance to combat the raising of human awareness of its increasingly perilous milieu.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/06/2010 @ 3:22pm

44. Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/06/2010 @ 3:22pm

    Wow! You have me pegged! LOL!

    Too bad for you the only raising human awareness appears to be that global warming is a ruse and we're right.

    Go ahead, ask Gorbachev, one time head of world communism and now green warrior, or Maurice Strong, fabian socialist and founder of the environmental movement in the 70's if there a political driver behind the scam.

    Our liberty is under attack. Not the earth.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 02/06/2010 @ 3:46pm

45. here's what else climate scientists are saying:

    "

    -Wintertime temperatures have been increasing across the northern United States. Since the 1970s, December-February temperature increases have ranged from 1 to 2 degrees in the Pacific Northwest to about 4 degrees in the Northeast to more than 6 degrees in Alaska.

    –Winters are getting shorter, too. Spring arrives 10-14 days earlier than it did just 20 years ago.

    –Global warming is bringing a clear trend toward heavier precipitation events. Many areas are seeing bigger and more intense snowstorms, especially in the upper Midwest and Northeast.

    -Global warming is shifting storm tracks northward. Areas from the Dakotas eastward to northern Michigan have seen a trend toward more heavy snowfall season"

    Posted by darladoon at 02/06/2010 @ 4:04pm

46. "Anthropogenic GW is a hoax designed to usher in global governance to combat "climate change""

    boy, it really takes a lot of nerve to argue that, first off, the science behind AGW just isn't there......and the second, to question someone's intelligence by arguing that AGW is a "hoax" without providing ANY science (i.e. evidence) whatsoever.

    Posted by darladoon at 02/06/2010 @ 4:05pm

47. Posted by darladoon at 02/06/2010 @ 4:05pm

    Hi Darla, I thought we agreed to disagree on this topic. We can link and copy and paste all day long.

    You believe what you want. Me too.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 02/06/2010 @ 4:08pm

48. freiheit, why would scientists deliberately create false or misleading data?

    it's one thing to *misrepresent* the data, but an entirely different thing to *create* false data.

    Posted by darladoon at 02/06/2010 @ 4:25pm

49. freiheit, i don't "believe" that the earth is warming. the earth is, in fact, warming.

    2009 was the fifth warmest on record.

    do you not believe that?

    just curious.

    Posted by darladoon at 02/06/2010 @ 4:28pm

50. Yes, I believe there are changes in climate Darla. I've never denied it.

    I contend that it is natural and not mankind's fault.

    "freiheit, why would scientists deliberately create false or misleading data? "

    Because there are trillions of dollars at stake Darla. And commensurate political power.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 02/06/2010 @ 4:34pm

51. I believe ad nauseum is actually ad nauseam. Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/06/2010 @ 2:49pm |

    Yes, nausea is a first declension noun.

    Imbibo magis fermentum!

    Posted by snowball777 at 02/06/2010 @ 4:37pm

52. Because there are trillions of dollars at stake Darla. And commensurate political power. Posted by freiheit1 at 02/06/2010 @ 4:34pm |

    That would be EXXON's motive, Frei.

    Posted by snowball777 at 02/06/2010 @ 4:39pm

53. "I contend that it is natural and not mankind's fault"

    it is a scientific fact that deforestation severely impacts the watershed volume of any ecosystem, and not only that, but deforestation also decreases rainfall. it also eliminates myriads of different species, which we indirectly depend on for survival.

    even if it were TRUE that humans do not adversely impact climate, then we are still left with problems like deforestation, which are exacerbated under a climate change scenario.

    so you are wrong on two counts: one, AGW, and two, the lack of sustainability of capitalism.

    "Because there are trillions of dollars at stake Darla. And commensurate political power"

    and scientists merely want a piece of the pie? i thought science was independent of money and politics?

    or do you have evidence of a large number of scientists deliberately creating false data?

    Posted by darladoon at 02/06/2010 @ 4:43pm

54. "I contend that it is natural and not mankind's fault"

    it is a scientific fact that deforestation severely impacts the watershed volume of any ecosystem, and not only that, but deforestation also decreases rainfall. it also eliminates myriads of different species, which we indirectly depend on for survival.

    even if it were TRUE that humans do not adversely impact climate, then we are still left with problems like deforestation, which are exacerbated under a climate change scenario.

    so you are wrong on two counts: one, AGW, and two, the lack of sustainability of capitalism.

    "Because there are trillions of dollars at stake Darla. And commensurate political power"

    and scientists merely want a piece of the pie? i thought science was independent of money and politics?

    or do you have evidence of a large number of scientists deliberately creating false data?

    Posted by darladoon at 02/06/2010 @ 4:43pm

55. "so you are wrong on two counts: one, AGW, and two, the lack of sustainability of capitalism."

    There, see? You yourself pin point the REAL motivation behind the ruse. The destruction of capitalism.

    Thanks for saving us both a bunch of time.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 02/06/2010 @ 4:48pm

56. "There, see? You yourself pin point the REAL motivation behind the ruse. The destruction of capitalism"

    so giving corporations incentives to.....stop polluting so much.....is the "destruction of capitalism"?

    you don't think that there are reasonable people saying, "well, we can't cut down EVERY tree, in our inexorable pursuit of profit, because we actually need trees"?

    Posted by darladoon at 02/06/2010 @ 4:58pm

57. Posted by darladoon at 02/06/2010 @ 4:58pm

    Describe what you mean by "giving corporations incentives". Isn't that the role of the consumer?

    Sheesh, Darla, the problem isn't corporations cutting down all the trees in an inexorable pursuit of profit, or even capitalism. Heck, I can argue we don't even really have capitalism in the US.

    You should stop reading your own propaganda.

    The enemy is the collusion of business and government against the worker and consumer. You are in your little make believe world that the banks and those [implied right wing, conservative] tree-cuttin' corporations should be at the heel of the government. And that 'we the people' represented by politicians can give corporations those "incentives" you claim to save the earth.

    Wake the fuck up Darla. You are clueless to the actual world as it is. That leaves you powerless to change it for the better.

    You still have no idea even what the Federal Reserve is.

    Go eat some brownies and watch "An Inconvenient Truth" again.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 02/06/2010 @ 5:15pm

58. Let us remind the listeners that skepticalscience is run by a very minor amateur player who did a science degree in one of Australia's less important universities.

    He is not even a climatologist...."

    And you would be......what, Jonesy?

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/06/2010 @ 2:49pm

    In this debate there are people like you and me and snowball and many scientists, on both sides in fact who are not climatologists; some aren't even literate in science (he resists the temptation). So how do we go about getting the sort of information that helps us understand and discover where the AGW hypothesis is falsifiable? Remember that is what distinguishes science from religion.

    The same applies to the natural climate variation hypothesis in the present context. However it alone appears to have been the only driver of climate change possible before the Industrial Revolution or even before the last 50 or 100 years due to the lower A-CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. So that should give any thinking person, scientist or not food for thought.

    There are two separate issues:

    1. The evidence.

    Though there is argument over such things as the extent of sheet ice melts and on the IPCC side a few disasters such as the fudging of the figures, the Himalayan glacier melt fiasco and a few others, in general both sides accept the existence of the same evidence. So the evidence is not essentially the issue. Thus it's a little naive to ask for example the question; doesn't the present rate of the ice melt prove AGW?

    2. What is the most significant cause of the evidence?

    This is where the only real debate is at present.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/06/2010 @ 5:54pm

59. Forgetting the public, which seems to be turning against AGW (that of course has implications for governments and their responses), the debate amongst significant climatologists is in the area of radiative (Energy in (ultra violet from the Sun)-Energy out (infrared from the Earth and a bit of ultraviolet reflected back into space from the albedo effect)) forcing and the nature of feedbacks.

    As you are no doubt aware (says he smiling) the basic relationship between changes in temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was put into mathematical form in the early 1900s. By its logarithmic nature it is a law of diminishing returns. That is as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase it takes more and more CO2 to get less and less temperature increase.

    During the 1900s various scientists (no climatology as such then) got agitated about what the increasing CO2 would do to Earth's average temperature. The "consensusts" effectively then would put a curve of temperature versus CO2 concentrations in his face and sort of say look at this stupid-impossible.

    So that was the state of affairs until the 1990s when the hypothesis that feedbacks such as CO2 by increasing temperature only a tiny amount increased the amount of the more significant GHG water vapor through that temperature increase, which in turn caused more significant rising temperatures. There are other combinations associated with clouds (water vapor) etc in feedback loops.

    The hypothetical nature of all that is at the heart of the real debate about the likely cause of temperature and climate change from extra CO2.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/06/2010 @ 5:54pm

60. The AGWers hypothesise that these feedbacks are positive i.e. a little bit of CO2 has a lot more effect on temperature than the basic relationship, delta T (a to b) = K Ln (CO2 b/CO2a) allows.

    If the feedbacks are neutral there is not any chance of runaway GW or much significant increase in temperature at all over hundreds of years (by which time all the fossil fuels will be depleted). If the feedbacks are negative that makes it even worse for the AGW cause.

    So what was/is my advice to 21 and any now ignorant "seeker of truth"? By pass all the amateurs, contemplating their navels, and get where the only real action is; proving or disproving whether the feedbacks are positive or negative. That's where Christy and Spencer and Douglass et al on one side and say Gavin Schmitt and others right back to Hansen on the other come in to relevance.

    In the mean time for me humming along, like a magnificent Bach Fugue, all the time below the noise level is the proven science, deltaT = etc.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/06/2010 @ 5:54pm

61. Have a good time, but the heat content is still rising, the ice is still melting, and the C13/C12 ratio still has our fingerprints all over it.

    Posted by snowball777 at 02/06/2010 @ 09:19am

    Seems it's a warmer day over there but it doesn't seem to be helping. Just joking. I only get nasty with SR because he gets high on it.

    What do the different isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere tell us?

    That's right you've got it. Some of the CO2 has been identified as being ours. Where did you think all that stuff we have been spewing into the air for however long was going? All falling back to Earth or rolling along the ground surface into the sea?

    See that wasn't hard at all was it?

    Now comes the hard part. What does that CO2 in the atmosphere do quantitatively to temperature and climate on PE?

    No guessing please, you are not an IPCC climatologist....are you? Even they can't tell us beyond a guess. So thanks for your input 21 but I'm afraid it doesn't extend our understanding of cause and effect.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/06/2010 @ 6:42pm

62. Because there are trillions of dollars at stake Darla. And commensurate political power.

    Posted by freiheit1 at 02/06/2010 @ 4:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Exactly. This explains the decades-long assault from oil and gas lobbies on scientists researching the impact of carbon on a climate that is today, the warmest in the last 120,000 years. Present carbon dioxide concentrations top anything over the last 800,000 years in the Dome C ice core. I do not study climate, although earth science is my field, and despite not feeling thoroughly comfortable using this tone, I must tell you that you're a fucking jerk-off for equating the motives of those interested in science as some money-grubbing obsession--this isn't Wall Street. How asinine to foment this idea that thousands of scientists from practically every nation on earth have conspired to "steal" or turn oil and gas profits into research grants. Better to insulate your caveman cartoon of the world by fabricating some diabolical plot among evil scientists, while perversely turning the 8 billions tons carbon dioxide spewed annually into our atmosphere into the underdog hero of this story. Give me an F'ing break, man! Your stolen emails out of the UK should have proven this little fairy tale by now.

    No less preposterous is this chicken little scenario detailing a pending Economic Apocalypse over the concept of taxing carbon emissions. Your conservative predecessors of the 1970s said the same thing concerning the Clean Air Amendments, despite the net financial benefits (from 1970-90) exceeding costs by a factor of 42 to 1, to the amount of $21.7 trillion dollars.

    Posted by wiseman at 02/06/2010 @ 6:42pm

63. Guess I missed the party here. Cheers.

    Posted by wiseman at 02/06/2010 @ 7:12pm

64. wiseman , WHAM, BAM, POW$#&*()_^!

    Posted by Denise29 at 02/06/2010 @ 7:19pm

65. Sure, correlation is not the same as causation. But where are the other data that correlate with climate change better than greenhouse gases? Don't know, better go looking, eh?

    The problem is, I'm not the one the deniers need to convince. It's the scientists of the various National Academies of Science (NAS) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) whom you need to convince. These two organizations, both of which endorse a robust anthropogenic greenhouse-gas theory of global climate change, together represent more scientists than any other. Convince them, and I'll follow suit.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 02/06/2010 @ 12:46pm

    I've noticed your firm attachment to the now shaky (decade perhaps old) orthodoxy and your loyalty is admirable. But as in the case of those who support religion on the basis of the authority of the church it does not lead to one having an enquiring mind and for example wondering why the AGW models either grossly overstate temperature changes or massively underestimated the extent of recent Arctic ice melts.

    Those having some acquaintance with science are likely to correctly assume something must be wrong with the assumptions in the underlying models. That is why some climatologists are looking more closely at things like feedbacks to see if they actually have the properties that are the prerequisite for significant AGW.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/06/2010 @ 8:22pm

66. Posted by JakobFabian at 02/06/2010 @ 12:46pm

    It seemed a bit too obvious to state before but on thinking perhaps you are not aware that natural climate variability is the preferred cause of the climate change evidence of many if not most scientists from a range of disciplines. Climate science is very new in historical terms and there are still a lot of knowledge gaps to fill in.

    Here are some of the known natural drivers of climate that are always in play but about which much more is now being learned. Perhaps because of the stimulus provided by AGW claims.

    El Nino/ La Nina and the Southern Oscillation Index.

    There are some scientists who think that the observed GW can in large measure be attributed to the following phenomenon:

    "It is only in recent years that scientists are starting to recognize the influence of atmospheric and oceanic cycles in influencing climate."

    "A 2008 study – "Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming", by Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, (Climate Diagnostics Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, and Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), Climate Dynamics, 2008)"

    http://tinyurl.com/yaebh4g states: "Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. …

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/06/2010 @ 9:34pm

67. Continued.

    "..Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report." "

    http://tinyurl.com/yzhltor

    Of course there are things like clouds that the IPCC makes a guess about that also may have an effect on temperature both ways.

    So you can see, regarless of CO2 feedbacks, there are plenty of options for a more likely cause of the changes in temperature and climate observed, from NCV than from AGW.

    Further what should become more evident in time is that climatology is not the only game in town WRT to identifying GW causes. That is the power of an evidence based, integrated science rather than a less coherent discipline limited "science".

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/06/2010 @ 9:34pm

68. Posted by lrjones4 at 02/06/2010 @ 6:42pm |

    "Now comes the hard part. What does that CO2 in the atmosphere do quantitatively to temperature and climate on PE?"

    Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation have shown that the increase in CO2 levels is causing a corresponding masking of those frequencies associated with CO2 (and other GHGs).

    Inbound longwave radiation with those same spectral characteristics have been confirmed and the measured radiative flux for those GHGs is increasing with the concentration of those trace gases in the atmosphere.

    Yes, water vapor dissipates some of these effects due to destructive interference effects, but no, it doesn't cancel them out.

    The increase in radiative forcing from Co2 was measured at ~2.10 W/m^2 and the overall radiative forcing from all GHGs is ~3.52W/m^2.

    Combine this (non-logarithmic) increase with the fact that neither CO2 contributions or the populations creating them grow in linear fashion and you've got something worth worrying about over the next century.

    Posted by snowball777 at 02/06/2010 @ 10:52pm

69. One of the most hilarious skits I've heard is the guy in charge is just as much a power mad leftist wacko of junk science as the leftist posters here at the nation and elsewhere!

    "The U.N.'s climate chief dismissed "nefarious" global warming skeptics this week by insinuating that they are deep in the pockets of big business -- and suggested that they go rub their faces in cancer-causing asbestos.

    Rajendra Pachauri, the besieged head of the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, told the Financial Times on Wednesday that he is the victim of a "carefully orchestrated" campaign to block climate change legislation.

    "I would say [there are] nefarious designs behind people trying to attack me with lies, falsehoods," he told the paper, swatting away allegations that his India-based climate institute, TERI, has benefited from decisions made by the IPCC, which he also chairs.

    Climate change skeptics "are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder," he said.

    "I hope that they apply it (asbestos) to their faces every day."

    Pachauri's remarks came as pressure and scrutiny are mounting against the IPCC's hallmark Fourth Assessment Report, which laid out the case for man-made climate change over a thousand sprawling pages.

    The report contained misleading data about the melting rate of glaciers in the Himalayas and is riddled with citations to data furnished by activist groups, non-scientific journals and material that was never peer-reviewed.

    Pachauri called the furor over errors in the assessment report "a blip that is going to pass," and reiterated his intention to remain in place as the chief of the world's most powerful climate body.

    Posted by BigPasture at 02/06/2010 @ 10:56pm

70. "I'm not a quitter. Some people would want me to be; some people would probably say that I should go, but I am not going to oblige them. I have no desire to leave at all," he said.

    His critics in the business world, he told the paper, "see climate change as a threat to their own comforts, their own convenience and the generation of easy profits." He accused them of establishing a network of lobbyists in D.C. "trying to write all kinds of malicious articles and indulge in invective."

    "It's all part of a pattern," he continued. "But let me clarify. I have no proof. I can only presume something like this is at work.""

    Poor guy has lost all credibility, stands to lose millions in conflict of intrest, and is looking powerless like the Obamanation!

    Posted by BigPasture at 02/06/2010 @ 10:57pm

71. The vast rightwing conspiracy dispensing "the truth" has claimed another poor victim!

    Posted by BigPasture at 02/06/2010 @ 10:58pm

72. Try this at home:

    Take 2 transparent plastic bottles.

    Drill a small hole in each, and insert a thermometer through the hole, so that it is readable. Seal the hole.

    In a third bottle, add some vinegar to some sodium bicarbonate (bicarb). This will produce CO2. Use a plastic hose to introduce a little of the CO2 to one of your prepared bottles. Cap and seal both bottles.

    Seal both bottles, and shine a lamp on them to serve as a source of heat. Take great care to ensure that each bottle is the same distance from the bulb.

    Measure the temperature in each of the bottles.

    There is a vast left-wing conspiracy which ensures that the bottle with the human-added CO2 gets hotter, but I leave you to find that out for yourselves.

    You won't be able to conduct this simple bit of science while your head is up your ass.

    Posted by mikecope at 02/07/2010 @ 12:22am

73. Ironies aside, this is so depressing. Not one of the denialists can cite any science at all. They appear not to have heard of the precautionary principle. Yet the stridency of their inaccurate assertions just gets greater, the nastiness of their attacks gets nastier, their self-delusion more twisted.

    Every winter belief in Climate Change drops among fools who confuse weather with climate.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO10bs-JHUU

    Posted by mikecope at 02/07/2010 @ 12:39am

74. Yes, the wool was pulled over our eyes by a political agenda that can easily be defined as fascist - the left wing extremists in the environmental movement. This fraud, known as AGW, was pushed by people who wanted to control, via the UN, the lives and actions of all people over the whole planet . Ordinary people who fell for this and just wanted to do what they thought was the right thing are not the bad guys. The ones behind this are and should be condemned. This is an epic battle between liberty and tyranny.

    Posted by pyeatte at 02/07/2010 @ 12:40am

75. Posted by pyeatte at 02/07/2010 @ 12:40am

    Thank you. Your post about sums the denialist position up. It contains no science, but some vague, unsubstantiated assertions, a conspiracy theory and a lot of anger.

    Sadly, it is also diagnostic of a closed mind - how else to maintain the ignorance?

    Posted by mikecope at 02/07/2010 @ 01:26am

76. jakobfabian wrote:

    There's nothing we can do about it. I believe it comes down to this: Some people would rather accept global disaster than global responsibility.

    ////////////

    The icecaps of Mars are melting along with Earth's. Please tell me who is responsible,

    John D. Froelich

    Posted by balataf at 02/07/2010 @ 03:14am

77. Might be interesting to investigate the role of WWF (World Wildlife Fund - World Wide Fund for Nature) in this e-mail mystery. As provocateur & informer, not aiding the environmental cause, but consciously undermining it with false data so the data can later be exposed as false. WWF, an organization with long ties to both Shell and Chevron, not to mention the US CIA and UK MI6, arms dealer Prince Bernhard (NL - exposed Lockheed bagman when WWF president), and Big Tobacco (South African billionaire Anton Rupert).

    Posted by sloper at 02/07/2010 @ 04:44am

78. Combine this (non-logarithmic) increase with the fact that neither CO2 contributions or the populations creating them grow in linear fashion and you've got something worth worrying about over the next century.

    Posted by snowball777 at 02/06/2010 @ 10:52pm

    Interesting stuff 21. The different GHGs absorb different wavelengths of infrared. So what one misses another picks up. Probably selectively but not sure what the story is with C12, and C13. I was under the impression that the main use of checking the isotopes was to pick up the amount of atmospheric CO2 that was a product of fossil fuel burning.

    It seems it gets turned over fairly regularly by getting absorbed by the surface of the ocean and green vegetation. It gets replaced from the same sources by new molecules at a lesser rate so for a while that messed up calculating anthropogenic CO2 until it was realised where some of it was going to. (and being replaced from).

    My suggestion is it doesn't really matter if the anthropogenic CO2 increases linearly because the relationship we should be concerned about is the that of CO2/temperature.

    Checking Mauna Loa data from 1957 to 2002 the CO2 growth per year was about linear with a slope of about 1.4 over that time. From1990 to 2005 the relationship looked linear and I calculated the slope was about 1.75.

    I came across an equation from that data which gives the CO2 concentration at any given year in that period:

    1.7373X - 3104.6. where X is the year

    eg 2005 Co2 conc. calculates at 379 ppm.

    Be OK if we could do a 2110 concentration with that formula but if we guess that fossil fuel usage will increase a max of 15 % stabilised over the next 100 years that increase would add about 2ppm/year or 200ppm giving about 600ppm total.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/07/2010 @ 05:30am

79. Let us assume the feedbacks are neutral or negative that is just over a doubling of CO2 which by Arrhenius equates to a temperature change from 1C to 4C depending on whose figures one wishes to accept. If the logarithmic relationship holds it will increase less in the next hundred years than it did in the last hundred.

    The next point is at quadrupling of 280ppm to about 1100ppm where the temperature increase would be by a factor of 4 from the pre-industrial AG temperature. That would take an extra 250 years at 2ppm/year. Now it is quite obvious that long before that time and even 2010, fossil fuels will be a thing of the past. But it indicates that panicking about present and medium term projected atmospheric levels of CO2 could be a little unscientific.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 02/07/2010 @ 05:30am

80. Posted by lrjones4 at 02/07/2010 @ 05:30am |

    I think you missed my point about linearity...I'm not talking about (non-)linear growth in the concentration of CO2. It's non-linear growth in the GH effect itself from rising concentrations; it gets worse as the concentration goes up.

    Before we silly humans started putting about in internal-combustion powered vehicles, the sources and sinks of CO2 (vegetation, oceans, etc) were in relative balance.

    Since then the fraction of man-made CO2 that remains in the atmosphere has been relatively constant as you say at about 40-45% over the last 150 years, but analysis of the last 50 years indicates that the natural carbon sinks may be at or near saturation such that that airborne fraction is increasing as well.

    Furthermore the increase in temperature can have an effect on how much non-anthropo CO2 is dumped into the atmosphere; consider the methane being released from gigantic swaths of melting permafrost.

    Emissions from fossil fuels increased by 29% between 2000 and 2008 alone, so I think your 15% estimate needs some rethinking. There are very few static elements in this complicated mess and emerging economies are one of the big unknowns (much to their chagrin in Copenhagen, apparently).

    We'll get to > 1000ppm much faster than you think.

    Posted by snowball777 at 02/07/2010 @ 07:20am

81. Anybody get a bit confused on being lectured on what is "junk science"...

    by people who want "creation science" and "ID" given "equal time"??!??!!???

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2010 @ 07:51am

82. The icecaps of Mars are melting along with Earth's. Please tell me who is responsible, John D. Froelich

    Mr. Froelich, with all due respect, which ain't much,

    for how long do you believe Mars's ice caps have been melting,

    why are they melting,

    and

    how do you know?

    Show me the data.

    However, I predict that however much you know about Mars, you won't be able to overpower the HUGE amount of TERRESTRIAL data that show a correlation between greenhouse gases and climate change using the TINY amount of data we have on OTHER PLANETS, including Mars.

    We know VERY LITTLE about the Martian climate, or about the climate of any planet except Earth. To try to use this knowledge to undermine what 90% of the Earth's atmospheric scientists are saying about OUR climate, with much more data than we could ever hope to gather on Mars, seems like a losing strategy.

    But of course, it should be pointed out that deniers like you aren't pushing to win. You'll be satisfied with a draw, one that can keep you and the fossil-fuel industry free of responsibility.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 02/07/2010 @ 08:19am

83. Anybody get a bit confused on being lectured on what is "junk science"...

    by people who want "creation science" and "ID" given "equal time"??!??!!???

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2010 @ 07:51am

    not confused, Mask.

    more of an irritation. maybe some amusement. but mostly a sad misanthropic hopelessness.

    hmmmph....humans.

    Posted by Blair Wooff at 02/07/2010 @ 08:59am

84. wiseman, as frosty would say, "stoopid humans".

    Posted by Denise29 at 02/07/2010 @ 09:17am

85. err, Blair Wooff, not wiseman.

    Posted by Denise29 at 02/07/2010 @ 09:44am

86. -"There, see? You yourself pin point the REAL motivation behind the ruse. The destruction of capitalism. "-FREI

    Jesus, how do you debate with people that think scientists core goal is to destroy capitalism?

    That really seems to be the underlying philosophy of the skeptics.

    Is this like Christians being under attack in the USA? Nobody can cite me a single example of this being true, yet they still say it.

    Is this like saying that "the left" wants AQ to kill Americans? It is easier and makes them feel better to say it, rather than debate the issues.

    C'mon FREI, let the science speak, GW beleivers are doing what they think is needed to save lives, not kill capitalism. If they are wrong we are out sme cash. If you are wrong millions of people will die. That is not abut bringing down AIG, Exxon or the for-profit Tea Party.

    Posted by crabwalk at 02/07/2010 @ 10:28am

87. As I've always said, its a win win no matter , we wean ourselves off oil, and we help the environment.

    Posted by Denise29 at 02/07/2010 @ 10:55am

88. Darla asks about our charge of scientific fraud and why

    http://tinyurl.com/yhf5w5d

    http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/07/2010 @ 11:32am

89. Article on Peer Reviewed study showing the fallacy of CO2 accumulations by Tom V. Segalstad Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology The University of Oslo, Norway

    <Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a "rough estimate"]. This estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. Such estimates are analytically invalid; and they are in conflict with the more correct explanation given elsewhere in the same IPCC report: "This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean".>

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/07/2010 @ 11:56am

90. If we can understand that the swaying of the masses is done through the media, wouldn't it be wise to sit down with the naysayers (Limbaugh, Hannity etc.) and try to convince them one-on-one of the science that we know about rather than allowing them to just spew unqualified opinions to the contrary and over the air waves, directly to the impressionable public.

    When talk radio and Fox news are dominatinating the ratings, that means that most people are buying what they're selling. So, doesn't it make sense to get these people in personal conference and convince them, rather than ignore them? If the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity and others can be convinced through attention and education, maybe they would take the problem more seriously and then change their tune.

    Personally, I don't know who to believe on the subject. Neither do the politicians or our world leaders. This is the worst PR job I've ever seen.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 02/07/2010 @ 12:04pm

91. The only data that shows a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures is the fabricated, fudged or faked data put out by the CRU. Plimer has detailed the inconsistencies in a very effective way and the leaked e-mails confirm what he laid out many months before. It is clear that global climate changes in a cyclical way from studying the past record. The Chinese believe we are in for a 30 year cooling period, which will be followed by a warming, which will be followed by a cooling, etc - all natural and uncontrollable by humans. The Russians think we are in for a cooling period. India has withdrawn from the IPCC because of the obvious fraud and will start their own climate study. NOAA and NASA have been caught in the fraud, mainly because they are under orders from the politicals to toe the extremist agenda line or else. All we are asking for is honesty - something we will never get from the left. Climate Science is entering a "cooling" phase due to the dishonesty apparent to the rest of us.

    Posted by pyeatte at 02/07/2010 @ 2:10pm

92. Posted by pyeatte at 02/07/2010 @ 2:10pm |

    "The only data that shows a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures is the fabricated, fudged or faked data put out by the CRU."

    Bzzzt. WRONG! Thanks for playing.

    "Plimer has detailed the inconsistencies in a very effective way and the leaked e-mails confirm what he laid out many months before."

    So says the rock jock selling books to deniers who has been debunked so thoroughly it hurts.

    "It is clear that global climate changes in a cyclical way from studying the past record."

    Not one climatologist disputes this. It's a matter of how quickly and why.

    "The Chinese believe we are in for a 30 year cooling period, which will be followed by a warming, which will be followed by a cooling, etc - all natural and uncontrollable by humans."

    And yet they're pushing billions into renewable energy?! Try again.

    "The Russians think we are in for a cooling period."

    The Russians are a petro-state and about as believable as the CEO of Exxon in these matters.

    "India has withdrawn from the IPCC because of the obvious fraud and will start their own climate study."

    Oh no, Mr. Bill!....so what?

    "NOAA and NASA have been caught in the fraud, mainly because they are under orders from the politicals to toe the extremist agenda line or else."

    Tinfoil hat getting itchy? Or else....what?

    "All we are asking for is honesty - something we will never get from the left. Climate Science is entering a 'cooling' phase due to the dishonesty apparent to the rest of us."

    To the deeply ignorant, EVERYTHING that doesn't "toe the line" they've predetermined is considered fraud, whether it happens to be true and objectively backed up by scientific data or not.

    You may want to take care of that sand in your teeth.

    Posted by snowball777 at 02/07/2010 @ 3:17pm

93. We have our work cut out for us, intelligent folks--of various political leanings--with a conscience.

    Bigtime.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/07/2010 @ 3:35pm

94. First, it brings me a great sense of joy to see Jonesy with his knickers all wound up in frenetic bundle.

    Take a deep breath--of fresh, cool air--, Jonesy, while you still can, and get with the cool jazz flow of a world where it actually makes sound sense to take a wisely precautionary approach to issues that hold the portent of global self annihilation.

    Is it really so difficult, man?

    You're like a......constipated duck.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_ltwaRk5Cs

    ***********************************************

    Snuggy--12:04pm--says:

    "If we can understand that the swaying of the masses is done through the media, 1) wouldn't it be wise to sit down with the naysayers (Limbaugh, Hannity etc.) and try to convince them one-on-one of the science that we know about rather than allowing them to just spew unqualified opinions to the contrary and over the air waves, directly to the impressionable public.

    When talk radio and Fox news are dominatinating the ratings, 2) that means that most people are buying what they're selling."

    Response to Snuggy:

    1) Sit down with red faced imbeciles? If there were even the slightest inkling that these dupes were of the character to carry on a reasonable, sane dialogue, then yes.

    Given their profound and pronounced inability to any such thing means the answer is probably, no.

    But I welcome your attempts, Snuggy, to start a democratic movement of Hannity and Limbaugh listeners to force them into submitting to rational conversations with the many well respected voices on the so-called left. That would have the added benefit of giving you something constructive to do instead of blowing your snoot here, where it is just another among many examples The Nation's blogs have of essentially intransigent right-wing drones.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/07/2010 @ 3:40pm

95. 2) "Most" is a definite overstatement, but too many is a definite concern.

    We have our work cut out for us, intelligent folks--of varied political persuasions--with a conscience.

    Big time.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/07/2010 @ 3:40pm

96. b-kool, can I have a big amen.

    Posted by Denise29 at 02/07/2010 @ 6:46pm

97. Posted by Denise29 at 02/07/2010 @ 6:46pm |

    A-MEN

    Posted by snowball777 at 02/07/2010 @ 9:05pm

98. Posted by snowball777 at 02/07/2010 @ 3:17pm: Sorry snowball, but throwing out lots of words does nothing about the fundamental problem of AGW - it is a fraud. Your claim that Plimer is wrong is...wrong - no one is laying it out better than he, which is why your shrillness is so telling. Everyone knows that government scientists (NOAA, NASA for example) must toe the political line on AGW if they want to keep their careers. This is what is so evil about politically driven pseudo-science. Forget the scientific method - just "hide the decline" - we have to get cap-n-tax. Just keep counting the blizzards and cold spells while screeching global warming, for the American people can spot a load of BS from a mile away, which is why cap-n-tax is DOA. BTW, I thought all you lefties were historically in love with China and Russia. What happened? I find myself in an awkward position where China seems to make more sense on the subject and be more honest than our own government.

    Posted by pyeatte at 02/07/2010 @ 9:49pm

99. b_kool_66 at 02/07/2010 @ 3:35pm wrote:

    >> We have our work cut out for us, intelligent folks<<

    You puffed up cheese head, you rancid mound of conceit and presumption. You call Hannity's and Limbaugh's audiences, imbeciles and dupes, incapable of a rational conversation, while stuttering to the outpatients of these TN fora. Where is there a rattier herd mooing lies and angrily swishing its tails at facts and logic, as if at horseflies? And you, a paid up member yourself.

    But it is not just this here menagerie of dottering idiots, you guys go back in time.

    Your crowd were the geniuses who chanted, better red than dead, half of them grieved at the fall of the wall, as at the ejection of Saddam and the defeat of the Iraq insurgents. You were that mass of brilliance and morality that was solidly Stalinist, even past the purge trials, past the Ukrainian famine, past the gulags, past Khrushev's revelations at the 20th Party Congress. Your kind bought the Marxist Leninist theology hook line and sinker.

    That bunch, with its blind faith in science, though scientific ignoramuses, bought the moonshine of scientific Marxism. It had to be true, because it was scientific. You heavy thinkers invariably swallowed every crack brained idea.

    Who were the stubborn exception?

    It was the rednecks, the hicks, the rural folks, the slow spoken folks of middle America; in short, much of Limbaugh's and Hennity's audiences.

    It is far too soon to discount climate warming altogether. But it is high time to recognize that this highly politicized issue has been recklessly pushed by ideologues and jerks who understand it least. They are for it, because they think, that makes them intelligent, i.e., "kool." That is how you handle your inferiority complex. It is merited.

    Posted by Pirovano at 02/07/2010 @ 10:39pm

100. You won't be able to conduct this simple bit of science while your head is up your ass.

     Posted by mikecope at 02/07/2010 @ 12:22am | ignore this person | warn this person

     You are mirroring the U.N. climate chief congradulations on elevating the science to the same degree he has!

     Every winter belief in Climate Change drops among fools who confuse weather with climate.

     Posted by mikecope at 02/07/2010 @ 12:39am | ignore this person | warn this person

     To ignorant to realize that only in the spring and summer do the "chicken littles" of AWG and climate change come out of their winter holes to run around screaming disaster! It will be fun to see Al again addressing congress in a bid to raise profits serving his vested corporate intrest geared to AGW!

     Posted by BigPasture at 02/07/2010 @ 10:39pm

101. Posted by snowball777 at 02/07/2010 @ 07:20am |

     Been away for a few days, in Sydney, so haven't followed this interesting thread for a while but met up with and was talking to one of the students I did some physics with at Melbourne Uni. He was a bit of whizz then and is now a physicist in our top research organisation, CSRIO.

     He does not work in climatology but he was contemptuous of the level of physics and mathematics required in climatology degrees.

     He said there are real problems with the physics of anthropogenic global warming. Not enough is known about the physics, he said. Thinking I was slipping into green mysticism he thundered, Jones have you read Gerlich & Tscheuschner? Who me? (he's a bit of a shouter who tends to get one a bit nervous) Ger... and …who? Write it down for me.

     Don't know if you've read it but just got home from Sydney and started to have a look at it. It seems they are out to demolish the physics, not only the current crop of AGWers but also my old backstop Svante. Quite radical for even me but will try and get a handle on it.

     I expect a critique from you young Einstein next time a thread on this topic appears.

     "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics"

     http://tinyurl.com/yf4c2kj

     Which sounds very German. It's by two German Physicists.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 02/09/2010 @ 01:48am