Comments Coby Beck has made

such deception!

Sorry for the sneaky title, Zephaniah!  That is the format of the whole "Skeptic guide" and actually has a great side benefit: I get tons of hits from search engines by people searching for things like "global warming is a hoax" and "CO2 is not important" etc.  So I get the folks hoping to confirm their preconceptions, and maybe, just maybe, one or two of them are rattled enough to think for themselves...

"The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest." -- Kilgore Trout

Not incomplete graph

JeffID:

2008 is not on the graph because it is not over yeat.  We need all 12 months of data to determine the average for the year.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

your two substantive points

Hi saluki,

"Why has there been no warming for the last 11 years when there were no elements of natural variation to cancel out the supposed effect of CO2."

I do not except the premise.  It is too soon to say what the long term trend is over the last 11 years, we need ten more years to know what the trend is today in the CRU data.  NASA's analysis has a strong positive trend until 2005, the last year possible to calculate a the 5 year mean they use.

But on the short term (weather, not climate), one explanation a bit more satisfying than just saying "natural and chaotic variations" is that you are using a period of time beginning with a large El Nino event, ending with a La Nina event.  El Nino's are known to raise global temperatures, La Nina's are known to lower them.  A personal speculation of my own is China's filthy economic growth filling the air with particulates may also be playing a part.

Why do the proxy records not reflect the same warming as the instrument records?

You may wish to search on RealClimate for the "divergence problem".  The problem is not as great as you get the impression from from the wikipedia graph you cited, AFAIU, but it is real.  I am sure the issues vary greatly from proxy to proxy but it is not surprising to me that any delicate natural signal we may look at might be significantly perturbed by the incredible impact human development has had on the globe this century.  For tree-rings, let's just start with elevated CO2 levels, this is a likely candidate for changing the relationship between ring width and average temperature.  Stalactite formation is dependant on ground water tables, another thing humans have had a tremendous impact on.  I would expect it to be a challenge finding some natural process we have not altered in some way.

The devil will be in them, but I have not spent alot of time on the details of paleoclimate reconstructions, I don't think it is of fundamental significance to understanding today's warming.  Studying past climate changes is definately informative, but it is not explanatory of today's climate change, nor predictive of tomorrow's.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

large organizations

Each of those large organizations that you are speaking about do not do their own research on AGW.  They simply defer to the results of the IPCC.

There are no specific organizations mentioned either by you or by the commenter you are responding to, so I can only respond with generalities.

Generally, it is not true what you have said.  These organization do not "defer" to the IPCC when they publish their position statements, they do independent evaluations of the IPCC reports and independent evaluations of the relevant literature and then comment on how that turned out.  Without exception, all major scientific institutions that have relevant areas of expertise acknowledge that the IPCC has got it basically right and they all conclude that:
1 the earth is warming
2 the primary cause is anthropogenic

The next step is less emphatically and unanimously supported, but is usually there as well:
3 this poses a significant threat to human welfare in the future.

You can add to that list the National Science academies of the major pollutting countries, among others.  This also includes the previously die-hard sceptical American Petroleum Institute.

Find me one that does not.

(Skeptic guide article "There is no consensus")
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

increase in noise

But doesn't an increase in noise over a long period of time also indicate that the climate is becoming unbalanced? I read that the mini ice age in the 1400s was preceded by wild shifts in temperature.

Hi Robco1

An increase in noise might indicate that, but I have never heard anywhere that such an increase is ocurring.  I haven't heard that about the LIA either, I don't think we have enough data from that period to tell either!

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

29 sounds like alot...

Hi Max,

29 localities sounds like alot until you ask yourself how many local climatic regions one might define on this planet.  I suspect 10's of 1000's would be in the useful range.

What CO2 science is doing here is the same thing they do with their "temperature record of the week" page and it is called cherry picking.

How many studies of local climate anomalies are out there that do not show a pronounced MWP?  If you do not know then you do not have any valid reason to conclude the MWP was globally synchronized and pronounced.

I guarantee you that once you look into the details of all those studies you will find that there is a large variety in the temporal extent and degree of warming found.

The difference in the global reconstructions (ie the ones using "local" bristlecone pines) is that careful consideration is given to the distribution and nature of the proxy data sources.  One cannot avoid using local data of course, but just as the global temperature reconstruction is made up of local weather station readings, the strength of the conclusion lies in the statistical properties of your analysis.  Anything else is just anecdotal.

"A statistical analysis showed that the highest level of agreement was that MWP temperatures were between 0.7 and 0.8 deg C warmer than today."

Do you mind explaining what you mean by this and letting us know your source?

Thanks for the substantive comments!

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

re: Regarding the Evidence

Hi Ciani,

I'll try to go point by point for you:

if models aren't being used to predict future temperatures, then how are they coming up with these future projections some 100 years down the road?

Please note that the quote from the article under which you pose this question was refering to warming that has occured already over the past century.  It is a common misconception that the claim the globe has warmed ~.8oC so far is the output of or derived from computer models.  So I did not claim that models aren't being used in the projections of the future, of course they are.

More importantly, what are the exact variables that go into these observations/projections? It seems there's always some mystery regarding the exact input being used to determine future climate.

All of this detail is publically available.  If you really are interested in the actual science you must begin with the IPCC report ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html ).  From there you can follow up on the references to scientific papers.  In many cases not only can you read the papers on these model experiments, but you can actually download the computer code.  This you are then free to read and run yourself.  For example, check out as much detail as you could ever want on the GISS Model E AOCGCM here: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/  It links to reference manuals, howto documents and source code.  This page ( http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ ) has all the data on the forcings, both for the past and the scenarios for the future.

I'd actually be curious to see what equations are being used to arrive at some of these conclusions (which, incidentally, are constantly being altered as evidenced by the latest from the IPCC when they reduced projections from previous reports).

See above resources for your main question, however I wanted to note that changing projections will result from updated forcing scenarios not just altered equations, and I will further note that altering equations seems to me an entirely appropriate response to evolving understanding.  

The underlying insinuation you seem to be making is really a rather extraordinary claim (the world's climate scientists are perpetuating a huge fraud on the public) and requires some extraordinary evidence IMO, not just a passing hand wave.  

All that aside, I suspect by mentioning lowered projections you are alluding to changes in sea level rise projections.  This is actually a bit of confusion because the change is primarily in the way the IPCC chose to present the issue and there is in fact no substantive change in actual projected rise by 2100.  Please see Real Climate here ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the ... )

Can the global temperature analyses even accurately assess past temperatures from 150 years ago?

The further back in time one looks, the greater the uncertainty.  I believe that in the GISS analysis the error bars on the record from ~120 years ago is +/-.2 oC

How much am I supposed to trust the measurements and record keeping of arctic ice cap temperatures from 100 years ago, or whatever exactly is supposed to be the basis of these claims?

This is of course an entirely personal judgement we each must make for ourselves.  It is not clear to me why we should have any different level of trust for climate scientists than rocket scientists.  NASA gets robots to explore Mars just fine, why should we expect that they screw up calibrating a few thermometers and satellite readings?

I look forward to some answers to these questions.

I hope you get some satisfaction from those I provide above.  Thanks for the comment!

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

life cycles

Hi svstudent,

The reason for the difference is in the atmospheric residence time of a water vapour pulse vs a CO2 pulse.  Because CO2 survives he seasonal cycles it has the chance to alter the climate, lasting many decades ensures it does.  Water vapour will just not stay artificially elevated long enough to do that.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

we don't live in isolation

I know jabailo is just trolling, but this is an easy misconception to hold honestly.

Sure, humans can live in any climate the earth may devise for us in the next several millenia.  But we depend on untold numbers of other organisms for food and numerous other basic services, including the water cycle.  Just look at how difficult the bio-dome experiments have turned out to be.  Do we really believe we can recreate and manage every environmental service we depend on?  Are you really ready to bet the existence of our civilisation, if not our species, on such a belief?

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

a few points

Hi gravy,

I have a vew varied points to make to you.

The problem is that the onus is on the global warming crisis side to prove their point, not the skeptical side.

On the vernacular level I disagree strongly with this.  I believe, and most other policy areas in western societies reflect this, that the burden of proof is on those who which to alter a natural state.  The climate system exists and functions as it is, if we are proposing actions that will alter it, it is encumbent on those who advocate these actions to prove that no harm will come of it.  Putting tremendous amounts of a significant greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, where it will remain for centuries, should be convincingly shown to be harmless before we accept doing it.

Secondly, as a philosopher you should be aware that in science there is no such thing as proof, that is for logic and mathematics.  All we can hope to acheive is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, a comprehensive and internally consistent theory and successful predictions.  In climate science, we have this.

About your complaint about my snarky remark, I must plead guilty as charged.  However, keep in mind I was not saying that this is what one should believe, (ie "satellites are complicated, don't believe them") rather I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the so-called skeptics who are only skeptical of what they don't want to hear ("surface records are complicated, trust the satellites").

As for complex data, there is plent of territory between too complicated for an average layperson to understand and too complicated for an expert in their field to understand.  I presume that satellite readings of tropospheric microwave readings fall in this realm.  Recall that it is not the scientists who understand the complexities that make the absolute claims of reliability, it is the cherry picking advocates (and this can include people on both sides).

Respectfully, your three objectional arguments enumerated above are strawmen, I will not defend them, I have never made them.

Studies that support the crisis theory will get more money, and be published more often than studies that show conflicting evidence or nothing at all.

I was wondering if you have some data or research that supports this notion?  I think in science the more appealing goal is to overturn previously held beliefs.  If this doesn't happen, I think you need a very convincing reason to assume it is because of corruption or narrow mindedness rather than becasue the beliefs are consistent with empirical reality.  And please don't forget that anthropogenic global warming has been for a centruy the underdog theory, it is only very recently that the mountains of research have dragged a generally conservative scientific community inexorably to a very unpleasant conclusion.

the mere premise of this series, "how to talk to a skeptic" shows how dogmatic the crisis proponent argument has become. Proponents of the crisis view, possessing less than smoking -gun evidence have to resort to converting the skeptical unwashed.

I think you may have misunderstood the premise, I am only trying to address the clearly substanceless arguments that are out there.  I don't believe there is one article that is not on very solid logical and empirical ground, please let me know if I am wrong.  I respect real skepticism, but real skeptics (well informed ones at any rate) do not make the claims that I address here.

You also mistake informed opinion for dogmatism.  You can not fairly make such an accusation about me until such time as you see me reject some reality or another simply because I am incapable of changing my mind. (btw, where has this series emphasized crisis?  That is consistent with my feelings on the matter but these articles are really meant to be about the science not the values).

Thanks for the thoughtfull comment!

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

actually..

James Hansen et al's predictions from 1988 have come to pass.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

just check

zarkov,

instead of making sinister insunuations, why don't you just click the references and find out?  Hansen's papers and the GISS climate models address all of the major climate forcings: CO2, CH4, NO2, ozone (stratosperic and tropospheric), solar irradiance, volcanic SO2, anthro aerosols, albedo changes and many others.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

interesting logic!

Hi MarkUK,

Ok, I see what they are saying.  Hansen is too cowardly to lie to a Senate hearing, whereas Patrick Michaels isn't!  So we obviously should put our trust more in Michaels...or something.

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

good for the goose

Actually, jabailo, if you want to claim that global warming stopped in 1998, then you have to let me claim that it started again in 1999.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

if you want credentials

read from the primary sources and the IPCC report.  You are clearly stating that you want credentials so that you will feel comfortable believing what you read.  I do not want you to just believe what I write, I want you to follow up on my sources.  I do not produce any research of my own on these issues, and you should not blindly trust in my (or anyone's) opinions.

We all have two and only two choices in this issue: read alot and think hard or trust well established institutions.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

you want credentials?

If you want scientific credentials I refer you to the fine and highly qualified people who have authored the IPCC chapters on atmospheric CO2.  I apologize for not producing a link but I am out of town, busy, and without my bookmarks.

I ask no one to take my word for anything, but I do think a little common sense of your own should dispatch 95% of the contrarian talking points out there, this one included.  The rest you must either think hard about or rely on the vast majority opinion of relevant experts.

"The problem with people who have no vices is that they tend to have some pretty annoying virtues." -- [paraphrased] Elizabeth Taylor

will do

Hi Gar,

That's a good idea, it is such a short article I don't see how it could hurt.

"The problem with people who have no vices is that they tend to have some pretty annoying virtues." -- [paraphrased] Elizabeth Taylor

99% sure

but 100% wrong.  How can anyone be so sure of themselves without having done the least bit of investigation?

"The problem with people who have no vices is that they tend to have some pretty annoying virtues." -- [paraphrased] Elizabeth Taylor

alastair is assuming

Alasair, you're the one maing all the assumptions, in this cas that the idea  CO2 increass cause temperature rises is an assumption and it is based entirely on the correlation found in th glacil records.  You are wrong on both counts.  Please read this article for why we know CO2 is driving temperature today regardless of whether it initiated any warmings at any other time n the past (whch it has btw, goggle PETM)
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

"The problem with people who have no vices is that they tend to have some pretty annoying virtues." -- [paraphrased] Elizabeth Taylor

mincing words

Hi Alastair,

Your implication was that my explanation meant T should rise faster and faster as "CO2 becomes an increasing influence".  CO2 obviously must increas from 0 influence to one greater than than initial orbital forcing, but I do not say it continues to increase, that is your extrapolation.  Now this is really a bit too much semantic quibbling, isn't it?  

The forcing effect of 100ppm CO2 added to the low of 180ppm is a greater forcing effect overall than that provided by changes in NH insolation caused by Milakovich cycles.  You'll have to run a GCM or find a detailed paper to see the changes in radiative forcing over time of the various factors.

As for your suggestion that we should see an increasing slope as CO2 rises:
 a. how do you know it isn't there?  This is hard to determine, especially just eyeballing the graph.
 b. you are over simplifying a complex system
 c. CO2 has a logarithmic relationship with forcing, not linear.

"CO2 forms only an order of about 1% of the greenhouse effect"

Wrong.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/222357/40

This is a specific and technical scientific question, not a matter of opinion.

"The problem with people who have no vices is that they tend to have some pretty annoying virtues." -- [paraphrased] Elizabeth Taylor

which case?

Firstly, both Alastair and jabialo are attacking a strawman, no one claims that all climate change is driven only by CO2.  CO2 is one of about 12 major factors.  It is the cause this time.

But as for "The skeptics still have a very strong case", um which case is that?  Current change is solar variations?  Cosmic Rays?  A natural, unstoppable 1200yr cycle?  Not even happening?  Stopped 8 years ago?  Internal variability?

These are all "skeptic" theories and are all mutually contradicting, even though the same "skeptics" often promote two or more of them simultaneously.

This is called grasping at straws and is simply mental gymnastics in order to avoid an unpleasant reality.

"The problem with people who have no vices is that they tend to have some pretty annoying virtues." -- [paraphrased] Elizabeth Taylor

scale and granularity

I think you should be much more cautious in drawing any conclusions from a visual inspection of this graph.  It covers 425Kyrs with about 540 pixels.  If you look at the data that is its source you will see that the temporal resolution is many centuries to a few millenia.

BTW, it is not my theory, I'm merely trying to explain what current climate science thinks.  I don't believe I did say that "CO2 becomes an increasing influence" I only said that GHG forcing dominates the overall temperature change.

Please also keep in mind that the climate is a complex system, orbital inclination and CO2 are only two out of many factors.

"The problem with people who have no vices is that they tend to have some pretty annoying virtues." -- [paraphrased] Elizabeth Taylor

GW is just starting

The anthropogenic GW signal has only exceeded natural variability in the last few decades.  The most serious impacts are not here yet but there are already clear and negative consequences being realized.

You might make the same kind of argument as you pass the third story window: "So why did you tell me not to jump?  I've been falling for 20 stories already, no problems"

"The problem with people who have no vices is that they tend to have some pretty annoying virtues." -- [paraphrased] Elizabeth Taylor

back to point one

Hi Ivriniel,

Sorry for the late reply.  I think I would just go back to the initial argument, there is just no evidence that the climate behaves like a pendulum.

A true sceptic does not abandon a comprehensive and well supported theory like those in modern climate science in favor of idle speculations.

"The problem with people who have no vices is that they tend to have some pretty annoying virtues." -- [paraphrased] Elizabeth Taylor

I appreciate the challenge....

...but sometimes these guys are best left to make fools of themselves!

"The problem with people who have no vices is that they tend to have some pretty annoying virtues." -- [paraphrased] Elizabeth Taylor

forgot one...

http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20060419/Featu...
Again, nothing on a climate change, only this:
'The only explanation for these unexpected findings is that Enceladus somehow supplies its own heat, Ingersoll says. "Sunlight could not possibly produce temperatures like that in the outer solar system."'

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

bad formatting

Sorry for the bad formatting, I didn't know the comment software would do me the favour of bulletted lists.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

good points

well made and important points Andrew.  Now with your article and Real Climate's I don't feel there is anything still needing to be said.  Sometimes laziness pays off!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=386

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

thanks!

:-) :-)

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

one more time

BobK

Pete H's concern about the proxy data has been answered several times, on this and the other thread he commented on.  See the link below, it is not complicated enough that his feigned inability to grasp it is convincing:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/co2-lags-not-le...

Nor is continually insisting no one has answered him yet.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

appeal to authority

There is nothing wrong with relying on an expert community when one doesn't have the time, inclination or ability to delve into the nitty gritty details of a complex subject.

Pete H erects another strawman by saying "this is not the way to do science".  Of course it isn't, no one said it was.  Scientists should investigate everything and trust no statement absent solid data and consistent theory.  But looking to authority is a good way for lay people to deal with someone like Pete H who does not address one issue at a time, who erects strawmen, who dodges the substantive points in favour of the argumentative ones and who thinks he can rattle off a dozen trivially obvious errors and omissions that have escaped the notice of an entire field of science.

When it becomes too confusing and time consuming to address this gattling gun style of arguing, a step back can give very good perspective.  If Pete H sees all of these obvious problems, why can't NASA GISS, NOAA, NSA, IPCC, dozens of national science academies from around the world, AGU and every major institution dealing with climate realated science?  

The answer is that characters like Pete H have learned enough about the issue to bring up its complications and surprises but stopped short of understanding the explanations and the real implications of the uncertainties.  That is ignorance.

But worse is he refuses to acknowledge any of the answers when handed to him on a silver platter.  That is wilful ignorance.

The cooling in mid 20th century is not a contradiction of GH theory
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189...

The language of science always contains caveats. The peer reviewed science Pete claims to be familiar with does not agree with him that we don't really know what is going on
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/232046/03...

Satelittes and radiosondes do not contradict models or surface observations
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/223318/86

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

nice strawman

"The thought that we can "stop climate change" is so far removed from reality that it boggles the mind."

Pete H,

Sorry but strawman attacks like this are not consistent with your claim that "common sense and rational thought is all I am looking for".  Having to spell out the obvious just removes any point of discussion, I am talking about the current anthropogenically caused climate change, not all climate change on every timescale between now and the time Sol becomes a red giant.

If we cease increasing the concentration of GHG's in the atmosphere there is every reason to expect the climate will stabilise on all policy relevant timeframes unless an asteroid crashes into the ocean, Yosemite blows its super volcano top or the sun cranks up the heat for unknown reasons.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

what forcing?

lgl,

You have offered no mechanism (forcing) at all, just an over active imagination.  Those alledged 3500 year cycles look nothing like each other, nor are they all 3500 years long nor do they all follow back to back.

The temperature trends you are examining are also entirely from Greenland.  Greenland is not the globe.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

further reading

"The carbon cycle involves roughly 210 gigatonnes of carbon equivalent. Anthropogenic emissions are less than 7 gTC."

please see http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/233610/33...

Trying to argue that the increase in CO2 is anything other than anthropogenic is about as fruitful as arguing the earth is flat.  Seriously.

"why are we so worried about CO2 when methane is so much more effective as a greenhouse gas and anthropogenic methane is 70% of the methane cycle?"

Methane in the air is measured in parts per _b_illion, CO2 parts per _m_illion.  Methane is a concern of its own, but CO2 dominates the GHG forcings.

"(the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum) must have been caused by an enormous outburst of heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases like methane and carbon dioxide. But no one has found a clear cause for the gas discharge."

That's right, no clear cause.  But there is clear evidence it happened.  So what does that mean?

WRT your first comment, you might find this article illuminating:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76...

Thanks for the comments!

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

glitch..?

Don't know what happened to the second quote, will try again:

"There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinio...

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

GW is onging

Your first argument seems to rely on a notion that GW has been triggered so now does it matter why.  GW is onging and will stop once the GHG levels in the atmosphere have been stabilized for a couple of decades.

That is an oversimplification but it is a reasonable first order approximation of the situation.  This is not an implicit assumption it is a highly reasonable expectation based on well established theories of climate and very sophisticated modeling.

We may of course be wrong, but any doubts that there are about the models only mean we are incurring greater risks.

GW is very clearly caused primarily by human actions, it is trivially obvious that is we thing GW is a bad thing we should stop causing it.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

Antarctica is not cooling

Actually the latest results show a very modest warming, but regardless the trend there is very small.  You can read this related article for some explanation:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/213716/27

It has to do with the much greater ocean to land ratio in the southern hemisphere and the circumpolar current insulating antarctica.

Personally, given how many times the MSU records have been revised I would be very cautious in drawing conclusions based on them.  Call me sceptical!

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

you've got it very wrong

Geothermal heat is a tiny factor, accounting for less than .1W/m^2 of energy, compared to 342W/m^2 coming from the sun (at the top of the atmosphere).

Check here for a nice schematic overview of energy flows in the climate system:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig1-2.htm

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

what's wrong with warm weather

For the first bit of your comment please see here:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/whats-wrong-wit...

which will be republished here shortly.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

no argument here

Yes, deliberate and dishonest.  And unfortunate for the truth.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

10 percent real!

Reminds me of seeing a carbonated orange (color, not fruit!) drink in the store one time where written proudly on the can were the words "Contains 10% REAL juice!"

How the standards fall...

A more interesting aside to the legal questions, when I worked in an organic food coop in Calgary, AB (that's in Canada for the geographically challenged) you could only buy soy cheese if you knew who to ask and it was brought out of hiding from the basement.  It was actually illegal in Alberta to sell soy cheese because the very powerful diary lobby had convinced politicians with $ubtle argument$ that it was misleading consumers calling it cheese.

That was early 90's, no idea how the soy-smugglers are faring today.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

very opaque

Zarkov,

You need to write more explicitly, I still have trouble understanding you points, ie what about the tobacco industry?

tell me why, if temperature goes up, rainfall goes down

Why do you think that?  I don't think it is correct as a general rule.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

smoke and fire

While I appreciate the feeling that where there is smoke (contrarian arguments) there must be fire (legitimate issues), in this issue the political charge of it all simply means that bit of common sense is inapplicable.  The smoke in this case is a smoke screen.

If this were true, there wouldn't be so many intelligent resaerchers out there with legitimate and intelligent doubt

If you eliminate op-eds and advocacy websites you will not find any of what you describe above.  The reasearch journals do not have any examples of papers that show/claim/imply that there is no warming trend on this planet.  Go look, you will not find any.  Benny Peiser, a professional denialist, tried and came up with nothing.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/14/1511/4868

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

lawyer science

Don't forget to specify "recent" in your request, David!  He may come back with some early 20th century papers that did indeed contradict today's consensus  ;-)

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

been there, done that

If the science about anthropogenic global warming is robust, why not just lay it out and let the facts speak for themselves.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

I note that the counter balance offered to the extensive list proided in the article is a blog comment from "cbrtxus", which is why simple internet searches are not a good way to gauge the state of a scientific topic.

Since when are talking points or "consensus" a part of the scientific method anyway?

Consensus is not a part of the scientific method, it is, however, the result of the scientific method.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

satire, right?

"Biggest cause of coal burning increases in the past decade: computer use."

That's a pretty funny idea!

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

Re Significant Doubts

I'm curious where you get your +/-.7oC global temperature from?  Regardless, it is often the case that a change in a property can be measured more acurately than the property itself.

There is no solid evidence that the global climate has changed this much this quickly at any time in the history of civilization.

The early 20th century warming was about as much solar variation driven as GHG driven.  CO2 is not the only factor changing climate.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

at least they try

yes, well, the gulf between scientists and the rest of us is hard for them to see!  But kudos go to them for the fine effort RC makes, as I know you would agree.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

why pessimisn is win-win

So happy to be wrong!!

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

or...

the democrates will roll over and play dead, the mainstream media will make a few mentions of "all those conspiracy theories", the rumours will swirl around "the internets" (you know, the ones with overwhelming evidence and clear documentation), the pundits will marvel at Rove's political savy and the "value voters" surprise turnout and it will go the way of 2004.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

but 6 is upon us already

Unfortunately we are potentially approaching this incredible blow to the biosphere that 5oC warming would be, with a significant extinction event already underway.  5oC in 150 years would be very hard on a healthy biosphere, how will it be on one that is already suffering from pollution and over exploitation?

3800ppm probably is impossible, but two doublings is not, economic collapse notwithstanding.  Not much is known about how stable the methane clathrates in ocean sediment are.  I would think that 5oC would propogate down to deep ocean waters to some degree, though it should take centuries I imagine.  I believe I recall suggestions that it would only take a couple of degrees warming to cause clathrate release.

I don't think you are suggesting otherwise, but the place we want to avoid is not necessarily the same GHG levels of 250M yr ago, but rather the same blow to biodiversity.  I don't believe we can completely rule that out.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

Total confusion indeed...

Zarkov, I can not make heads or tails out of your comment, I don't even know if you think the globe is warming or not, or if you think it is natural or not.

I can however spot a few basic errors:

• water vapour does not naturally exist in the stratosphere
  
• wet air has a higher, not lower, heat capacity
  
• the air is not in general drying.  Warmer air holds more moisture.
  
• the satellites and the people on the ground do not present contradicting pictures
  
• surface, troposheric and stratospheric observations are indeed consistent with model expectations in an enhanced greenhouse.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

adaption: will it include preserving others?

Jason, you said above in response to my comment #1 that we could build wildlife corridors.  Maybe, I don't know how that will help forests and soils though...

But think about this: we barely care about the environment now.  Do you really believe that in the fight to make human society adapt and maintain our levels of comfort etc we will actually be more attentive to the needs of wildlife?  It seems to me that in the face of rapid climate change the case for "every species for itself" will only get stronger, even as the needs of general biodiversity grow greater.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

cherry picking again

Sorry, but 1998 or 1995, this is still cherry picking.  The graphs in there do not show warming has leveled off since 1995, 1995 was a good deal above the trend, not as muh as 1998, but still.  Dr. Richard Lindzen knows better.  He knows better about much of what he says, so he is clearly not a fair or reliable source.

It is interesting to note that in 1988 when James Hansen made his famous senate appearance, Lindzen was uttering the same garbage: warming has leveled off.  And he used the same cherry picking technique.  Almost 20 years later now...tell me why anyone should care at all what he has to say these days?

It is equally interesting to note that he makes his case on advocacy websites, op eds in the WSJ and industry sponsored conferences, but not in the peer reviewed scientific literature anymore.  There is a reason.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

The pointy end of a wedge

For myself, I don't think that there really is all that much to disagree with in Jason's piece.  Cost-benefit analysis should play a role in climate change mitigation policy decisions.  There are ideologues on both sides of this issue (and in the middle!).  Because GHG emissions are produced by well, eerything, reduction is an extremely complicated problem with far reaching and pervasive consequences.  70% reductions today is not going to happen.

So I will nod my head to what he has written but await with interest where he will go next.  I especilly look forward to some education in economics!

That said, there are a couple of issues that I am wary about, specifically, having agreed that cost-benefit analysis is important, will the next steps assume it is the only important consideration, or even the most important?  Like Jason, I ask that intentionally not tipping my hand as to what I think, just insisting that those questions be on the table.  I am also insistent that peak oil concerns are not left out of the equation.  This factors in very critically with the concept of "no regrets" action as most (not all) emissions reduction policy means less fossil fuel combustion.

I also want to be on the record saying that I value input from economic experts and appreciate all thoughtful and intelligent perspectives.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

premature jubilation?

Popular opinion is a fickle thing.  I do see the signs you see, but I think a little more caution is in order.  Now is not the time to get complacent.  In the US the people's opinion has a relatively small influence unless it is overwhelming.  All I'm saying is don't count your chikens.  Look at Canada, our gov't was all for Kyoto until only a few months ago and now all of the same crap arguments are out in the public arena again in support of a Prime Minister that wants to scuttle the whole deal.

Inhofe and his crew are being left behind by the great American centre, and you want to stop the boat and turn around because you've got a few things left to say to them?

Who says stop the boat?  Seriously, this is not an either/or situation.

You want to go to the ends of the earth (ie Argentina) chasing down every last nutjob who denies Global Warming?

He came to me, I chase no one.  But it sure is nice to have the right material at hand when such a fellow gets in your face, that's all.  I see people refer to my material from all over the web, gaming sites, fitness discussion forums, IMDB comment threads.  No one is chasing these "nutjobs", they are popping up and pontificating all over the place, and unlike readers of a site like Grist, the readers of these random venues are not familiar with the material.  This is useful for them, and it does not require stopping any boat to provide the required correction.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

yes but..

.. in online forums the main point in responding, and responding with substance, not vitriol, is not to convince your opponent (you're right they are usually beyond redemption) but it is for the lurkers.

Whenever someone pops in a comment like the list of objections we are all so familiar with, there will always be a lot of people who have not heard it before and will pause and think, "hey, yea.  What about that?".  If the only answer they see is "what a load of crap!" or similar, it will only encourage them to trust the wrong person.

So do it for the lurkers, not the lost causes!

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

Key, yes. Uncertain, no

Yes those are key issues, but we are on a journey here, so those are dealt with later.  I don't know if I would agree that they are much less certain.  Perhaps quantitatively, but not to first order.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

clarifying

may last comment was supposed to be a direct reply to jjwfmme, comment #1 above

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

No regrets

The other essential point in this debate about emissions reductions is that better efficiency, conservation and alternative energy are all unavoidable in the face of dwindling non-renewable energy sources.  So aside from addressing the risk you very correctly describe, action sooner, not later, will prepare us for Peak Oil shock.  It will also reduce the necessity of western meddling in middle eastern affairs.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

good questions

I'll be honest, your scenario eliminates the vast majority of all my concerns about GMO.  In fact I find it very frustrating that the main focus is always on health fears, and general fear of the unknown.

I think I would not object to GMO absent patents on lifeforms, engineered dependance on chemicals and ownership of genetic material.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will lie forever! -- Anonymous