Global Warming backdown

[WIP]

Which only goes to show that these prominent scientists (sceptics) do not claim to have all the answers. They just know that there are many more questions to be asked.

No, this is not a matter of having unanswered questions; the problem is that they are making conflicting claims right from the outset. How much credibility does one of these "skeptics" have in claiming that there is no AGW, when they don't agree on whether the planet is warming, or whether atomspheric CO2 is a forcing factor? And many of the frequently cited skeptics, like Dr. Roy Spencer, who appear regularly on FoxNews and right wing radio, are not even skeptical about climate change evidence in the first place. They merely make a stupid argument for adjusting to a warmer climate: creating new, genetically modified seeds that are more resistant to drought and heat; moving populations in lowlying areas like Bangladesh inland; and a general move northward as the ice caps melt. Right now the Americans are screaming about Mexicans moving north, but we are going to end up with a mass migration into Canada in the coming decades, as populations move north to escape southern and equatorial regions...Canada is going to get a lot more crowded in a generation or two!

The AGW alrmists however - DO have all the answers - the science is settled, the verdict is in, humans are destroying the planet. As I've shown through a number of articles, at least some sort of debate is starting to take hold.....and that's a good thing......a very good thing. Why not spend a year or two (or 5 if necessary) with properly structured debates, fully covered by the media and get the public fully on side.....because clearly, they are not ready to pay the price. If the science is truly solid, there should be very little to fear and much to gain.

The debates have been structured, and although the Earth's climate and ecological cycles are extremely complex and make climate prediction modeling suspect, the verdict on whether CO2 levels are increasing -- whether the rise is anthropogenic or natural -- whether rising CO2 levels will force global temperatures higher -- is all in! The only questions that remain are how fast change will come (depends on positive feedback loops such as methane from thawing tundra, and whether oceans will continue to absorb excess CO2), and how an increasing amount of energy in global weather cycles will impact us locally in the coming years.

Another question that remains is whether the human race collectively, is really capable of using that highly developed pre-frontal cortex to rationally choose the best course of action for survival. Preliminary evidence indicates that most people do the bulk of their thinking with the older sections of the brain that responds to emotions and sensory gratification. That's why there are wars and uses of military power to claim valuable resources.

And the almost complete lack of concern for the issue of climate justice (a word almost never mentioned in MSM media) also indicates that the human race may just continue to scratch and claw for the dwindling available resources. The complete failure to arrive at any substantial agreement at the Copenhagen Climate Summit indicated that most of the West is not interested in any serious reductions to CO2 emissions, nor willing to adjust the gross imbalance in living standards that exist.

If we examine what we take from the environment as an ecological footprint, we are all competing with each other for the limited bio-capacity of the planet, whether we are conscious of it or not.

Here is the simple reality. The average human needs about two hectares to sustain the average lifestyle on Earth. That includes the assimilation of carbon dioxide and other waste, but primarily it's consumption in the Third World. Waste production enters in to this very much in the First World.

On a nation by nation comparison -- Canadians use about 6 hectares per person. So we are about three and a third times the world average of 1.8 hectares per person. Americans use almost 9 hectares per person, about 5 times above the world average. On the flipside, some impoverished Third World countries are having to get by on less than a third of a hectare per person, per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

The point then is, that the world is growing in population, the per capita input in consumption is increasing even faster. And so we passed sometime in the 1980's, the point at which the average consumption on Earth exceeded the average capacity on the planet to maintain that level of consumption.

So if you add up the total aggregate human ecological footprint, it is greater than the biocapacity of the planet. How is this possible? Unfortunately the answer isn't that the Earth is a giant candy store that will just keep supplying us what we need; the real story is that ecological systems can be compared to bank accounts -- you can keep taking out more than you are putting back in until the cheques start to bounce. We have a good example of this in the fishing industry, where most of the oceans are fished out, and even a moratorium on fishing, such as off the Grand Banks, will take years before that bank account of cod fish is back in black.

If the problems associated with climate change were easy to fix -- such as banning cloroflurocarbons to reduce depletion of the upper ozone levels of the atmosphere -- it would be easy to get everybody to agree on taking real action. The problem is that this is an all-encompassing dilemma that is not going to be solved by quick fixes like mini-fluorescent lightbulbs, or building a bunch of windmills and solar panels. The problem is that almost one third of the world's population is living off of something below a subsistence level and having to drink dirty, unpurified drinking water to boot! They want a better life, but the West, which is taking the bulk of the planet's resources will need to go on a diet....and on a longterm basis, a permanent solution cannot be arrived at without reducing present population levels. And that's going to require some action taken in opposition to the world's fundamentalists, who are at war with planned parenthood and are still advocating a policy of high birth rates. The Catholic Church and various Muslim clerics in particular, who are fighting this insane battle to keep the baby boom going, need to be taken down as soon as possible; and the first step is informing the people that these reactionary religious leaders are advocating policies that are more dangerous and destructive than what any of the world's energy companies are doing.

[Keepitsimple]

As I've been seeing and saying.....the debate is slowly starting to materialize. Christpher Moncton, former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher is a prominent sceptic who's known for his lectures that rebut that humans are the main driver behind Climate Change. An alarmist "scientist" - John Abraham - recently took Lord Moncton to task over a lecture given at the University of Minnesota last year. Mr. Abraham's written rant has been regularly showing up in Alarmist blogs as a gleeful repudiation of Lord Moncton. This of course, has led to Moncton's written reply, eviscerating Abraham with pesky facts. Interesting reading (and dryly funny).....and part of the developing debate:

A Preliminary Response to John Abraham — the extremists join the climate debate at last!

Climate: the extremists join the debate at last!

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

ONE of the numerous artifices deployed by the now-retreating climate-extremist movement has been the careful avoidance of any debate with anyone on the skeptical side of the case who happens to know anything about climate science or economics.

As the extremists lose the argument and become more desperate, that is changing. John Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at a bible-college in Minnesota has recently issued – and widely disseminated – a hilariously mendacious 83-minute attempted rebuttal of a speech by me about the climate last October in St. Paul, Minn.

So unusual is this attempt actually to meet us in argument, and so venomously ad-hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.

As usual, though, none of these silly bloggers makes any attempt actually to verify whether what poor Abraham is saying actually has the slightest contact with reality.

One such is George Monbiot, a scribbler for the British Marxist daily propaganda sheet, The Guardian. What is Monbiot’s qualification to write about climate science? Well, like Abraham, he is a “scientist”. Trouble is, he’s a fourteenth-rate zoologist, so his specialism has even less to do with climate science than that of Abraham, who nevertheless presents himself as having scientific knowledge relevant “in the area”.

Well, I could go on. And on and on. And on and on and on. Just about every one of the 115 slides presented by Abraham contains serious, serial, material errors, exaggerations, or downright lies. All I have been able to do here is to give you some flavor of how unscientific, inaccurate, and deliberately mendacious Abraham is.

Keep an eye out at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org. There, in due course, will appear the letter I am now drafting to Abraham, asking him several hundred pertinent questions designed to make him and anyone who may think of relying upon him understand that academic dishonesty and deliberate lying on this scale and with this amount of public circulation is just not acceptable, and will not be tolerated.

If Abraham wishes to present himself as “a scientist” - as he does throughout his talk - then it is as a scientist that he will be judged, found lamentably wanting, and dismissed. He may like to get an apology and retraction in early: for I am a Christian too, and will respond kindly to timely repentance.

Link: http://sppiblog.org/news/a-preliminary-response-to-john-abraham-the-extremists-join-the-climate-debate-at-last#more-1836

Edited June 5, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

just when you thought denier poster-boy Christopher Monckton had no credibility left, he heads out on another of his dog&pony tours... financed by the usual suspects. Monckton was fresh off his latest tour of Australia... when he got the call from the U.S. Republican Party to appear as their single spokesperson before the recent hearings of the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. While the Democrats brought forward several prominent climate scientists to offer testimony... the Republicans either could not, or would not get a single scientist to testify - hence, the call to Monckton.

even after repeated debunking, Monckton keeps coming back... for more. His schtick follows basically the same act while he tours, country to country, city to city - several lengthy youtube videos have been captured of Monckton's presentation... a presentation that rarely changes up. While on a recent tour through the U.S., Monckton appeared at Bethel University - Minnesota, and so inspired John Abraham, a university engineering professor, to take up the challenge to critique Monckton's presentation. What resulted was probably the single-most diligent and devastating rebuke to Monckton ever put forward. Abraham's work is a long, tedious, slide-by-slide critique unraveling Monckton's traveling road show of lies, deceit, misinformation and incompetence. Even if you only sample a short 5 or 10 minutes worth... enjoy! Abraham's critique of Monckton - here:

As I've been seeing and saying.....the debate is slowly starting to materialize. Christpher Moncton, former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher is a prominent sceptic who's known for his lectures that rebut that humans are the main driver behind Climate Change. An alarmist "scientist" - John Abraham - recently took Lord Moncton to task over a lecture given at the University of Minnesota last year. Mr. Abraham's written rant has been regularly showing up in Alarmist blogs as a gleeful repudiation of Lord Moncton. This of course, has led to Moncton's written reply, eviscerating Abraham with pesky facts. Interesting reading (and dryly funny).....and part of the developing debate:

Link: http://sppiblog.org/news/a-preliminary-response-to-john-abraham-the-extremists-join-the-climate-debate-at-last#more-1836

ya, ya, Simple... you continue to pine for a missing open debate... while ignoring that the debate has been open and ongoing for decades. On one level, Monckton doesn't really care about his demonstrated incompetence - to Monckton, it's all about increasing the audience while continuing to cast doubt and uncertainty. Monckton will simply bluster longer and harder... facts be damned!

we've had some fun with Monckton these recent posts; I expect it will ramp up a tad. It is quite telling that so long as the Abraham evisceration of Monckton remained within blogworld, Monckton was content to ignore it. However, as soon as it reached the mainstream, Monckton launched his nothingness tirade against Abraham's thorough critique... of course, having the Guardian's Monbiot bring forward the Abraham vs. Monckton concern into the mainstream (as I posted previously), was the clincher for Monckton! He absolutely needed to respond to Abraham, and along the way, attempt to disparage Monbiot - which you captured, Simple, in your quote of Monckton's reply. For the uninitiated, Monbiot and Monckton have a bit of history after Monbiot took Monckton to task over his initial intentions to run for the UKIP party in the recent British election... so, it's not surprising that Monckton would attempt to disparage Monbiot over this Guardian article:

Has Ukip got more than it bargained for in recruiting Viscount Monckton?

If the climate sceptic is to be believed, Ukip has landed a Nobel laureate, member of the Lords, saviour of the forces and inventor of the universal cure

as I said, I'm sure we'll see a bit of back and forth over this latest Monckton response... oh look, here's one: Monckton launches vitriolic - but harmless - attack on critic

Monckton howls back that one of the graphs in question was clearly sourced to "the SPPI’s well-known global-temperature index, compiled monthly from four separate global-temperature datasets." And what, pray, is the SPPI? Well that would be the SPPInstitute - the oily Science and Public Policy Institute, of which Christopher Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor. So, Lord Chris makes up a sloppy graph at the SPPInstitute, references it inadequately in his talk and then defends himself on the basis that he is using "well-known" sources. A perfectly closed, perfectly fallible loop.

[waldo]

and the U.S. Republican war against science continues...

the dumbing down of Carly Fiorina - Apparently, you have to pretend to be ignorant of science to win a Republican primary these days

The

-- who is running in the Republican primary to take on incumbent Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer -- mocks Boxer for saying in 2007 that "one of the very important national security issues frankly is climate change."

After playing a clip of Boxer's statement, Fiorina faces the camera and responds, "Terrorism kills, and Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather."

No one doubts that Boxer made the comment. But we wanted to check the context of Boxer's remark and see if Fiorina was quoting it accurately. We examined three elements:

• How well-accepted is the idea of climate change as a national security threat?

Sufficiently well-established to have been been promoted by both the Pentagon and CIA.

A

Quadrennial Defense Review Report

issued by the Department of Defense in February 2010 states that "assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration." It concludes that "while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world."

Meanwhile, on Sept. 25, 2009, the

CIA announced the launch of a Center on Climate Change and National Security

. According to a CIA press release announcing the launch, the center's charter "is not the science of climate change," but rather "the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts, and heightened competition for natural resources."

So while there is certainly room for disagreement about how big a national security threat climate change will ultimately be, Boxer is hardly advocating a fringe theory. The notion that climate change will be significant is being discussed at the Pentagon and the CIA.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The AGW alrmists however - DO have all the answers - the science is settled, the verdict is in, humans are destroying the planet.

I've never heard a single climatologist, or any real scientist claim to have all the answers. I have no idea where you getting this from.

Why not spend a year or two (or 5 if necessary) with properly structured debates, fully covered by the media and get the public fully on side.....because clearly, they are not ready to pay the price. If the science is truly solid, there should be very little to fear and much to gain.

The debates between the scientists have already happened, and that the climate is changing is the concluscion. Then theres the skeptic which the con't debate for the same reason biologists don't debate creationists, it give them credibility.

[jbg]

They can't agree on whether there is global warming; if so, is it related to atmospheric CO2 levels; and they can't even agree on the most crucial point about whether AGW is a significant factor. Some aren't really skeptics at all, but just claim we can adapt to whatever environmental changes occur over the coming decades and centuries. That's a non-falsifiable argument since if they're wrong, and the human race degrades to eventually extinction, no one will be around to say 'I told you so'.

They can agree we're being taken on a wild, fruitless ride though.

[waldo]

They can agree we're being taken on a wild, fruitless ride though.

tried and true tactics of jbg's climate deniers:

- Tout Conspiracy - argue that the overwhelming body of scientific opinion that supports the theory of AGW climate change does not result from independent study of evidence to reach the same conclusion; but rather, argue that thousands of world-wide scientists are engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. Maintain that the peer review process is a tool by which conspiring consensus scientists suppress dissent.

- Use Fake Experts, Marginalize & Denigrate Real Experts - rely upon individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge... extend to include pseudo-experts with some credentials in an attempt to create a facade of credibility. Through marginalization and denigration, attack established climate change experts who support the theory of AGW climate change.

- Selectively Cherry Pick - trumpet whatever appears to support the denier case and ignore the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory of AGW climate change. Continue to trot out denier supportive evidence even after it has been repeatedly discredited.

- Set Increasing and Ever Changing Demands on Climate Scientists - claim that the overwhelming evidence that supports the theory of AGW climate change is not good enough and demand more. Move the goalposts if climate scientists present evidence that has been previously demanded... and demand more.

- Manufacture Doubt & Uncertainty - deny a scientific consensus exists. Purposely misrepresent the scientific consensus, build straw man positions, deploy red herrings and obfuscate. Subscribe to the Simple ton charade of demanding a fair and open debate... while ignoring the decades long open debate that has existed within the scientific community. Eagerly scour outlets for distorted and fabricated items to disparage climate science and scientists. Lie and/or express one's intellectual dishonesty.

- Act the Concern Troll While Lobbying For a Delay in Action - falsely claim an acceptance that mankind is having an effect on global warming; at the same time, argue vociferously that impacts will be minimal/negligible and/or mitigation and adaptation measures can be delayed indefinitely.

[Keepitsimple]

The debates between the scientists have already happened, and that the climate is changing is the concluscion. Then theres the skeptic which the con't debate for the same reason biologists don't debate creationists, it give them credibility.

Like many uninformed alarmists - you don't even understand what the debate is. Show me a skeptical scientist who doesn't believe in Climate Change and I'll show you a stupid scientist. Show me a skeptical scientist who doesn't believe that climate change has caused the world to warm over the past 300-400 years and I'll show you another stupid scientist. The world has been warming - for a long time - and it will likely continue to do so for a while yet. Those are all accepted facts and every reasonable scientist on both sides of the debate accepts that. I'm not a scientist - but I accept that. Skeptics however, do not accept that man-made CO2 is the major driver behind climate change.......that's the debate - always has been. Climate Change has always been with us - including very cold and very warm centuries. That's why you can't ignore that people used to skate on the Thames, you can't ignore that Vikings farmed in Greenland, you can't ignore that as the Swiss Alps recede, evidence of previous villages has appeared. History is a more accurate thermometer for Climate Change than IPCC models.

Edited June 6, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

The debates between the scientists have already happened, and that the climate is changing is the concluscion. Then theres the skeptic which the con't debate for the same reason biologists don't debate creationists, it give them credibility.

Like many uninformed alarmists - you don't even understand what the debate is. Show me a skeptical scientist who doesn't believe in Climate Change and I'll show you a stupid scientist. Show me a skeptical scientist who doesn't believe that climate change has caused the world to warm over the past 300-400 years and I'll show you another stupid scientist. The world has been warming - for a long time - and it will likely continue to do so for a while yet. Those are all accepted facts and every reasonable scientist on both sides of the debate accepts that. I'm not a scientist - but I accept that. Skeptics however, do not accept that man-made CO2 is the major driver behind climate change.......that's the debate - always has been. Climate Change has always been with us - including very cold and very warm centuries. That's why you can't ignore that people used to skate on the Thames, you can't ignore that Vikings farmed in Greenland, you can't ignore that as the Swiss Alps recede, evidence of previous villages has appeared. History is a more accurate thermometer for Climate Change than IPCC models.

debate Simple? You would presume to define the debate? You had to be pushed and prodded into finally acknowledging that warming existed/is occurring... for the longest time you maintained temperatures were actually cooling - notwithstanding your utter and complete 30-year cycle nonsense (we did have some fun with that one... didn't we?).

debate Simple? If you (now) begrudgingly accept that warming has occurred, that warming continues... why are you so distracted with any/every attempt to (unsuccessfully) challenge the temperature record. Why keep up the charade with your go-to TV weathermen? Why your repeated, continued and ongoing failures in attempting to bring forward short-term trending examples that would presume to challenge warming? Why your repeated doubts that ice and ice-sheets are melting? Why do you continue to ignore, to downplay, empirical evidence of warming? Why bother with any of that if you would (now) presume to state an acceptance that warming has occurred, that warming continues?

debate Simple? You are more than willing to ignore the direct evidence that shows the influence of CO2 on warming... while at the same time muttering the weak plaintive call of the denier, "but, but, but... you can't "prove" it's CO2!"

debate Simple? You can't substantiate natural variability as the cause for the warming you begrudgingly accept... but you just know (with certainty) that the recent (relative degree of) warming can't be caused by CO2. You just know it - you don't have any foundation to support natural variability, but, but, but... you know, with certainty, that it just can't be CO2!

debate Simple? You can't substantiate a cause for warming... it's not the sun... it's not the clouds... it's not cosmic rays... it's not water vapour... it's not aerosols... it's not volcanoes... it's not albedo... it's not ozone... it's not CFC's... etc., etc., etc. You have nothing to account for the warming - but you know, with certainty, it can't be caused by mankind's CO2 contributions. You just know it! You can't disprove CO2's influence... but you just know, with unsubstantiated certainty, it just can't be CO2!

debate Simple???????

[Shady]

debate Simple? You can't substantiate a cause for warming... it's not the sun... it's not the clouds... it's not cosmic rays... it's not water vapour... it's not aerosols... it's not volcanoes... it's not albedo... it's not ozone... it's not CFC's... etc., etc., etc.

You can't rule all of those out, or at least a combination of them. You're being completely dishonest. Which is what the global warming true-believers/alarmists are all about.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Like many uninformed alarmists -

I'm an alarmist

I'm not a scientist - but I accept that. Skeptics however, do not accept that man-made CO2 is the major driver behind climate change.......that's the debate - always has been.

Then those scientists (the 2% if actual climate scientists) are wrong, they can try to continue to debate that point all they want, but the real issues now are how much warming will there be and what will be the effect. For christs sake when it come right down to it it doesn't matter that man-made CO₂ is causing the warming. We should be looking at how this will effect the world and us, but everytime one of your skeptics start claiming that it isn't warming because of man-made CO₂ people forget about the real issue. The issue which has the potential to catastrophically alter our world, but who cares about that the real issue is not whether this could cause mass-extinction and potentially wipe out humans, but whether we are the cause of it or not.

Climate Change has always been with us - including very cold and very warm centuries.

Yes and everytime the climate changes rapidly a lot of species goes extinct, and I mean a lot.

[jbg]

Yes and everytime the climate changes rapidly a lot of species goes extinct, and I mean a lot.

And if humans are not a significant part of the cause, then, I guess we'll just have to find a way to deal with it or go extinct ourselves.

[Guest TrueMetis]

And if humans are not a significant part of the cause, then, I guess we'll just have to find a way to deal with it or go extinct ourselves.

We are though, any one who deny's that is a fool, even ignoring CO₂ look at what we have done to the earth, we have actually altered it's surface, by building cities, damning rivers, and clearing huge tracts of forest and people think we aren't having a significant impact on the enviroment and climate. it's ridiculus.

Edited June 9, 2010 by TrueMetis

[waldo]

uhhh... about that inconvenient CO2 truth:

CO2 emissions since 1820 - click Play to see how USA becomes the largest emitter of CO2 from 1900 onwards.

Measured CO2 variations with time and latitude:

[Shady]

CO2 emissions since 1820 - click Play to see how USA becomes the largest emitter of CO2 from 1900 onwards.

Actually, China is now the largest emitter of CO2. But don't let facts get in the way of your posts.

[waldo]

if you're not familiar... the 'Science of Doom' website - clearly, developing as a definitive go-to source for the real goods... the real science. The site has put together an ongoing series on CO2 - currently at part 8... the series to date:

1. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One

2. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Two

3. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Three

4. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Four

5. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Five

6. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Six – Visualization

7. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Seven – The Boring Numbers

8. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? – Part Eight – Saturation

[waldo]

of course... climate sensitivity is the real issue - and the aforementioned blog, 'The Science of Doom', presumes to lay the foundation towards its in-depth coverage. In regards the preceding reference to the ongoing series on CO2, this Q/A has developed from response to the series:

CO2 Can’t have that Effect Because...

[bush_cheney2004]

if you're not familiar... the 'Science of Doom' website - clearly, developing as a definitive go-to source for the real goods... the real science. The site has put together an ongoing series on CO2 - currently at part 8... the series to date:

1. CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One

on December 2, 2009 at 10:23 pm | Reply John M. Quinn

As a physicist/geophysicist who has worked for the U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office and the U. S. Geological Survey for more than 30 years, and who has spent the last 8 years examining the Global Warming phenomenon (the first two of which were at the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), I have come to two conclusions.

First Global Warming is real. Second, CO2 regardless of its origin (i.e., either natural or anthropogenic)

does not

drive Global Warming.

[Michael Hardner]

Like many uninformed alarmists - you don't even understand what the debate is. Show me a skeptical scientist who doesn't believe in Climate Change and I'll show you a stupid scientist. Show me a skeptical scientist who doesn't believe that climate change has caused the world to warm over the past 300-400 years and I'll show you another stupid scientist. The world has been warming - for a long time - and it will likely continue to do so for a while yet. Those are all accepted facts and every reasonable scientist on both sides of the debate accepts that. I'm not a scientist - but I accept that. Skeptics however, do not accept that man-made CO2 is the major driver behind climate change.......that's the debate - always has been.

That is the public debate, yes, but there isn't much debate on that in the literature from what I have read. Only a few scientists remain that doubt that CO2 is the major driver.

[Michael Hardner]

We are though, any one who deny's that is a fool, even ignoring CO₂ look at what we have done to the earth, we have actually altered it's surface, by building cities, damning rivers, and clearing huge tracts of forest and people think we aren't having a significant impact on the enviroment and climate. it's ridiculus.

Furthermore - much smaller groups of people have destroyed local environments and gone extinct. Now reading Jared Diamond's 'Collapse' wherein he describes the decline of Easter Island, Pitcairn Islands, Mayan Civilization and the American southwest. They deforested, over farmed, and used up all the water - things that we are doing now - until their societies collapsed.

[waldo]

That is the public debate, yes, but there isn't much debate on that in the literature from what I have read. Only a few scientists remain that doubt that CO2 is the major driver.

yes, exactly... but if I might... of course, the fundamental driver relative to global warming/cooling is the Earth’s surface distribution of sunshine influenced by orbital variations (the Milankovitch cycle theory). All things being equal, this sunshine distribution works inherently with the natural greenhouse effect... keeping the Earth to the livable warm temperature mankind requires for life. However, as it is today, all things are not equal... as initiated by the orbital variations, increasing GHG’s act as feedback amplifying the warming once it begins. So... yes, as an amplifying feedback, increasing levels of CO2 and the resulting enhanced greenhouse effect, is the “driver” you reference... the one responsible for the significant increase in warming experienced these (relatively) recent decades.

some skeptic/denier types presume to suggest an inconsistency between the Milankovitch cycle theory and the AGW climate change theory. On the other hand, the overwhelming consensus of scientists and the prevailing science, maintains there is no inconsistency between these theories. Additionally, the understood warming properties of CO2 are consistent with the quantitative contribution of CO2 to the warming/cooling within glacial periods (re: lead vs. lag aspects of CO2 versus temperature, vis-a-vis ice core records and glacial terminations).

[Shady]

This is why it's hard to take alarmists seriously.

"Carbon dioxide will be the leading cause of conflict in next 20 years."

[Moonlight Graham]

yes, exactly... but if I might... of course, the fundamental driver relative to global warming/cooling is the Earth’s surface distribution of sunshine influenced by orbital variations (the Milankovitch cycle theory). All things being equal, this sunshine distribution works inherently with the natural greenhouse effect... keeping the Earth to the livable warm temperature mankind requires for life. However, as it is today, all things are not equal... as initiated by the orbital variations, increasing GHG’s act as feedback amplifying the warming once it begins. So... yes, as an amplifying feedback, increasing levels of CO2 and the resulting enhanced greenhouse effect, is the “driver” you reference... the one responsible for the significant increase in warming experienced these (relatively) recent decades.

Well dang, its nice to hear you acknowledge Milankovitch cycles and their impact. But what about variations in solar output/solar cycles (ie: sunspots?)? Do you think they are a factor as well? Skeptics make a good case for them, but i haven't heard much about them from the msm AGW proponents.

Months ago Michael Hardner gave a me a link to a scientific article looking at CO2 and temp over the past few hundred million years or so (actually, Phanerozoic era if i remember). It looked at CO2 + solar output and its links to global temps, and it found a very high link. Here's the weblink: https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/droyer/web/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf. See page 5668.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[wyly]

Well dang, its nice to hear you acknowledge Milankovitch cycles and their impact. But what about variations in solar output/solar cycles (ie: sunspots?)? Do you think they are a factor as well? Skeptics make a good case for them, but i haven't heard much about them from the msm AGW proponents.

solar output has an effect...unfortunately for the skeptics it just helps confirms the CO2 cause for this warming, solar activity has been lower than normal for a few decades so temps should have dropped, but they haven't they're still climbing...there is no link to solar activity and this warming...

[Guest TrueMetis]

Well dang, its nice to hear you acknowledge Milankovitch cycles and their impact. But what about variations in solar output/solar cycles (ie: sunspots?)? Do you think they are a factor as well? Skeptics make a good case for them, but i haven't heard much about them from the msm AGW proponents.

Solar variation is taken into account, to think climate scientists don't know about it shows a great deal of disrespect for the field.