In The News

[sunny starry skies]

Hi barrel, you're right to be cautious about anything you might read, whatever the source. It's the first step in true scientific critical thinking, to evaluate the evidence rather than simply believing what someone says, and that of course includes anything I might say! But you're being hard on the IPCC, as the very few errors that have been identified in the report are inconsequential to the key findings of the report, and a number of supposed errors raised by skeptics have turned out on inspection not to be erroneous. You can verify that for yourself by reading the report and tracking down the evidence upon which it is based. The core message of the IPCC findings, that of human-caused emissions causing global warming is not in question. Clearly the nature of some of the minor errors found should hopefully lead to improved practices to further eliminate the existence of even these minor errors.

On CO2, your statement 'C' is the correct one, in that it is the only one that can explain past climate changes such as snowball/hothouse earth oscillations, the amplification of the Milankovitch orbital variations into Quaternary glacial/interglacial cycles, or the present rapid warming. When temperature leads, CO2 follows as its solubility in ocean water is reduced, and the released CO2 amplifies the temperature rise. When CO2 leads (such as the snowball to hothouse Earth transition or modern industrial CO2 emissions), the fundamental physical properties of the CO2 molecule, namely that it absorbs and scatters outgoing longwave radiation, means the Earth must warm, driving further CO2 release. Clearly the two must operate together - CO2 release causes temperature rise, which causes further CO2 release causing a further temperature rise and so on, regardless of which is the initial trigger. This does not lead to a runaway warming because the feedback 'gain' is less than 1 - each subsequent feedback warming is smaller than the last, leading to a converging series and a temperature and CO2 concentration that is higher by some amount than the initial change.

Most climate researchers understand the bigger picture in a far more sophisticated manner than they are given credit for. Publication on one detailed branch of the science requires a sound understanding of the other related sciences and their interrelationships. It is one reason why skeptics come unstuck so regularly - they lack this knowledge of how to piece everything together. They concentrate on one single cherry and come to the wrong conclusion based on that cherry because they miss the larger web of interrelated supporting evidence that resoundingly disproves their take on the 'cherry'. The 'three blind men asked to describe an elephant' analogy is neat here - one thinks it's a snake, another a boulder, a third a tree trunk... they're each wrong, because they only see a small part of the picture and interpret it wrongly to boot. The same goes for skeptics' interpretations of hockey sticks (of which there are now very many, and more appearing all the time), global temperature rises, CO2 effects, or climate sensitivity. Climate science requires you to evaluate a broad range of evidence which, when combined, points to a single, compelling conclusion, but which cannot be arrived at from one single direction.

Of course whether you accept this does depend on the evidence, not just that I (or anyone else) said so - below is a small part of the evidence I accept to help form an opinion of how the climate system works. It all forms a far more coherent and complete picture of the climate system, via physical theory and supporting observations, than any explanations forthcoming from climate skeptics.

More on CO2:

http://www.aip.org/h...climate/co2.htm

http://www.skeptical...ivity-basic.htm (Basic, Intermediate and Advanced versions available)

http://www.skeptical...on-response.pdf (The 'Climate Scientists Respond' submission to Congress)

Much more on feedbacks:

http://www.realclima...n-to-feedbacks/

On glaciers, you can refer to the World Glacier Monitoring Service (http://www.geo.uzh.ch/wgms/) for more information, and summarised at Skeptical Science here:

http://www.skeptical...ers-growing.htm (Basic and Intermediate versions available)

The vast majority of glaciers are retreating, and they are absolutely not counterbalanced by advancing glaciers.

In case you were thinking of Antarctic sea ice, which has increased slightly, there is more information here:

http://www.skeptical...gaining-ice.htm

Sea ice should not be confused with land ice, one of which will raise sea levels, the other does not.

Attached are some pretty pictures of glacier retreat from some of my favourite glaciers in Iceland - Gigjokull, Solheimajokull and Steinsholtsjokull. Each pair is an image from 2002 and 2010 showing eight years of retreat, and images are from approximately, but not exactly, the same location. The Steinsholtsjokull images are pretty close in that respect. You can see landmarks in each image to gauge the retreats. The upper parts of Gigjokull has been affected dramatically by this year's eruption of Eyjafjallajokull and the attendant jokulhlaups, but the size and position of the snout in this year's image is similar to last year, and the retreat over the past decade is not volcanic in origin. The other glaciers have also been unaffected by volcanic activity. On a side note, Gigjokull is essentially doomed from now because it has lost such a large chunk of its accumulation area that it will now retreat rapidly and take decades to start regrowing to even a shadow of its former self. The Icelandic retreats are in line with the WGMS data showing nearly all glaciers in accelerating retreat around the world.

Edited September 24, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[VillagePlank]

A) warming causes an increase in CO2

An increase in CO2 causes warming

C) Both of the above

Unfortunately, this is best explained, properly, in terms of set theory, and, particularly graph theory. It is well beyond the scope of a forum like this to explain it in colloquial terms.

Indeed, I doubt the people, here, who persistently talk of feedbacks, feedforwards, and tipping points have any real in-depth notion of what it actually means, and how it can be quantitatively measured and analysed. That is NOT an indictment on such guys; why would you want to bother when you have bills to pay?

There are, actually, quite a few notable exceptions, lurking on NetWeather, of course.

Edited September 24, 2010 by VillagePlank

[weather eater]

The thing that I am still trying to get my head around is if ;-

A) warming causes an increase in CO2

An increase in CO2 causes warming

C) Both of the above

It seems to me that there is overall consensus that it is C in the press but a growing number of A's popping up in the press. Seeing as this is the fundamental bit of all the carbon argument I am still left in a relative no mans land what to believe.

Of course Climate is so complex it cannot be controlled by only the above, but this is the bread and butter of the whole carbon debate, and to be honest im really not sure what to believe, given the IPCC's track record I am not willing to accept anything that I am told by them unless I look at the evidence myself. I really don't think that the real debate and analysis has really started yet but after doing quite a lot of reading I find it scary that so many researchers studying climate change factors specialise too much on any one small part of the Climate system and that they are missing the big picture.

I don’t think that what gets reported in the press, or on websites, be it accepting of AGW theory, or sceptical of AGW theory, is of any consequence. To put it simply, its what climatologists think and not what journalists, bloggers or Tom Dick an Harry believe that counts, although they are perfectly entitled to their opinion. The vast bulk of the scientific community supports AGW theory. Given that most, if not all paleoclimatologists support AGW theory, that should tell you that natural cycles are most likely not driving the warming, after all most of what we know about natural cycles comes from paleoclimatologists. Personally I see little evidence that the big picture is being missed, what I do see however is some very vocal sceptics looking for any angle so as to discredit AGW theory, without being able to formulate a conclusive counter theory to explain the warming we have seen. Unless the sceptics can do so I see no need to doubt the main stream view.

[Guest mycroft]

I don’t think that what gets reported in the press, or on websites, be it accepting of AGW theory, or sceptical of AGW theory, is of any consequence. To put it simply, its what climatologists think and not what journalists, bloggers or Tom Dick an Harry believe that counts, although they are perfectly entitled to their opinion. The vast bulk of the scientific community supports AGW theory. Given that most, if not all paleoclimatologists support AGW theory, that should tell you that natural cycles are most likely not driving the warming, after all most of what we know about natural cycles comes from paleoclimatologists. Personally I see little evidence that the big picture is being missed, what I do see however is some very vocal sceptics looking for any angle so as to discredit AGW theory, without being able to formulate a conclusive counter theory to explain the warming we have seen. Unless the sceptics can do so I see no need to doubt the main stream view.

And what most warmnista don't say is that true sceptics accept AGW. Its just the sensitivity of CO2 in the climate system sceptics argue about.

As for natural cycles not driving warming,i'd suggest you go look at any info on the Roman optimum 200BC-50AD

and then look at the Medieval Warm Period, from around AD 800 to the onset of the Little Ice Age around AD 1300.

As for a counter argument see the above,naturals cycles solar influences,changes in ocean currents,cloud cover, etc then we get to the dark side, methodology of collecting data,extrapolation of data to fit..well you get the picture

but i feel you have made your mind up already so anything any sceptical person can say is really a waste of time....

good luck in your search for the truth

[Thundery wintry showers]

And what most warmnista don't say is that true sceptics accept AGW. Its just the sensitivity of CO2 in the climate system sceptics argue about.

As for natural cycles not driving warming,i'd suggest you go look at any info on the Roman optimum 200BC-50AD

and then look at the Medieval Warm Period, from around AD 800 to the onset of the Little Ice Age around AD 1300.

As for a counter argument see the above,naturals cycles solar influences,changes in ocean currents,cloud cover, etc then we get to the dark side, methodology of collecting data,extrapolation of data to fit..well you get the picture

but i feel you have made your mind up already so anything any sceptical person can say is really a waste of time....

good luck in your search for the truth

I agree 100% with the bit in bold, but as for the bit that precedes it, it depends on how you define "warmists". If you mean politically-motivated environmental campaigners, you might have a point, but if you mean climate scientists and/or most of the people who post on here and accept AGW, then no.

I've actually had discussions with respected climate scientists who have said much the same about 'true' sceptics, whose views are often welcomed by mainstream climate scientists, because if they're right, it will lead to advances in science, and if they're wrong, we can refute one possible alternative view, and if it's unclear either way then it opens up a new avenue for research.

It's mainly when politics get involved that minds become rather less open.

[weather eater]

And what most warmnista don't say is that true sceptics accept AGW. Its just the sensitivity of CO2 in the climate system sceptics argue about.

As for natural cycles not driving warming,i'd suggest you go look at any info on the Roman optimum 200BC-50AD

and then look at the Medieval Warm Period, from around AD 800 to the onset of the Little Ice Age around AD 1300.

As for a counter argument see the above,naturals cycles solar influences,changes in ocean currents,cloud cover, etc then we get to the dark side, methodology of collecting data,extrapolation of data to fit..well you get the picture

but i feel you have made your mind up already so anything any sceptical person can say is really a waste of time....

good luck in your search for the truth

One, I know full well that the sceptics don’t doubt that CO2 is a factor in the warming, its just how much, its a position that they have been dragged to by the evidence. And you miss the point about natural cycles, I am fully aware of them and thank you very much I have several books on the subject, and yes I have read them. The point I am making is that the paleoclimatologists also understand them, without their research we would know next to nothing about natural cycles. So despite being the authority on natural cycles they still subscribe to AGW theory, why do you suppose that is.

[pottyprof]

It's mainly when politics get involved that minds become rather less open.

And that is the main part of the problem in my view. When politicians jumped on board, it killed the trust between climate scientists and the public. The high level of spin that politicians have provided to feed the media, who in turn placed their own spin on things has meant most people, who don't enter into debates like we have on here, are left thinking there is an ulterior motive.

I think to a point that is probably true from a political perspective...

[weather eater]

And that is the main part of the problem in my view. When politicians jumped on board, it killed the trust between climate scientists and the public. The high level of spin that politicians have provided to feed the media, who in turn placed their own spin on things has meant most people, who don't enter into debates like we have on here, are left thinking there is an ulterior motive.

I think to a point that is probably true from a political perspective...

I can agree with that, I also think its unhelpful that the news media mention climate change every time we have a notable weather event, regardless of whether there is a proven link to climate change.

[Wynn D Woo]

I can agree with that, I also think its unhelpful that the news media mention climate change every time we have a notable weather event, regardless of whether there is a proven link to climate change.

Aye that is one of my biggest bug bears, anyone would think weather extremes didnt occur before the 90's

[Gray-Wolf]

And that is the main part of the problem in my view. When politicians jumped on board, it killed the trust between climate scientists and the public. The high level of spin that politicians have provided to feed the media, who in turn placed their own spin on things has meant most people, who don't enter into debates like we have on here, are left thinking there is an ulterior motive.

I think to a point that is probably true from a political perspective...

As soon as there were votes to be won things went a little crackers.

I do not get the Psyche of a person who feels driven to represent but I don't trust that drive? Scientist ( and Joe public) just want to know what's going on .....end of.

[Guest mycroft]

Warmnista from my point of view,CAGW alarmists,nothing but CO2,and that ranges from bloggers to climate scientists.

I've actually had discussions with respected climate scientists who have said much the same about 'true' sceptics, whose views are often welcomed by mainstream climate scientists,

WOW would'nt care to name them would you? everthing i've read about sceptics are regarded as heretics, holocaust deniers, and flat earthers,

you've only have to read some of the CRU emails to see how sceptics are thought of

Weather Eater

No one has been dragged anywhere by the evidence,its been know for about 150 years CO2 makes up a percentage of the atmosphere and is a warming gas.As for your comment on all paleoclimatologists accepting AGW is rather a broad one don't you think,And i'd of thought that oceanographers would be more of an authority on natural cycles than paleoclimatologist

seeing that most large natural cycles emanate from our oceans. don't they????

Edited September 24, 2010 by mycroft

[pottyprof]

As soon as there were votes to be won things went a little crackers.

I do not get the Psyche of a person who feels driven to represent but I don't trust that drive? Scientist ( and Joe public) just want to know what's going on .....end of.

Totally agree GW. The question now is, how do you get the public back on board? You can't trust the media to do it. In fact, over the last few years, the standard of reporting has pretty much gone the way of ignoring facts and keeping things all things celebrity. Even The Sport is more factual some days than some of the other tabloids.

[Gray-Wolf]

Totally agree GW. The question now is, how do you get the public back on board? You can't trust the media to do it. In fact, over the last few years, the standard of reporting has pretty much gone the way of ignoring facts and keeping things all things celebrity. Even The Sport is more factual some days than some of the other tabloids.

Horribly ( I believe),you have to trust Joe P. to have the 'understanding' and then S/He be given an unequivocal sign that the science is pointed in the right direction

[weather eater]

Warmnista from my point of view,CAGW alarmists,nothing but CO2,and that ranges from bloggers to climate scientists.

I've actually had discussions with respected climate scientists who have said much the same about 'true' sceptics, whose views are often welcomed by mainstream climate scientists,

WOW would'nt care to name them would you? everthing i've read about sceptics are regarded as heretics, holocaust deniers, and flat earthers,

you've only have to read some of the CRU emails to see how sceptics are thought of

Weather Eater

No one has been dragged anywhere by the evidence,its been know for about 150 years CO2 makes up a percentage of the atmosphere and is a warming gas.As for your comment on all paleoclimatologists accepting AGW is rather a broad one don't you think,And i'd of thought that oceanographers would be more of an authority on natural cycles than paleoclimatologist

seeing that most large natural cycles emanate from our oceans. don't they????

Ho hum Mycroft, I think you know as well as I that many of the most well know sceptics have had to change their position over the last decade. As for Paleoclimatologists I would have thought that the nature of their work would go hand in glove with oceanographers. Geologists would be helpful as well, not to mention several other scientific fields. And I’ll have a bet with you that the vast bulk of all those people subscribe to AGW theory. They could of course be wrong, but as I've said before the sceptics need to come up with a conclusive counter theory, and they are failing to do so. Here’s an idea, you’re a pretty vocal sceptic on these pages, why don’t you lay out your theory and lets see how many holes can be poked in it.

[sunny starry skies]

Warmnista from my point of view,CAGW alarmists,nothing but CO2,and that ranges from bloggers to climate scientists.

I've actually had discussions with respected climate scientists who have said much the same about 'true' sceptics, whose views are often welcomed by mainstream climate scientists,

WOW would'nt care to name them would you? everthing i've read about sceptics are regarded as heretics, holocaust deniers, and flat earthers,

you've only have to read some of the CRU emails to see how sceptics are thought of

Weather Eater

No one has been dragged anywhere by the evidence,its been know for about 150 years CO2 makes up a percentage of the atmosphere and is a warming gas.As for your comment on all paleoclimatologists accepting AGW is rather a broad one don't you think,And i'd of thought that oceanographers would be more of an authority on natural cycles than paleoclimatologist

seeing that most large natural cycles emanate from our oceans. don't they????

Given that oceanographers, particularly those that collect and study marine sediment cores (and I count more than a few as friends) would consider themselves palaeoclimatologists (kind of back to VP's set theory in a way!), and also consider themselves climate scientists, I don't see what your point is. weather eater's excellent point about who is responsible for our understanding of natural cycles is worth thinking about - it is palaeoclimatologists. Why would it be it that the very people who discovered and analysed the various natural cycles present in marine cores, ice cores, boreholes, tree rings and observational records would suddenly not understand their own science? How would the natural oceanographic cycles, which are incapable of creating energy, drive an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere? Most medium-term natural variations (ie sub-Milankovitch but super-decadal and pre-20th Century changes in the total heat content of the Earth) appear to be solar and volcanic in origin, while the oceans just push the energy around a bit... in line with the oceans' inability to add or remove energy from the climate system.

Can you name respected palaeoclimatologists or oceanographers with relevant research experience who don't accept AGW theory?

97% of publishing climate scientists accept AGW, so I imagine dissenting oceanographers are rather thin on the ground...

On the emails dead horse... if someone was harassing you maliciously (e.g. MacIntytre to CRU), would you or would you not think poorly of them when discussing them in private? Seriously?

As you say, the focus of current research has moved on from questions of "is it warming?" (it is) and "is anthropogenic CO2 culpable?" (it is) to "What is the climate sensitivity?" Climate sensitivity lies between about 2C and 4.5C per doubling (Knutti and Hegerl and many others) per doubling of CO2. Figures below ~2C are incapable of explaining past climate variations and do not hold much scientific merit anymore. So... do you think a globally averaged warming of 2C, with localised warmings of much more than that, as well as associated more intense heatwaves and floods,mass loss of ocean life caused by acidification, and with an associated sea level rise measured in metres is nothing to worry about?

"No one has been dragged anywhere by the evidence"? Do you really stand by that statement? I'd be interested to understand your philosophy on the application of the scientific method, perhaps in line with weather eater's request for your convincing counter-theory to AGW? :hi:

[Methuselah]

I know it's a bore, but some things need oft repeating. One such thing being: 'denialism' is NOT the same as scepticism!

[pottyprof]

So... do you think a globally averaged warming of 2C, with localised warmings of much more than that, as well as associated more intense heatwaves and floods,mass loss of ocean life caused by acidification, and with an associated sea level rise measured in metres is nothing to worry about?

Good post SSS

The problem I have with some of these quoted temperature figures is the fact that they could fall within the natural variation of the planets climate, given the fact that we know that the planet has been warmer than it is today, irrespective of the stability of the recent several thousands of years. We also know that sea levels were once higher than today and also lower than today.

[VillagePlank]

The problem I have with some of these quoted temperature figures is the fact that they could fall within the natural variation of the planets climate, given the fact that we know that the planet has been warmer than it is today, irrespective of the stability of the recent several thousands of years. We also know that sea levels were once higher than today and also lower than today.

Yes, it could well be the case that it is natural variation, and the current temperature magnitude is within the realms of what might be expected from historic variation (I haven't done the sums, but I'd expect it to be well within 2 standard deviations)

However, the temperature signal has an underlying trend. Climatology, I guess, is about finding out what is driving that trend. Therein is the rub, and the debate. It is not enough to claim, not that I think that you have, that the temperature is not going up: it is, and it is rising dangerously. The word 'dangerous' is used because, I think, the risk at certain levels is undefined. It is therefore dangerous, if we can do something about it to allow the movement into an undefined area of risk. It is not necessarily catastrophic nor debaucherous.

The enemy at the gates, here, is alarmism. It is a close cousin of another internet favourite - the conspiracy theory - of which denialism is clearly a part, and denialism is following closely behind alarmism to come and get us all. Their weapons of choice are procrastination and zealotry.

Since the risk is unknown, and possibly unknowable, there is room for every theory that mankind could ever dream up from every angle, facet, and face. And the internet allows them to be published without scrutiny. Indeed on the PDF of human thought on the matter, I'd stake a large wager that alarmism, and denialism are +/- 5 standard deviations, respectively, from the mean. And whilst those two predators are circling we will end up spending much time, effort, and heartache fighting them, rather than positively changing our planet, and our home.

Edited September 25, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Guest mycroft]

Ho hum Mycroft, I think you know as well as I that many of the most well know sceptics have had to change their position over the last decade. As for Paleoclimatologists I would have thought that the nature of their work would go hand in glove with oceanographers. Geologists would be helpful as well, not to mention several other scientific fields. And I’ll have a bet with you that the vast bulk of all those people subscribe to AGW theory. They could of course be wrong, but as I've said before the sceptics need to come up with a conclusive counter theory, and they are failing to do so. Here’s an idea, you’re a pretty vocal sceptic on these pages, why don’t you lay out your theory and lets see how many holes can be poked in it.

No Ho Hum about it

Perhaps you should actually read my post as i've stated a counter theory,as for poking holes in it, sure but i am not the one being paid of out of taxpayers money or pushing policy makers in to possible rash decisions on 30 years of data, much of it made to fit the agenda of AGW

Yes Paleoclimatologists,Geologist, do cross over in fields.But as for betting the vast bulk subscribe to AGW

Whow knows! i can't say with 100% certainty can you???given the reaction to any dissent of any anti AGW by any sceintist it's not suprising is it???

Sunny Starry Skies.

As for harassing maliciously, have you any proof that Steve MacIntrye did that, my take of it is that he asked for data under the FOI which was a passed as a right under a act of parliament for citizens of this country to ask for information.Information which was witheld (9 years in the case of the Yamal data,)other data possibly deleted.

As for naming a Paleoclimatologists or Oceanographer who do not subscribe to AGW no i not know of none who have publicly stated that.

As for the application of science method should it not be: Observation, Replication and Prediction

if you can't get the first two right why try and bother with the third.

Heres a quote from the Parliamentary Select Committee that i posted a while back form none other than Prof Michael Kelly.

Kelly quoted Ernest Rutherford, who once said that "if your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment". Complex simulations that can't be exhaustively tested against 'real' data have limited value.

"I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of 'computer' experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as a real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real 'real data' might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models."

And yes i stand by the statement as a true sceptic i accept Co2 as a GHC.

As a warmista do accept that models have very limited probabilty of predicting future climate given its chaotic nature?

As for 2c rise in average global temps,are you stating that whats happened in the last 150 years, i understood it to be 0.6 c?

EDIT

you stated

Most medium-term natural variations (ie sub-Milankovitch but super-decadal and pre-20th Century changes in the total heat content of the Earth) appear to be solar and volcanic in origin, while the oceans just push the energy around a bit... in line with the oceans' inability to add or remove energy from the climate system.

perhaps you should read this exert on a paper in Nature

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7314/full/nature09394.html

The paper was authored by David W. J. Thompson, John M. Wallace, John J. Kennedy, and Phil D. Jones.

QUOTE

A huge amount of energy was taken out of the oceans. The scientists said that it was surprising that the cooling was so fast.

You were saying

Edited September 25, 2010 by mycroft

[Gray-Wolf]

Yes, it could well be the case that it is natural variation, and the current temperature magnitude is within the realms of what might be expected from historic variation (I haven't done the sums, but I'd expect it to be well within 2 standard deviations)

However, the temperature signal has an underlying trend. Climatology, I guess, is about finding out what is driving that trend. Therein is the rub, and the debate. It is not enough to claim, not that I think that you have, that the temperature is not going up: it is, and it is rising dangerously. The word 'dangerous' is used because, I think, the risk at certain levels is undefined. It is therefore dangerous, if we can do something about it to allow the movement into an undefined area of risk. It is not necessarily catastrophic nor debaucherous.

The enemy at the gates, here, is alarmism. It is a close cousin of another internet favourite - the conspiracy theory - of which denialism is clearly a part, and denialism is following closely behind alarmism to come and get us all. Their weapons of choice are procrastination and zealotry.

Since the risk is unknown, and possibly unknowable, there is room for every theory that mankind could ever dream up from every angle, facet, and face. And the internet allows them to be published without scrutiny. Indeed on the PDF of human thought on the matter, I'd stake a large wager that alarmism, and denialism are +/- 5 standard deviations, respectively, from the mean. And whilst those two predators are circling we will end up spending much time, effort, and heartache fighting them, rather than positively changing our planet, and our home.

A most excellant (and ,IMHO, true) post! I ,for one, feels it worth re-posting!

[Guest mycroft]

Given that oceanographers, particularly those that collect and study marine sediment cores (and I count more than a few as friends) would consider themselves palaeoclimatologists (kind of back to VP's set theory in a way!), and also consider themselves climate scientists, I don't see what your point is. weather eater's excellent point about who is responsible for our understanding of natural cycles is worth thinking about - it is palaeoclimatologists. Why would it be it that the very people who discovered and analysed the various natural cycles present in marine cores, ice cores, boreholes, tree rings and observational records would suddenly not understand their own science? How would the natural oceanographic cycles, which are incapable of creating energy, drive an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere? Most medium-term natural variations (ie sub-Milankovitch but super-decadal and pre-20th Century changes in the total heat content of the Earth) appear to be solar and volcanic in origin, while the oceans just push the energy around a bit... in line with the oceans' inability to add or remove energy from the climate system.

Can you name respected palaeoclimatologists or oceanographers with relevant research experience who don't accept AGW theory?

97% of publishing climate scientists accept AGW, so I imagine dissenting oceanographers are rather thin on the ground...On the emails dead horse... if someone was harassing you maliciously (e.g. MacIntytre to CRU), would you or would you not think poorly of them when discussing them in private? Seriously?

As you say, the focus of current research has moved on from questions of "is it warming?" (it is) and "is anthropogenic CO2 culpable?" (it is) to "What is the climate sensitivity?" Climate sensitivity lies between about 2C and 4.5C per doubling (Knutti and Hegerl and many others) per doubling of CO2. Figures below ~2C are incapable of explaining past climate variations and do not hold much scientific merit anymore. So... do you think a globally averaged warming of 2C, with localised warmings of much more than that, as well as associated more intense heatwaves and floods,mass loss of ocean life caused by acidification, and with an associated sea level rise measured in metres is nothing to worry about?

"No one has been dragged anywhere by the evidence"? Do you really stand by that statement? I'd be interested to understand your philosophy on the application of the scientific method, perhaps in line with weather eater's request for your convincing counter-theory to AGW? :hi:

97% you say?? ...perhaps you better read this and click on the link to the survey..Have not read myself yet Mr Adobe is playing up will re-install and read later

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/where-consensus-fails/#more-25352

Edit

this poll was taken in 2008

Edited September 26, 2010 by mycroft

[weather eater]

97% you say?? ...perhaps you better read this and click on the link to the survey..Have not read myself yet Mr Adobe is playing up will re-install and read later

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/where-consensus-fails/#more-25352

Edit

this poll was taken in 2008

That’s the most interesting report I’ve read on whatsupwiththat Mycroft, that is if it is verifiable and genuine, but what does it say? Well in essence its two things.

1. The bulk of the scientific community supports AGW theory.

2. That community thinks that the climate models that they have at their disposal are not good enough when it comes to understanding certain mechanisms.

There are three ways to look at number 2,

1. The whatsupwiththat method, in other words the models are not good enough so therefore it follows that things are not as bad as they are painted to be.

2. The models are not good enough but the balance of probability is that they are not far off the mark.

3. The models are not good enough so there is a possibility that we are seriously under estimating the extent of the problem.

All three are equally valid, so that leaves the human element, which is this bit.

“Only 6% disagreed. And 86.5% agreed or strongly agreed that “climate change is occurring now†and 66.5% agreed or strongly agreed that future climate “will be a result of anthropogenic causes.â€

In fact if you look at the graphs on the PDF they are marked from 1 - 7. One presumably being very strongly disagreeing and seven very strongly agreeing, so in answer to the first of these questions.

How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?

Roughly 93% of those questioned occupied the 5, 6,and 7 spots, agree, strongly agree or very strongly agree. In fact roughly only 2.5% fell into the srongly disagree and disagree categories, 2 and 3, and 0% of those questioned answered 1, very strongly disagree.

In answer to the 2nd of those questions.

How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?

Roughly 83% fell into the 5, 6, and 7 area, in other words agree, strongly agree or very strongly agree. Roughly 11% fell into the 3, 2, and 1 spots, in other words disagree, strongly disagree or very strongly disagree, the rest roughly 6% answered 4, in other words, don’t knows.

[Guest mycroft]

One telling bit is that page 19, where 78.13% (293 out of 375) are categorized as “physics-modellingâ€

and as one poster put it, "now do you really think 78.13% of climate scientists are, in fact, “in-the-trench†numerical climate science modelers?"

Seeing as this was one done in 2008 it is a bit academic.One has to wonder whether climategate etc has had a effect

And sorry but 379 scientists don't make up the bulk of the scientific community

[weather eater]

And sorry but 379 scientists don't make up the bulk of the scientific community

You really are a terribly literal person Mycroft. obviously many scientists have no interest in climate, when we talk of the scientific community we mean those involved with climate. Blimey I can see it now, in a recent survey 93% of scientists involved in the hair dying industry stated that they strongly Disagreed that bottle blondes were contributing to the Albedo effect and thus pushing down global temperatures.

[Devonian]

Yes, it could well be the case that it is natural variation, and the current temperature magnitude is within the realms of what might be expected from historic variation (I haven't done the sums, but I'd expect it to be well within 2 standard deviations)

However, the temperature signal has an underlying trend. Climatology, I guess, is about finding out what is driving that trend. Therein is the rub, and the debate. It is not enough to claim, not that I think that you have, that the temperature is not going up: it is, and it is rising dangerously. The word 'dangerous' is used because, I think, the risk at certain levels is undefined. It is therefore dangerous, if we can do something about it to allow the movement into an undefined area of risk. It is not necessarily catastrophic nor debaucherous.

The enemy at the gates, here, is alarmism. It is a close cousin of another internet favourite - the conspiracy theory - of which denialism is clearly a part, and denialism is following closely behind alarmism to come and get us all. Their weapons of choice are procrastination and zealotry.

Since the risk is unknown, and possibly unknowable, there is room for every theory that mankind could ever dream up from every angle, facet, and face. And the internet allows them to be published without scrutiny. Indeed on the PDF of human thought on the matter, I'd stake a large wager that alarmism, and denialism are +/- 5 standard deviations, respectively, from the mean. And whilst those two predators are circling we will end up spending much time, effort, and heartache fighting them, rather than positively changing our planet, and our home.

Good post.

"I'd stake a large wager that alarmism, and denialism are +/- 5 standard deviations, respectively, from the mean." sounds like an awful lot to me. Presumably it's possible to put a figure on plus or minus 5 standard deviations to the temperature from a set mean? Say 1951-80?

How would I define the two? Humm, denialism = no measurable (or even no) contribution from human CO2 to Earth's climate? Alarmism = warming great then any IPCC prediction? I don't think anyone here fits those description?

And conspiracy theory? I fear the net is littered with them, makes me fear for my species it does.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Devonian