First posting of a quoted pseudo-scientist regarding climate patterns on Mars and how they relate to Al Gore's bank account in 3...2...1.....

I've seen deniers pull this gymnastics:

When it's hotter than normal, they're quick to say "this is just a blip, doesn't mean anything." Then, when it's cooler than normal, they'll say "see, there's no global warming."

Just curious, what would have to happen for y'all to renounce you Church of Global Climate Change mindset?

Kari,

Let's not forget that just this month, Jeff Alworth posted an article at this site asking those who deny global warming to make bets on individual days. That logic is exactly wrong, and it plays into the hands of those who deny.

Global warming, over the long term (decades), produces an aggregate upward temperature change. Over the short term, it produces more dramatic temperature swings(a few summer and winter days setting new records for highs and lows), which also cause powerful weather phenomena. That's why we need to talk about global climate "change" rather than "warming," since the net affect is long-term and incremental.

The question remains - not whether or not global warming caused by humans is occurring, but whether or not the economic price demanded to stop it is greater than the economic price of the warming itself.

Damn hot here, too.

But unusually mild and even cold in the mid-west and north-eastern US. Must be all those cows in Australia.

Current temperatures don't have anything to do - neither supporting nor detracting from your belief system.

We're not going to see proof one way or another in our lifetimes. Mother Nature works with a much longer timescale.

In the meantime, return to your various theories as to what is really going on with our climate.

Not denying; not supporting.

Boy it's damn hot today. 109 degrees!

Why is that "The Question" UPO?

It won't cost me a dime to let other people suffer in various ways due to our aggregate behavior.

I think the real question is, do we understand that if we screw this one up, we're toast? If, in a couple of hundred (or several hundred) years, the oxygen/CO2 mix changes by a few percentage points, the tattered remants of humanity will be living in domes and wearing respirators to go for a drive.

IT's a very small and very rare type of planet that can support human life as we currently enjoy it, and if the deniers and their money guys wanna focus on specific financial theories while gambling the life of the planet's mammilian inhabitants, I don't wanna be on that train.

Yeah, tell me about it. Every time I hear someone saying "well, that does it for global warming, haw haw", I have to sit down and explain to them, as their eyes glaze over, that the problem isn't the warming. It's what the very gradual overall warming is causing to weather patterns and how the regular natural cycles get more and more extreme. Any gardener knows that certain plants only grow in a particular temperature range...well, most plants that have adapted to a particular climate can only live in that normal range. When it gets skewed, the plants die and sometimes they don't come back. Cows don't get food, you get crop failures, and your big mac is going to cost you 5 times more as a result of the lack of overall wheat and beef supply.

Even when you make it that simple, doubters will still refuse to believe it because it means that they have to admit that they were wrong about something. It's the eternal battle of the wise vs. the ignorant.

Who are these "global warming deniers" repeatedly referenced here? One would have to be pretty thick indeed to deny the existence of climate change. Even with our relatively limited knowledge of planet Earth the record clearly proves that fluctuations in climate & weather patterns have been a constant for thousands of millions of years. It also seems reasonable that human activity might well have some effect but to what degree nobody really knows at this point. Sadly politics, ideology and $$$ appear to be be more important to most than hard science on this issue. That tends to power up the skepticism & apathy units in a lot of folks on what may well prove to be a major crisis for human existence on this planet. My rose colored glasses broke a long time ago but it's still nice to dream of a world where where truth & reason supersede personal agendas & bullshit.

Hey, church of global warming attendees, what do you have to say now? Still think we can determine global climate changes looking at computer models?

So if you're stupid for thinking a huge snowstorm is proof against global warming, how dumb are you if you think a heat wave is proof for it?

SwamiSam,

Yes, better than any other method.

Scientific data. More specifically, actual scientific data

is presented all the time but is dismissed b/c it doesn't play into your beliefs.

This is too stupid , really.

Your AGW movement has raised every conceivable observation and attributed it without basis to human CO2 emissions. Weather events and all sorts of other observations. Yet you play this pitch that skeptics have done this with weather and that's all there is to the "deniers" case.

I find it amazing that you blues would so universally zulled into such garbage.

Even with whoppers right here on your blog with OSU Lubchecno's phony ocean dead zone link. She made no link and her own research group cautioned that they were unable to establish the extent of link, if any, to global warming. Yet this typical fabrication has been perpetrated and now Bill Bradbury is telling school children AGW is causing ocean dead zones off the coast of Oregon.

Among many other examples of egregious fabrications is the NW snow pack sham. More NW officials gin up a fabricated snow pack loss of 20% over the past 30 years when it has gone up 20%. Earl Blumenauer is peddling that phony snow loss.

http://icecap.us/

Jul 23, 2009Pacific Northwest Snow Pack - the True Story

By George Taylor Washington Governor Gregoire recently sent a letter to the Washington House delegation in which she stated that the snow pack has declined 20% over the past 30 years: “Last month, a study released by the University of Washington shows we’ve already lost 20% of our snow pack over the last 30 years.” Actual snow pack numbers show a 22% INCREASE in snow pack over the past 33 years across the Washington and Oregon Cascade Mountains

Zull,

You shouldn't be explaining AGW to anyone.

Our human CO2 emissions are causing no such thing as you lectured. IMO you are loon. All your garden and cows supposing has no scientific connection to AGW theories at all. If you think that gibberish makes AGW simple you're nuts.

Yes this is the eternal battle of the wise vs. the ignorant.

So go bone up and wise up.

The latest unraveling of AGW has been extensive.

www.wattsupwiththat.com

"Hey, global warming deniers, what do you have to say now?"

Check the NYC weather report.

Using a hot spell to backup your global warming claim is as dumb as using a 3 week cold spell to deny it.

People misunderstand how climate models work. They don't predict a snowstorm in December or a heat wave in July because they can't and they don't even try. Instead they (many of them at least) simulate patterns of weather that are every bit as chaotic as the actual weather turns out to be. To derive the climate they combine a number of model runs together and calculate expected climate in the same way that actual climate is derived from the actual weather records. Doing that smooths out the variations from things like El Nino/ENSO, the solar cycle and other short term but unpredictable* cycles of nature so they don't predict the weather in any particular year but the climate over a 20 or 30 year period.

Climate models aren't perfect. They're better than they used to be and not as good as they will be in the future but they're what we've got and I have yet to see a convincing argument that they're useless.

Dave

*Unpredictable in the sense that we know they will happen but can't predict the exact timing and/or strength of each cycle.

I have in-laws in South Carolina who believe that global warming isn't caused by man, but "it is because the sun is getting hotter." Really.

"But since I'm more about snarkily taunting idiots than having in-depth scientific discussion"

Too bad, I think the more rational and scientific discussions are more convincing. Though I suppose some consider it entertaining, it seems this reveals more about your character than of the people you're trying to engage for the purposes of... mean-spiritedness? Ohhh, this is that pseudo-intellectual sarcasm stuff, right? Because really, you'd rather have the scientific discussion.

And no, I'm not a "denier," or one of "those" people who happens to disagree with you on this issue. It's getting easier and easier to avoid both political parties.

Thanks though, I tend to be a "lurker" here - rarely comment but visit for the discussion.

Hey LizSithCurrie:

Guess your hick relatives aren't as stupid as their smug urban daughter-in-law thinks they are.

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

"with all kinds of faux science attempting to deny the existence of climate change."

Really Kari?

That is so lame. It's human CO2 emissions caused global warming that is being rejected with very sound sceince. The junk you accept as gospel is the faux science.

And how is the Lubchenco science in your opinion?

You all seem to immediately believe anything she claims.

As head of NOAA she's now trumpeting that climate models are robust enough to predict wind patterns 100 years from now. That's absurd as possbile.

No doubt your brilliance buys that too?

The blue nonsense on global warming reaches new heights every day.

Those three letters in the Sunday O were just asinine. How do you get so messed up to, as a group, be completely duped?

Is this some revenge of the nit wits? Because you folks are failing miserably to apply any objectivity, curiosity or scrunity to the global warming claims.

We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways.

To deny "global warming", one has to either deny that the CO2 percentage is increasing, or deny the infrared properties of the CO2 molecule. Good luck with that.

Could someone please explain why there was a supercell with three mature funnels snaking towards the ground while we were in MT at Fort Peck Rez? And another supercell threat the next night? And out at Burns in May another magnificent and untimely gully washer that kept people off the Buttes and waiting for it to be safe?

The weather is becoming more and more unpredictable and intense. Those of us who are out in it season after season may be a little bit in touch wtih this as we take part in ceremonials that stay in one place for years, and are also somewhat reliably oriented in the dates - so we have a weather record in our heads and gather up the reports of what is characteristic and not from the locals.

Desertification is growing at alarming rates, intensitifed by the fact that our wet era is over with and and seventh Great Extinction is continuing apace. It began long before we were who we are now, but all we are doing is hastening and enforcing the outcome.

steve We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways. J: Energy DOES NOT EQUAL temperature. Temperature is the integral of NET energy flow, in or out. That is the flaw in you logic - you have not shown that the energy flow is net positive. And you are just assuming that it is due to man. You forget that man only emits around 3% of the annual CO2 emissions. See: sustainableoregon.com/co2_sources.html and sustainableoregon.com/co2climate.html

steve To deny "global warming", one has to either deny that the CO2 percentage is increasing, or deny the infrared properties of the CO2 molecule. Good luck with that. J: Or one has to believe the evidence for the existence natural temperature regulators.

Or one has to believe the cosmic ray cloud cover connection.

Or one has to believe that the oceans are NOT warming & in fact cooling.

Or one has to believe that the satellite data is more accurate that data from a thermometer placed in a parking lot.

I do hope you know that CO2 FOLLOWS, NOT LEADS temperature change in the Anartici ice corse that Al talked about. He lied.

CO2 also follows temperature in a number of other studies.

BTW are you aware that CO2 only causes 1/3 of any warming MAX. BTW are you aware that man only emits about 3% of the total annual CO2 emissions? See: SustainableOregon.com

steve To deny "global warming", one has to either deny that the CO2 percentage is increasing, or deny the infrared properties of the CO2 molecule. Good luck with that. J: Here are some peer-reviewed papers that show co2 lags temperature changes.

Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination
(Science, Vol. 291. no. 5501, 5 January 2001)

Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714, 12 March 1999) QUOTE: High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.

Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
(Science, September 27, 2007) QUOTE: Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years.

The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 583-589, February 2001) QUOTE: Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III (Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
QUOTE: The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

Links to the papers: sustainableoregon.com/co2climate.html

See, Steve, its really not that simple.

PS: The existence of these and many more papers also puts the LIE to the claim of consensus.

What are you talking about Kari?

You've never even pretended to discuss the more germane components raised by skeptics. Including above. You just waltz right by them as if they were never raised. Instead you deliberately misrepresent the skeptisism as weather tripe by deniers.

Then you claim there's no point in trying to discuss AGW with deniers?

You can't even respond to your egregious threads on AGW causing dead zones which so many of you bought into without any rationale or science.

Like every other observation attributed to AGW.

I'm sure you're solidly behind the farce that polar bears are dying from AGW too. How about the medeival warm period or mini ice age problems with AGW? How about the hurricane connection? Some of you think Katrina was caused by AGW. Now there's some real rational science.

I think you folks are so busy spinnning around looking at imaginary effects of AGW you don't have time or the interest in actually checking any of it for sanity.

You ignore every single question raised while touting the certainty of AGW.

AGW is a catastrophe only in your minds.

But even with your misguided duping there has yet to be warming occur that could trigger nearly ay of the imaginary observations you are so eager to attriubute to AGW.

At least you are establishing this foolish and dishonest AGW movement as the left wing Democratic insanity it is.

All of these blogs will be preserved for history as the farce unraveles while you assault Americans with needless and costly energy policies.

While it may be naive to say that man is having no impact on the climate at all, it still seems very damaging for the government to throw billions of dollars toward solving a perceived problem, when the science is clearly in dispute. Discussions and reviews in every possible venue absolutely reveal the science of climate change is in dispute. So when does reason combine with existing disputable science and come to sound decision making?

Pat Ryan - if your thesis is correct that

If, in a couple of hundred (or several hundred) years, the oxygen/CO2 mix changes by a few percentage points, the tattered remants of humanity will be living in domes and wearing respirators to go for a drive.

Then indeed the economic costs of combatting global warming will be less than the economic costs of letting it continue unabated.

However, the scientific basis for your scenario occurring is probably even lesser than the scientific basis of behind global warming denial.

Let's put it in the following apocalyptic terms:

Is it better to pay the costs and suffer the human misery to relocate 100 million Bangladeshis to Siberia and Canada, or to pay the costs and suffer the human misery of 100 million Bangladeshis forced back into a subsistence agricultural economy?

Your AGW tales are just make it up as you go.

There is no choice of cheaper to create misery now than do nothing and pay with global destruction later.

Not only is there no valid science establishing this as a possible or likely outcome but there is even less evidence these painful policies would change anything at all. So why are you cooking up scenarios to justify insane policies?

Let what continue unabated? Natural variation in climate? CO2 is harmless, period. I know it's hard for you to wrap you minds around that because of the path you've wandered down but deal with it.

The basis behind global warming "denial" is far greater than the hockey stick crap Gore peddles. And the denialist concensus and science grows daily.

You delusion of avoiding 100 million climate refugees is also out of touch. It's been ramped up to 200 million.

STEVE SAYS: " We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways."

Steve: You need an introductory course in physics. ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL TEMPERATURE!

We know the optical properties of CO2, but it is not as simple as you say that it is. If you increase CO2 concentration, the additional absorption AGW proponents claim would cause warming occurs with absorption coefficients far less than values that make those wavenumbers opaque with respect to the surface.Emission at the wings of the CO2 bands would come from the upper troposphere, which poses a calculating problem because of cloud cover, and the upper troposphere would actually cool from increased emission from the saturated wavenumbers near 15 microns. That is a self defeating process that warmers like to conveniently ignore. Emission calculations are all based upon holding atmospheric temperatures constant.This is also not true. The founding work in radiation modeling never contained ANY assertion that CO2 had the capability of modifying the surface radiative flux from the earth, for it is water vapor and clouds that are the major constituents that do this.

"Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong, and its applications inferior to answering any pondering questions about the earths future climate. Meteorologists could have told any modelers what limitations they run up against.

CO2 has no demonstrable effect in changing the earths climate. The radiative forcing calculations have NOT BEEN MEASURED, and every atmospheric component that has been measured to date supports the founding work that nothing new claimed to date will make any difference and these measurements actually show the calculations are incorrectly being applied in climate modeling. The self serving egos of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are astounding. They will go down in history as having misled the public into unwittingly participating in a tax and regulating schene ( cap and trade if it passes the Senate ) that will accomplish nothing. It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate. Basic calculations anyone could do would show how far off this assertion really is. This current heat wave is not anything unusual. The 100 year record high temperature for Portland stands at 107 degF, which was hit twice, in 1981 and 1967.

Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

STEVE SAYS: " We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways."

Steve: You need an introductory course in physics. ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL TEMPERATURE!

We know the optical properties of CO2, but it is not as simple as you say that it is. If you increase CO2 concentration, the additional absorption AGW proponents claim would cause warming occurs with absorption coefficients far less than values that make those wavenumbers opaque with respect to the surface.Emission at the wings of the CO2 bands would come from the upper troposphere, which poses a calculating problem because of cloud cover, and the upper troposphere would actually cool from increased emission from the saturated wavenumbers near 15 microns. That is a self defeating process that warmers like to conveniently ignore. Emission calculations are all based upon holding atmospheric temperatures constant.This is also not true. The founding work in radiation modeling never contained ANY assertion that CO2 had the capability of modifying the surface radiative flux from the earth, for it is water vapor and clouds that are the major constituents that do this.

"Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong, and its applications inferior to answering any pondering questions about the earths future climate. Meteorologists could have told any modelers what limitations they run up against.

CO2 has no demonstrable effect in changing the earths climate. The radiative forcing calculations have NOT BEEN MEASURED, and every atmospheric component that has been measured to date supports the founding work that nothing new claimed to date will make any difference and these measurements actually show the calculations are incorrectly being applied in climate modeling. The self serving egos of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are astounding. They will go down in history as having misled the public into unwittingly participating in a tax and regulating schene ( cap and trade if it passes the Senate ) that will accomplish nothing. It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate. Basic calculations anyone could do would show how far off this assertion really is. This current heat wave is not anything unusual. The 100 year record high temperature for Portland stands at 107 degF, which was hit twice, in 1981 and 1967.

Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

STEVE SAYS: " We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways."

Steve: You need an introductory course in physics. ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL TEMPERATURE!

We know the optical properties of CO2, but it is not as simple as you say that it is. If you increase CO2 concentration, the additional absorption AGW proponents claim would cause warming occurs with absorption coefficients far less than values that make those wavenumbers opaque with respect to the surface.Emission at the wings of the CO2 bands would come from the upper troposphere, which poses a calculating problem because of cloud cover, and the upper troposphere would actually cool from increased emission from the saturated wavenumbers near 15 microns. That is a self defeating process that warmers like to conveniently ignore. Emission calculations are all based upon holding atmospheric temperatures constant.This is also not true. The founding work in radiation modeling never contained ANY assertion that CO2 had the capability of modifying the surface radiative flux from the earth, for it is water vapor and clouds that are the major constituents that do this.

"Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong, and its applications inferior to answering any pondering questions about the earths future climate. Meteorologists could have told any modelers what limitations they run up against.

CO2 has no demonstrable effect in changing the earths climate. The radiative forcing calculations have NOT BEEN MEASURED, and every atmospheric component that has been measured to date supports the founding work that nothing new claimed to date will make any difference and these measurements actually show the calculations are incorrectly being applied in climate modeling. The self serving egos of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are astounding. They will go down in history as having misled the public into unwittingly participating in a tax and regulating schene ( cap and trade if it passes the Senate ) that will accomplish nothing. It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate. Basic calculations anyone could do would show how far off this assertion really is. This current heat wave is not anything unusual. The 100 year record high temperature for Portland stands at 107 degF, which was hit twice, in 1981 and 1967.

Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

STEVE SAYS: " We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways."

Steve: You need an introductory course in physics. ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL TEMPERATURE!

We know the optical properties of CO2, but it is not as simple as you say that it is. If you increase CO2 concentration, the additional absorption AGW proponents claim would cause warming occurs with absorption coefficients far less than values that make those wavenumbers opaque with respect to the surface.Emission at the wings of the CO2 bands would come from the upper troposphere, which poses a calculating problem because of cloud cover, and the upper troposphere would actually cool from increased emission from the saturated wavenumbers near 15 microns. That is a self defeating process that warmers like to conveniently ignore. Emission calculations are all based upon holding atmospheric temperatures constant.This is also not true. The founding work in radiation modeling never contained ANY assertion that CO2 had the capability of modifying the surface radiative flux from the earth, for it is water vapor and clouds that are the major constituents that do this.

"Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong, and its applications inferior to answering any pondering questions about the earths future climate. Meteorologists could have told any modelers what limitations they run up against.

CO2 has no demonstrable effect in changing the earths climate. The radiative forcing calculations have NOT BEEN MEASURED, and every atmospheric component that has been measured to date supports the founding work that nothing new claimed to date will make any difference and these measurements actually show the calculations are incorrectly being applied in climate modeling. The self serving egos of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are astounding. They will go down in history as having misled the public into unwittingly participating in a tax and regulating schene ( cap and trade if it passes the Senate ) that will accomplish nothing. It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate. Basic calculations anyone could do would show how far off this assertion really is. This current heat wave is not anything unusual. The 100 year record high temperature for Portland stands at 107 degF, which was hit twice, in 1981 and 1967.

Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

STEVE SAYS: " We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways."

Steve: You need an introductory course in physics. ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL TEMPERATURE!

We know the optical properties of CO2, but it is not as simple as you say that it is. If you increase CO2 concentration, the additional absorption AGW proponents claim would cause warming occurs with absorption coefficients far less than values that make those wavenumbers opaque with respect to the surface.Emission at the wings of the CO2 bands would come from the upper troposphere, which poses a calculating problem because of cloud cover, and the upper troposphere would actually cool from increased emission from the saturated wavenumbers near 15 microns. That is a self defeating process that warmers like to conveniently ignore. Emission calculations are all based upon holding atmospheric temperatures constant.This is also not true. The founding work in radiation modeling never contained ANY assertion that CO2 had the capability of modifying the surface radiative flux from the earth, for it is water vapor and clouds that are the major constituents that do this.

"Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong, and its applications inferior to answering any pondering questions about the earths future climate. Meteorologists could have told any modelers what limitations they run up against.

CO2 has no demonstrable effect in changing the earths climate. The radiative forcing calculations have NOT BEEN MEASURED, and every atmospheric component that has been measured to date supports the founding work that nothing new claimed to date will make any difference and these measurements actually show the calculations are incorrectly being applied in climate modeling. The self serving egos of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are astounding. They will go down in history as having misled the public into unwittingly participating in a tax and regulating schene ( cap and trade if it passes the Senate ) that will accomplish nothing. It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate. Basic calculations anyone could do would show how far off this assertion really is. This current heat wave is not anything unusual. The 100 year record high temperature for Portland stands at 107 degF, which was hit twice, in 1981 and 1967.

Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

STEVE SAYS: " We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways."

Steve: You need an introductory course in physics. ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL TEMPERATURE!

We know the optical properties of CO2, but it is not as simple as you say that it is. If you increase CO2 concentration, the additional absorption AGW proponents claim would cause warming occurs with absorption coefficients far less than values that make those wavenumbers opaque with respect to the surface.Emission at the wings of the CO2 bands would come from the upper troposphere, which poses a calculating problem because of cloud cover, and the upper troposphere would actually cool from increased emission from the saturated wavenumbers near 15 microns. That is a self defeating process that warmers like to conveniently ignore. Emission calculations are all based upon holding atmospheric temperatures constant.This is also not true. The founding work in radiation modeling never contained ANY assertion that CO2 had the capability of modifying the surface radiative flux from the earth, for it is water vapor and clouds that are the major constituents that do this.

"Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong, and its applications inferior to answering any pondering questions about the earths future climate. Meteorologists could have told any modelers what limitations they run up against.

CO2 has no demonstrable effect in changing the earths climate. The radiative forcing calculations have NOT BEEN MEASURED, and every atmospheric component that has been measured to date supports the founding work that nothing new claimed to date will make any difference and these measurements actually show the calculations are incorrectly being applied in climate modeling. The self serving egos of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are astounding. They will go down in history as having misled the public into unwittingly participating in a tax and regulating schene ( cap and trade if it passes the Senate ) that will accomplish nothing. It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate. Basic calculations anyone could do would show how far off this assertion really is. This current heat wave is not anything unusual. The 100 year record high temperature for Portland stands at 107 degF, which was hit twice, in 1981 and 1967.

Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

STEVE SAYS: " We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways."

Steve: You need an introductory course in physics. ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL TEMPERATURE!

We know the optical properties of CO2, but it is not as simple as you say that it is. If you increase CO2 concentration, the additional absorption AGW proponents claim would cause warming occurs with absorption coefficients far less than values that make those wavenumbers opaque with respect to the surface.Emission at the wings of the CO2 bands would come from the upper troposphere, which poses a calculating problem because of cloud cover, and the upper troposphere would actually cool from increased emission from the saturated wavenumbers near 15 microns. That is a self defeating process that warmers like to conveniently ignore. Emission calculations are all based upon holding atmospheric temperatures constant.This is also not true. The founding work in radiation modeling never contained ANY assertion that CO2 had the capability of modifying the surface radiative flux from the earth, for it is water vapor and clouds that are the major constituents that do this.

"Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong, and its applications inferior to answering any pondering questions about the earths future climate. Meteorologists could have told any modelers what limitations they run up against.

CO2 has no demonstrable effect in changing the earths climate. The radiative forcing calculations have NOT BEEN MEASURED, and every atmospheric component that has been measured to date supports the founding work that nothing new claimed to date will make any difference and these measurements actually show the calculations are incorrectly being applied in climate modeling. The self serving egos of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are astounding. They will go down in history as having misled the public into unwittingly participating in a tax and regulating schene ( cap and trade if it passes the Senate ) that will accomplish nothing. It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate. Basic calculations anyone could do would show how far off this assertion really is. This current heat wave is not anything unusual. The 100 year record high temperature for Portland stands at 107 degF, which was hit twice, in 1981 and 1967.

Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

STEVE SAYS: " We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways."

Steve: You need an introductory course in physics. ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL TEMPERATURE!

We know the optical properties of CO2, but it is not as simple as you say that it is. If you increase CO2 concentration, the additional absorption AGW proponents claim would cause warming occurs with absorption coefficients far less than values that make those wavenumbers opaque with respect to the surface.Emission at the wings of the CO2 bands would come from the upper troposphere, which poses a calculating problem because of cloud cover, and the upper troposphere would actually cool from increased emission from the saturated wavenumbers near 15 microns. That is a self defeating process that warmers like to conveniently ignore. Emission calculations are all based upon holding atmospheric temperatures constant.This is also not true. The founding work in radiation modeling never contained ANY assertion that CO2 had the capability of modifying the surface radiative flux from the earth, for it is water vapor and clouds that are the major constituents that do this.

"Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong, and its applications inferior to answering any pondering questions about the earths future climate. Meteorologists could have told any modelers what limitations they run up against.

CO2 has no demonstrable effect in changing the earths climate. The radiative forcing calculations have NOT BEEN MEASURED, and every atmospheric component that has been measured to date supports the founding work that nothing new claimed to date will make any difference and these measurements actually show the calculations are incorrectly being applied in climate modeling. The self serving egos of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are astounding. They will go down in history as having misled the public into unwittingly participating in a tax and regulating schene ( cap and trade if it passes the Senate ) that will accomplish nothing. It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate. Basic calculations anyone could do would show how far off this assertion really is. This current heat wave is not anything unusual. The 100 year record high temperature for Portland stands at 107 degF, which was hit twice, in 1981 and 1967.

Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

STEVE SAYS: " We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways."

Steve: You need an introductory course in physics. ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL TEMPERATURE!

We know the optical properties of CO2, but it is not as simple as you say that it is. If you increase CO2 concentration, the additional absorption AGW proponents claim would cause warming occurs with absorption coefficients far less than values that make those wavenumbers opaque with respect to the surface.Emission at the wings of the CO2 bands would come from the upper troposphere, which poses a calculating problem because of cloud cover, and the upper troposphere would actually cool from increased emission from the saturated wavenumbers near 15 microns. That is a self defeating process that warmers like to conveniently ignore. Emission calculations are all based upon holding atmospheric temperatures constant.This is also not true. The founding work in radiation modeling never contained ANY assertion that CO2 had the capability of modifying the surface radiative flux from the earth, for it is water vapor and clouds that are the major constituents that do this.

"Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong, and its applications inferior to answering any pondering questions about the earths future climate. Meteorologists could have told any modelers what limitations they run up against.

CO2 has no demonstrable effect in changing the earths climate. The radiative forcing calculations have NOT BEEN MEASURED, and every atmospheric component that has been measured to date supports the founding work that nothing new claimed to date will make any difference and these measurements actually show the calculations are incorrectly being applied in climate modeling. The self serving egos of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are astounding. They will go down in history as having misled the public into unwittingly participating in a tax and regulating schene ( cap and trade if it passes the Senate ) that will accomplish nothing. It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate. Basic calculations anyone could do would show how far off this assertion really is. This current heat wave is not anything unusual. The 100 year record high temperature for Portland stands at 107 degF, which was hit twice, in 1981 and 1967.

Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

STEVE SAYS: " We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways."

Steve: You need an introductory course in physics. ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL TEMPERATURE!

We know the optical properties of CO2, but it is not as simple as you say that it is. If you increase CO2 concentration, the additional absorption AGW proponents claim would cause warming occurs with absorption coefficients far less than values that make those wavenumbers opaque with respect to the surface.Emission at the wings of the CO2 bands would come from the upper troposphere, which poses a calculating problem because of cloud cover, and the upper troposphere would actually cool from increased emission from the saturated wavenumbers near 15 microns. That is a self defeating process that warmers like to conveniently ignore. Emission calculations are all based upon holding atmospheric temperatures constant.This is also not true. The founding work in radiation modeling never contained ANY assertion that CO2 had the capability of modifying the surface radiative flux from the earth, for it is water vapor and clouds that are the major constituents that do this.

"Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong, and its applications inferior to answering any pondering questions about the earths future climate. Meteorologists could have told any modelers what limitations they run up against.

CO2 has no demonstrable effect in changing the earths climate. The radiative forcing calculations have NOT BEEN MEASURED, and every atmospheric component that has been measured to date supports the founding work that nothing new claimed to date will make any difference and these measurements actually show the calculations are incorrectly being applied in climate modeling. The self serving egos of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are astounding. They will go down in history as having misled the public into unwittingly participating in a tax and regulating schene ( cap and trade if it passes the Senate ) that will accomplish nothing. It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate. Basic calculations anyone could do would show how far off this assertion really is. This current heat wave is not anything unusual. The 100 year record high temperature for Portland stands at 107 degF, which was hit twice, in 1981 and 1967.

Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

STEVE SAYS: " We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways."

Steve: You need an introductory course in physics. ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL TEMPERATURE!

We know the optical properties of CO2, but it is not as simple as you say that it is. If you increase CO2 concentration, the additional absorption AGW proponents claim would cause warming occurs with absorption coefficients far less than values that make those wavenumbers opaque with respect to the surface.Emission at the wings of the CO2 bands would come from the upper troposphere, which poses a calculating problem because of cloud cover, and the upper troposphere would actually cool from increased emission from the saturated wavenumbers near 15 microns. That is a self defeating process that warmers like to conveniently ignore. Emission calculations are all based upon holding atmospheric temperatures constant.This is also not true. The founding work in radiation modeling never contained ANY assertion that CO2 had the capability of modifying the surface radiative flux from the earth, for it is water vapor and clouds that are the major constituents that do this.

"Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong, and its applications inferior to answering any pondering questions about the earths future climate. Meteorologists could have told any modelers what limitations they run up against.

CO2 has no demonstrable effect in changing the earths climate. The radiative forcing calculations have NOT BEEN MEASURED, and every atmospheric component that has been measured to date supports the founding work that nothing new claimed to date will make any difference and these measurements actually show the calculations are incorrectly being applied in climate modeling. The self serving egos of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are astounding. They will go down in history as having misled the public into unwittingly participating in a tax and regulating schene ( cap and trade if it passes the Senate ) that will accomplish nothing. It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate. Basic calculations anyone could do would show how far off this assertion really is. This current heat wave is not anything unusual. The 100 year record high temperature for Portland stands at 107 degF, which was hit twice, in 1981 and 1967.

Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

STEVE SAYS: " We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways."

Steve: You need an introductory course in physics. ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL TEMPERATURE!

We know the optical properties of CO2, but it is not as simple as you say that it is. If you increase CO2 concentration, the additional absorption AGW proponents claim would cause warming occurs with absorption coefficients far less than values that make those wavenumbers opaque with respect to the surface.Emission at the wings of the CO2 bands would come from the upper troposphere, which poses a calculating problem because of cloud cover, and the upper troposphere would actually cool from increased emission from the saturated wavenumbers near 15 microns. That is a self defeating process that warmers like to conveniently ignore. Emission calculations are all based upon holding atmospheric temperatures constant.This is also not true. The founding work in radiation modeling never contained ANY assertion that CO2 had the capability of modifying the surface radiative flux from the earth, for it is water vapor and clouds that are the major constituents that do this.

"Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong, and its applications inferior to answering any pondering questions about the earths future climate. Meteorologists could have told any modelers what limitations they run up against.

CO2 has no demonstrable effect in changing the earths climate. The radiative forcing calculations have NOT BEEN MEASURED, and every atmospheric component that has been measured to date supports the founding work that nothing new claimed to date will make any difference and these measurements actually show the calculations are incorrectly being applied in climate modeling. The self serving egos of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are astounding. They will go down in history as having misled the public into unwittingly participating in a tax and regulating schene ( cap and trade if it passes the Senate ) that will accomplish nothing. It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate. Basic calculations anyone could do would show how far off this assertion really is. This current heat wave is not anything unusual. The 100 year record high temperature for Portland stands at 107 degF, which was hit twice, in 1981 and 1967.

Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

STEVE SAYS: " We know that the atmospheric CO2 is increasing, since this can be measured, and samples of pre-industrial atmosphere exist. We know the optical properties of CO2, and can use computer modeling to estimate the change of atmospheric energy due to this increase. Since energy = temperature, we get "global warming" but of course this energy drives atmospheric phenomena in complex ways."

Steve: You need an introductory course in physics. ENERGY DOES NOT EQUAL TEMPERATURE!

We know the optical properties of CO2, but it is not as simple as you say that it is. If you increase CO2 concentration, the additional absorption AGW proponents claim would cause warming occurs with absorption coefficients far less than values that make those wavenumbers opaque with respect to the surface.Emission at the wings of the CO2 bands would come from the upper troposphere, which poses a calculating problem because of cloud cover, and the upper troposphere would actually cool from increased emission from the saturated wavenumbers near 15 microns. That is a self defeating process that warmers like to conveniently ignore. Emission calculations are all based upon holding atmospheric temperatures constant.This is also not true. The founding work in radiation modeling never contained ANY assertion that CO2 had the capability of modifying the surface radiative flux from the earth, for it is water vapor and clouds that are the major constituents that do this.

"Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong, and its applications inferior to answering any pondering questions about the earths future climate. Meteorologists could have told any modelers what limitations they run up against.

CO2 has no demonstrable effect in changing the earths climate. The radiative forcing calculations have NOT BEEN MEASURED, and every atmospheric component that has been measured to date supports the founding work that nothing new claimed to date will make any difference and these measurements actually show the calculations are incorrectly being applied in climate modeling. The self serving egos of James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are astounding. They will go down in history as having misled the public into unwittingly participating in a tax and regulating schene ( cap and trade if it passes the Senate ) that will accomplish nothing. It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate. Basic calculations anyone could do would show how far off this assertion really is. This current heat wave is not anything unusual. The 100 year record high temperature for Portland stands at 107 degF, which was hit twice, in 1981 and 1967.

Chuck F. Wiese Meteorologist

Jeez, Chuck. We got it the first time.

Sorry for the extra posts, don't know what happened.

Douglas

you beat me by 29 sec.

everyone here is talking about a few hundred years or a few thousand years. Meaningless time frame, the earth is an estimated 4.2 billion years old.

Still waiting for someone to debunk the 5 peer reviewed papers that were presented.

"All work and no play makes Chuck a dull boy"

The radio just said we are fourteen degrees cooler at this hour today than we were yesterday. Clearly there is no global warming.

Here are 31,400+ scientists who disagree

Sorry for the extra posts, don't know what happened. J: Same problem here -- you have to hit reload to see your post in Firefox.

India recently rejected any carbon emissions caps - so there's 1+ billion people who won't be participating in the Church of Global warming. Russia and Canada would probably both benefit from some warming. And granted, no matter what happens with the climate, rest assured limo liberals like Al Gore and Clinton will be living it up in air-conditioned mansions, regardless of the carbon foot-print.

TJ

I am sorry. I forgot the rules of liberalism. If an expert says something you don't like, you mock them, slander them or better yet, ignore them.

What's the difference between a progressive and a conservative...........NOTHING. You are both ideological buffoons.

Steven Says: 2) Of course energy isn't exactly equivalent to temperature, but add energy to a system keeping constant mass and volume and ta-daa an increase the temperature. Keep more energy at the surface of the earth and you will increase temperature.

No, Steve, this is wrong. The temperature will only respond if there is no translation kinetic energy added to the system. It needs better definition.

3) If CO2 is more transparent at infrared wavelengths than the scientific consensus - go demonstrate it in a lab and receive fame (can't promise fortune).

The wavelengths of CO2 at the wing lines where extra absorption occurs from doubling concentration are not very opaque. Doubling Co2 does not produce the same effect here as it does near 15 microns, where Co2 is completely opaque to IR radiation. These calculations are not mine. They are derived from the University of Chicago's MODTRAN radiation code and are used in climate modeling. I'm afraid that I would not get any recognition for pointing this out, it has been part of applied physics and spectroscopy for more than 20 years now.

Sheesh. Take your snotty, confusing language somewhere else.

Sorry if I confused you but your statements are incorrect. If you want to discuss atmospheric radiation you need to understand it enough so as not to mislead people about it. Co2 is not a major greenhouse gas capable of causing the earths climate to change.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Steven Says: 2) Of course energy isn't exactly equivalent to temperature, but add energy to a system keeping constant mass and volume and ta-daa an increase the temperature. Keep more energy at the surface of the earth and you will increase temperature.

No, Steve, this is wrong. The temperature will only respond if there is no translation kinetic energy added to the system. It needs better definition.

3) If CO2 is more transparent at infrared wavelengths than the scientific consensus - go demonstrate it in a lab and receive fame (can't promise fortune).

The wavelengths of CO2 at the wing lines where extra absorption occurs from doubling concentration are not very opaque. Doubling Co2 does not produce the same effect here as it does near 15 microns, where Co2 is completely opaque to IR radiation. These calculations are not mine. They are derived from the University of Chicago's MODTRAN radiation code and are used in climate modeling. I'm afraid that I would not get any recognition for pointing this out, it has been part of applied physics and spectroscopy for more than 20 years now.

Sheesh. Take your snotty, confusing language somewhere else.

Sorry if I confused you but your statements are incorrect. If you want to discuss atmospheric radiation you need to understand it enough so as not to mislead people about it. Co2 is not a major greenhouse gas capable of causing the earths climate to change.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Torridjoe Writes: Chuck is a meterologist, not a climatologist. Why is his input worthwhile?

I don't need to be a climatologist to understand climate, Torridjoe. Climatology is derived and borrows extensively from meteorology. The modeling borrows exclusively from meteorology and atmospheric science.Your staement is as wrong here as it is to say that climate and weather are different. They are not. Climate is merely a larger time integration of weather. In fact, the climatology discipline is lacking in requiring alot of essentials offered in meteorology or atmospheric science majors, such as an extensive overview of the dynamics and hydrodynamics of the atmospheric system.

Until the consensus of literally tens of thousands of climate scientists is broken--and it has not been--saying "the science is in dispute" is preposterous.

No, Torridjoe, not true. There are not "tens of thousands" of climate scientists world wide, but the hypothesis advanced concerning global warming caused by Co2 is in serious trouble. It not only has a lot of serious scientific flaws, but nature is not cooperating with the modeling and proving that it is wrong on several fronts. World wide global temperatures are in decline and have been since 2004 as measured by the reliable UAH microwave satellite temperature measurements, and the tropical troposphere has cooled rather than warmed as predicted by the models. If I had advanced the cO2 warming hypothesis, I'd be pretty red faced and embarrassed about now, in need of a towel to wipe the raw egg splatter and goo off of my face.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

J, just keep throwing those factoids out there ignoring the big picture. In the long run we'll find out who's right and you're not likely to be happy about it (and neither will I be if I'm right).

The big picture on your "man only emits around 3% of annual CO2 emissions" remark is that you ignore the 98.5% of total (natural and man-made) yearly CO2 emissions that get reabsorbed into the environment. It's that leftover 1.5% that's causing the long term increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. People who want to understand the carbon cycle better can check out this Earth Observatory page from NASA.

There are "natural temerature regulators". I know about them. Why does that preclude "unnatural" ones as well?

As soon as someone shows a well supported, quantifiable relation between cosmic rays and cloud cover I'm sure climate scientists will be happy to include it in their models. For now no one has convincinly shown any relationship with the latest warming trend.

Some studies show oceans with a slight cooling trend since 2004, others show a slight warming trend. It's a meaningless argument though. If you look at the records for the last 50 years there are lots of up and down spikes lasting 5 or so years but the long term trend is upward. Anything less than a 20 or 30 year trend is useless. It the oceans are (as you say) still cooling in 2020 I'll buy you dinner.

A study comparing the 70 best stations (by Anthony Watts ratings) to all of the stations in the network showed no indication of bias in the U.S. temperature records due to poorly sited stations. I imagine if you wanted to you could get the records for each station and do the analysis yourself.

"CO2 FOLLOWS, NOT LEADS": Yet it's easy to demonstrate in the laboratory that increasing CO2 concentrations will cause an increase in absorbtion of IR energy raising the temperature. I think it's up to you to show why it wouldn't do that in the atmosphere. Why do you think it has to be either/or and can't both lag or lead depending on conditions?

Dave

PS. mp97303, there's nothing to debunk. None of them prove CO2 can only lag temperature increases. They just show that's what's been happening lately in the last 420,000 years or so, 1/10,000 of the age of the earth. They do nothing to prove that increasing CO2 concentrations can't lead temperature increases.

Phew! Now I don't feel so bad about a couple of double posts... Thanks Chuck ;-)

Kari wrote: Yeah, OK, I was a little snarky in my comment about snark. My point is that there's no point in even trying to have a rational and scientific discussion with the global-warming denier trolls. (As evidenced above.)

I actually agree that there's no point... which is why I don't get engaging the trolls deliberately in the first place. Yelling out in the theater, "Hey you, AWG's, your idiots," and not expecting a response is... well, you get my point. Unless it's just to increase the traffic on Blue Oregon.

Guess I'm jaded, sort of sick of hearing the same old crap over and over. Let's face it, this topic really generates a lot of it - the methane from this crap is probably worse for climate change than..., er, never mind. I never did have the chops to write funny.

See ya tomorrow ;-)

Sheesh - that should have read "Hey you, AWG's, YOU'RE idiots."

DAVID APELL WRITES:"CO2 FOLLOWS, NOT LEADS": Yet it's easy to demonstrate in the laboratory that increasing CO2 concentrations will cause an increase in absorbtion of IR energy raising the temperature. I think it's up to you to show why it wouldn't do that in the atmosphere. Why do you think it has to be either/or and can't both lag or lead depending on conditions?

Dave David: For someone who claims a Ph.D. in physics, you ought to know the answer to this. In a laboratory, it is the 15 micron wavelength that will cause the temperature to rise. But wait, it gets better! You are forgetting that to do this, you need pure CO2, not an equivalent 380 PPMV like in the real atmosphere! And what happens to the 15 micron wavelength with an absorption coefficient of 1.7 cm2/g? The thermalization of photons is complete at about 100 meters of depth! In the real atmosphere, the optical pathway to space is 710 times this. So are you going to insist that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas? It cools the troposphere, David. The integrated radiation is a benefit we get at the surface that helps protect against low temperature extremes. You are ignoring alot of work that was done to marginalize the effects of Co2 as a greenhouse gas, including ignoring the obvious as you do here, including the works of physicist William Elsasser from Harvard University who explained all of this quite well in 1942. The problem is, you can't refute the established radiation physics from this era and refuse to admit that the results you get rely on supplanting, not disproving the founding work with incorrectly constructed concepts employed in climate modeling.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

"Chuck is a meterologist, not a climatologist. Why is his input worthwhile?"

By that logic TJ, why is your input worthwhile?

torridjoe: "I don't need to be a climatologist to understand climate, Torridjoe."

But you should be one to offer opinions that attempt to contradict the consensus of peer reviewed climatologists worldwide. J: What consensus? I hope you are not referring to the discredited Naomi Oreskes Essay in Science, 3 Dec 04. She misrepresented the search term she used. It was actually much narrower that she claimed, thus skewing the results. And it was an essay, not even peer reviewed.

torridjoe: But you are right that there aren't tens of thousands of scientists agreeing; I misread a citation of this press release noting 2,500 contributing active researchers in the 4th IPCC as 25,000. My error, sorry. J: That wasn’t your only error. You slipped in a little logical jump there - from 2500 “contributing active researchers” to trying to have us think all 2500 agreed with the conclusions. You have presented no evidence for that conclusion.

In fact most of them wrote papers in very narrow branches of science and simply have never looked at the big picture. Fortunately, with all the BS bing spread by Al & his Wall Street profiteers, many are starting to look closer and many are coming out debunking the IPCC’s conclusions. A dew have even DEMANDED that their names be removed from the report.

I presume that you know only a small handful of scientists wrote the actual conclusions? And most of those had a vested interest in fueling fools to give them more money for more research.

Well, it happened again.

No one was able to come up with the evidence that man's CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming.

There has been a lot of bluster about science and evidence, but tellingly, no one presented any actual evidence.

Only bluster and bull shit.

So, all you progressive believers just where is this evidence?

"Still waiting for someone to debunk the 5 peer reviewed papers that were presented."

And I'm still waiting for you members of the flat-earth society to debunk every major development in climate change science that have been reported since the publication of the comprehensive 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Specifically I want each and every scientist on the panel debunked personally. Show me who, why, and where they are lying about the science of global climate change.

The EPA does indeed exclude from its notices Greenhouse Gas Emissions not caused by human activity. Furthermore, only about 27% of world wide Greenhouse gases originate in the US.

The net result is that the contribution of US road users to GG emissions seems to be about 24% of 27% of 3.6% of 3.4% which (if Patrick does not object to my mentioning so politically-incorrect a figure) comes to 0.0079 per cent, which looks like rather less than one percent of one percent.

To re-capitulate the percentages:

3.6% of greenhouse gases are CO2 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity 27% of worldwide GG emissions originate in the USA 24% of USA emissions are, according to EPA, from road use.

The NCPA "Primer" on "Gobal Warming" can be downloaded from web site http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

The EPA does indeed exclude from its notices Greenhouse Gas Emissions not caused by human activity. Furthermore, only about 27% of world wide Greenhouse gases originate in the US.

The net result is that the contribution of US road users to GG emissions seems to be about 24% of 27% of 3.6% of 3.4% which (if Patrick does not object to my mentioning so politically-incorrect a figure) comes to 0.0079 per cent, which looks like rather less than one percent of one percent.

To re-capitulate the percentages:

3.6% of greenhouse gases are CO2 3.4% of CO2 is caused by human activity 27% of worldwide GG emissions originate in the USA 24% of USA emissions are, according to EPA, from road use.

The NCPA "Primer" on "Gobal Warming" can be downloaded from web site http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

SCOTT IN DAMASCUS WRITES: "And I'm still waiting for you members of the flat-earth society to debunk every major development in climate change science that have been reported since the publication of the comprehensive 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Specifically I want each and every scientist on the panel debunked personally. Show me who, why, and where they are lying about the science of global climate change."

Scott: Who are you? Why does it matter to you that "every single "scientist" who contributed to AR4 be debunked personally?" The evidence in the earths climate record already proves the IPCC is wrong. It just depends on whether you are going to accept the evidence. The physics used by the IPCC in climate modeling is wrong. It doesn't work. Just look at the modeling projections, then at the temperature record.

It is a play on words to ask someone to prove that every scientist who believes in AGW is "lying". To do so is to ask someone to enter the mind thought of these people and read it, and not everyone who has contributed to this albatross you call AGW is even competent enough to understand basic scientific principles. Bob Doppelt is a good example from the University of Oregon "Climate Leadership Initiative". He is a social scientist who released a report that supposedly relied on "climate modeling" that makes unprovable, outlandish and grossly exaggerated claims about the future climate of the Rogue Valley in Oregon. I would call Doppelt a person unable to distinguish the validity of the scientific argument for himself, but he frequently appears on Real Climate and confers with Gavin Schmidt who "helps" him with his work. If there are any liars in the AGW game, you could start at the top, with Schmidt and James Hansen at NASA. Hansen was just at OSU and gave a speech allittle over a week ago. It was pathetic. As he still clings to his unprovable AGW hypothesis, he had to ignore the cooling trend that has ensued ver the earth and offered no explnation for it. Gavin Schmidt and Ray Pierrehumbert on the other hand, now want us to believe that AGW will take a breather for twenty years and then come roaring back. So I guess the logical question would be, why are IR absorbing photons from CO2 taking a break now and not continuing the warming trend as they claimed they would? This is nonsense. These two clowns are rewriting their hypothesis so that they can disapear off the face of the earth and die before anyone can ever judge their work. You keep demanding that people like me "disprove" the AGW hypothesis, but this is doing science backwards. It is up to YOU and your proponents to prove what you claim. That is how true science works. It was never taught or believed in the founding work of radiation physics that CO2 has any special radiating powers that enable it to do ANY of the things warmers claim it does in the presence of water vapor and clouds. So bring this hypothesis to the next level! Prove it! You can't because its bullshit! The real temperature record of the troposphere establishes this.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Scott in Damascus: Show me who, why, and where they are lying about the science of global climate change. JK When they claim that they have proof that CO2 can cause dangerous warming. Have you ever seen the proof that CO2 can cause dangerous warming?

If not, I suggest you quit making a fool out of yourself with blind faith. If so, please share it with us.

Thanks JK

Great article in Esquire mag this month on the opportunity cost of implementing the Gore Doctrine. Weather you believe in gw or not, it is a good read and something we should be thinking about.

"Who are you?"

A voter. A taxpayer. Why do you ask?

The bottom line is that the IPCC, by their own definition, is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.

Now no offense Chuck and Jamie, but I don't think either of you is smarter, better educated, nor possess the research skills and knowledge greater than any single member of the IPCC. So no matter what you cut 'n' paste, name call, OR SCREAM BOGUS SCIENCE IN ALL CAPS!!!, excuse me if I don't genuflect at the altar of the Holy Church of Flat Earthers.

Now should you decide to submit your original research and your findings to the IPCC (you are a member of WMO, right Chuck?) then we might have a basis for a rational conversation (you can find submission criteria at IPCC.ch).

Until then, your Exxon funded, non-peer reviewed articles published on (and only on) the internet don't mean s@#t to me.

Hey Scott: Your "peer reviewed" IPCC taxpayer funded research gravy train means little to me, either. Especially when these guys don't want their funding and nice lifestyles to evaporate by having to admit they were wrong.

The bottom line is whether the current temperatures are, infact, doing what the modeling and the IPCC told us they would keep doing as CO2 contimues upward. They are not. The modeling is wrong and so is the IPCC. The record proves this. The modeling is ALL that you and every researcher who hypothesizes with theory has to hang a hat on. Nature has just taken that from you.

You and all of the other AGW zombies would gladly walk off a cliff like lemmings as long as the order comes from the IPCC. This sort of mindless, unquestioning of claims is really quite rich, but before you label me a "flat earther" I suggest you look in the mirror. Observations beat theory by a long shot and either lend credibility to or disprove a hypothesis, regardless of your personal views.

BTW, I don't get any money from Exxon and they certainly don't run the University of Alabama's microwave satellite temperature program. That is real data that makes the whole AGW concept look as foolish as it is.

Chuck Wiese

The UAH data is no more real than any other data, such as RSS, GISS, or Hadley. All are subject to complex analysis, such as the extensive corrections every month to the UAH data to account for satellite drift.

UAH says in their monthly press release that climate warming in their records is about 0.17 C/decade.

Recall that the keepers of the UAH data, John Christy and Roy Spencer, spent literally years promulgating a mistake in their satellite corrections. Skeptics used it to insist there was actually no warming going on. Earlier this decade they (to their credit) finally found an error in their work and admitted that the troposphere too is warming relatively rapidly.

All scientists make mistakes, and good scientists correct them.

The bottom line is whether the current temperatures are, infact, doing what the modeling and the IPCC told us they would keep doing as CO2 contimues upward. They are not. The modeling is wrong and so is the IPCC. The record proves this.

In truth the models are not that bad, especially over large scales of geography and time. As you can see in the IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch8 FAQ 8.1, Fig 1, they reproduce the last century's worth of temperature data rather well -- well enough to establish they have significant credibility and we should consider their 21st century projections seriously.

The rest of that chapter provides more evidence of their credibility.

The modeling is ALL that you and every researcher who hypothesizes with theory has to hang a hat on.

Actually not, as several groups (both Hansen's (last year) and Lindzen (this year), among others) have calculated climate sensitivity (expected temperature change for a CO2 doubling) from paleoclimate data alone, having nothing to do with models. Hansen et al get about 3 C, and Lindzen gets about 1 C.

In any case, the climate science community would, of course, love to have a way to reliably calculate future climate that doesn't rely on a model. If you can produce such an analysis, by all means do so, and the world will be your oyster. But as no one has been able to do that, a model is the next best thing (as they are in many fields of complex phenomenon), and even if its result isn't scientifically perfect, the question of AGW is of sufficient interest and potential danger to society that we will have to make a decision with some uncertainty still existing.

Hansen was just at OSU and gave a speech allittle over a week ago.

Actually Hansen's speech at the PAGES conference was 7/9, over three weeks ago. He's not the best public speaker in the world, but he presented the case well, including the concept of the rights of future generations, which tends to get overlooked in the discussion. His speech was very well intended, with about (I'm guessing) 400 people present.

For the record, I am NOT the "Dave" who responded (rather well) to some posts yesterday, such as 7/30/09 9:52:12 pm. I always sign with my full name & email address.

DAVID APPELL WRITES:"Recall that the keepers of the UAH data, John Christy and Roy Spencer, spent literally years promulgating a mistake in their satellite corrections. Skeptics used it to insist there was actually no warming going on. Earlier this decade they (to their credit) finally found an error in their work and admitted that the troposphere too is warming relatively rapidly.

All scientists make mistakes, and good scientists correct them."

Ah, no, david, not true. I have a personal e-mail from John Christy about this very thing, and there are no mistakes from him or Roy Spencer that amount to an error that wiped out a warming trend. The current data is correctly processed and shows the global mean temperatures are no warmer now than when they started the program in 1979. The warming trend you are talking about of .17 degC/decade is true in comparing the data to the start of the run of 1979 to now. In the last four years, the trend line is clearly down and by a full degree from the warming peak of the record El Ninio of 1998 that skews the ten year trend line. The climate is cooling and the models missed the trend amoungst other important factors.

Nice try, but you're relying on Real Climate's assertions which Christy has told me personally are wrong.

BTW, it would be nice if any of these kind like Hansen and Schmidt would admit the truth about the cooling trend but they don't. Instead, they obscure it like you have by ranking the number of nth warmest years to a particular year, which is statistically irrelevant to trend lines, which show the real picture.

Chuck Wiese

JK wrote:

When they claim that they have proof that CO2 can cause dangerous warming....

What do you mean by "dangerous?"

Dangerous to whom? People? All people? Poor people? Rich people? Africans? Or Australians? Texas corn farmers? What about Russian and Canadian wheat farmers? Oregon vineyards? Polar bears? Migrating birds? Glaciers? Reservoirs? Fish? Plankton? Frog species in central American that already seem to have gone extinct from climate change?

How dangerous? How much change in regional drought indices is "dangerous?" Or does it depend where? California va. Australia? New Mexico vs. the Sahel? Is it dangerous to a Texas corn farmer if his corn crop is only 50% of normal this year due to their drought, or does it have to be 65%? Or 50% two years in a row? Or five years in a row? If it's dangerous to him but advantageous to commodity traders, is it still "dangerous?" What if it results in lower food prices, but less farmers? Is that dangerous, and, if so, how much dangerous?

What is the unit of danger, anyway?

Was it dangerous to the ~35,000 French who died in a huge heat wave a few years ago?

Is it dangerous to coral now bleaching? How much coral degradation must take place before it is dangerous to other ocean inhabitants, or even man? 75%? 90%? Please define.

Would a 30 cm rise in sea level be dangerous to the Netherlands? Or would it take 80 cm? What about to Venice? Or south Florida? Is it the same danger for Venice as for south Florida? Or is it only half as dangerous? If so, how are you mathematically defining dangerous?

Oh Chuck, I see that JK's meme that I am David Appell is spreading. But I am really not David Appell. I don't have a Ph.D in physics, just some 200 & 300 level science courses and a lifelong interest in science. I'm a computer geek for a living. I googled David Appell and there is a picture on the UK Guardian. There are some similarities in our appearance but my hair is much grayer and shorter than his and my hair line hasn't receded quite as much.

I don't have the knowledge off the top of my head and don't care to take the time to do the research (which would take me days of work) to try and answer you in detail. I did look up Elsasser (surprisingly little about him on the web) and found the following summary of a paper correcting some of his 1942 work:

The radiation tables by Elsasser and Culbertson [1]2) are based upon an integrated form of the radiative transfer equation. Unfortunately, a term dealing with the temperature dependency of the transmission function is left out. This leads to an inconsistency of their analysis. It is the aim of this paper to correct and to modify Elsasser's graphical-numerical procedure such as to make his treatment internally consistent.

I don't know if that affects some of your assertions or not but the fact that you're referencing work from 1942 (part of your "founding work in radiation modeling" I suppose?) when there have obviously been advances in the field since then makes me skeptical of your other claims.

If it was all as simple as you claim then I'm astounded that climate scientists working in the field haven't figured it out by now. Instead we get absurd theories that it's all a big scam so scientists and others can fund their lavish lifestyles and socialism can creep in and take over your life. Science isn't perfect but it is self correcting in the long run. Time will tell if you are right but in the mean time I'm going to go with the acknowledged authorities in the field.

Regarding your comment that the models are wrong I think you're expecting them predict the medium (5-15 years) term variations in weather. In my earlier post on models I explained that they can't do that. The predictions are an amalgamation of many individual runs on a particular model. It may be that some of the individual runs have features resembling the current situation but when you combine them it smooths out the curve resulting in a fairly monotonic predictions. Climate scientist generally use a minimum of 30 years worth of weather data to calculate climate. When you look at it that way nothing that's happened is outside the error bars on the predictions of most models.

I could make a model of flipping a coin. It wouldn't be any better than me making a guess at predicting the results of the next flip (assuming the flip is truly random). But the results of many model runs would allow me to say something like "I'm 95% confident the results of flipping the coin 1000 times will be within +/- 5 of 50/50" (numbers not verified, used for example only). Combining many model runs would result in a smoothed curve that basically predicts heads and tails will alternate 1 for 1 keeping the ratio at 50/50 but in the live experiment if you got run of excess heads the curve would deviate from the prediction. The results of a live test would most likely deviate above and below the predicted curve from time to time but would stay fairly close to it in general trend. Weather is like the individual flips, climate is the result of 1000 flips. Climate models predict the results of 1000 flips.

Dave

BTW, I the one who let him know about the misuse of his name.

David I've told jamie several times that "dangerous" is a subjective word but he hasn't responded.

RIVERAT WRITES:I don't have the knowledge off the top of my head and don't care to take the time to do the research (which would take me days of work) to try and answer you in detail. I did look up Elsasser (surprisingly little about him on the web) and found the following summary of a paper correcting some of his 1942 work:

The radiation tables by Elsasser and Culbertson [1]2) are based upon an integrated form of the radiative transfer equation. Unfortunately, a term dealing with the temperature dependency of the transmission function is left out. This leads to an inconsistency of their analysis. It is the aim of this paper to correct and to modify Elsasser's graphical-numerical procedure such as to make his treatment internally consistent.

You are so anxious to prove a brilliant physicist wrong that you didn't read the paper. It makes no attempt to discredit or refute Elsassers work but merely enhance it. The only thing Elasser did back in 1942 that I would wonder could have been improved on but later found out from MODTRAN radiation code it made little difference was the use of generalized absorption coefficients. I still have his radiation nomogram, and to integrate to TOA with the 15 micron band gives 75Wm-2 at 293K, or 17.8% of the surface flux. That's right in the ball park. Fine tuning this changes nothing.

I don't know if that affects some of your assertions or not but the fact that you're referencing work from 1942 (part of your "founding work in radiation modeling" I suppose?) when there have obviously been advances in the field since then makes me skeptical of your other claims.

This changes nothing. You don't seem to understand. Referencing the founding work merely points out that wamers have not refuted it. This is necessary in science to advance the knowledge base. For it was Elsasser who pointed out that the construction of his radiation nomogram ( which was equivalent to a computer model in 1942 ) clearly identified only WATER VAPOR and CLOUDS as the major greenhouse constituents that can modify the surface IR flux. He even made it clear that sideband absorption was insigificant that is now the focus of all the AGW BS now. Again, where are the refutations, except for modeling which has been proven wrong?

If it was all as simple as you claim then I'm astounded that climate scientists working in the field haven't figured it out by now. Instead we get absurd theories that it's all a big scam so scientists and others can fund their lavish lifestyles and socialism can creep in and take over your life. Science isn't perfect but it is self correcting in the long run. Time will tell if you are right but in the mean time I'm going to go with the acknowledged authorities in the field.

Well, the problem with this is what I said above. The modeling presented supplanted, not refuted Elsaser's work. He is still considered a brilliant radiation physicist and his models are widely discussed in the "gold standard" of radiation physics, entitled "Atmospheric Radiation" by Goody and Young.

Regarding your comment that the models are wrong I think you're expecting them predict the medium (5-15 years) term variations in weather. In my earlier post on models I explained that they can't do that. The predictions are an amalgamation of many individual runs on a particular model. It may be that some of the individual runs have features resembling the current situation but when you combine them it smooths out the curve resulting in a fairly monotonic predictions. Climate scientist generally use a minimum of 30 years worth of weather data to calculate climate. When you look at it that way nothing that's happened is outside the error bars on the predictions of most models.

This is bullshit. If climate models can't predict the 5-15 year "weather trends" then why are the trend lines included in the projections? You AGW activists made an absolute big deal out of the warmimg trend of the 90's, blaming it all on humans and CO2 and CONSTATNTLY referred to cliamte modeling's superb job of tracking global temperatures with CO2 concentration.

This is a major problem that I have with you warmers. Your stories are inconsistant with selective memory. This goes all the way up to James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt. Ignore your past rants when they are inconvenient and ignore real data that really messes up modeling, which is the only thing standing between you and reality.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

DAVID APPELL WRITES: "Actually not, as several groups (both Hansen's (last year) and Lindzen (this year), among others) have calculated climate sensitivity (expected temperature change for a CO2 doubling) from paleoclimate data alone, having nothing to do with models. Hansen et al get about 3 C, and Lindzen gets about 1 C."

David: Wrong. This is not from Paleoclimate data alone. Those records show no cause and effect realtionship to Co2 and temperature other than the fact that CO2 levels rise after the temperature does. I haven't seen Lindzen's conclusion that you get a degree of warming for doubling Co2, but that answer requires a radiative forcing of 5.4 Wm-2, which is impossible to obtain in doubling Co2 without a water vapor feedback enhancing it. I don't believe Lindzen would throw out such a number with a hand calculator unless there was some other indication that it is safe to make such an assumption, which I don't belive is the case.

In any case, the climate science community would, of course, love to have a way to reliably calculate future climate that doesn't rely on a model. If you can produce such an analysis, by all means do so, and the world will be your oyster. But as no one has been able to do that, a model is the next best thing (as they are in many fields of complex phenomenon), and even if its result isn't scientifically perfect, the question of AGW is of sufficient interest and potential danger to society that we will have to make a decision with some uncertainty still existing.

Actually, a model is the preferred way to project something this complicated. But with the present state of climate technology, it not only can't be done with any reliablility, it is a lie to say that it can.

Chuck Wiese

Chuck, "correcting" was probably too strong a word, "improving" would have been more accurate. BTW, the paper I referenced was from 1966. Elsasser may have done brilliant foundational work in the field but that was 67 years ago. I think we've added a lot of knowledge in the field since then on a base he helped establish.

Of course water vapor is the major constituent of the greenhouse effect. No one's claiming it isn't but as a meteorologist you know there's a limit to how much the atmosphere will hold. So water vapor can't drive climate change but only react to changing conditions and adding its part. Clouds can have both positive and negative effects as a greenhouse constituent. It's an area of much study. CO2 contributes 9-26% of the greenhouse effect. I wouldn't call that insignificant.

I don't know what you mean by "why are the trend lines in the projections?". What trend lines are projecting 5-15 year weather trends? I'll bet they're not from global climate models. The "90's warming trend was on top of a warming trend since the 60's. Looking at chart of global temperatures I'd say there's been steady warming since the 1960's with occasional dips lasting a few years. It doesn't look any different than whats happening now, especially if you look at the annual averages rather than the 5 year average. And don't get on me about referencing a 5 year average. It's a chart of actual measurements, not a projection. Maybe if your "cooling trend" lasts until 2015 I'll start listening but indications are that an El Nino is developing which could lead to a warmer than normal period for the next year or so. We'll see.

Dave

...there are no mistakes from him or Roy Spencer that amount to an error that wiped out a warming trend. The current data is correctly processed and shows the global mean temperatures are no warmer now than when they started the program in 1979.

Here is Christy and Spencer's 2005 letter to Science Magazine: (http://bit.ly/113gHj)

Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 972 - 973 DOI: 10.1126/science.310.5750.972

LETTERS "Correcting Temperature Data Sets We agree with C. A. Mears and F. J. Wentz ("The effect of diurnal correction on satellite- derived lower tropospheric temperature," Reports, 2 Sept., p. 1548; published online 11 Aug.) that our University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) method of calculating a diurnal correction to our lower tropospheric (LT) temperature data (v5.1) introduced a spurious component. We are grateful that they spotted the error and have made the necessary adjustments. The new UAH LT trend (v5.2, December 1978 to July 2005) is 0.123 K/decade, or 0.035 K/decade warmer than v5.1. This adjustment is within our previously published error margin of ±0.05 K/decade (1).

John R. Christy* Earth System Science Center University of Alabama in Huntsville Cramer Hall 320 Sparkman Drive Huntsville, AL 35899, USA

Roy W. Spencer Earth System Science Center University of Alabama in Huntsville Cramer Hall 320 Sparkman Drive Huntsville, AL 35899, USA"

From Wikipedia (references therein): "NOAA-11 played a significant role in a 2005 study by Mears et al. identifying an error in the diurnal correction that leads to the 40% jump in Spencer and Christy's trend from version 5.1 to 5.2."

and more: "In April 2002, for example, an analysis of the satellite temperature data showed warming of only 0.04 °C per decade, compared with surface measurements showing 0.17 ± 0.06 °C per decade. The correction of errors in the analysis of the satellite data, as noted above, have brought the two data sets more closely in line with each other."

Here is the abstract from th3 2005 RSS paper:

Science. 2005 Sep 2;309(5740):1548-51. "The effect of diurnal correction on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperature." Mears CA, Wentz FJ.

" Satellite-based measurements of decadal-scale temperature change in the lower troposphere have indicated cooling relative to Earth's surface in the tropics. Such measurements need a diurnal correction to prevent drifts in the satellites' measurement time from causing spurious trends. We have derived a diurnal correction that, in the tropics, is of the opposite sign from that previously applied. When we use this correction in the calculation of lower tropospheric temperature from satellite microwave measurements, we find tropical warming consistent with that found at the surface and in our satellite-derived version of middle/upper tropospheric temperature."

I think that makes the situation of Christy and Spencer's error very clear. As I said, it's to their credit that they admitted it, confirmed it, and corrected it.

In the last four years, the trend line is clearly down and by a full degree from the warming peak of the record El Ninio of 1998 that skews the ten year trend line. The climate is cooling and the models missed the trend amoungst other important factors.

Again, this is wrong.

This is directly from UAH's 7/13/09 press release, available on Newswise.com: "Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.12 C per decade"

As I noted above, their trend number for July 2005 was +0.123 C/decade. No difference.

UAH temperatures were relatively high from 2005 to 2007, especially in 2007 (lower only than the year 1998). They have dropped some since (not alot, on average, as a year or so ago they were also relatively strong, not so much in 2008 or at present), but this has hardly affected the long-term trend.

But with the present state of climate technology, it not only can't be done with any reliablility, it is a lie to say that it can.

Still can't refrain from calling everyone else a liar, huh Chuck?

As IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch8 FAQ 8.1, Fig 1 shows, the models do a pretty good job of back-predicting the 20th century. Even rudimentary models, like Hansen's et al's from 1988, (and his most realistic scenario, B), capture the big picture well enough to be concerned about the future effects of GHGs, and that model is 21 years old! They've advanced a huge amount since then.

Also, climate models do not "predict." They project. That is, given a set of relatively simple assumptions about GHG growth, land use changes, etc. they project their effect on future temperatures and precipitation. Of course, none of these assumptions is correct, since they cannot foresee the future of socioeconomic changes, and they have inherent limitations from the fact that there are uncertainties in the data and chaos in the mathematical system.

Finally, models are never the "preferred" approach for any scientific problem. Scientists always try to find a solution from first principles, when they can. The climate system is too complex for that, and perhaps always will be, but there are many complex systems that can be handled without models, such as a gas, which consists of trillions of trillions of molecules bouncing around but which is amply described the statistical mechanics. The Big Bang was a complex event but yet nonmodel physics can describe it and its consequent unfolding quite well. You could even argue that the hydrogen atom is a pretty complex system, especially from a quantum field point of view, with all the fluctuations of infinitely many virtual photons blinking in and out of existence, spin interactions, relativistic effects, and no one even really knowing what an electron really is. Yet quantum electrodynamics can be solved and predict its properties to amazing accuracy, roughly one in 10^12.

In science, scientists only use models when they have no other choice. Climate science is one such instance.

A couple of things, Chuck.

First off, don't meteorologists use models all the time? Does the fact that they aren't perfect mean that they aren't useful?

Second, your comments would be much easier to read if you followed standard practice and put quoted sections in italics and your own words in regular font.

I realize that this is a stylistic point, but the reality is that style matters. By not following the standard practice, you suggest to readers that you either haven't read very much, or you just don't pay very close attention.

DAVID APPELL WRITES: "UAH temperatures were relatively high from 2005 to 2007, especially in 2007 (lower only than the year 1998). They have dropped some since (not alot, on average, as a year or so ago they were also relatively strong, not so much in 2008 or at present), but this has hardly affected the long-term trend."

David, a cuple of things to respond to your last two posts:

First, the errors in UAH satellite tempertaure trends were corrected BEFORE the current cooling trend began. Look at the dates of the papers you present. They are from 2002 and 2004 and 5. This does not affect the current cooling trend data presented by the measurements.

Second, Also note that the decadal trends established to show the warming had to have truncated by the time the papers were published. The trends are old and do not contain any of the cooling that has ensued.

Third, Even with the drift errors that have been addressed, this does not change what I have already stated: The current global temperatures are in decline. They have been since 2004 regardless of the decadal trends which have not yet caught up. ALL climate models did not project the decline in temperature. The forecast was for temperature and CO2 to continue to rise. More significant is the FACT that the current global mean temperature established by UAH AND CORRECTED for all of the errors you bring up is NO WARMER TODAY THAN WHEN THE PROGRAM STARTED MEASUREMENTS IN 1979. This doesn't say much at all for AGW claims that CO2 is radiating the earth to a higher temperature. This discussion I bring up here, is the bulk of my e-mail exchange with Christy which ahe agrees with.

Chuck Wiese

This does not affect the current cooling trend data presented by the measurements.

Except there is no "cooling trend," because, regardless of the data, four years is too short of an interval to make a conclusion about any climate trend. Climate scientists use 10 years as the absolute minimum for trends, and often significantly longer.

And, in fact, the 10-yr moving averages are higher now than they were 4 years ago.

10-yr moving average, June 2005 vs. June 2009:

GISS: 0.45 vs. 0.50 C RSS: 0.23 vs. 0.25 C UAH: 0.19 vs. 0.20 C

Four years means little, as it's subject to natural fluctuations and various oscillations and other influences. "Climate" refers to the long-term. You know that. Anything else is just cherry-picking. If you look at a well-chosen period, you can find any trend you want. The world has, for example, "warmed" in the last 12 months. But that says nothing about the climate.

The trends are old and do not contain any of the cooling that has ensued.

This is wrong. As I showed above, UAH's most recent trend calculation was from last month and included data up to June 2009.

The current global temperatures are in decline.

I know this is one of the few even plausible potential memes that skeptics cling to, but it's just not true. Climate, again, is not a year-to-year phenomenon. As measured by say, a 10-yr moving average of GISS anomalies, it peaked in Oct 2007 at 0.51 C. It is now at... 0.50 C. Within the data uncertainties, these are indistinguishable.

By the way, in Oct 1997 this number was 0.28 C. In Oct 1987 it was 0.14 C, and in Oct 1977 it was -0.01 C. In other words, global mean temperatures, as realistically defined, increased by 0.51 C in three decades.

If you look back at the temperature history in the last several decades, there are several periods where 10-yr MA global temperatures were flat or even declined for a few years: 1984-1987, 1992-1997, 2000-2002. You would have made the same "cooling trend" argument then as you do now. And yet after each of these there was a resumed rise in temperatures. In fact, the first half of the 1990s had some of the coldest months in three decades. Yet warming continued after that. There's no indication that the last few years are any different from those earlier periods, esp when you consider factors like La Ninas, total solar irradiance, oscillations and stochasticity.

If we're on a cooling trend, why have the last 12 months been warmer (globally) than the previous 12 months?

RIVERAT WRITES: "Of course water vapor is the major constituent of the greenhouse effect. No one's claiming it isn't but as a meteorologist you know there's a limit to how much the atmosphere will hold. So water vapor can't drive climate change but only react to changing conditions and adding its part. Clouds can have both positive and negative effects as a greenhouse constituent. It's an area of much study. CO2 contributes 9-26% of the greenhouse effect. I wouldn't call that insignificant."

Riverat or Dave: This is wrong. Water vapor is a very powerful greenhouse gas compared to CO2, and it is precisely the reason why climate modeling goes biserk with outrageous warming scenarios. The modeling starts with an assumption there is a small radiative forcing from CO2, and then incorrectly evaporates large amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere as a response, and the water vapor causes strong radiative absorption of the surface IR, thus elevating the temperatures significantly. You are correct in your statement that there is only so much water vapor the atmosphere can hold. But this is also precisely what Elsasser's work defers to in atmospheric radiation problems. You cannot get away from the fact that as more CO2 is added, the 15 micron wavelength will force the upper troposphere to cool. This will reduce the optical depth of water vapor and makes the radiative absorption process from CO2 a self defeating process to claims that adding more Co2 produces a greater absorption of IR energy from the surface. The difference in absorbing wavelengths of the two constituents produce a magnitude of quanta that is four times over CO2. This is very significant and why the IR radiation problem is far more complex than just looking what is absorbed by CO2. This is just scratching the surface on the number of errors that have been discovered with climate models and how they treat radiation,let alone the impossibility of ever keeping track of real energy flows from other processes in addition to radiation that could affect climate. The cO2 warming hypothesis is a weak one AT BEST, and better put, if the absorbing wavelengths of CO2 and water vapor were interchanged, where CO2 could absorb at 5.5 microns, then AND ONLY THEN could you make a good argument that CO2 could cause climate change, infact, under that scenario, you would get no argument from me. But reality is reality, CO2 has no special radiating powers with water vapor around, and it would have to be in a setting like what is on Venus to make a difference.

I don't know what you mean by "why are the trend lines in the projections?". What trend lines are projecting 5-15 year weather trends? I'll bet they're not from global climate models. The "90's warming trend was on top of a warming trend since the 60's. Looking at chart of global temperatures I'd say there's been steady warming since the 1960's with occasional dips lasting a few years. It doesn't look any different than whats happening now, especially if you look at the annual averages rather than the 5 year average. And don't get on me about referencing a 5 year average. It's a chart of actual measurements, not a projection. Maybe if your "cooling trend" lasts until 2015 I'll start listening but indications are that an El Nino is developing which could lead to a warmer than normal period for the next year or so. We'll see.

The trend in global temperatures is clearly down since 2004. More importantly, it is no warmer than what was established in 1979 by the UAH microwave soundings.This data does not have the other problems that are part of GISS surface data that is subjected to urbanization and moving errors when the US Weather Service abandoned its surface observing program, moved large city stations and dropped alot of rural ones.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

fbear wrote:

First off, don't meteorologists use models all the time? Does the fact that they aren't perfect mean that they aren't useful?

Good question.

Not only that, but Chuck Wiese has continually said that climate models were built on top of earlier meteorological models, which is certainly true, but that somehow they don't contain at least the same physics, if not more. Was it just taken out?

(A: Of course not.)

I do know the difference between weather and climate. Do you know the difference between the scientific method and computer modeling?

There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. None of the computer models replicate this fact. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved.

The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20 different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements.

The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.

The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.

DAVID APPELL WRITES: "Four years means little, as it's subject to natural fluctuations and various oscillations and other influences. "Climate" refers to the long-term. You know that. Anything else is just cherry-picking. If you look at a well-chosen period, you can find any trend you want. The world has, for example, "warmed" in the last 12 months. But that says nothing about the climate."

David: Four years means plenty when a comparison of global temperatures puts us back on the established baseline of 1979. James Hansen didn't start shooting his mouth off about CO2 and climate until 1988 when it was warmer globally than now. It is more than just trends alone. Where are we with respect to a baseline?

Chuck Wiese

DAVID APPELL WRITES: "Except there is no "cooling trend," because, regardless of the data, four years is too short of an interval to make a conclusion about any climate trend. Climate scientists use 10 years as the absolute minimum for trends, and often significantly longer.

And, in fact, the 10-yr moving averages are higher now than they were 4 years ago."

David: Is this why James Hansen declared a global warming crisis in 1988? What data did he have to rely on making such an alarming statement to Congress then? Less than ten years had elapsed since global temperatures had started to rise. Wasn't he allittle quick to conclude such things wehen he had less than ten years of trend to look at?

Don't bring up cherry picking to me. Real Climate, Hansen and Schmidt are famous for this. For it was all during the 90's when all we heard about was how good of job climate models were doing in projecting short term ( yearly trends). All of the AGW alarmism came out of that decade and led Hansen, Schmidt, et al to declare a global climate emergency and legislative action to combat global warming. This includes all of the media crap and hype from Hansen about arctic ice melt. It sure seems to me that if it is only decadal trends that matter, we better wait and see what happens with the current cooling trend before going off the deep end with climate legislation.

Chuck Wiese

Italics off

Let's try that again

Hey David / River Rat We are still waiting for proof that CO2 can cause dangerous warming.

The fact is that foundation that all of the global warming hysteria is the unproven assertion that CO2 can cause dangerous warming. And there is NO PROOF. Only faulty computer models that "don't work" without CO2.

Of course they don't work with it either as shown by their inability to predict the stratospheric temperature and the recent cooling. They are also inconsistent with recent predictions, from Al's zombies, of ten years of coming cooling.

The models are crap. Their predictions are crap and people who believe them are deceiving themselves.

There is no evidence of man's CO2 causing dangerous warming.

Go ahead, zombies, prove me wrong with real empirical data.

David Appell: As measured by say, a 10-yr moving average .... J: You are agin showing your ignorance. Moving averaged DO NOT measure anything, they help visualize trends.

David Appell: If you look back at the temperature history in the last several decades, there are several periods where 10-yr MA global temperatures were flat or even declined for a few years: 1984-1987, 1992-1997, 2000-2002. You would have made the same "cooling trend" argument then as you do now. And yet after each of these there was a resumed rise in temperatures. J: You forgot to mention 1940-1950-1960. You know that was when Schneider was telling us that we had to quit burning fossil fuels to prevent the global cooling. James Hansen was involved too, so both of these famous warmers, used to be coolers. Raise any red flags, David?

You also forgot to mention that the basic trend that has been in place for 400 years is WARMING AFTER THE LITTLE ICE AGE.

David Appell: There's no indication that the last few years are any different from those earlier periods, esp when you consider factors like La Ninas, total solar irradiance, oscillations and stochasticity. J: And there is no indication that the last few warming decades were any different that the warming decades of the early 1900s, or any other earlier warmings that occurred without CO2.

The fact is that your socialist world view wants to see an end to freedom and the whole global warming fallacy appeals to you without regard to any science. You are just bending the facts to match you desire for how other people should live.

fbear wrote:

First off, don't meteorologists use models all the time? Does the fact that they aren't perfect mean that they aren't useful?

DAVID APPELL WRITES: "Good question.

Not only that, but Chuck Wiese has continually said that climate models were built on top of earlier meteorological models, which is certainly true, but that somehow they don't contain at least the same physics, if not more. Was it just taken out?

(A: Of course not.)"

David: This answer you give again demonstrates your ignorance of the subject. I did say that climate modeling is derived from atmospheric science and meteorology. But you forgot to mention to fbear there is a big difference in the techniques used between GCM's and short range atmospheric models used in weather forecasting. Both models will fail to produce reliable results in a matter of a few days, and I believe climate models even sooner. This is because of the absurd notion that the partial differential equations can be integrated forward in time to obscenely long periods, like 100 years. To accomplish this task, even with all of the computing power available, the algorithms MUST be simplified to maintain computational stability. Gross over simplification of many physical processes must be sacrificed to solve the algorithms adequately. My personal view is that this reduces the vaue of a GCM to an over rated heap of junk that will tell you nothing you could rely upon.

So your answer that the same physics are employed is wrong, as you are most of the time on this subject. The correct answer is that the physics are different. They are diluted and simplified.

Chuck Wiese

Hey David, We're still waiting for your proof that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming.

NucEngineer WRITES:"The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses."

NucEngineer: For the scientist you are, not having ( I presume) a background in atmospheric science, your analysis is spot on. The money take is precisely how the climate community is ripping off the public to the tune of 4 billion dollars a year. This is taxpayer subsidized research that has accomplished nothing except to steer the politicians towards raising taxes. The scientists involved in this,( especially Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen) deserve to be fired and stripped of their retirements. I say this because they are the two best examples of a pair of clowns who have wasted alot precious resources and have accomplished nothing. Their research, like alot of "climate research" is solely geared around trying to "prove" CO2 is a primary climate driver ( which contradicts and supplants, not disproves Elsasser's radiation physics and the founding work ) instead of engaging in real science to attempt to solve the many earth climate mysteries. The WSJ estimates we have frittered away 47 billion on "climate research" that is all geared towards trying to prove the impossible ( about CO2 ) rather than generate new understanding of how the climate system really works. Computer "climate models" are the lynch pin of perpetrating the scam. The scientists running them ( Like Hansen and Schmidt ) can all point fingers at the models rather than themselves when the day arrives that they will finally haver to admit they are wrong with their assertions about CO2. This makes it easy and convenient with a notion of innocense that they all tried their best even though they have ignored important founding work that would have never steered them in this direction to begin with. There is no excuse for this and its patently obvious with the government refusing to fund any research that attempts to disprove the wrongly constucted CO2 hypothesis that the purveyors who control the purse strings want it this way so that climate legislation can be passed. That is the pay off prize to government. The perceived new tax revenues more than compensate for the investment scam of constructing and relying on these frivolous models which violate many principles of physics and applied mathematics, and Doppelt's paper from the University of Oregon is a really good example of how researchers frivolously "pile on" to modeling projections with doomsday scenarios to jerk the chains of the general public to support the governments and acadamia's efforts which are really counter productive and self serving.

Chuck Wiese

Excellent summaries NucEngineer and Chuck.

The AGW chain of deceit certainly has many hypotheses. Layered and embellished along the way with absurd observations and manipulations. David Appell's linking of AGW to Hurricane Katrina is the perfect example.

Or the fabricated AGW= polar bear scare being used in commercials by the World Wildlife Fund to peddle memberships and campaign for contributions.

The accumulated phony works of the AGW players seems endless as all thing imaginable become tools for deception.

Kari, in his twisted wisdom, says there's no sense discussing the issue. How perfect. So as Bill Bradbury (or Lubchenco/Hansen/Gore propagate) lectures our children with blatantly contrived claims and warnings Kari helps keep it well insulated from exposure.

Of course on the government side is the most reckless endangerment of all things economic and funding of government itself. While envisioning a boom to government coffers the cap and trade tax policies will cripple the very funding government seeks at the same time the other prong will increase the cost of everything government itself consumes. From energy to all things energy produces when James Hansen says "we need energy to be much costly" he's advising an insane policy of deliberate fiscal calamity.

These blues are indeed caught up in the "hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses" because they see the AGW movement as the ultimate weapon of mass indoctrination in advancing many of their causes. They attach their causes to this chain of deceit elevating them all to the urgency of saving the planet from the boogeyman AGW.

From a climate scientist on this blog misunderstandings.

["This blog thread is a good example of the simplistic reasoning that gets non-scientists into trouble. In their minds, they have covered all logical possibilities, but in fact have only scratched the surface. First of all, these comment posters do not know that the prevalent Global Warming doctrine requires another major player to kick in for most of the claimed warming: water vapor. Without a positive feedback from water vapor, even Alarmists know that CO2 has a negligible effect.

Hence, the magnitude of any supposed effect is more crucial than the existence of the effect. One of my neighbors thought that the observed warming in the late 20th century could be explained by all of the heat we were releasing from burning fossil fuel, not from the CO2. That's a reasonable question to ask and fits the logic of commenters because we are heating the atmosphere by driving our cars, etc. But you have to look at the magnitude of the effect to see if it has any real impact. In this case, the total amount of heat released by let's say your car is similar to the sunlight energy falling on it averaged over a year. That makes it significant in the immediate vicinity of the car but totally negligible to the earth as a whole, even if you consider every other car on the planet as well.

Another thing amateurs fail to grasp is that the "complexity" that must be taken into account or you can be completely wrong. They are missing the feedback concept altogether. We know that the atmosphere has various processes that work more or less like a thermostat. Anyone who has lived in a hot humid climate knows that late afternoon thundershowers frequently cap the heat of the day. They loft large amounts of heat around the IR blocking properties of the high humidity and return a cooling rain. To no surprise, most thunderstorms occur near the equator where solar heating is most acute.

The BO blog with these simplistic comments is so heavily political that I doubt anyone is interested in real science. But if they are, I think it best to explain the science, so they at least understand it from the Alarmist point of view and may listen to other points of view as well."]

jamie wrote:

Hey David, We're still waiting for your proof that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming.

Jamie, What do you mean by "dangerous?"

Dangerous to whom? People? All people? Poor people? Rich people? Africans? Or Australians? Texas corn farmers? What about Russian and Canadian wheat farmers? Oregon vineyards? Polar bears? Migrating birds? Glaciers? Reservoirs? Fish? Plankton? Frog species in central American that already seem to have gone extinct from climate change?

How dangerous? How much change in regional drought indices is "dangerous?" Or does it depend where? California va. Australia? New Mexico vs. the Sahel? Is it dangerous to a Texas corn farmer if his corn crop is only 50% of normal this year due to their drought, or does it have to be 65%? Or 50% two years in a row? Or five years in a row? If it's dangerous to him but advantageous to commodity traders, is it still "dangerous?" What if it results in lower food prices, but less farmers? Is that dangerous, and, if so, how much dangerous?

What is the unit of danger, anyway?

Was it dangerous to the ~35,000 French who died in a huge heat wave a few years ago?

Is it dangerous to coral now bleaching? How much coral degradation must take place before it is dangerous to other ocean inhabitants, or even man? 75%? 90%? Please define.

Would a 30 cm rise in sea level be dangerous to the Netherlands? Or would it take 80 cm? What about to Venice? Or south Florida? Is it the same danger for Venice as for south Florida? Or is it only half as dangerous? If so, how are you mathematically defining dangerous?

Climate modeling" has been proven to be wrong,

You keep saying this, and keep ignoring the fact that climate models back-predict the 20th century's climate. This is a strong test of their veracity.

Chuck Wiese wrote:

It is an idiotic assertion put forth that humans are having a major impact on climate.

Chuck, I see that you are still unable to disagree with people without calling them names.

Honestly, now I'm curious: where does this come from? I've never encountered it in anyone before, this insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is an "idiot" or "moron" or "liar."

Do you honestly believe that thousands of scientists out there are saying to themselves, "look, I know that A does not equal C, but if I can somehow convince enough people that A implies B and B implies C, I can equate A and C and so advance my social agenda?"

This is beyond laughable.

I know it's human nature to think that our little areas of expertise give us overriding insights in the human situation and even scientific problems. But the notion that you know better than thousands of professional climate scientists who have now spent several decades, 10 hours a day, tens of thousands of publications studying this issue is just getting absurd. They've studied this subject to depth, in all its details, far, far deeper than you even have a notion of. Claiming they're all just liars is a child's argument.

And the notion that they've somehow missed some basic points of physics that only meteorologists know about is even more absurd. After all, it was physicists who discovered the fundamental principles on which meteorology is based, and who now master them in their sophomore year in college. This is, actually, quite old physics, and not exactly quantum field theory.

The more adamantly you try to make this point the sillier it seems. You think you have the golden key to the climate question, and yet lack the balls to actually write a actual scientific paper or present your ideas at a real scientific conference.

And no, the Lars Larson show doesn't count; its intellectual integrity is about that of elementary school, and your audience could hardly be more friendly (or less educated on the subject).

David Appell,

Such is the limitation of blogging sites. It's quite easy for anyone to confuse a complex issue with nonsensical remarks. When the issue is politically sensitive, dependance into junk rhetoric is close to unavoidable. Even if global warming deniers have questionable arguments, they cast enough doubt to leave some commenters believing that the truth "lies halfway between." That is enough to play to the fossil fuel industries' desire that little be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

David Appell jamie wrote:

Hey David, We're still waiting for your proof that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming.

Jamie, What do you mean by "dangerous?" JK: I see you still cannot show that CO2 can cause dangerous warming.

thanks JK

David Appell: You keep saying this, and keep ignoring the fact that climate models back-predict the 20th century's climate. This is a strong test of their veracity. JK: No it isn’t. The only test of veracity is the ability to successfully predict the future is the only test. The models have failed miserably at predicting the future: They failed to predict the proper troposphere temperature. They failed to predict the current global downturn in temperature. They have made NO surprising predictions.

They DO predict that recent temperatures should be rising. They are falling.

Thanks JK

Jake Leander: Even if global warming deniers have questionable arguments, they cast enough doubt to leave some commenters believing that the truth "lies halfway between." That is enough to play to the fossil fuel industries' desire that little be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. JK: You mean arguments like: the hockeystick temperature curve is a fabrication. The Antarctic ice cores show temperature leading CO2 There is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 can actually cause dangerous global warming.

Exactly what evidence do you have? (Don’t forget that all the weird climate/weather makes no difference if you cannot show that man’s CO2 is the cause.)

Thanks JK

David,

Along with your cronic dishonesty you could not be more naive. Your impression of the work done on climate by the alarmists is laughable and every step of the way you fail miserable to grasp and address the most germane points experts like Wiese have raised. Yes he is an expert and you are a foolish layperson.

As for your comedic claim that climate models back predict accurately therefore they show veracity.

This is a grand example of your foolishness and dishonest.

No such genuine back predicting exists. Any more than Jane Lubchenco's claim models can predict wind patterns 100 years from now.

For clairification, this from climatologist:

"David Appell does not realize that his reasoning is circular. The climate codes have many arbitrary parameters which have been adjusted to fit observations of the 20th century climate. They are really no more than elaborate data fits. It is therefore no wonder that they fit the 20th century climate! But they have NO predictive power for future climate. "Back-predict" is more of the jargon of Alarmists, not of scientists."

Of course David, Jane, Bill Bradbury and other blatant liars want people to believe otherwise. Their fabrications know no limits and the left buys every single one of them without any curiosity at all.

Kari, guess you better post another GW story so we can argue on the front page. (Sorry but I had to say it :)

jamie, you continue to fail understand what climate models are and what they are predicting. They don't predict the La Nina of 2007 or the heat wave of 1998 or the cold year of 1964. Climatologist define climate by 30 year trend lines. Climate models produce 30 year trend lines that are compared to the actual trend lines. They don't predict a 5 year below average swing of weather or a 5 year upswing. You you think they should be predicting weather but they don't except in the most general sense.

<hr/>