Interesting Climate Model
 

This is the latest temperature model, taking us back over 100 yrs. I seriously hope someone screwed up the Data when they made this.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...te_320x240.mpg

well, that's unsettling.

It's kind of pretty but mostly meaningless without explanation. Take for instance 1955, a year in which both poles are orange with red blotches and the rest of the globe is blue with an orange tint. What does that mean? Clearly the poles were not warmer than the equator. This must be comparing temperatures to some sort of average or baseline - which was...what?

Good point.

But I'm still sending it to my climate skeptic father-in-law!


Mr Mephisto

Here is the page it came from
linky dinky
There is no static baseline. Each step in the animation is based 5 years prior.

The baseline is the long term average temperature over roughly a 30-year period.

Many agencies in several countries have presented these data, and you can read a good FAQ from the UK here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

The UK uses a baseline mean from 1961 to 1990. The model referred to in the OP uses a baseline from 1977 to 2005 (from the cited paper).

Note that the animation posted is not from any predictive model, rather it is actual data. There is no question about its accuracy.

Did anyone else notice how nothing really changed THAT much until the 2000 presedential election? Then the entire world changed red. Prior to 2000, the biggest shocker was Alaska from 1880 to 1890 - scary times.

100 years is all this model presents. The earths climate goes back millions and millions of years, it went through ice ages and incredibly hot periods all on its own. This model only goes back 100 years and yet peopple are claiming that its president bush's fault?

There is no doubt that the globe currently has a warming trend. There is, however, incredible doubt that humans are causing it. Say whatever you want, cite any scientist, it doesnt matter. There is no way to prove humans are causing this warming trend.


Anyways, this little warming period is also coming along with the greatest improvement of worldwide living conditions, life expentancy, and wealth. Everyone is worrying about nothing.

I also have to take issue with the definition of "Baseline" here, because this is pretty important, and fairly telling that two people who are seemingly excited about what the OP implies, have two completely different definitions of it.

Superbelt: Baseline data, by it's definition, is static. It doesn't change. The baseline data in this case would be the annual mean temp from either 1775- 1880 or 1880-1885. Which one is not clear, but i don't think it matters much.

Raneneye: Though your explanation was quite convincing, so much so I'm not sure where to begin...Baseline data is not long term averages or means over a 30 year period nearly 80 years AFTER data has been collected.

It's interesting how the two of you probably are very excited about what this model shows, but differ entirely in your definitions of how it's data is generated. both of you couldn't be more wrong about what it's "baseline" (comparison in case you didn't know) data is.

Are there any climatologists on TFP? It's always good when a dentist chimes in on tooth info or a history teacher chimes in on the past. I think it could help in interpreting the data.

global warming should be a scientific debate, not a political one.

willravel, what data? I think what your looking for is a statistician, but you need real data to be interpreted before that would be of any use. If that's not what your after, PM host, I'm sure he could be a climatologist/statistician for your purposes for at least one thread.

Lame.

I'm sorry, I assumed you watched the video that the entire thread was about.

Here's the link:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...te_320x240.mpg
I think what we need is someone who has studied climate for years and has a degree, so that we can all stop pretending we are experts. I don't know much about weather, and I suspect that most average people are with me in that camp. I look to people well studied in the area for their opinion so that my opinion would be better informed (instead of following party lines and assuming people are right). Luckily for me, there are thousands of experts who have studied this, and a vast majority of them are in agreement.

matthew330, I was trying to make the data presentation more clear. I was just explaining that, there is no baseline. Each step in this animation is based on temperature increases within the 5 year period of the animation step. Each step is based off of the step prior to it.

And, I'm not a climatologist, but I do have a masters degree in a related field.

I don’t think we need a climate expert to interpret that video – it’s straightforward and there’s plenty of explanation all over the net, including the link I gave. Here’s another from NASA:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...2006_warm.html

That page is a very nice summary.

The OP unfortunately did not make it clear that the "model" referred to has nothing to do with the linked video. The model was from a paper just published to predict the temperature change in the U.S. into the near future. The video is simply a nice way to visualize the known temperature data over the last 100 years or so. Previous versions of that video have been kicking around for at least 10 years, I’ve been showing them to my students for that long.

It’s easy to misinterpret the “5-year-increments” quote from the little caption for the video. What that means is that the data plotted in the video is actually a 5-year running average. So the year 2000 for example represents not just the data from 2000, but rather is the average of the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. The year 2001 is the average of 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, etc. Using a running average is a standard statistical procedure to separate a temporal signal from the temporal noise, making any time trend easier to visualize. You can see both the raw numbers and their running average plotted together on the NASA link above, for the global mean temperature.

For that particular video, the baseline used is the mean temperature for the years 1951 to 1980, as stated in the link above (other agencies in different countries use slightly different baselines; the paper that put together the predictive model uses yet a different one as I pointed out).

But the important point understand is that it doesn't matter what the baseline is, because all the baseline does is tell you what zero is. In the video (and graph a in the link), zero is the average temperature between 1951 and 1980. So if you have dark red in the video, that codes to around 2 degrees celsius. So dark red means that that region is 2 degrees celsius above the mean from 1951 to 1980 at that point on the globe and at that time.

We could just as easily have used a baseline from 1880, but all that would do is change the definition of zero. It's better to use a more recent baseline, because we have a lot more datapoints recently all over the globe from which to calculate a baseline than we did in 1880. Or we could have just plotted the raw data instead and forgot about the baseline entirely. But if we were to plot just the raw data, we wouldn’t be able to see at a glance how much the temperature has changed at any particular point on the globe. That’s the whole purpose of the video, to compare the temperature change at various places on the globe and from year to year (with some of the annual noise filtered out).

Superbelt: take a look at the links I provided, and the video. The animation step is one year, not five years.

good to see you back around raveneye. thanks for clarification.

Many thanks raveneye.....exellent explanation (my apologies for the lack of clarity in the OP).

I have also found a wonderful source of clarification on the many so called "Myths" of climate change, for anyone interested:

http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462

Case in point-

Climate myths: We can't trust computer models

* 17:00 16 May 2007
* NewScientist.com news service
* Fred Pearce



"Even though the climate is chaotic to some extent, it can be predicted long in advance.

Climate is average weather, and it can vary unpredictably only within the limits set by major influences like the Sun and levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We might not be able to say whether it will rain at noon in a week's time, but we can be confident that the summers will be hotter than winters for as long as the Earth's axis remains tilted.

The validity of models can be tested against climate history. If they can predict the past (which the best models are pretty good at) they are probably on the right track for predicting the future – and indeed have successfully done so.
Clouded judgement

Climate modellers may occasionally be seduced by the beauty of their constructions and put too much faith in them. Where the critics of the models are both wrong and illogical, however, is in assuming that the models must be biased towards alarmism – that is, greater climate change. It is just as likely that these models err on the side of caution.

Most modellers accept that despite constant improvements over more than half a century, there are problems. They acknowledge, for instance, that one of the largest uncertainties in their models is how clouds will respond to climate change. Their predictions, which they prefer to call scenarios, usually come with generous error bars. In an effort to be more rigorous, the most recent report of the IPCC has quantified degrees of doubt, defining terms like “likely” and “very likely” in terms of percentage probability.

Given the complexity of our climate system, most scientists agree that models are the best way of making sense of that complexity. For all their failings, models are the best guide to the future that we have.

Finally, the claim is sometimes made that if computer models were any good, people would be using them to predict the stock market. Well, they are!

A lot of trading in the financial markets is already carried out by computers. Many base their decisions on fairly simple algorithms designed to exploit tiny profit margins, but others rely on more sophisticated long-term models.

Major financial institutions are investing huge amounts in automated trading systems, the proportion of trading carried out by computers is growing rapidly and some individuals have made a fortune from them. The smart money is being bet on computer models."

Thanks, pigglet and Tecoyah . . . .

That's a very nice New Scientist article.

The best overall source of info on global warming I think is probably the IPCC website (the purpose of the organization is to assess and synthesize all the science):

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Check out their presentations and graphics.

On the computer modeling issue, to me it seems rather obvious that only a computer is likely to be able to find a meaningful path through the enormous complexity of atmospheric processes.

The IPCC website has a very nice graphic showing how accurate the models have been in "post-dicting" the mean global temperature:

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/...arge/05.18.jpg

This graphic shows clearly that you can't ignore anthropogenic processes.

I am one of the people that collects weather data from all over the world. But we send it to NASA to analyze it. NASA uses their satellites to fill in the blanks inbetween our ground weather stations and balloon launches. So I would say the data from the past few years have been really good. :)

What I wonder is if we reached a tipping point in 1980. The pollution or CO2/H20/CO/NO emmisions got to a point so high that the trees/grass/algee/whatever else that uses those gases as food couldn't keep up anymore. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 10 years. Will environmental restrictions have any effect? Will the solar load from the Sun go down in a cycle? Will some volcano erupt sending tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?

Looks like they did.

http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+Fin...rticle8383.htm

When NASA recently announced that it was revising its temperature data, right-wing bloggers leaped at the news to propel its global warming denial campaign.

James Hansen — head of the NASA center — sets the record straight. He writes that the “corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable,” adding that the “deceit” propagated by the right “has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change.”

I have read many references to the data and the correction. I did not see any bloggers using the corrected data in the manner in which DC's post suggests. Most clearly acknowledge the correction was minor.

However, what many do question the significance of many of the warmest days on record occurring prior to WWII. There was no intent to deceive, in anything I read on this issue. I think Hansen is overreacting and appears to be overly sensitive.

At any rate this issue has received almost no attention by any media source of merit conservative or liberal. I simply pointed it out because it seemed ironic that Tecoyah hoped someone "screwed up" and they had.

ace....your own article does:

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding...

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

the changes are truly astounding?`...acknowledging a minor correction as having a HUGE impact on the global truly warming propaganda machine?

Sorry, but to me, that is the anti-global warming propaganda machine at work.

When Asher (the author of the citation I provided) says: "but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge." He is stating his opinion and he was wrong and stated the likelihood that he would be wrong. There is no intent to deceive, confuse or to even discredit Hansen.

When he says NASA silently released corrected figures he is being factually correct.

When he writes the changes are "astounding" he is specifically referring to the top 10 list of the warmest years. Many people including me, actively question the correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming. I think this is a legitimate question, the updated data lessens the evidence of a causal correlation.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...ttest_yea.html

As you can see '01 goes off the list, and all of the changes shows more current years dropping and older years moving up, there are 4 instances of that on a list of 10. There are 4 years from the decade of the 30's on the list.

I hope Hansen sees these changes as being worthy of legitimate statistical discussion relative to the correlation between CO2 and global warming trends. As you know many scientist have proposed alternative explanations for the current global warming trend.

Also, I think what you may have picked up on was the tone from backyard scientist who got a kick out of sticking it to NASA and got pissed off at Hansen for his stonewalling on the issue. This is more a "nerd" (in many ways I consider myself a "nerd" and a backyard scientist, and I am not being derogatory) thing than a political thing.

P.S. Look at the two charts you provided. The first is based on US land surface, which account for 2% of the total global land surface, yet the US accounts for most of the increase in CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. In that chart from 1930 to 2000 there is virtually no upward trend. When you look at the second chart the one based on global temperatures, you can see a clear upward trend for the 1930's. Perhaps you can provide a scientific explanation from someone who supports the theory that CO2 emissions are the cause. I won't hold my breath.

ace...Im not going to get into another debate on global warming with you or you might bring up IBD editorials and the methane cows again.

I would simply refer you to raveneye's post, re: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international body of more than 100 scientists whose work is peer reviewed by other scientists on both sides of the global warming issue.

I do accept the IPCC as the source providing the best analysis of the issue and I agree with their findings that we cant can't ignore anthropogenic processes.

If you dont want to accept the work of the IPCC.....thats fine. Lets just leave it at that.

The deceit here is contained very clearly in the headline “Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record.” This headline is very cleverly deceptive, as it makes two false statements by implication. These are: (1) NASA claimed that 1998 was the warmest year on record in the U.S. (in reality NASA never made that claim); (2) the correction of the data has resulted in 1998 no longer being a global record (in reality the data is from the U.S. and has no effect whatsoever on the global records of warmest years).

So the deception has the intention of confusing people by a simple bait-and-switch ploy: bait them with U.S. data, then surreptitiously switch the context to global data. Then condemn NASA and demand that they fire Jim Hansen (or worse), who is justifiably pissed off. Anybody would be.

The main people responsible for spreading the bait-and-switch are Rush Limbaugh and other talk radio hosts like Amy Oliver, who picked it up from bloggers like those linked to in this thread (Anthony Watts and Michael Asher, but hundreds of others spread it around too like Michelle Malkin). Counter to what many folks want to believe, the story is covered in detail in the mainstream media, as a visit to Google news or Lexis shows. And of course it is all over the internet:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%2219...ient=firefox-a

It has apparently fooled a lot of people.



But what has NASA actually claimed about U.S. temperature records? Here is their position, from a peer-revewied 2001 paper by lead author James Hansen himself:

In other words, NASA never believed that 1998 was the warmest in the U.S., NASA has always believed that it’s a statistical tie between 1934 and 1998. We can’t say which is higher, because the uncertainty in the data is about 10 times the observed difference. And the recent correction of the data doesn’t change that fact whatsoever, it’s still a statistical tie. That’s because there’s a lot of random noise there in the annual data, and it still swamps the correction.

But all this is irrelevant to the most important point by far, namely that the global record years haven’t changed one iota and the top five are in the last 10 years. You can still find the story on NASA’s website:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...2006_warm.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/..._2006_warm.jpg


Astute readers will note the word “worldwide” here.

I was tempted to point out a similar observation raveneye, but as of late find this whole debate rather pointless. Regardless of Data, there will be those who decide the climate change issue is not important, and those who do. I have given up trying to "Convince" anyone unwilling to see what the scientific community has given them....they are irrelevant to the problem.

Please address the question concerning US CO2 emissions and the appearance of a lack of a warming trend in the US since the 30's. That is the most important question to me at this time.

There is a warming trend, from the 1960s to present. It is offset by a cooling trend from the 1940s to the 1960s. The cooling trend was caused by sulfate aerosol pollution which lowers the incident radiation. After the sulfate emissions were controlled, the temps rose again.

This information is widely available. If you're truly interested, I recommend Tec's linked article on global warming myths for starters. Your question has been asked and answered a million times, and there is a nice summary there too.

That would require an open mind and an understanding that the US, which ranks first in the world in Co2 emissions, is part of the global community.

Why do you continuously make personal attacks? The US land mass is 2% of the global land mass yet accounts for the majority of the increase in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution. Yet, the US land mass has not incurred the same level of warming as in other areas of the globe. My question is a question in good faith. I first started reading research on this topic within the last 6 months or so. I have not read or seen all of the relevant information, and I have stated in the past that I my lack on knowledge on this subject and developing my views. Since I have been reading a lot of information, and to date nothing has adequately addressed this question. If what Rev says is true, I have not seen this question answered a million times.

It was not a personal attack, but simply an observation that your attempt to frame the issue in terms of the US only is absurd IMO, and only a means of avoiding the broader issue of GLOBAL warming, of which, the US, as the largest industrial nation, is a contributor.

What the US does impacts the world, and what the world does impacts the US. We dont live in a vacuum when it comes to global warming and the contribution of human activity, as convenient as that might be.

Have you read any of the IPCC reports or "Climate Change - A guide for the perplexed". both of which have been recommended by others here? You only seem to post from global warming skeptics and denial sites.

As tecoyah noted above:
I give up trying to convince anyone as well.

My alleged attempt to frame the issue in terms of the US only was nothing but an after thought, a P.S. added after my original post based on a chart you provided concerning US temperature changes. Then I simply asked for someone to address the question without any editorial comment added on my part. My question is fair. You call me closed minded, perhaps you should look in a mirror.

You don't like exchanges with me, at one point you stated you would ignore my posts, in this thread at one point you wrote to me that we would leave it at that. What is your problem with following through on your word? If you want a pissing contest, pick someone else, I am not interested.

ace...I feel compelled to respond to your posts at times when I believe you attempt to divert the issue...like here, with your "afterthought" about the US only rather than respond to others who directly questioned your earlier posts (ie the deceit, as raveneye correctly characterized it, of the article you posted).

My responses are meant as much or more for others to see as they are to engage in a dialogue with you. You can choose to ignore them or not. I dont particularly care either either way, but I will continue to call you out, or anyone, when I believe (and its only my opinion) that you (or they, like dk and soundmotor with their Sarah Brady posts or necrosis injecting Clinton into discussions in a way that is not completely honest) are being intentionally disingenuous to divert the discussion rather than respond to challenges to your (or their) posts.

I may be too direct for you (or others) and you may not like what I post, but I play by the rules here and if I dont, the mods will let me know.

If you take my posts as a personal insult and a pissing contest...thats your issue, not mine.

I don't know if you ever re-read what is written, but I do. What is written speaks for itself. If you and raveneye see deceit, I have no problem with what you see. I just give my point of view and I saw no deceit.

I am usually more interested in reading the point of view of those who disagree with me than reading the views of those who do agree with me. I have tried to avoid throw-away comments directed at specific individuals that do not move the dialog forward. You don't. You waste time, energy and effort. You saying I am closed minded, is not going to change me, and others have formed their own opinions. Your comment added no value to anything.

It is unfortunate that you are usually wrong. Like in this case, I ask a question about a chart in your post, and you then say I am trying to frame the discussion in an inappropriate manner. I am sure you don't see the flaw in your logic, but it is a pretty big one.

This exchange clearly defines the problem when a conservative tries to take a reasoned approach in discussing an issue with pompous, pseudo-intellectual liberals. Let's ignore the topic and the questions on the table and divert the discussion to some trivial bullshit that has no bearing on anything of value. You have succeeded. I have no more interest in discussing the topic of global warming here.

LMAO at conservatives taking a reasoned approach with pompous, pseudo-intellectual liberals (oh my, is that a personal attack on me)...OK, ace :)

I would suggest if you have any other complaints with me, take it up with me privately in a PM so others dont have to be subject to this nonsense.

There is the jet stream that has been known to take the CO2 produced in one area and move it to other parts of the planet.

I do tend to side with the enviromentalists most of the time, but I do realize that there are fluctuations in the planets temperature that wasn't the fault of humans. So, it doesn't really matter if there were warmer years or not. What matters to me are three questions.

1. How has the planet corrected the hot temperature in the past?

2. How do we clean up the environment and atmosphere to make humans impact on the temperature less of a debate?

3. What are we going to do if the temperature goes up at an accelerated rate due to something like the ocean currents slowing down due to fresh water consentrations, the white polar ice cap not reflecting sunlight throughout the summer, the natural CO2 scrubbers can't keep up with our increased emmissions?

Are you saying that what goes up in the air doesn't stay exactly where it came from? Inconcievable!

It regulated through thousand year cycles of increased Ice cover.

But how did an ice age start when it was too hot? What triggered it? Did the solar output of energy or something change?

We Don't....there is no mood to repair.

That isn't exactly correct. We do have ways to cultivate algee and come up with other ways to remove CO2. It would be easier to reduce it bwfore it got too far out of control, but I think humans would be able to come up with something. Teh problem is that there is no money to be made by gathering C02 without a carbon market where you need to pay to polute, but can get money back by cleaning up the environment.

Die....but not everyone...heh.

As long as it isn't me, I won't have a problem with that. 6.2 billion people breathing has to create some level of CO2 by itself. The temperature could go up another 20F or an ice age could happen and I would be fine. Or at least could survive longer than the other people looking for food.

Well I don't think they're politically irrelevant -- as we all know, they sometimes get elected two-term POTUS.... But I don't mind showing how intellectually bankrupt they are, not to teach any pigs to sing, but rather for anybody in the audience who is interested and who votes.

1. Mainly sun cycles and volcanic eruption cycles, not much help to us now.
2. It's about 99.9% politics -- there are no technological obstacles anymore, and the U.S. is in the driver's seat.
3. We've probably already passed the tipping point for the arctic polar ice (this year, in fact). It will most likely be gone during the summers by 10 years or so, maybe as early as 4 years according to some models, along with all the specialized species (the most charismatic being the polar bears and walruses). The 2000 election was probably the last chance we had to save it. The next U.S. election will be critical for the Greenland ice and the Antarctic, but we might even be too late for them as well. It's easy to predict in general what physically will happen to the earth if we don't act in the next 5-10 years. How people will respond is harder to know. At least we can expect millions of very pissed off folks by 2050, and given human nature, they'll all be looking for a scapegoat.

EDIT: I didn't notice the new GW thread. Followups should probably go there.

Another error by Hansen? Perhaps he can explain why he changed his mind and why there is no longer any reasonable basis to debate the issue.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/2...ON02/109190067

I would commend any scientist or any rational thinking person who, upon having access to new technology and being presented with new data, changed his mind from a position held 36 years earlier.

You make a good point and that is the point at issue. Many take the position that global warming and its causes are now factual and that the question is no longer open to continued discussion. I respect a person who can change their view given new information. I think Hansen has an opportunity to explain how new information lead him to a new conclusion and what was faulty in his original assessment of the information available. I Have not seen where he has done that, have you?

Uh, maybe because he never said nor believed that an ice age was imminent?

Did you read your own link?

Here, I will take the effort to place the linked information...makes it easier to read:

Obviously Hansen had no attachment to the statement (which actually clarified a hypothesis, not even a theory), other than developing a program used to extrapolate Data. Might I suggest that in your attempts to discredit Climate Change theory, you at least use accurate Data, and context when debating it.

I apologize for the confusion. Hansen was a research associate at Columbia University at the time of the article in 1971. Rasool, in his research, used a computer program model developed by Hansen.

Hansen's model either was wrong then or he his wrong now. Like I wrote it would be nice if he came forward and explained how he came to new conclusions.

Regardless, the main point is still on the table. Is global warming and it cause worthy of discussion and further scientific evaluation or has the question been settled?

{added}

I re-read what I wrote and actually think it is clear. I asked if it was an error on his part, which is a legitimate question in the context of his involvement. And given his model, it appears to be wrong given his current position. He should explain the discrepancy or explain why his model then did not support the conclusions drawn from it. All fair and reasonable comments on my part.

What bothers me is the name calling when someone even suggests the possibility that the globe is not warming or that "man" may not be directly responsible. I think Hansen's model then and his views now illustrate how important it is to have an open mind on the subject, because after all, most of the data indicating correlations and predicting future trends are based on assumptions built into models.

Questioning scientific findings is commonly accepted in the scientific community, if you have a problem with that - it is your issue.

Or his model was right then and he is right now. Did you know that a model has input and output? If you change the input it will change the output? The input Hansen used to study the clouds of Venus could be entirely correct for Venus, while at the same time the input Rasool used to study CO2 and aerosols on Earth could be incorrect for Earth. In fact it was, as has been pointed out thousands of times: his CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of three.

There are some questions that have been settled, and there are some questions that haven’t been settled. Yours here is one of the former.

This is pretty simple. All he needs to do is give details on the model he used in '71 and how it was used to come to the conclusion that the earth was cooling. If people used his model to support conclusions that he did not support, I agree that I need to apologize for mis characterizing his work. I have not seen anything where Hansen says his work in 1971 was used without his permission, used inaccurately, or used to support a conclusion he had a problem with. For the time being I will stand by my original question - is this another error?

I have not interpreted his data. I have not even seen his data. All I ask his for him to come forward and clarify this conflict. I asked if anyone has seen where he has done this. Again, all I have done is ask questions and ask for information. Why do you guys have a problem with that? What is wrong with Hansen coming forward and explaining himself? why would he let this issue get bigger than it needs to be, when all he needs to do is address the issue? Perhaps all is needed is for him to explain why the conditions on Venus are not consistent with those on earth in the context of the affects of solar heat absorption.

Raveneye, you again say the issue is settled. On what basis or model is the question settled? Why don't you think we will be revisiting that model forty years from now? And if we do, don't we have a right to ask the authors of those models to explain why those models missed the mark if wrong.

Hansen is a man who makes strong provocative statements. Pretty much saying we have 10 years or else. And I am called to task for asking questions. Wow!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1415985.shtml
And he says his message is being blocked. Since he is one of the "leading authorities on global climate change" perhaps someone in the media might want to sit down and talk to him and ask him a few questions.

P.S. The above quote is from July 2006. So now we have less than 9 years.

OK...One last time

Mr Hansen was not responsible for the article you seem to be using as a source....OK? It all goes back to a NYTimes article highlighting a hypothesis outlined in a science journal. The author used a climate model developed by hansen to study the clouds of VENUS, for part of the data he used to develop the hypothesis.
You are asking someone to explain a hypothesis he never forwarded.

Please. I never said he was responsible for the article.

My question to Hasen - why did you allow your work to be used in the manner in which it was used? Did you agree with its use? Did you allow its use? Did you support the conclusions drawn from its use? Was it used inappropriately to draw erroneous conclusions? Were you aware it was being used? Etc, Etc., Etc, I think he was aware and I think he cooperated with the study and supported its conclusions. I have not seen anything to disprove my thought, and I asked if there has been something, and I get non-responsive comments. So I further believe there has not been anything published reconciling the issue. Then I suggest for him to step forward and address the issue. What is the big deal?


He is the (or "a") leading authority on "global warming". And as the leading authority isn't it reasonable to expect him to be able to address various theories? Especially, theories his work helped shape. Now he has the view that in 9 years the damage we do will not be able to be corrected, almost like saying the world as we know it will end in 9 years. All I want to do is debate the issue. So, redirecting the issue back to me does not mean the questions will not go away. They won't go away even if we stop our exchange. It goes back to the pat response of - how dare someone question the overwhelming scientific data that says humans are responsible for climate change on this planet. Forgive me for for not "buying it" without question and the desire to understand how people came to their conclusions. Perhaps more people around here should start reading footnotes and take an interest in methodology before drawing conclusions.

Seriously Ace, I gotta give up because you just dont seem to get it. The Guy made a freakin computer program that another guy used to say there "Might" be an Ice Age if certrain conditions match one of the thousands of models created by the program.
Its like asking the guy that works on a Graphics Engine for nVidia why he let them make Halo3.

I give in....bit will never agree with your premis.

If that's the way you see it, I understand your frustration. I think Hansen's involvement was more direct.

OK....hows this.

I request you provide information that shows he indeed, was actively involved in the creation of this hypothesis. Anything you can provide me that might show he had a hand in the scientific paper in question, or even the underlying hypothesis.

This seems fair as you are asking us to provide information that indicates he can explain his belief in the Ice Age hypothesis, though I havent found anything that shows he ever did.

I can not provide anything other than the report that his model was used to support a conclusion that he does not currently support. That is the basis of my questioning this.

And that means absolutely nothing.

His model was published. The equations were written out in his paper. The Rasool paper cited his paper, and used some of his equations. So what? People cite each other all the time. People discuss and extend each other's results all the time. That's how science works.

And you dont see the disconnect here?

If I held the patent on a fuse...and it was used to make a bomb that blew up a plane, would I be charged with plotting the bombing?

If you made a computer program, and it was used to develop a nasty internet virus which killed my harddrive, should I simply assume you did it?

O.k. so now we are focused on the basis of my question. If Hensen's model suggested that the heat retention properties of CO2 causes warming and has made Venus the hottest planet in our solar system, how could his model be used to support an Ice Age theory? A correct scientific model or formula should produce the same results no matter who uses it. That is how science really works.

If I develop a formula for calculating the force of gravity. A rocket scientist should be able to use it to determine how much thrust is need to send a rocket into orbit. If the rocket fails to reach orbit, it is possible that the rocket scientist is wrong in some of his work and it is possible that my formula is wrong. Isn't it appropriate to revisit the issue and look at all the components that went into the failure?

If the model used only one parameter, it would not only me a very poor model, but would also fit the criteria you just explained. All climate models take into consideration far more variables, and thus require computers to extrapolate usable data. Though I dont know the details of the hypothesis, it is likely the focus was on cloud cover changes vs. CO2 concentrations as in Earth based models of today.
Yet you still attribute the Ice Age hypothesis to the wrong individual, and refuse to address the simple issue of "Why", other than to say you "think" he was involved more deeply than documentation dictates. Then when asked to back up what you think.....you cannot do so.

Why should we then, take your assumption seriously?

Uh, because there aren't any people on Venus emitting sulfur aerosols, like there are on Earth?

Actually "Real" science is far more complicated than that, which is why specializatioon becomes required. The models we are talking about use far too many parts to be deeply understood by any one scientist. It may very well be the hypothesis was focused on limited Data to get a more detailed result on a subject....leaving out other possible outcomes. More likely the input was varied continuously to mimick climate changes and the mean variants measured for the results. I think you might not fully understand what a climate model truly is....Hell I dont, and I have studied them.

Which assumption are you talking about? You have me confused because it seems like you are responding to issues I am not bringing up.

Here is a link to some if not all of Hansen's published research going back to 1966. If his work was used to drawn incorrect conclusions, I would think he would have a problem with that. In the 80's he seems to start to take a more direct approach to discussing climate change.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html

Sometimes I surprise some people on what I understand. Often my questions are intended to cut to the core of an issue.

Then I am confused I think. From what I have read I get the issue you are bringing up as inconsistencies in the Ideas put forward by Mr Hansen. I have spent the better part of this page trying to explain that he did not put the Ice Age Idea on tha table, as I believed you expressed he had. If this is not the case, then it seems you are simply stating that by virtue of his research being used by another scientist to create a hypothesis, he must then also believe in said hypothesis. Is that correct?
Might it also be possible (though I certainly dont know), that the clarity you note in the 80's was due to the very use of his research you have taken issue with? And if so, I think that might very well be his answer to the question you raise, and likely the only one you will get. Its not likely the man will try to explain why he changed his mind....if he didn't.

NASA scientist James Hansen received $720,00 from George Soros
 

edit

LOL....another "objective" IBD editorial, but not as good as the one called "Apocalypse Cow" which downplays the human impact, misrepresents a UN study and blames cow flatulence.

But even given the fact (?) that Hansen may have received $750,000 from Soros for "media packaging" (whatever that means), the research in question is NASA research.....which one could reasonably believe is more objective than the multitude of global warming debunking studies, with $millions of funding from Exxon-Mobile Foundation, the American Petroleum Institute, the George T Marshall Institute, et al.

More "grist for the mill: Look at the funding of five prominent global warming skeptics

And lets not forget the political contributions of big oil, mostly to support members of Congress who are global warming skeptics, opposed to funding alternative energy r&d, and are "big oil friendly" on related energy/environment issues....amounting to over $100 million in the last four election cycles.

Hansen is a very intelligent person and for the most part credible. In the '70's there was scientific based concerns about global cooling due to human activity, rather than global warming. People continued research, they continued to question and continued to debate the issue, it was not an issue deemed as settled. Hansen clearly continued his work. At the time he was either silent on the issue of climate change or had not made up his mind - to the best of my knowledge. However, we do know his work was used to support the work of people who believed the globe was cooling. If the question is settled, perhaps Hansen can further clarify how his current modeling, which suggests we have 9 years, can be used with a higher degree of certainty than models developed in the 70's.

Again, all I really suggest is that he come forward and answer questions.

On both sides of the issue, the money involved, is a good reason for people to make their work transparent for all to see and review.

We have already had people requesting information on temperature modeling algorithms from NASA that Hansen did not provide. Perhaps he had a good reason, but the issue was on the table and not responded to. Given the current climate (pardon the pun) transparency in the discussion will only help, in spite of the fact that many believe the issue is settled..

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is probably the most open and peer reviewed of any and it has no corporate or special interest funding.

If you havent read it, I would suggest reading the most recent "Summary for Policymakers" that addresses the human and natural drivers of climate change.

For an additional objective analysis, an FAQ on the IPCC report is available from the US Climate Change Science Project, including a section (2.1) "How do human activities contribute to climate change and How do they compare with natural influence" (link)

So what you are saying is that you have knowingly committed libel? Back up your statements or withdraw them.

Yesterday, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (Bush's top science policy advisor) said he “strongly agrees” with the IPCC reports and “supports its conclusions and it was an “unequivocal” fact that climate change is man-made and that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are to blame.

The US chief scientist has told the BBC that climate change is now a fact.

Professor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it was more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame.

The Earth may become "unliveable" without cuts in CO2 output, he said, but he labelled targets for curbing temperature rise as "arbitrary"....

....There may still be some members of the White House team who are not completely convinced about climate change - but it is clear that the science advisor to the President and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is not one of them.

In the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead, Professor Marburger told the BBC that climate change was unequivocal, with mankind more than 90% likely to blame.

Despite disagreement on the details of climate science, he said: "I think there is widespread agreement on certain basics, and one of the most important is that we are producing far more CO2 from fossil fuels than we ought to be.

"And it's going to lead to trouble unless we can begin to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we are burning and using in our economies."

...This is an explicit endorsement of the latest major review of climate science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm

There may not be unanimity, but there is broad consensus among scientists and government policy makers around the world that there are significant human contributions to global warming.

The debate should be how to respond in a way that is reasonable and supports both environmental and economical sustainability.

Cool. That is a first, being accused of libel. I should start keeping a log of these milestones.

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that I am guilty of libel, but I am sure you will let me know (even if it is off topic). If you prove your case, I will apologize.

Wow. 90% is a big percent, but it is still less than 100%. So, in our new science 90% becomes "unequivocal"?

ok....I guess you dont want to focus on solutions until its 100% certain but would rather keep rehashing your concern about how a model was used 30 years ago.

In science, you never reach 100% certainty. There is always doubt that the effect you have discovered is not real. Most sciences have an agreed upon level of doubt which they accept. In my field (Psychology) that doubt (also called "alpha") is usually acceptable if it is less that 5 %. If alpha is less that 5%, we call the effect statistically significant.

I am hesitant to dismiss the research discussed in the post you cite based on what appears to be a subjective assessment of "90%" that isn't directly quoted from the professor. I haven't seen the primary sources. I suspect that those studies must have reached statistical significance for them to be mentioned.

I make decisions and judgments on less than 100% certainty. I just found the information you posted humerus given some of the past exchanges on the Iraq war and the level of certainty concerning WMD, for example.

Everyone is missing the point on the model used in '71 and how new information lead to new conclusions. Consider it dropped from my point of view.

Is that level of error acceptable in all forms of science? Of course not, there is not always doubt.

In your field how did they determine that <5% statistically significant rather than 0? Probably because there are unknown variables that can not be controlled for in every circumstance. As this concept applies to climate models, there are also variables that cannot be controlled for and 90% certainty may be as good as it can get, I understand that. But, the earth may be like one of those patients that doesn't respond the way normal modeling would predict. And we may still be in the relative dark-ages when it comes to understanding climate change on this planet.

edit

There is always doubt in all science, or more generally, in the universe. It is mathematically impossible to have an alpha level equal to zero. The level of alpha you consider depends on what you are looking for and the costs an benefits of false-negatives and false-positives (among other issues). Wikipedia provides a reasonable summary of the issues surrounding statistic significance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

Again, I suspect that the primary sources have found effects with alphas <10%. I also expect that the sizes of the effects they have found are large enough to consider important. I am interested in the primary sources, but I don't have the time to go searching for them. It seems unreasonable to me to suggest that because there is always doubt and we don't know everything, we should ignore what we do know.

All your questions are answered in great detail in his published papers.

Have you read any of them?

No, unequivocal means effectively 100%.

Apparently you haven't read the IPCC report yet.

I have read the reports. All questions have not been answered. In fact the IPCC report states that climate change is dynamic with or without human impact. They further state that there are three main considerations that could have an impact on climate change, greenhouse gases is one of the three. One question that has not been answered is, given the interplay between the variables affecting our climate what is the determining factor that will make one variable so dominate that off-setting variables won't compensate?

You are telling me that I can not, for example, calculate the force of gravity with absolute certainty?

I am open to unlearning my preconceived notions of some forms of physics, chemistry and math. If you are generally saying that there is uncertainty in some math concepts, I guess I agree, but if you are saying there is uncertainty in every math concept, I don't understand how you say that.

Then where did you get the idea that unequivocal means 90%? I don't see it anywhere in my copy. What did you mean by "our new science" when you said "So, in our new science 90% becomes 'unequivocal'?" Can you quote me the relevant passage in your version of the report you read?

I was referring to your questions about Dr. James Hansen. I repeat: all your questions about him he has answered himself in his own publications, in great scientific detail. Have you read any of them?


What compensating variables? Reference? Who told you this?

If you are seriously interested in learning about the predominance of positive feedbacks, you could start by reading Dr. Hansen's most recent publication, which you can access here:
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/c...462k7p4068780/

In the sense that theories are never proven but can only be disproved, there is uncertainty. In the sense that we can never have perfect knowledge of the universe, there is uncertainty. In the sense that there is always the possibility that I remained fixed to the ground not because of gravity, but because of little invisible gnomes that hold me to the ground, there is uncertainty.

No, you are missing the point, because you simply haven't bothered to read any of the relevant papers. If you had read the Rasool paper you would have seen that all they used of Hansen's was a little computer code he wrote that calculates the value of a basic physical function, the Mie function, which describes how light scatters off a spherical object. Needless to say, this is not a "climate model" and it says nothing about climate change on earth.

And if you had read Hansen's first paper (1976) about greenhouse gases on earth, you would have seen that he concluded there that nitrous oxide and methane from human emissions could cause global warming.

Funny how such a breathless news scoop can evaporate so fast into nothing, isn't it?

The real story here is that the entire right-wing blogosphere has fallen for it. A nice example of how an overwhelming desire to believe something can make one as gullible as a seven year old.

Hansen was sure right about the "court jesters" :)

You seem to minimize the Mie function. In a predictive climate model it is difficult to know when other variables will start to have a bigger and bigger impact. In my opinion there is a paradox in the current singular focus on CO2 while stating the issue is settled. Just as a reliance on the Mie function lead to an erroneous conclusion so could the current models be leading to an erroneous conclusion, especially given a 9 year prediction of doom.

Someone who presents questions on an issue where a leading scientist is saying in 9 years we will reach a point of no return, is a "gullible seven year old"? Why the ad hominem from those who think the issue is settled?

And when you say all the questions regarding global warming and the cause are answered and the issue settled, does that mean that you think no further research and analysis is needed, or are you just exaggerating? At one point I thought you were just exaggerating a little, now I am not sure.

In the science community at large, the Issue of Global Warming has indeed been settled, it is in virtual universal agreement that indeed this atmosphere in warming significantly at a spped that cannot be explained by any natural cycle, or Global natural system. While the contribution to this climate change by CO2 is still heavily debated in places like this, the arguments against this influence in the community of scientists that study it is coming to a close, as most now understand it is the only viable explanation for such an abrupt shift. While I also call into question the "9 year" statement, It seems somewhat irrelevant when taken into the context of the actual Issue...I dont really care if its nine years....or 50, its obviously going to be pretty bad at some point.

I am not sure how to answer this question given all that is known about what affects our climate. However, for example, growing vegetation will on a net basis take CO2 out of the atmosphere, if ice melts and vegetation grows perhaps the interplay of those variable will have an offsetting affect. I have not seen a serious analysis of those kinds of factors in Hansen's work. Certainly he talks about the "‘albedo flip" involving ice and water, but what about the other variables, or has he concluded they don't matter?

Given the age of the earth what period of time should be used to establish statistically meaningful determination of the globe warming. We are fixated on yearly measurements and look at the trends in that past 100 or so years. You guys are saying we need to accept that without question?

No one is saying any such thing, And as usual you have taken a reasonable debate and exagerated the statements of your opponents to make them seem unreasonable. I believe those arguing against you here, are doing so only because YOU are putting forward a belief and expecting US to have no questions. Then when we do actually question what you say, it is for the most part ignored in favor of a rewording of the same argument without any consideration of the information we provide to counter your claims.
As for the time frame used to put Data in context, there are multiple studies using many different spans of time. Some go back tens of thousands of years, others only hundreds, but the strange thing is...they all show this to be the fastest and most dramatic increase in global atmospheric change ever seen. Just imagine the suprise when the comparison of CO2 with temperatures were showed to cooincide with each other almost perfectly (though some delay between increased CO2 and temp. is obviously there). Even more astounding was the exact same phenomenon taking place during previous bouts of warming....hmmmmm.
The thing is, now we are watching the change take place in decades....vs. hundreds of years or thousands. We are also watching the atmospheric CO2 change in lockstep with these temperatures, IN OUR LIFETIMES. In my humble opinion, there may very well be a pretty good case for the link virtually every scientist who studies the atmosphere agrees is there. Can you see why your opinion on this carries a bit less weight than theirs?

I specifically asked Raveneye for clarification. We had the following exchange:


If there are questions directed to me that I have not answered, please point them out and I will respond.
Are we sure about that. Some speculate that a sudden climate change lead to the extinction of dinosaurs, and that it happened in a relative short period of time.

Global average temperatures have increased over x period of time. Norther hemisphere average temperatures have decreased in x period of time. I have not seen a good explanation of that.

You might take a few minutes and explore this site:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7

Before you reply to this post.

I read the link. And then read this one concerning "myths". I found this interesting.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

I will let others interpret what that means also given the "Little Ice Age" discussed in the link you gave.

So...again a change of subject rather than answering the post I spent the energy to create. I see no point in beating this horse, as you will look at only those things you wish to see.

Oh, and I agree there are many possible problems with the models used, but they are not taken alone when consensus is built.

I am done here I think...Im getting dizzy as the endless circle tightens, but thanks for the fun.

This exchange is a nice example of typical debate behavior of global warming denialists (there are many examples). A global warming denialist is one who cannot be convinced that global warming is a fact, by any argument. The most common logical fallacy is the straw man, which is inevitable if one doesn’t bother to learn the science: if all you have is a distorted view of the scientific arguments, then all you can attack is that distorted view, and you have accomplished nothing. Some examples here: “9 year prediction of doom”, “error in the Mie function”, “no analysis of interacting variables”, “the new science says unequivocal means 90%” all of which are utter nonsense, hilarious to read for anybody actually familiar with the science.

The other major fallacy is the red herring, otherwise known as changing the subject, misdirection, or just wild goose chase. So, for example, we begin with a clever insinuation that one’s hated opponent made an embarrassing public gaffe, and therefore he needs to “come forward” and explain himself. When it is pointed out that he did no such thing, then we get the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to explain why he wrote an erroneous climate model. When this claim is refuted (he wrote no climate model, rather contributed a bit of trivial code), the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is he needs to come forward and explain why he endorsed the falsehood that was concluded from his trivial code. When it is explained that his publications show he never endorsed the falsehood, another switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to come forward and explain why the trivial code he contributed was in error. When it is pointed out that it was not in error, the switcheroo: the REAL ISSUE is that he needs to come forward and explain why his correct code was misused. When it is pointed out the code was not misused and had nothing to do with the falsehood, the switcheroo: he needs to come forward and explain his “9 year prediction of doom”, or some other nonsense, which brings us back to the previous fallacy, the straw man. And so the Christmas goose hops and hops around the barnyard, always just out of reach.

In reality the REAL ISSUE is that the denialist will not be convinced that global warming is a fact. That’s what he is really asserting, and of course that is true, there’s nothing that can be done to refute it. That’s because he is a global warming denialist.

Q.E.D.

I am only human. There is only so much time in the day. I read the link you provided and now you accuse me of changing the subject. I have not forgotten the other points in your post, but your assumption based on the fact that I did not immediately respond, is wrong.

No I am not. But as an expert on the issue of global warming and as a person who has been involved in the study of this issue for approximately 40 years, I expect he has given thought to all of these issues.

I stated that I thought Hansen's involvement in the '71 report was more involved than you do. I never stated I had any other information than what was reported. In the early 70's I found nothing stating what Hansen's position was on global climate change. However, I did ask several questions that i think he could answer easily to put the issue to rest.

Regardless, my key point is that the science and models evolve and improve over time. I would think our climate models today are better than they were 40 years ago, and that 40 years from now they will even be better. I think when people suggest the question has been settled, that is a pretty "dark ages" kind of response. We know what we think we know today, tomorrow - we may know better or what we know today may prove true. I am open to both possibilities. My mind is not closed on the subject.

Again, we are communicating on different planes. I pretty much don't care about the '71 report of a pending Ice Age. The report was wrong. I am interested in how we come to conclusions that current models are not wrong.

What assumption are you talking about? My focus has been on my questions.

Did you read this quote?:

The first question is the globe is warming relative to what? Then we find, based on the link given from Tecoyah it seem that the source believes it may not be so much about current average temperatures as opposed to the more recent acceleration in the temperatures. Grant the difference between the above and what is commonly communicated may be subtle but there is a difference.


No matter my response it will be inadequate, and can be taken out of context. But, I will ask you a question, since you suggest I am a "global warming denialist". What is my stated opinion on "global warming"? If you can find a quote where you have been able to determine my position on "global warming", please share it with me. If you can't, what does that say about your "straw man?"

Well, let’s see if we can dissect this argument. You’re saying that since you’ve always been coy about your position on “global warming”, that my conclusion that you’re a denialist is false. I hate to say it, but that particular claim is also a logical fallacy, known as the “non-sequitur” It’s a non-sequitur because your coyness has absolutely no logical relevance to my argument, which is based entirely on your behavior in this thread.

Secondly, you claim that if my conclusion that you are a denialist is false, then my conclusion must be a “straw man”. Hate to say it again, but that’s also a non-sequitur. That’s because my claim would be a strawman only if (1) it is false; and (2) I used it incorrectly in an argument, as for example to argue that you’re, say, closed-minded or anti-science. Since I haven’t used it in any argument (yet), it’s nothing but a conclusion for now.

So I guess we can add two non-sequiturs to the list of logical fallacies you’ve cogently displayed on this thread.

I think anybody can be forgiven for mistaking the context of any particular post of yours, since it’s been wiggling all over the landscape like a shimmy worm at high tide.

But the general context seems pretty clear to me. It’s basically “Hansen is wrong – I just haven’t figured out why yet”.

I’d say that applies to at least 90% of your posts here, which, hey, makes it “unequivocal in our new science". Have I gotten it about right?

From my very first post on the subject of global warming and its cause, I have been undecided and stated that I was beginning the process of looking into the issue in greater detail. Given my initial ignorance I have been using this forum as a sound board and to find direction on information and sources I was not aware of. Simply the very act of asking questions on this subject I was immediately confronted with venomous attacks on my intelligence, character, and motives from those who believe the "question is settled".

It doesn't matter what your conclusion is regarding my position on the subject, because the point is that the tone of your comments suggests a serious discussion is not possible.

Another first, I have never been accused of being coy. Of course my question was a non sequitur. If you read what I wrote, it was clearly obvious that I was changing the subject. I came to the conclusion, which I also stated, that no matter what my response to the premise in your previous post, it would be pointless. You have pointed out the obvious.

Your argument was based on a misrepresentation of my position - that makes it a straw-man argument.

If proven wrong will you revisit this statement or pretend that you never made it?



Seems to contradict your above comments. Why should forgiveness be at issue for mistaken context of clear and consistent fallacious arguments?

One thing I am confused about is when you, in this case, refer to my arguments and posts without being specific. I am the first to admit that on this subject an argument that I make may be wrong or illogical. When you and others make these broad general accusations, it doesn't help me. What argument(s) are you talking about? Another was when I was accused of libel. I even asked fro specifics and got no response.

My question - Is Hanson wrong? It is true I have not figured it out. Have you?

There are some things we know, and there are some things we suspect to be true with varying degrees of certainty. I have thought that to be true most of my life. It that is not true, then it is "new science" based on what I know.

And of course this, if anything, is evidence supporting my comments. You make my point for me. Thank you.

In my experience, most global warming denialists are “undecided”. Instead of accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus, they prefer to be “undecided”. Many of them are also “undecided” about the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer, and many of them are also “undecided” about whether evolution occurs. Most of them, like you, have little interest in the science. So you’re in very good company. :)

And despite getting links to the best science on the subject, you preferred to get your information from hacks like John McCaslin and Michael Asher. If you’re not learning anything, I’m afraid you need only look in the mirror to find the reason.

That ought to tell you something. Have you considered that your actions themselves might be to blame for that response? If you can’t stand the heat, then perhaps you should find a more air-conditioned locale to enjoy the literary merits of the editorials in Investor’s Business Daily.

If you ever decide to accept the scientific consensus on global warming, PM me, and I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong, and congratulate you on coming to your senses.

My prediction: it’ll never happen.

Sure I have. He was right that the world wasn’t entering an ice age in the 70s. He was right that the years 1998 and 1934 were a statistical tie in the U.S. He was and is right that to prevent dangerous warming in the future we need to act soon (i.e. in the next 10 years or so). And in every case you were wrong about what you breathlessly claimed he said:

Your statement that Hansen claimed that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the U.S. – wrong. Your statement that he believed that the world was heading into an ice age in 1971 – wrong. Your statement that he thinks the world will experience a cataclysm 9 years from now – wrong.

For someone who is only asking innocent questions about Hansen, you seem to be making a lot of false and incriminating accusations about him. I wonder why?

It appears the consencus that humans are responsible has had some serious doubters in the scientific community based on a peer review of scientific studies.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...A-B35D0842FED8

Reading the full article was interesting.

No one has ever claimed that the consensus was unanimous....just overwhelming among climate scientists....and this recent "study" and its biased interpretation by Marc Morano does nothing to change that.

Marc Morano, formerly of the right wing Media Research Center (and Cybercast News Service), and currently the stooge for Sen Inhofe on the Sen Environment and Public Works Committee?

More on the first study in Morano's article:
Its only interesting if you take guys like Morano and Inhofe seriously as having any objectivity on global warming rather than promoting an industry (ie Exxon et al) agenda.

I will try to find the link where credible climate scientists demonstrated how dubious some of the studies cited by Morano are.

The response to those who question humans being the cause of global warming are consistently met with an ad hominem argument. If nothing else you guys are consistent.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...A-B35D0842FED8

Actually, the more common response to the skeptics are well-reasoned articles (like the ones I posted above that you conveniently ignored) that clearly demonstrate the flaws in the skeptics studies and/or how the studies cited by skeptics are often misrepresented (again, as in the case of the first study in Morano's blog).

And then you always have Inhofe comparing people who believe in global warming to the Third Reich and the "big lie" or comparing An Inconvenient Truth to Mein Kampf...or holding hearings where his "expert" witness is a novelist and the "science" in his fictional diatribe.

There can be a difference between what I ignore and what I don't write a response to.

Again this comment further illustrates my point - your response here is directed to me rather than the point in question. The comment serves no value. If you want to know if I have an opinion on something that I have not responded to, why not ask? Perhaps we know why. A common strategy in political debate is to not "ask" in an attempt to discredit an individual. I think this technique is underhanded when employed knowingly. I think you are pretty savvy and know exactly how you want to frame your arguments.

Again my comment is regarding your response and not your point.

The positions of those who state that humans are responsible for current global warming often state their positions are misrepresented when those positions are questioned or challenged. This technique is used in such a way that no single point can be discussed in detail because any point discussed out of the context of the "whole" will always be a "misrepresented" point.

We also have people who believe Elvis is still alive. Certainly that is not relevant nor are people who make other outlandish claims. But again, lumping together serious and thoughtful people with those who are not is another technique used to manipulate the debate rather than truly debate the merits of a point.

I have concluded that that Gore, Hansen and many others are so emotionally involved with their premise about global warming that real debate with these people is not possible.