True, but those cycles occurred over periods of thousands of years, and are measured in geological time. What we're seeing today is a rapid change in average global temperatures and climates, unprecedented and nonstandard compared to what geological records show, which suggests that something is causing the aritifical accelerating in change.

Rational -

First, the sad news is, I don't wear shorts ever so no danger of that. :)

But I'm in Jeff's camp that the change is moving at a break-neck pace compared to the climatological data back over the last 100 million years.

You are correct about cyclic climate change. It has happened plenty of times in the past, both warm and cold.

Wow! I think we are all 3 right. Amazing, but true and strange things sometimes happen for just no apparent reason. LOL

Rational: So a few million years ago there was no ice and sea levels were 200 ft higher than today. Memphis would have ocean front in that case. So by blithly blowing off warming as "it happened before" what do you suppose life will be like when the oceans rise even 4 ft - which is likely in the next 100 years ?The damage will be enormous. KNowing it's caused by way too many people on earth, and they all want to burn fuel - lots of it, has got to be worrisome for folks who can see what's coming. IF you like burgers or BBQ you're gonna be hurting. Those animals don't live too well under water. Blowing off warming as it happened before is not gonna make you feel better when the ice melts

Rational Poster - maybe yes, maybe no. How is it that you (and others) are so absolutely certain that this is just another natural cycle? Are you certain you will live a long and normal life? Or do you have life insurance? Why can't you agree that maybe, just maybe, this isn't a "normal" warming cycle, and that maybe, just maybe, the human population of the world should be just a little worried and start taking out some insurance in the form of actions to reduce our impact on the planet? Hmmm?

I don't think it is rational to ignore the mechanism by which greenhouse gases trap energy. It is not rational to ignore that our activites are increasing greenhouse gases. It is not rational to say "if event A happened in the past, the only possible cause of event A is the same thing that caused it before." I don't even think that is logical.

The only logical conclusions to be drawn here are:

1. the predictions of science over the last 30 years about the impacts of more greenhouse gases, while evolving, are fundamentally correct. We are increasing the trapped thermal energy and bad things are happening.

2. the false rationalizations of deniers are wearing thin. A full 67% of America is now aware and agrees with climatologists on the basics of climate change. I would hope that the same 67% recognize that many in the denier movement are manipulators of public opinion, or the manipulated. Lincoln said that you can fool some people all of the time; I think the denier community fits Lincoln's description, but the majority also fits Lincoln's conclusion. Eventually the people figure things out correctly. Eventually science and truth wins.

"The earth has experienced climate cycles throughout history"

We know that; we also know it doesn't prove anything.

.

Enough with the "climate change" is the cause of everything!! Tsunamis-climate change. Volcano eruption-climate change. Snow-climate change. NO SNOW-climate change. Crime is up-climate change. A particular animal in decline-climate change. TOO MANY ANIMALS-climate change. People living longer-climate change. Increase in male births-climate change. Human feet getting smaller-climate change. I am just getting tired of EVERYTHING being blamed on climate change. My pickup truck running rough-climate change.

Why can't we say what it actually is and that is that our earth is always changing and when there is a tsunami, avalanche, or a "near miss" of a meteor it is not due to my pickup truck??

ScientistX: The predictions over the last 30 years? Really? Are you implying that "scientists" have been correct over the last 30 years? We have been told we have been going into two "ice ages" and two "warming trends" over the last 50 years and they have been wrong every time. Didn't "scientists" tell Al Gore in the early 2000's that our children would never see snow? But in 2010 we had an incredibly heavy snowfall that year?

If you want to use the success of scientist prediction over the last 30 years as your gauge then you have already lost the argument. They can't even tell me what the weather is going to be tomorrow and YOU are under the belief they can actually tell us what is going to happen 50 years from now?

And your argument that "67% believe in climate change" is a misleading statement. Yes, about 67% believe there is climate change but those that believe in "human caused climate change!!" is significantly lower. Evenly split between those that do and those that don't with a portion in-between.

Similar in the scientific world. Most scientists believe there is "climate change". Well..........DUH!! The earth is CONSTANTLY changing. But that doesn't mean that same number believe it is "human caused". Besides, scientists get their money by doing "studies". So if the government asks scientists if they will do a study to see if climate change is human caused and, if it is, we will give you ANOTHER grant of $10 million to find a solution what do YOU think they will do? Of COURSE some will claim "human caused" otherwise they will be bagging groceries at the nearest grocery store.

In other words there has YET to be a study completed that shows that climate change is occurring on a grand scale and, second, that is is human caused.

ProBusiness: "In other words there has YET to be a study completed that shows that climate change is occurring on a grand scale and, second, that is is human caused."

Actually there are many studies showing exactly that. You are not very famliar with the scientific literature, are you?

The vast majority of climate scientists are quite confident that we are contributing significantly to climate change. Sorry, but you are going to have to accept that eventually, so you might as well start preparing yourself.

ProBusiness, you know nothing about science. Scientists did not predict a coming ice age in that late '70s publication in Scientific American, which I read when it was published. The study found that the mean interglacial period over the past 4 "ice ages" was 11,500 years plus or minus 1500 years, and that we are now within that period. It was the popular press, who are driven by business and not science, who turned that into a prediction of a coming ice age. Nor is Al Gore a scientist. Most scientists do believe that human caused GHG emissions are contributing to climate change by trapping more heat in the atmosphere than would have occured under natural conditions.

Your rant is straight out of the Limbaugh/Beck/Palin mindset, 3 people who fail an elementary science exam from high school.

Why do we have to keep rehashing this debate? Isn't it a good idea to ween ourselves off of fossil fules and reduce our carbon footprint despite what might or might not be causing climate change?

This seems like a no-brainer to me.

The infamous Christopher Monckton is a climate "skeptic" (and based on endless attempts to character-assassinate him, you'd think he was every Global Warmist's worst enemy). He's written a letter recently that encapsulates so many aspects of this argument, that you don't have to lean one way or another on the issue to recognize that he does make some interesting points regarding the oft-cited "consensus" and what a threat it really is to the objectivity of the scientific process. He writes:

"I am grateful to the editors of Eos for this right of reply to Corbin and Katz (Effective Strategies to Counter Campus Presentations on Climate Denial, Eos, 2012 July 3), an unjustifiable 1200-word personal attack on Dr. Giaever and me by way of a mélange or smørgasbord of the shop-worn logical fallacies of argument ad populum, ad verecundiam, and, above all, ad hominem.

"The authors, arguing solely from consensus (ad pop.) among scientific experts (ad vcd.), say without evidence that speakers like us “intend to muddy the waters with respect to climate science” (ad hom.); they serially cite politicized websites and tendentious non-peer-reviewed presentations by non-climate-scientists against us as though they were authoritative (ad vcd.), while omitting to cite published rebuttals (e.g. Monckton of Brenchley, 2010) to these dubious sources (ad hom.); they accuse us of misrepresentation, distortion, and flawed analysis without adducing a single instance (ad hom.); they advance not a single scientific or economic argument; and they four times brand us as “climate change deniers” (ad hom.) – a hate-speech comparison with Holocaust denial. These allegations are serious and require a reply.

"The authors also say we attempt to discredit their research when, as philosophers of science from al-Haytham via Huxley to Popper (1934) make clear, error-elimination by questioning of hypotheses is essential to the scientific method. They describe “strategies” to counter us – including “public displays” and “social media” – which surely belong more in the realm of political propaganda than of scientific discourse.

"Our argument against the Party line they so uncritically espouse is that catastrophic manmade global warming has not been occurring at anything like the predicted rate; that there is no sound scientific reason to expect that it will; and that, even if it did, future adaptation would be at least an order of magnitude more cost-effective than heavy spending on attempted mitigation today.

"Predictions of doom have failed. Envisat data show sea level rising in the eight years 2004-2012 at a rate equivalent to 3 cm/century. Growth in Antarctic sea-ice extent almost matches the decline in the Arctic over the past 30 years. Greenland’s land-based ice grew by a net 0.5 m in thickness from 1993-2008. Antarctica has cooled for 30 years, and has gained land ice. Northern-hemisphere snow cover reached a 30-year maximum in 2010/11. Tropical-cyclone activity worldwide was at a 30-year low over the past two years.

"Above all, in the generation since 1990, the observed warming rate has turned out below the least estimate projected by the IPCC in that year. The models agreed with one another, but events have proven the consensus wrong. Despite rapidly-increasing CO2 concentration, there has been no statistically-significant warming for a decade and a half. The post-1950 warming rate, as the least-squares trend on the Hadley/CRU surface temperature series (HadCRUt3, 2011), is just 1.2 K/century. Yet IPCC (2007, table SPM.3, taken with fig. 10.26) implicitly predicts as the mean of all six emissions scenarios that Man’s influence, including an increase in CO2 concentration from 368 ppmv in 2000 to 713 ppmv by 2100, will cause 2.8 K warming by 2100 – 0.6 K previously committed, 1.5 K from CO2 emitted in this century, and 0.7 K from other greenhouse gases. This predicted (though unalarming) more-than-doubling of the post-1950 warming rate depends upon at least three implausible assumptions: that other gases augment CO2’s contribution to warming by as much as 43%; that as much as half of the warming caused by our past sins of emission has not yet come through the pipeline; and, above all, that unmeasured and unmeasurable temperature feedbacks will near-triple the small direct warming from greenhouse gases: thus, two-thirds of predicted consensus warming is guesswork.

"The first assumption lacks credibility now that methane, the most significant non-CO2 greenhouse gas we emit, has stabilized: its concentration grew by only 20 parts by billion over the past decade. The second and third assumptions imply a volatility in surface temperatures that is belied by the paleoclimate record, which – allowing for great uncertainties –indicates that absolute temperature has not fluctuated by more than 3% or 8 K either side of the mean in the past 64 million years (Scotese, 1999; Zachos et al., 2001). That is enough to cause an ice age at one era and a hothouse Earth at another: but it is far too small to permit the closed-loop feedback gains of as much as 0.64[0.42, 0.74] that are implicit in the projected warming of 3.26[2, 4.5] K per CO2 doubling (IPCC, 2007, p. 798, box 10.2). In process engineering, where the mathematics of feedbacks adopted by climate science has its origins (see Bode, 1945; Roe, 2009), electronic circuits intended to be stable are designed to permit closed-loop gains of no more than 0.1. Given the Earth’s formidable temperature stability, the IPCC’s implicit interval of loop gains is far too close to the singularity in the feedback-amplification equation to be credible. For across that singularity, at a loop gain of 1, strongly net-positive feedback becomes as strongly net-negative: yet the inferred paleo-temperature record shows no such pattern of violent oscillation. Empirical evidence (e.g. Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010, 2011), though hotly contested (e.g. Trenberth et al., 2010; Dessler et al., 2010, 2011), indeed suggests what process-engineering theory would lead us to expect: that feedbacks in the temperature-stable climate system, like those in a well-designed circuit, are at most barely net-positive and are more likely to be somewhat net-negative, consistent with a harmless continuance of the observed warming rate of the past 60 years but inconsistent with the substantially greater (though not necessarily harmful) warming rate predicted by the IPCC.

"Even if we assume ad argumentum (and per impossibile) that our unmitigated emissions will greatly accelerate the observed warming rate, the very high cost of measures intended to mitigate CO2 emissions exceeds the likely cost of climate-related damage arising from our failure to act now. To take a single topical and typical example, carbon trading in Australia will cost $10.1 bn/year, plus $1.6 bn/year for administration (Wong, 2010, p. 5), plus $1.2 bn/year for renewables and other costs, a total of $13 bn/year, rising at 5%/year, or $130 bn by 2020 at n.p.v., to abate 5% of current emissions, which represent 1.2% of world emissions (derived from Boden et al., 2010ab). Thus the Australian measure, if it succeeded as fully as its promoters intend, would abate no more than 0.06% of global emissions over its 10-year term. CO₂ concentration would fall from a business-as-usual 410 to 409.988 ppmv by the end of the term. Forcing abated is 0.0002 W m^–2; warming consequently abated is 0.00006 K; mitigation cost-effectiveness, which is the cost of abating 1 K global warming by measures of equivalent cost-effectiveness, is $2,000 trillion/K. On the same basis, the cost of abating all projected warming over the ten-year life of the policy is $300 trillion, or $44,000/head, or 58% of global GDP over the period. The cost of mitigation by such measures would exceed the cost of climate-related damage consequent upon inaction by a factor of approximately 50.

"The very high costs of CO2 mitigation policies and the undetectable returns in warming abated imply that focused adaptation to any adverse consequences of such warming as may occur will be far more cost-effective than attempted mitigation today. CO2 mitigation strategies inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective: strategies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. The question arises whether CO2 mitigation should any longer be attempted at all.

"Readers of Eos may now decide for themselves to what extent the unsupported attack upon our reputations by Corbin and Katz was justifiable. True science is founded not upon invective and illogic but upon reason. Lose that: lose all."

RTypo - EXACTLY!!!!

Unfortunately, we seem to have an over-abundance of no-brainers.

Global warming deniers seem to have the misconception that scientists think the earth itself is in danger. Of course it's not. No matter how badly we pollute the earth, it will be back to normal in no time. The only question is, will we be here too? I don't understand this mentality that as long as the planet will recover, it's ok to destroy ourselves. It has taken 3.8 billion years for us to evolve from simple cells into intelligent beings that can contemplate our own existence, make music, theorize, love, and discover. Wouldn't it be a tragedy to throw all that away? I am concerned for the survival and advancement of the human race, not the planet.

ProBusiness, the attitude you and others have will make somebody very rich. Play the odds of what you believe is really happening. If you think the seas will not rise noticably, just buy all the beachfront you can afford. Then if you're right, you can sell it for a lot of money, and you will increase your wealth beyond your imagination. But, if you do that and lose, you'll be wiped out. Or you could simply keep doing what your doing and buy all the land you can get your hands on that is appreciably higher than the rise predicted by 98% of climatologists, and you will increase your wealth even more. If the oceans do rise 3-4 feet, it will make billions of acres in the good old USA a thing of the past. That will increase the value of land that won't be endangered by continueing ocean level rise exponentially. If I was wanting to get rich, I would go with the last option. Every bit of physical evidence points to it. Since this rise is greater, and faster than any previous period in the history of the Ice Ages, it's not natural. Every year, the burning of fossil fuels releases 50% of what nature produces, and the carbon dioxide we exhale is counted on the nature side. I don't know if your fat, or slim, but if you increase your food intake by 50%, while your retaining what you eat until you pass it in the normal manner through natural healthy means, you're weight will increase dramaticly. 50% is a dramatic number. It's real, not imagined. Mankind is the major cause of our rather rapid, (by geologic measurement of time), climate warming. That is a fact. But, I don't expect you to accept that fact. Truth be told, you and I will hopefully be dead before the worst results occur. On the other hand, there are those silly people who claim methane is coming out of the seas, and the permafrost at a continually rapidly rising level. If they're right, we'll both see the results, unless we pass on in the near future.

The constant dumping of 90 million tons of heat-trappingemissions into the Earth's thin shell of atmosphere every 24 hours twentypercent of the global warming pollution we spew into the sky each day will still be there 20,000 years from now!

The Polluters and Ideologues are trampling all over the "rules" of democratic discourse. They are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made "legal" and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anticlimate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. The tobacco industry hired actors, dressed them up as doctors, and paid them to look into television cameras and tell people that the linkage revealed in the Surgeon General's Report was not real at all. The Sham went on for decades, with more Americans killed each year by tobacco than U.S. soldiers killed in all of World War II. This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged "unequivocal.

" ART OF THE SCRIPT FOR THIS SHOW WAS LEAKED to The New York Times as early as 1991. In an internal document, a consortium of the largest global warming polluters spelled out their principal strategy: "Reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact." Ever since, they have been sowing doubt even more effectively than the tobacco companies before them To sell their false narrative, the Polluters and Ideologues have found it essential to undermine the public's respect for Science and Reason. by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists. That is why the scientists are regularly accused of falsifying evidence and exaggerating its implications in a greedy effort to win more research grants. Such slanderous insults are deeply ironic: extremist ideologues - many financed or employed by carbon polluters - accusing scientists of being greedy extremist ideologues.

Did any of you pro-warming clowns even read-- or more likely understand-- the post above by Rob-523523? The so-called "consensus" is manufactured, their evidence is weak, their predictions haven't come true, & the majority of their arguments consist of arguments from authority, arguments from majority opinion, & personal attacks. Those aren't logic-- they're called "logical fallacies" for a reason.

Actually, graehame, you are the one who has been duped. The scientific arguments are strong, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. I don't say this to convince you, which I'm sure would be impossible, but just so I can be smug when you finally realize how wrong you were. ;-)

Science needs to relearn how to welcome skepticism once again. There is no such thing as consensus in science. There is no room for absolutism!

Is there anything that isn't the result of global warming, er, ah, climate change? The financial collapse of 08 was climate change? Everytime I read any article that relates to anything of the earth, animals, fuel, salmon, anything...there is always mention of climate change. Could this massive landslide have happened because say, there was gravity, would that still be climate change?

Too cold, climate change, too hot, climate change. No hurricans, climate change, too many hurricanes, climate change. I am reminded of how shamans and faith healers operate. If the patient gets well, they had a powerful faith, if the patient dies, well, their faith wasn't strong enough.

all I want to know is.. any chance the Palins were buried???

...maybe its just our time to go, Okeeboy.

so how did the ice age melt without man

so how did the ice age melt without man

There is a universe of difference between the mindset of Right Wing deniers and science.

Since the material is so dark, it may well absorb more heat from the sun and cause it to move faster towards the Bay.

Notfiveo "There is a universe of difference between the mindset of Right Wing deniers and science."

And there is a universe of difference between the Global Warming alarmists and science.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

By the way - the last significant increase in Global Warming (The Medieval Warm Period) of about 900 years ago, and lasting about 300 years, brought great advantages to mankind.

Either MSNBC is outsourcing thier writing of articles or this writer got so excited being able to blame warming for something he couldn't think straight:

"One possibility is that thawing permafrost, which is ground that stays frozen for two more our years, caused the slide."

I have lived near mountains and land slide happens. Mother earth stretches now and then and send some dirt flying. Don't get to happy about something you can say makes the old global warming something for Dems to spin on. The earth has periodically heated and cooled for a few billion years.

ROY WILSON-336103

Notfiveo "There is a universe of difference between the mindset of Right Wing deniers and science."

And there is a universe of difference between the Global Warming alarmists and science.

The truth lies somewhere in between.

By the way - the last significant increase in Global Warming (The Medieval Warm Period) of about 900 years ago, and lasting about 300 years, brought great advantages to mankind.

Yes Roy, we can see the benefits of global warming already. Thank you for obfuscating a very important finding from between 96 and 97 percent of the world's climatologists. How does your gut instinct which has conjured up " The truth lies somewhere in between' fit in in other areas of scientific inquiry? And in your "The truth lies somewhere in between", statistically, how does it compare with the 95% statistical confidence level already established in Global Warming theory?

We all miss the good old days Roy, when cracker barrel philosophy and Poor Richard's Almanac produced cutting edge wisdom in 18th century weather science. However I'm afraid that folks such as yourself would be laughed at today should you resound your curious ideology, which is absent of well- established data, to the ears actual accredited weather scientists.

Arieus

Coral Taxi Comment collapsed by the community

The term "Global Warming" is now pass'e, "climate change" is the term that is now used. More correct than "global warming".

My ice cream melts much faster than it used too. I believe this is from, glob, wait I mean climate change.lol

The big question that remains are we as humans responsible, it seems we are but not factually.

lol, the snow in my back yard melted faster than the snot in my front yard, and then one winter the wind blew the snow on to one side of my yard leaving the other side bare.

I don't believe in global warming as I did not believe in all the bs Y2K nonsense either.

Americans are too gullible and will eat up any bs they are fed by government, and government paid scientist.

The earth is going to do what it's going to do, and we just have to d=face the fact that we have no control of Mother Nature.

Get use to it, because Mother Nature is more powerful than mankind and womankind.

I realize it must have been a typo, but nonetheless: you had melting snot in your backyard????

Hey mygirl1, just curious but is biological evolution through natural selection a myth too?

mygirl1

I realize it must have been a typo, but nonetheless: you had melting snot in your backyard????

lol, yes it was a typo, and I meant Snow. Who knows, it could have been some of those ghosts from Ghostbusters slimming my back yard.

lol

Jock59801-- Your post shows no evidence of your having even read the post that I referenced, by Rob-523523, & does absolutely nothing to refute it. On the contrary, your "answer" consists entirely of unsupported assertions-- that I've been duped & the scientific arguments are strong. Where's your evidence to back up these claims?

My statements were conclusions reached on the basis of evidence provided in the referenced post. Specifically, "...in the generation since 1990, the observed warming rate has turned out below the least estimate projected by the IPCC in that year. The models agreed with one another, but events have proven the consensus wrong. Despite rapidly-increasing CO2 concentration, there has been no statistically-significant warming for a decade & a half."

Properly understood, Jock, this doesn't necessarily mean that global warming isn't happening. What it means is that your "scientific consensus" is agenda-driven, & not evidence-driven. What it means is that any observed warming may not be due to human agency, therefore it may take place at a far slower rate than predicted, & that mitigation may cost far more than adaptation.

Best regards,

Græhame.

graehame All I can say is your misinformation is criminal. In 1990 thee estimate was above actual? Ok, although I doubt what you say is tru. What does that have to do with anything?

You then say "events have proven the consensus wrong". WTF? Provide some evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Finally your whacked out theory then suggests that because of estimates higher than actual this is all an "agenda-drive" issue. Your nuts. AWG is not up for debate. The evidence and science community support this.

Greg-- Once again, a poster who can't be bothered to read the basic document. The post that I referenced was originally written by Rob-523523, & can be found above this one. Run a search.

On second thought, not only can you not be bothered to read the original document, but you can't even be bothered to accurately understand the one you're responding to. The poster didn't say & I didn't quote him saying, "In 1990 the estimate was above..." anything. The statement was, "...in the generation since 1990, the observed warming rate has turned out below the least estimate..." In other words, in every single year since 1990 the observed rate has been below the rate predicted by the IPCC.

If this is true, Greg, then it is the evidence that proves the consensus wrong. There isn't space or facilities here for me to draw you a picture.

Finally, my "whacked-out" theory is not that global warming isn't happening, but rather that it's a perfectly normal evolution of the Earth's climate, & is not therefore within Man's power to change.

-- Graehame.

Graehame,

You can see for yourself how accurate climate model predictions have been - for temperature, sea level rise, and Arctic ice extent:

How Reliable Are Climate Models?

It's safe to say that the IPCC has been rather conservative, but's it's incorrect to say that they've been wrong.

(Sigh) Since I've been unsuccessful at getting anyone to actually read (much less respond to) the original post by Rob-523523, I'm gonna re-post the whole thing.

The infamous Christopher Monckton is a climate "skeptic" (and based on endless attempts to character-assassinate him, you'd think he was every Global Warmist's worst enemy). He's written a letter recently that encapsulates so many aspects of this argument, that you don't have to lean one way or another on the issue to recognize that he does make some interesting points regarding the oft-cited "consensus" and what a threat it really is to the objectivity of the scientific process. He writes:

"I am grateful to the editors of Eos for this right of reply to Corbin and Katz (Effective Strategies to Counter Campus Presentations on Climate Denial, Eos, 2012 July 3), an unjustifiable 1200-word personal attack on Dr. Giaever and me by way of a mélange or smørgasbord of the shop-worn logical fallacies of argument ad populum, ad verecundiam, and, above all, ad hominem."

"The authors, arguing solely from consensus (ad pop.) among scientific experts (ad vcd.), say without evidence that speakers like us “intend to muddy the waters with respect to climate science” (ad hom.); they serially cite politicized websites and tendentious non-peer-reviewed presentations by non-climate-scientists against us as though they were authoritative (ad vcd.), while omitting to cite published rebuttals (e.g. Monckton of Brenchley, 2010) to these dubious sources (ad hom.); they accuse us of misrepresentation, distortion, and flawed analysis without adducing a single instance (ad hom.); they advance not a single scientific or economic argument; and they four times brand us as 'climate change deniers' (ad hom.) – a hate-speech comparison with Holocaust denial. These allegations are serious and require a reply."

"The authors also say we attempt to discredit their research when, as philosophers of science from al-Haytham via Huxley to Popper (1934) make clear, error-elimination by questioning of hypotheses is essential to the scientific method. They describe “strategies” to counter us – including 'public displays' and 'social media' – which surely belong more in the realm of political propaganda than of scientific discourse."

"Our argument against the Party line they so uncritically espouse is that catastrophic manmade global warming has not been occurring at anything like the predicted rate; that there is no sound scientific reason to expect that it will; and that, even if it did, future adaptation would be at least an order of magnitude more cost-effective than heavy spending on attempted mitigation today."

"Predictions of doom have failed. Envisat data show sea level rising in the eight years 2004-2012 at a rate equivalent to 3 cm/century. Growth in Antarctic sea-ice extent almost matches the decline in the Arctic over the past 30 years. Greenland’s land-based ice grew by a net 0.5 m in thickness from 1993-2008. Antarctica has cooled for 30 years, and has gained land ice. Northern-hemisphere snow cover reached a 30-year maximum in 2010/11. Tropical-cyclone activity worldwide was at a 30-year low over the past two years."

"Above all, in the generation since 1990, the observed warming rate has turned out below the least estimate projected by the IPCC in that year. The models agreed with one another, but events have proven the consensus wrong. Despite rapidly-increasing CO2 concentration, there has been no statistically-significant warming for a decade and a half. The post-1950 warming rate, as the least-squares trend on the Hadley/CRU surface temperature series (HadCRUt3, 2011), is just 1.2 K/century. Yet IPCC (2007, table SPM.3, taken with fig. 10.26) implicitly predicts as the mean of all six emissions scenarios that Man’s influence, including an increase in CO2 concentration from 368 ppmv in 2000 to 713 ppmv by 2100, will cause 2.8 K warming by 2100 – 0.6 K previously committed, 1.5 K from CO2 emitted in this century, and 0.7 K from other greenhouse gases. This predicted (though unalarming) more-than-doubling of the post-1950 warming rate depends upon at least three implausible assumptions: that other gases augment CO2’s contribution to warming by as much as 43%; that as much as half of the warming caused by our past sins of emission has not yet come through the pipeline; and, above all, that unmeasured and unmeasurable temperature feedbacks will near-triple the small direct warming from greenhouse gases: thus, two-thirds of predicted consensus warming is guesswork."

"The first assumption lacks credibility now that methane, the most significant non-CO2 greenhouse gas we emit, has stabilized: its concentration grew by only 20 parts by billion over the past decade. The second and third assumptions imply a volatility in surface temperatures that is belied by the paleoclimate record, which – allowing for great uncertainties –indicates that absolute temperature has not fluctuated by more than 3% or 8 K either side of the mean in the past 64 million years (Scotese, 1999; Zachos et al., 2001). That is enough to cause an ice age at one era and a hothouse Earth at another: but it is far too small to permit the closed-loop feedback gains of as much as 0.64[0.42, 0.74] that are implicit in the projected warming of 3.26[2, 4.5] K per CO2 doubling (IPCC, 2007, p. 798, box 10.2). In process engineering, where the mathematics of feedbacks adopted by climate science has its origins (see Bode, 1945; Roe, 2009), electronic circuits intended to be stable are designed to permit closed-loop gains of no more than 0.1. Given the Earth’s formidable temperature stability, the IPCC’s implicit interval of loop gains is far too close to the singularity in the feedback-amplification equation to be credible. For across that singularity, at a loop gain of 1, strongly net-positive feedback becomes as strongly net-negative: yet the inferred paleo-temperature record shows no such pattern of violent oscillation. Empirical evidence (e.g. Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010, 2011), though hotly contested (e.g. Trenberth et al., 2010; Dessler et al., 2010, 2011), indeed suggests what process-engineering theory would lead us to expect: that feedbacks in the temperature-stable climate system, like those in a well-designed circuit, are at most barely net-positive and are more likely to be somewhat net-negative, consistent with a harmless continuance of the observed warming rate of the past 60 years but inconsistent with the substantially greater (though not necessarily harmful) warming rate predicted by the IPCC."

"Even if we assume ad argumentum (and per impossibile) that our unmitigated emissions will greatly accelerate the observed warming rate, the very high cost of measures intended to mitigate CO2 emissions exceeds the likely cost of climate-related damage arising from our failure to act now. To take a single topical and typical example, carbon trading in Australia will cost $10.1 bn/year, plus $1.6 bn/year for administration (Wong, 2010, p. 5), plus $1.2 bn/year for renewables and other costs, a total of $13 bn/year, rising at 5%/year, or $130 bn by 2020 at n.p.v., to abate 5% of current emissions, which represent 1.2% of world emissions (derived from Boden et al., 2010ab). Thus the Australian measure, if it succeeded as fully as its promoters intend, would abate no more than 0.06% of global emissions over its 10-year term. CO₂ concentration would fall from a business-as-usual 410 to 409.988 ppmv by the end of the term. Forcing abated is 0.0002 W m^–2; warming consequently abated is 0.00006 K; mitigation cost-effectiveness, which is the cost of abating 1 K global warming by measures of equivalent cost-effectiveness, is $2,000 trillion/K. On the same basis, the cost of abating all projected warming over the ten-year life of the policy is $300 trillion, or $44,000/head, or 58% of global GDP over the period. The cost of mitigation by such measures would exceed the cost of climate-related damage consequent upon inaction by a factor of approximately 50."

"The very high costs of CO2 mitigation policies and the undetectable returns in warming abated imply that focused adaptation to any adverse consequences of such warming as may occur will be far more cost-effective than attempted mitigation today. CO2 mitigation strategies inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective: strategies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. The question arises whether CO2 mitigation should any longer be attempted at all."

"Readers of Eos may now decide for themselves to what extent the unsupported attack upon our reputations by Corbin and Katz was justifiable. True science is founded not upon invective and illogic but upon reason. Lose that: lose all."

Monckton makes many claims, Graehame - and they're almost always wrong and/or incredibly misleading. Let's look at just a few from that letter:

Envisat data show sea level rising in the eight years 2004-2012 at a rate equivalent to 3 cm/century.

First, Envisat shows a sea rise of 30 cm/century (3 mm/year) - not 3 cm/century. So there's that. But Envisat has known data problems associated with drift. The average sea level rise measured by all other satellites is 3.18 mm/year - and has actually been increasing. From NASA:

Between 1870 and 2000, the sea level increased by 1.7 millimeters per year on average, for a total sea level rise of 221 millimeters (0.7 feet or 8.7 inches). And the rate of sea level rise is accelerating.

Since 1993, NASA satellites have shown that sea levels are rising more quickly, about 3 millimeters per year, for a total sea level rise of 48 millimeters (0.16 feet or 1.89 inches) between 1993 and 2009.

Great graph at that link.

Growth in Antarctic sea-ice extent almost matches the decline in the Arctic over the past 30 years.

Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain.

Greenland’s land-based ice grew by a net 0.5 m in thickness from 1993-2008.

Greenland is losing land-based ice, not gaining it. From ScienceDaily: Greenland's Loss of Ice Mass During the Last 10 Years Is Unusually High Compared to Last 50 Years

Antarctica has cooled for 30 years, and has gained land ice.

Antarctica is losing 100-300 million tons of land ice per year (Chen et al. 2006, Wingham et al. 2006, Rignot et al. 2008b, Cazenave et al. 2009, and Velicogna 2009).

And Antarctica's cooling trend is due to ozone depletion. So it's more than a bit misleading to claim that this is 'proof' of an AGW scam.

Northern-hemisphere snow cover reached a 30-year maximum in 2010/11.

Cherry-picking data. Northern Hemisphere snow cover has been falling off a cliff since 1980.

Tropical-cyclone activity worldwide was at a 30-year low over the past two years.

One of my favorites. Climate scientists never claimed that AGW would create more cyclones/hurricanes. A warming climate increases high-level atmospheric shear, which actually inhibits cyclone/hurricane formation.

What climate scientists did claim is that any cyclones/hurricanes that formed were likely to be stronger, because warmer oceans would supply them with more energy. And that's exactly what we see:

Strong Hurricanes Getting Stronger; Warming Is Blamed

I didn't cherry-pick the statements I wanted to refute in that analysis - I just picked the first paragraph of 'facts' from Monckton's letter. Now that you see how wrong/misleading Monckton is, why would you believe him on anything else?

my "whacked-out" theory is not that global warming isn't happening, but rather that it's a perfectly normal evolution of the Earth's climate, & is not therefore within Man's power to change.

I don't need to read through your mindless cut and paste of others comments. This on says it all.

An evolution of earth climate? LMAO. No its not and there is plently of evidence that what I'm says is correct.

Physicist Retired,

You seem to have missed the broader point, which is questioning the "consensus" and if indeed there is a warming trend, wouldn't it be more practical for mankind to adapt to it, rather than attempt to mitigate it.

It would be just as easy to point out that you're cherry-picking data (or you're citing "support" that relies on cherry-picked data). Being selective in your timeline start and end points is a typical cherry-picking tactic. Also, you can cherry-pick your source data (e.g. tree ring analysis). Regardless, there's plenty of evidence that suggests that Global Warming is not as severe as the alarmists have made out.

Regardless, few skeptics question whether or not there's a warming trend, but they do question just how much of it is attributable to human impacts, and without a clear understanding of those impacts, we could very well bankrupt the human race attempting to stop something that is going to happen over time regardless.

And we should all recognize that bankrupting the human race will certainly do nothing positive for the environment, as it tends to be the world's wealthiest societies that can afford to care about it in the first place!

And we should all recognize that bankrupting the human race will certainly do nothing positive for the environment

Biggest fail. It would create jobs.

but they do question just how much of it is attributable to human impacts

Again that's not up for debate. AGW is real and it is the major contributor to GW.

we could very well bankrupt the human race attempting to stop something that is going to happen over time regardless

I think you might want to look into that a bit more. I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed study that says the costs of mitigating climate change will be higher than the costs of dealing with the consequences of climate change.

I could link things for you here, but it's probably best for you to do your own research on it. My scientific links don't seem to be very convincing so far.

As for 'science by consensus', no one who understands the scientific method could possibly believe such a thing. Research is published around the world, in literally thousands of journals. And when that research is flawed, other scientists are only too happy to point that out. That's the way it works - and the very fact that you're commenting on a computer is proof that the Scientific Method works.

We don't have 'science by consensus' regarding climate change. But, as in the case of Germ Theory, Evolution, DNA, Electricity and Magnetism, etc., we have a consensus of science. Dozens of branches of scientific discipline - from physics to chemistry to biology to geology to glaciology to oceanography to meteorology (and more) have looked at this for at least 5 decades now. And they all converge on the fact that AGW is real, it's us, it's unprecedented, and (if we don't get serious about fixing it now ), it's going to be very bad.

It's just that simple. Fix it, or we're screwed.

I absolutely guarantee that you'll agree in 10 years or less, Rob. This whole thing is going much faster than anyone thought possible.

Greg and Physicist,

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, though Greg, I'm compelled to address your comment:

"Biggest fail. It would create jobs."

Presuming you realize that money doesn't grow on trees, it's logical to assume that the increased costs of environmental mitigation will have to be funded via tax increases. How do people adjust to higher taxes? They cut back spending elsewhere. And where they cut back on spending, jobs will go away. You're effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul. So, you're lucky if it's jobs neutral. Also, I guarantee the costs will be passed thru in the form of higher prices for virtually all consumer products (just to name one example, think of how much energy cost is in the cost of food, e.g. cost of planting, harvesting, storage, wholesale transport, retail transport), which will be an indiscriminate "tax" on everyone - rich, middle-class or poor.

World mitigation cost estimates total in the $ trillions. You might ask, "But how can we afford not to?" Think of it in terms of opportunity cost. Those trillions might've been spent on finding a cure for cancer, solving world hunger, or (name a cause). Wouldn't you want to make sure that you have something to show for all those trillions you spent? Accordingly, wouldn't you want to be extra careful that spending those trillions would make a material difference?

Greg, to argue that this would create jobs is a bigger fallacy than saying that MMGW is absolute fact. An entry level economics course will teach you that money doesn't just appear from nowhere, even though our government just loves to print it and give it away. Rob makes excellent points. Those "jobs" have to be paid for somewhere, and with the world economy on the verge of collapse is now really the time to rock (more likely sink) the boat. Your views on remediation are just as skewed as your view of the problem. You may be a really good SimCity player, but fixing global problems like this takes more than "Let's try this!" as an approach. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

it's logical to assume that the increased costs of environmental mitigation will have to be funded via tax increases.

Yes it would be logical to assume that, but that not all there is to it. What about alternate energies? We are seeing a increase in job oppurtinuties in wind farm maintenance here in Texas. Your just looking at a portion of what needs to take place.

Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

It more like we fix this or we are really screwed.

Greg: "Yes it would be logical to assume that, but that not all there is to it. What about alternate energies? We are seeing a increase in job oppurtinuties in wind farm maintenance here in Texas. Your just looking at a portion of what needs to take place."

No argument here - the market is already chasing alternate energies without any government intervention, because it's economically logical to do so. The higher oil, coal & natural gas prices rise, the more viable alternatives become, and capitalists will invest in those opportunities. And because people are always more careful investing their own money, than when they invest other peoples' (i.e. taxpayers') money, you'll see fewer Solyndras, and more successful efforts, as a result.

rob, why does the right keep harping on solyndra? do you even know why solyndra actually failed? the reason was that they created a non-silicon solar cell that was essentially a bet that high-purity silicon would remain expensive, they were wrong, silicon dropped dramatically and they failed as a result of that single factor which prevented them from being competitive. a major reason is the simple fact that China is funding their solar industry to the tune of 30 billion a year, which will ensure they have control of the market without US government assistance. Germany actually acheived a couple of days recently where they were producing a full 50% of their electricity solely using solar power, disproving the ridiculous claims "that it can't be done". no it can't be done 100%, but a very large percentage can be run from renewables.

on the brighter side, US carbon emissions have actually dropped by 8% in the last six years, almost reaching Kyoto protocol agreement goals, without any regulation forcing the issue. the reason? extremely cheap natural gas. NG produces far less CO2 than coal, as well as far less SO2, NOx, zero mercury, and we don't have to figure out what to do with megatons of mildly toxic coal ash

Rational Poster must be a BP employee

Before man stated taking trillions of tons of coal out of the ground and trillions of barrels of oil, that coal and oil couldn't and wouldn't cause the temperature to rise even 1 degree, because it was stored far underground for millions of years.

Man has extracted and burned all that coal and oil in the last 80 years, more heavily weighted towards the last 40 years, which released heat and hydrocarbon gases from those trillions on tons of coal and oil. It seems unfathonable that you numbskull, right wingers cannot see that this would impact the climate.

On second thought, you all voted for George Bush twice, which proves you don't have the mental capacity to reason this out. I bet you are still looking for those WMD, the neocons told you about.

True, but those cycles occurred over periods of thousands of years, and are measured in geological time. What we're seeing today is a rapid change in average global temperatures and climates, unprecedented and nonstandard compared to what geological records show, which suggests that something is causing the aritifical accelerating in change.

This is the latest straw for deniers to hold onto. I'll just repost the rebuttal and hope it starts to sink in.

True, but those cycles occurred over periods of thousands of years, and are measured in geological time. What we're seeing today is a rapid change in average global temperatures and climates, unprecedented and nonstandard compared to what geological records show, which suggests that something is causing the aritifical accelerating in change.

For comparison, research the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum which is the most rapid change known and caused mass extinctions. It took 20,000 years compared about 100 or 200 years for the one we are currently getting started.

Global temperatures rose by about 6 °C (11 °F) over a period of approximately 20,000 years

The earth's climate has cycled endlessly since the beginning according to scientists

True - and you listened to those scientists and learned something. Now those same scientists are saying that human activity is driving rapid climate change. Are you still listening to the scientists?

We have had an increase in Sun activity this last month... another FACT

RalphH -

I was with ya all the way until you did this:

It seems unfathonable that you numbskull, right wingers cannot see that this would impact the climate.

On second thought, you all voted for George Bush twice, which proves you don't have the mental capacity to reason this out. I bet you are still looking for those WMD, the neocons told you about.

You sound like a guy that has a reasonable head on your shoulders, so drop the name calling and people will be way more interested in what you have to say.

Not trying to be your Nanny, just a suggestion.

We have had an increase in Sun activity this last month... another FACT

The link between climate and solar activity, which has existed as long as we've observed solar activity, was broken 32 years ago.

Another fact.

LOL...most of you aren't old enough to remember the "scientists" who were all clamoring about the impending ICE AGE back in the 60's.

Same scientists today claiming they were wrong and it's now going to get hot.

Look at Ice Age graphs. It always gets hot (warmer faster) just before the "tipping point" (hmmm...where have I heard that used before?) and we head into another period of extreme glaciation.

All of the "climate models" have proven themselves to be completely wrong. Why? Global temperature has fallen since 1998. (Go ahead say it ain't so)

CO2 has continued to climb. CO2 has gone up faster than the models predicted. Temps aren't anywhere near what the models say they should be at. In fact, the temps are BELOW what the models "predicted" had man gone ahead and DRASTICALLY REDUCED CO2 output.

Go ahead...start "your denial".

"The link between climate and solar activity, which has existed as long as we've observed solar activity, was broken 32 years ago."

LOL...I mean really...ROTFLMAO.

Did we "leave the Solar System?"

Damn sun spots, making it harder and harder to breath down here and melting all of our polar ice!

BS, I am going to confession, for I have sinned by owning and driving an SUV. I am the direct cause of t innocent dirt and rocks tumbling from on high, and I am seeking atonement.

Hakon,

Do you know what solar activity is? If not, you might want to Google it before making any more comments on the topic.

Ralph,

WHY do so many people try to turn this political??? I'm a conservative... I voted for Bush... but I still want to save the planet for my kids. I still believe in solar energy. I still believe in recycling. And yes, I still believe in global warming.

Dasvet - deniers, and especially conservative ones, are to be blamed quite seriously for the harm that they did. If we had simply listened to science in the 1980s and taken concerted action, we could have done a lot of good. Unfortunately, the conservative movement has caused real and lasting damage. We are right to remember that, and it will become more clear in the following decades. Nothing has done more long term harm to America than the short-term policies of the conservative movement. No single entity has had a worse impact on America than conservative media and the people who listen to it.

Hakon, I'll go ahead and say it ain't so. You are either a liar or a fool. When the ACA was the Heritage Foundations idea conservatives loved it. Mitt liked it so much he called it Romneycare , bragged about it and the conservatives loved it. Now that Obama gets the ACA passed it's the worst socialist idea ever. Mitt believed in global warming too, until he needed a large mass of idiots to vote for him, now he's a denier on this front too. Only an idiot cannot connect the dots here, and making $hit up doesn't help your denial.

@Eric...wow that was a great rebuttal.

Did you give us any basis for your rant? Ummm...no.

The models have all failed. Prove I'm wrong. The models said as CO2 increases so will temperature.

CO2 has increased...even more than was PREDICTED by the models.

Temperatures have dropped since 1998. Prove I'm wrong.

Least you want me to call YOU a liar.

Hakon - Oh sure, pick 1998... an unusually warm year due to the El Nino that year.

Here's a fact for you - the past twelve months have been the warmest in recorded history. Period.

"The models said as CO2 increases so will temperature."

No they didn't.

The models have all failed. Prove I'm wrong. The models said as CO2 increases so will temperature.

CO2 has increased...even more than was PREDICTED by the models.

Temperatures have dropped since 1998. Prove I'm wrong.

I think they chose to ignore your statements, which leads me to believe that they cannot prove you wrong.

Physicist-retired

Step up to the plate and answer Hakon's claim. A smug remark about his knowledge of solar activity falls terribly short

Crickets...

Temperatures have dropped since 1998.

According to NOAA, the global average temperature in both 2005 and 2010 exceeded 1998. Research published last year shows a steady rise in air temperature after adjusting for the ENSO (El Nino) cycle and small effects such as solar variability. NOAA/NODC data also shows a steady rise in ocean heat content, especially in the 0 to 2000 meter data (the deepest currently measured). Look it up.

I'm still waiting...

Cherry picking two years does not cut it scientifically speaking. Perhaps as propaganda, it works beautifully

I want to make an observation on the lack of observation. Satellites can see very small objects on the ground; smaller than a book. And because of the shrinking arctic ice, there are satellite pictures every day of the arctic oceans and land masses near them: the U.S., Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Finland, and Russia. I go to the sites, search under "arctic ice" and look at the scientific sites. So, I wonder, who wasn't really watching their satellite feeds? FIVE MILES of dark matter going unnoticed since June? (I shouldn't shout; I'll wake somebody, but this is ridiculous).

Over and over again, the article says that nobody was there. No animals? No birds? It would be the ONLY place on earth, including in Antarctica, that is so lonely in that case. What they mean is that "nothing important" has been killed, which I'm sure wasn't meant. And of course, a great big dead surface has been exposed so that not even wolverines could find a meal, and it would be vulnerable to further slides because it is dark, warming the ice under it: that sounds like Greenland's problem right now: ice is sliding on the water that has melted beneath the pack ice there. It might be a good idea to not be downstream of this glacier any time soon.

The models have all failed. Prove I'm wrong.

Accuracy of climate models - temperature, sea level rise, effects of volcanic eruptions, Arctic sea ice extent.

Clearly, you've been proven wrong now.

CO2 has increased...even more than was PREDICTED by the models.

Models don't predict the rise of CO2, they predict the effects of rising CO2. How can a climate model predict what politicians will/won't decide to do to address this? That's a fundamental misunderstanding of climate models, Hakon - and makes your ability to understand and comment on this topic suspect (at least).

Temperatures have dropped since 1998. Prove I'm wrong

You're wrong. 2005 was hotter than 1998. The second-hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010. The hottest ever was June 2011 - now.

A classic effort to appeal to The Escalator. Deniers claim this every 10 years or so - and they're wrong every single time. Every one.

Crickets...

Kornfed, you've never been able to make a point on this topic that I couldn't easily refute. Simply put, 100 years of science backs me up, while all you have to work with is cherry-picked data and misleading information. Where do you get that from, and why is it so easy to prove wrong?

Just food for thought.

Clearly, you've been proven wrong now.

explain..

How can a climate model predict what politicians will/won't decide to do to address this?

How can they predict what CO2 will actually contribute to warming when we dont even know all the factors involved in long term climate change?

You're wrong. 2005 was hotter than 1998. The second-hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010. The hottest ever was June 2011 - now

Are you cherry picking sir? Wasnt he talking trends, not individual years? Why dont you throw in some of the cooler years during that time period until now?

Kornfed, you've never been able to make a point on this topic that I couldn't easily refute

I thought I was just making one. Are you not allowed to be questioned sir? Hasnt science in the past welcomed dissenting views, for its theories to be tested and scrutinized?

Explain why Mars is warming please.

Korn-fed,

All the information is provided in those links. I can't make you look at them, but your unwillingness to do so explains why your posts are so inaccurate on this topic. You'll never learn about it if you don't read about it.

A good example:

Wasnt he talking trends, not individual years?

Click on the escalator link. The multi-year trends are very clear.

And there's no evidence that Mars is warming. Two pictures taken by NASA (1977 and 1999) show a change in albedo at the South Pole. That doesn't prove 'warming' by any stretch of the imagination. It 'proves' a dust storm.

Korn-fed,

A man of your inteligence does not need to decend to a condiscending level. Maybe it shows frustration on your part, who knows.

All the information is provided in those links. I can't make you look at them, but your unwillingness to do so explains why your posts are so inaccurate on this topic. You'll never learn about it if you don't read about it.

I did look at them. I asked you to explain them, put them into context for the average Joe. I am not a scientist.

And there's no evidence that Mars is warming. Two pictures taken by NASA (1977 and 1999) show a change in albedo at the South Pole. That doesn't prove 'warming' by any stretch of the imagination. It 'proves' a dust storm.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

using your own source,

Unfortunately, Fenton’s conclusions were undermined by the failure to
distinguish between climate (trends) and weather (single events). Taking two end
points – pictures from 1977 and 1999 – did not reveal any kind of trend, merely
the weather on two specific Martian days. Without the intervening data – which
was not available – it is impossible to say whether there was a trend
in albedo reduction, or what part the prodigious dust storms played in the
intervening period between the first and second photographs. Indeed, when you
look at all the available data – sparse though it is – there is no discernable
long term trend in albedo.

...there is no discernible long term trend in albedo. What we do know is that there is a change in the frozen carbon dioxide on the pole. Perhaps we could learn that jumping to a conclusion would be irresponsible, and that we could use that reasoning here on our own planet.

Click on the escalator link. The multi-year trends are very clear

Well, its clear if you just look at the perty little lines on the graph, but other than that, it is anything but clear hehe.

there is no discernible long term trend in albedo.

Yes. That's why I said this:

Two pictures taken by NASA (1977 and 1999) show a change in albedo at the South Pole.

A change is not a trend. We agree.

I asked you to explain them, put them into context for the average Joe.

They're graphs, Korn-fed. Do you really need someone to explain graphs to you?

Being a diligent physicist, what credible site do you use for discenting viewpoints on this subject? In other words, I am sure there are differing interpretations of data acquired by qualified climatologists, where do you go to view these dissenting arguments?

Being a diligent physicist, what credible site do you use for discenting viewpoints on this subject?

I go to Google Scholar. That's where the science is. I don't put much stock in opinions on matters that concern empirical data and analysis.

Scientists offer dissenting findings all the time. But those dissenting findings are also based on data and analysis, and they're accessible on Google Scholar.

I understand that most people can't rely on such a source - it takes many years to master these topics. But there are many, many sites to find objective science reporting. I'll list a few:

Arctic IO - sea ice data

PhysOrg - Space and Earth section

Wired Science

New Scientist

Science Daily

Scientific American

LiveScience

I check those sources every day, in addition to 'hard' science sites. I also frequent PhysicsForum, where many of the people doing this research are also discussing it.

I appreciate your response.

I have a question for you if you are still there Physicist. Do you believe that the landslide in this article is due to global warming? Sorry for the delay in the conversation, but I had to step out for an hour. If you are not there, perhaps someone else can chyme in.

Do you believe that the landslide in this article is due to global warming?

I prefer to use the word 'accept' versus 'believe', Korn-fed. It might sound like a minor point, but the difference between the two words really is substantial.

I accept the data that shows widespread permafrost melting. We have reams of evidence, from satellite data to photos of towns sliding into the Northwest Pacific that support that.

I accept that landslides are rapidly increasing, as the article stated. There's data for that, too.

I also accept the evidence that shows earthquakes are not increasing. Combined with the data re: landslides, that's interesting.

But did melting permafrost cause this particular slide? I have no idea. I suspect we'll never know.

I don't put much stock in opinions on matters that concern empirical data and analysis.

I did not ask you this. I asked about differing interpretations of data, not empirical data. Surely there are opposing interpretations of the same "scientifically accepted" data.

I prefer to use the word 'accept' versus 'believe', Korn-fed.

What ever helps feed that enormous ego of yours is fine by me.

I accept the data that shows widespread permafrost melting. We have reams of evidence, from satellite data to photos of towns sliding into the Northwest Pacific that support that.

Wasnt Alaska on the cooler side this year? Or am I mistaken.

But did melting permafrost cause this particular slide? I have no idea. I suspect we'll never know.

Why cant we know? Can we study the soil from which the slide occurred? Or are there just too many factors involved for us to know...much like that of how climate fluctuations are influenced.

I asked about differing interpretations of data

Not sure what you mean by this, Korn-fed. Scientists include their data analysis methods in their publications. If their analysis is flawed, that's usually caught in peer-review. If not, other scientists will publish their own research refuting it, or at least publish a 'letter' in the original journal. In any case, it's all available at Google Scholar, so that's where I go.

Wasnt Alaska on the cooler side this year?

It's well above freezing (even in Barrow) now.

Why cant we know?

I didn't say we 'can't' know, I said I thought we never would know. There's a difference. This is a very remote area, and I've no idea where the funding for such an investigation would come from.

But I'll take this opportunity to point out that twice now, you've misinterpreted what I said. I use words precisely. 'Change' is not the same as 'trend'. 'Won't' is not the same as 'can't'.

And 'accept' is not the same as 'believe'. The more precise one is in their words (as in their science), the more accurate they can be. So using the word 'accept' really doesn't have much to do with ego - it has to do with precision.

Not sure what you mean by this, Korn-fed

I will help you through it... What are we debating here,,,,man caused global warming. Surely data can be taken and attributed to different causes other than increased CO2. Does that help? Or are you playing silly games with me?

It's well above freezing (even in Barrow) now.

Yes,,,and what do you mean by this? Isnt that normal? Try to keep within the context of the conversation. Meaning, was there recent warm temperatures that compromised the permafrost beyond the norm that would cause one to blame "global warming"

But I'll take this opportunity to point out that twice now, you've misinterpreted what I said. I use words precisely. 'Change' is not the same as 'trend'. 'Won't' is not the same as 'can't'.

As you have of what I have said.

And 'accept' is not the same as 'believe'. The more precise one is in their words (as in their science), the more accurate they can be. So using the word 'accept' really doesn't have much to do with ego - it has to do with precision.

I will do my best so that you deem me worthy of conversation haha.

Original question:

I am sure there are differing interpretations of data acquired by qualified climatologists, where do you go to view these dissenting arguments?

Original answer: I use Google Scholar.

Yes,,,and what do you mean by this? Isnt that normal? ...Meaning, was there recent warm temperatures that compromised the permafrost beyond the norm that would cause one to blame "global warming"

Of course. Do you have 26 seconds? Notice how much faster the poles are warming, when compared to areas closer to the equator. That's a clear indication of climate change.

And if you really want to continue this, let's drop the 'haha' and 'hehe' stuff. It's a bit adolescent, wouldn't you agree?

Original answer...

I go to Google Scholar. That's where the science is. I don't put much stock in opinions on matters that concern empirical data and analysis.

Of course. Do you have 26 seconds? Notice how much faster the poles are warming, when compared to areas closer to the equator. That's a clear indication of climate change.

That is an indirect answer. I thought you like precise. You like to play games.

And if you really want to continue this, let's drop the 'haha' and 'hehe' stuff. It's a bit adolescent, wouldn't you agree?

and you drop the "Korn-fed" and silly word play? It is fine if you like precise word usage, but if you are pretending not to be able to figure out the words I use in context, I say hypocrite!

I apologize about getting your name wrong. I do have problems with names.

As for the rest, I think this conversation has ended.

As for the rest, I think this conversation has endedI apologize about getting your name wrong. I do have problems with names

Playing games again.

As for the rest, I think this conversation has ended

Agreed

Kornfed, everyone agrees that we don't know what caused this particular landslide. It is a reasonable hypothesis that melting permafrost is causing aan increased number of landslides, but obviously landslides occur for other reasons, as this article makes clear. Since we all agree on this, what is the problem?

Jmcdtucson-- Your information is in error. In 1993 two independent teams of researchers, one American & the other one Danish, pulled ice cores out of the Greenland ice cap. The initial analysis of these ice cores indicated that within the past 10,000 years the North Atlantic climate had warmed by 7 C. in as little as 50 years. More recent analysis has reduced this time period to as little as 5 snow layers-- that is, 5 years-- & not thousands, as indicated in your post. So your "rebuttal" is no rebuttal at all.

Full details with bibliographic references at www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm

Best regards,

Græhame.

Yes, graehame, we are learning more and more how the climate equilibrium can shift quite suddenly, which is all the more reason not to mess with it.

Jock-- I entirely agree that even if human activity is not the primary cause of global warming, continuing to add greenhouse gas emissions to an already unstable situation is unwise. However, the fact remains that the economies of the developing world are entirely dependent on those emmissions in the short term, so we're never gonna get China or India to agree to meaningful reductions anyway. Furthermore, the cost of meaningful reductions far exceed the ability of the world to pay for them-- especially in a time of year-after-year global recession. The economic chaos is currently expected to extend to 2020 or beyond, so that hand-wringing over greenhouse gas emissions becomes a matter of political posturing-- not meaningful problem-solving.

I'm an individualist. As such, I prefer to plan for my own personal survival based on my assessment of reality. My assessment of reality is that whether or not global warming exists, there is nothing that I personally can do either to solve it or to cause others to solve it. I therefore need to position myself & my family geographically & in terms of skills & tools where we can survive, regardless of the outcome. Liberal vs conservative policy debates are quite beside the point.

-- Graehame.

Given the current sea surface temp anomaly in the North Atlantic, I doubt it, but the point is well taken.

Permafrost degration is the indicator. Landslides result from that.

That's reasonable.

No need to be sarcastic.

I see where you're going, but let me ask you this - and please answer honestly.

Is there anything, any sort of evidence, any amount of data that would convince you that climate change - human-caused climate change - is happening?

If there is, what might it be? No glaciers left on the planet? Jesus and Allah holding a press conference to confirm it? Temps over 150 F for 500 consecutive days, maybe?

If not, stop talking. You have no interest in facts or the truth. You simply want to bury your head in the sand (where you'll undoubtedly want to drill for oil), stay ignorant, and pretend you actually have a clue.

You have the IQ of a Christian Republican. No offense intended.

I guess cause, effect, context and correlation weren't taught in the junior high science classes you skated through. Just say whatever makes you feel good in the moment. Dumb it all down and spin it to your liking.

The more you evidence you show to a science-denier, the less they care. They just fortify their positions, like smokers who say "lots of things can kill ya, why worry about anything?" America is full of that mentality.

You didn't actually read the article, did you?

I did read the article and guess what? NOBODY was there. Once again, the libby, AL Gore wannabe spin doctored media is guessing. It is any ones guess. A Mountain goat could have farted and echoed down the valley and caused it. I'll take "who's buying carbon credits" for a $1000, Alex!

Permafrost degration is the result of global warming. Landslides result from that. Look, I know you guys get paid to troll newsvine discussions, but these sarcastic remarks aren't the right approach here.

People with your level of intellect are the very sorts who'd dispute gravity. And evolution.

You didn't actually read the article, did you?

That would entail a certain amount of mental effort on his part.

So the answer is no. :)

The law of gravity has been rescinded, THE NEXT LANDSLIDE WILL GO UP THE MOUNTAIN.

Maybe we should all turn to the weather channel you view to be heavenly. I find it odd that Christians associate their God with everything bad that happens anywhere in the world, while followers of Islam blame no one, esspecially not their God. Since we just found the fifth moon of Jupiter, I am guessing we need more time to determine if we are in the midst of a 10 Million Year warming trend.

That would be the 5th moon of Pluto.

You caught it Dogma!

Im sure you are doing your part to stop it,walking to work,stop using electricity,no more farting?

Good Point DVNYC.

I especially liked the reference to the Bible belief. That's an excellent analogy if one would spend more than 1/2 second thinking about it.

We are taught from birth to believe the Bible stories which may have happened back then, but yet I have not personally encountered a burning bush or had an Ark float by me yet. So most believe in the Bible.

Yet, when actually hard evidence, Pictures or before and now, and piles of climatology data are presented, we as a whole are split on what to believe of that which is right in front of us.

sbilemwolb

I promise no more farting. I make that same promise to my wife.

She thinks I'm not a good promise keeper. LOL

The next time you think that you have control over nature, stop a volcano from erupting, spit into a hurricane, or hold the ground still during an earthquake.

At that point you will understand just how helpless man is over nature.

Nice. Very dramatic. No one said man controlled Nature. If that were so then half the US wouldn't be in a drought. Man is influencing nature by causing or increasing a warming trend by carbon emissions. As a side note, I've been in more than one hurricane and I can say that spitting into one is pretty easy. The result could get kinda nasty but it's not so hard...

DVNYC - the same can be said about all liberals when they scream and shriek their love for the current occupant of the Oval Office.

They ignore the facts and scream that everyone is so mean. Right. It is mean and "hateful" to point out the truth.

Sure.

Makes sense.

DVNYC wrote:"yet when faced with a mountain of data and facts, you choose to ignore it. curious..." You do not know how true your statement is.......for it is written "our thoughts are not God thoughts; and our ways are not God ways!" Life is all about a belief system!! You see "belief" is an action word!! Without speaking a word..........people will know what a person believe in by their choices and actions! Science is always based on mankind five senses! Data and facts are created based on what has already been created by God! The world climate is created and controlled by God for good; when God created the world; God created four seasons. Now mankind is using the normal changing climate change for profit, foolishness and evil; "yet when faced with a mountain of data and facts, you choose to ignore it. curious..." Just my thoughts!!

just a hunch - being that you're probably overweight and driving your SUV through the McD's drive thru, i'm thinking you're causing global warming.

Thanks for the sterotype but I drive a Civic that gets 37 mpg and no I am not overweight but have been an avid cyclist all my life. I work for a company which I helped start which is involved in energy saving as it's primary function. I guess I could drive a Pious and be as arrogant as you. I do however realize the difference in science and chicken little fear mongering.

mms57, where does the theory of AGW break down for you?

Probably the part where he gets paid to post for Big Oil.

You will need to buy a few carbon-offsets for that, then you'll be fine.

Tillerson has a point. Just read the posts on any article like this and it's obvious we aren't going to do anything to stop soiling our own nest. Those of us who don't starve to death after massive crop failures will have to adapt. I wonder how much national boundaries will change before then?

Good point AG99...I've wondered how long before Canada puts up a fence to keep us out.

Ha Canada will be no better off heat wave no rain for weeks corn is shrivelling along with everything else, and Canada is just as much a cause of this as anyone if not more

Tillerson admits that global warming exists but as humans we will have to adapt. At least he doesn't attempt to deny the obvious. You have to admit that saying we just need to adapt to the rising tides and other effects of global warming is a pretty original way to approach the problem. Not a smart way to approach the problem but original anyway. The amazing thing is that the conservative types who get all their science news fron Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh still think it's a librul conspiracy to come and get their stuff.

I get MY science from Senator Inhofe...(I know Oklahoma is the driest and hottest State in the US but that's just the weather.)

Didn't He flood the whole place once? And there was that whole kicking us out of Eden thing.

Clearly God made humans stupid enough to foul up their own nest and deny it's happening, so indirectly - yes.

i agree

Have an apple.

yes because a day is coming it will be hard to find an apple

Didn't He flood the whole place once?

I haven't seen full on empirical proof of a global flood yet so my answer is nope she didn't. :)

sarcasm isn't one of your strong points

seems like it is to me.

Everyone just settle down and elect King Obama for another term. He is our SAVIOUR. He KNOWS EVERYTHING and will help us find Nirvana.

Prince Soros is doing all he can to make the Dow look like everything is just fine. Regardless of what actually happens each day.

Just elect King Obama - what else can you do?

As for me and my house?

We will not vote for the Socialist Dictator that has taken over the Oval Office.

No Mo O.

this is stage 2 of the Republican plan:

opps! we were wrong; oh, well, now we just have to live with it.

DRILL BABY DRILL

(By the way, stage 3 is:

Hey look, under the melting ice, MORE PLACES TO DRILL!)

You're right. I'm sure our elected officials will get right on this oh and China and India too. Give it up. There is too many people. As it is right now, if all of China's and India's people and all the other people around the world were living the same standard of living as us....well we'll never know because there isn't enough resources for that. There just isn't. Something will happen. A plague or another big war. Just going from history.

FIX THIS??????????????? You're dreaming. We can't even pass a budget! We are fighting amongst ourselves trying to figure out some new clever way to pay for health care when the problem has ALWAYS been that it cost's too much to begin with. The CARE cost's too much!!!! No one mentions that. Nope. All they come up with is some new clever "pool" idea to pay the ridiculous amounts these medical people want.

Oh yeh.....you're right. We will fix this gobal warming thing toot sweet.

didn't say anything about fixing it (in this post);

but we can start by NOT MAKING THINGS WORSE

but we can start by NOT MAKING THINGS WORSE

How? When we dont even know if we are causing any of it? Feelings dont fix problems.

Shallow, you ignore the fact that there is no scientific evidence which proves that the warming is caused by man. There are only theories and speculation, but no hardcore evidence.

This does not mean that I am voting for O'Bummer.

I think that it is time to invest in companies that manufacture air conditioning equipment.

Our impact on global climate is miniscule at best. 40 years ago the "Scientists" were convinced that we were going into another ice age. These are the same people who run around today with their hands in the air yelling," The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

and the "THEORY of Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics THEORY" enable us to use nuclear energy;

THEORY is how we understand everything.... including climate

Shallow, you ignore the fact that there is no scientific evidence which proves that the warming is caused by man

Cactus, you say that same thing on every one of these threads. Here's the scientific evidence that man is causing a rapid climate change: 800,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies, dating back nearly 100 years.

Make that claim again, and I'll point out that you know better, but say it anyway.

cactuscat, you'd probably have to reject science as a whole to reject the so-called "greenhouse effect." It has been observed and measured. Indeed, satellites are doing it constantly.

See Puckrin (2004):

Do you actually understand the basic theory? I've been talking with people for a while on this issue, and most--90%--of the people I talk with, regardless of their beliefs, cannot describe the basic theory which they accept or reject. They think they know, and they assume that there is or isn't n amount of evidence for the theory, but they've never read any of the published, peer-reviewed science or had the basic theory explained to them. I'm just wondering if you can explain it to me, briefly, now, and then articulate where you think it fails.

You're right! I bet there were a pile of democrats at the foot of that glacier blowing the thing up just to further the global warming conspiracy. And yet, they weren't smart enough to film it? The Democrats are so smart, and yet so stupid at the same time, right?

sorry ed,

the un-godly amounts of MONEY are on the oil-companies side of this issue;

Scientists are just doing their job. Just like the scientists that developed the computer device you are using now. Funny how they are right about computers (as well as a host of other topics) but not climate?

You need to educate yourself. Oh, by the way, let someone else educate your kids.

Your kind have already F up our kids and their level of education, Zeeosix=vacuous intellect!

Hey Buffalo, when you and others like you stop blaming other people for your sh1tty parenting skills - resulting in your kids being stupid - and look in the mirror we'll start making progress. You're probably one of those that thinks it's the schools responsibility to teach your kids everything, including how to live their lives and what values they should have, and all you're doing is teaching them how to suck on that govt t1t until it runs dry. When that happens then they'll be sh1tting on police cars while whining about how they can't get anything for free and how they can't find a job but still have to repay that 60k they BORROWED to get their 6yr BS in poetry.

You obviously are a grad. of public education, if you ever got beyond the 8th grade.

LOL try again, 4 yr BS in IT from Purdue with a 3.8 GPA. Public education seemed to do really well for me and a lot of other people I know. It's the motivation factor that is important... One has to be motivated and driven to succeed - a sense of entitlement will get you nowhere fast in life. That's something that seems to be lost these days.

give it back!

I heard on Fox there ain't not no such thing as global warmin'. Republicanjeebus said so. The evidence is overwhelming that this landslide was caused by gays and unwed teenage mothers.

If you don't believe me, go ask god. He lives on Kolob. So sayeth Mitt.

There some people who bring up religion, why is this Randy 2925150?????

Consensus is that Matt is responsible. Lay off of the beer and cabbage Matt. Your gases are doing us all in, especially the foul ones that emanate from you mouth.

PS We are certain that everyone except you is an idiot. Congrats Einstein.

I agree......although....I don't think we can do anything about it....but it is sad that you don't see the same level of coruption and lack of care from the other side. I'm sorry.....but you Demeocrats are just as guilty as Republicans. You all suck! :)

Maybe you should vote indenpedent!!!

Now who's being naive. The Republicans and Democrats are in bed together on this one...don't think for one minute their not.

fishydigit

And the dems are not arrogant? ha! for it is to laugh.

Al Gore started the global warming when he wanted to become President The minions of the GOP had Nada to do with it . But you know politicans they jump on the band wagon on anything to get Votes!!!!!!!!!

Dan, we have known about global warming from greenhuose gasses since before Al Gore was born.

Jock, this warming is one of many cycles & thank goodness, otherwise we would be in a ice age... liberals politicians want us to believe "man" caused the warming but temperatures in this cycle are suppose to rise - I wonder why Mars also has rising temperatures, could it be the sun?

could it be the sun?

No. The energy from the Sun is not increasing. In fact, since 1980, the sun has shown a slight cooling
trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions.

And there's no data to show that temperature on Mars is rising.