On science, weigh qualifications

4 free views left!

By Juris Vagners

Friday, August 24, 2012

The recent publication of two op-eds on global warming (aka climate change) has caused a flurry of activity in the blogosphere. Long-term global warming caused primarily by human activities is called anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to differentiate from global warming that may be attributed to other causes.

The two articles are “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic” by Professor Richard A. Muller in the July 30 New York Times, and “PNAS Plus: Perception of Climate Change,” by J. Hansen, M. Sato and R. Ruedy published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The credentials of Professor Muller are extensive. He is a professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley and a former recipient of a McArthur Foundation fellowship (aka “genius grant”). A complete biography of Professor Muller, as well as information on the study by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (the basis for Professor Muller’s op-ed), can be found at berkeleyearth.org/faq/. Dr. Hansen is a professor at Columbia University and a scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He has been actively advocating the reality of AGWfor over 24 years. His op-ed appeared in the Aug. 4 issue of The Washington Post. Professor Muller’s views are those of one who was a skeptic of AGW for years but changed his stance after considerable analysis, while Dr. Hansen’s views have remained unchanged over years of study.

Both articles immediately drew vociferous attacks from the deniers of AGW. I will note a few of the prominent ones with comments regarding their qualifications. The first was by Anthony Watts (his blog is “Watts Up With That?”) now widely quoted by those attacking Professor Muller’s paper. What are the qualifications of Mr.Watts? His career consists primarily as a broadcast meteorologist. There is a claim in his biography that he studied at Purdue University, but there is no record provided that he actually received a degree. Another critic is Marc Morano who runs the website ClimateDepot.com. What are Mr. Morano’s qualifications? He has a bachelor of arts in political science. He worked as a producer in the mid-’90s for radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, and was among the first reporters to write about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign scrutinizing John Kerry’s Vietnam War record. Earlier this year, Mr. Morano penned an article questioning the Purple Heart medals of Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a leading critic of George Bush’s Iraq policy. Neither Watts nor Morano have any scientific credentials.

Another critic of Professor Muller’s conclusions is Professor Judith Curry at Georgia Institute of Technology. Professor Curry does have significant scientific credentials, however, her criticism is more of the methodology used by the Berkeley Earth group rather than the reality or lack thereof of AGW (see berkeleyearth.org/faq/). It is an age-old argument in science: How complicated should the model be that is used to analyze a given set of data? A basic tenet of physics is that the simplest model that explains the phenomena is best.

So what is the moral of this story? When forming opinions in a field in which one lacks specific expertise, one must not only evaluate the subject matter discussed, but also the qualifications of those who argue pro and con. An excellent article “On Experts and Global Warming” by Professor Gary Gutting of the University of Notre Dame can be found on The New York Times opinion blog The Stone. To first form an objective view of climate change, I recommend reading the consensus paper on climate change by experts in the field published by the American Meteorological Society (AMS), www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html. This paper, an information statement of the AMS, is updated regularly as new information comes on line, intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.

The bottom line is: All credible evidence points to the fact that AGW is real. What can and should society do about it?

Juris Vagners is a resident of Lake Wenatchee. He is professor emeritus at the University of Washington, a member of the faculty since 1967, and holds a doctorate in aeronuatical and astronautical sciences from Stanford University.

» Recommend this story.

» 102 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

Taxguru 8 months, 3 weeks ago

" All credible evidence points to the fact that AGW is real. "

The statement above is totally ridiculous....

From the news today: A new paper, Trends in U.S. surface humidity, 1930 – 2010, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, finds just the opposite: “Average long-term trends (1930 – 2010) indicate that temperature has warmed, but little change has occurred in dewpoint and specific humidity.” In other words, the mechanism for CAGW’s enhanced greenhouse effect is not happening according to observational data. http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/08/24/global-warming-theory-fails-again/

Taxguru 8 months, 3 weeks ago

More from the article: Seems to contradict the "ALL" notion.....

A new paper just published in the Journal of Climate finds that global cloudiness has decreased over the past 39 years from between 0.9 to 2.8% by continent. See graphs and a discussion of the paper at WUWT here.

The first paper falsifies the major CAGW tenet; carbon dioxide has been increasing but there has been no increase in humidity. The second paper provides confirmation of a natural control of global temperatures.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Thanks to Taxguru for illustrating the authors point by posting a link to an article by a non-expert, Jonathan DuHamel, who misinterprets an actual study, mangles the science, and posts his "conclusions" as science. DuHamel then references Anthony Watts for "a more detailed discussion".

Taxguru 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Uh oh....!!! Looks like the IPCC is caught again.....

If you ask renowned IPCC scientists what the mean global temperature is today, they tell you it’s 14.5°C.

And if you ask them what it was 20 years ago, you would expect the answer to be about 14°C. Surprisingly, their literature from 20 years ago tell us unanimously that in 1990 the global temperature was 15.5°C, one degree Celsius more than today. Look at their own charts below!

http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/16/data-from-leading-ipcc-scientists-show-global-temps-have-dropped-unprecendented-1c-since-1990/

I bet this article is from a non-expert, misrepresents the actual data, mangles the science, and well you know the rest.....ALL credible sources know for SURE...!

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

"I bet this article is from a non-expert, misrepresents the actual data, mangles the science, and well you know the rest..."

Congratulations, you got that part right. The article is by P. Gosselin who writes a wordpress blog from Germany. He doesn't seem to have any credentials. Since there is no way to directly compare the supposedly inconsistent data he cites this can't actually be checked. But kudos to an unknown blogger in Germany for solving climate change! (sarcasm intended)

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Two more quick points. "Uh oh....!!! Looks like the IPCC is caught again..." To be caught "again" there would have to be a first time. Now back to the link taxguru cited as evidence. Putting a number to global average temperature is a very tricky thing. The methodology used to calculate that number has undoubtedly been refined since 1990. A real climatologist would compare the raw data over time. This blogger is comparing two averages that were derived using different methodologies.

john_parsons 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Taxguru may be a guru on taxes, but his (her?) ignorance of basic climatology shows he's no guru of atmospheric physics. Ask the author's of the two papers you cite whether or not their work "falsifies" AGW. Let me know when they stop laughing. JP

lonedog3 8 months, 3 weeks ago

science and history shows us that the earth's climate has been changeing ever since day one millions of years ago. warm to cold cold to warm. high seas to lower seas. In reality this is anoth natural shift in the climate of the earth. I can remember very hot summers where one could all but walk across the mississippi in Minnosota. I can remember years of burnt up crops. winters of no snow and winters of hugh amounts. personally, someone is trying to creat an indrusty to make money from a natural climate shift with bogus science. Just saying and my own personal opinion.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

"In reality this is anoth natural shift in the climate" No, it is an unnatural shift in the climate. That's the point. And it is occurring far too rapidly instead of over thousands of years. "someone is trying to creat an indrusty to make money from a natural climate shift with bogus science" A laughably ludicrous conspiracy theory. "Just saying and my own personal opinion." Why should anyone elevate your personal opinion to be equal to the expertise of thousands of researchers and the mountains of physical evidence that you refuse to acknowledge?

Dudleydoright 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Milo I suppose there is evidence of AGW but does it really matter? a warmer global temperature helps not hurts the humnan condition. Studies have shown that a few more degrees will make more of the world capable of growing food crops and supporting more not less life so live and let live, it is better than global cooling which in the 1600's as I recall, killed thousands across Europe.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Yes, it matters. "Studies have shown" What studies? Please cite them. Climate change means much more than just warmer temperatures and rising sea levels. It means chaotic weather patters, more droughts, crop failures, tens of millions of refugees, epidemics of insect born diseases like west nile virus, more forest fires, mass extinctions etc. Don't take my word for it though. Do some research on your own. Just don't take the word of anonymous bloggers.

Taxguru 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Oh Oh, more bad news for the Alarmists.....

■Shock News : North Pole Ice Just As Thick As It Was In 1940

Turquoise represents ice present in 2012 which wasn’t present at the 2007 minimum. Red shows the opposite. There is 36% more ice than there was at the 2007 minimum.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/noaa-showing-35-more-ice-than-the-2007-minimum/

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Are you kidding? This isn't science. It is a bunch of crap written by "Steven Goddard" (not his real name apparently, who writes a wordpress blog with a whopping 205 followers. He used to write on Anthony Watts blog also.

Taxguru 8 months, 3 weeks ago

NCDC data show downward tends in summertime and wintertime temperatures in every region of the US since 2001. That doesn’t even include the 1998 El Nino warming.

There is no warming at present. There is some indication that there is cooling. Depending on which of the three surface temperature datasets you choose, the warming stopped 10, 13 or 15 years ago. None of this was predicted in the 51 climate models.

Sea levels are down 6 mm in the last year… falling at twice the rate they had been rising up to 2009. None of the models predicted this, either.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

None of that is true. It is more stuff made up by "Steven Goddard" dressed up to look like real science.

Don 8 months, 3 weeks ago

ROFL, yeah, and the polar ice caps are growing. I also think a herd of wooly mammoths was spotted in Canada.

Taxguru 8 months, 3 weeks ago

The Antartic ice cap has been growing.......what is your point?

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100816-global-warming-antarctica-sea-ice-paradox-science-environment/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988-why-antarctic-ice-is-growing-despite-global-warming.html

lonedog3 8 months, 3 weeks ago

don that was just the ladies heading into town for the weekend.

Taxguru 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Depending on which of the three surface temperature datasets you choose, the warming stopped 10, 13 or 15 years ago. None of this was predicted in the 51 climate models.

Sorry, climate has been cooling since 1998.....Read up on John Christy, climatologist.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

You are wrong. Again. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html

Taxguru 8 months, 3 weeks ago

John Christy who pretty well summed up the situation:

“It pretty much depends on when you start,” wrote John Christy, the Alabama atmospheric scientist who collects the satellite data that skeptics use. He said in an e-mail that looking back 31 years, temperatures have gone up nearly three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit (four-tenths of a degree Celsius). The last dozen years have been flat, and temperatures over the last eight years have declined a bit, he wrote.

In other words, over the last dozen years, the earth’s average temperature has remained relatively steady during a time period when the globe should be warming rapidly as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions—or at least that is what all of the climate models are projecting should be happening.

grecoehs73 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Nat. Geo. has had many a good article on climate change and AGW.May I suggest that there is more evidence for major change in the near future and long term. Rather than bury our heads, maybe some should do a little more reading on there own,and not listen to denier's.

Dudleydoright 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I'm sure many bought the bs about global cooling in the 70's too btw in nat geo.

lonedog3 8 months, 3 weeks ago

It seems there has been a drastic climate change issue with the liberals ever since al gore invented the internet. whos to say it hasnt been takeing place over thousands of years? everything I see shows minor tepeeturt changes not the drastic ones the left is screaming about. If the carbon in the issue than why is the left allowing the sale of coal to china? how do you stop the active volcanoes from dumping ash into the air? flawed science?? how about made up science

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

"everything I see shows minor tepeeturt changes not the drastic ones the left is screaming about." I assume you mean temperature. It is not today's temperature that anyone is concerned about. It is a question of what will the climate be like 30, 40 and 50 years from now. We are only seeing a bare hint of what is to come. "why is the left allowing the sale of coal to china?" By left I will assume you mean progressives, most of which oppose expanded coal production and export. "how do you stop the active volcanoes from dumping ash into the air?" You don't but they aren't the problem. "how about made up science" Ask taxguru. He seems to have a handle on that.

kyook 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Are the climate worries of today anything like the global cooling worries that the alarmists predicted back in the 70's?

So much for psuedo-science.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

This old chestnut has been debunked long ago. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

kyook 8 months, 3 weeks ago

That's an interesting article. If you were to substitute "global warming" every time it said "global cooling", you'd have the same myth.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

And you base that opinion on what? Wishful thinking? Thomas Paine said something along the lines of "trying to debate someone who has abandoned the use of reason is like giving medicine to the dead"

kyook 8 months, 3 weeks ago

It doesn't take a lot of reasoning to understand that it is only man's arrogance that would suggest that he can understand the workings of a 4 billion year old planet in a mere two or three hundred years of study.

JimboBear 8 months, 3 weeks ago

I have to agree with kyook on that one. Anything about our planet no matter how hard or long it has been studied by modern man is no more than postulate theory. One can speculate untill the gates of Hades freeze in a closed position, but still no "proof" exists. It's very much like arguing Darwinian Theory versus Theology. It really means nothing because adequate documentation is impossible.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Theory is all we have or ever will have. We only have a theoretical understanding of gravity, yet things still fall. There is no such thing as absolute "proof" outside of mathematics. What you are basically saying is all science is crap so we should abandon all science. The stakes are just too high to embrace ignorance.

kyook 8 months, 3 weeks ago

"yet things still fall"

And that is an absolute truth?

Helium?

There are a multitude of possible other answers to the global warming question. It is the alarmists who embrace only one.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Your'e kidding right? Do you really need someone to explain helium to you?

kyook 8 months, 3 weeks ago

The point is that there are exceptions to every "rule". Lighter than air defies gravity is a fine one.

To date, we don't even know what all the "rules" are in regard to climatology, physics & geology. So how can we know what the exceptions are?

Can you say with any certainty that the planet has not gone thru a multitude of warming events such as this and survived just fine over the course of tens of thousands of years?

Of course you can't, nobody can. Please feel free to post a link that offers an opinion from some world reknown scientist who has written a theory on this subject and I promise I won't post a link that refutes it.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

You claim a multitude of possible answers to climate change yet strangely you have yet to name even one. Why so reticent?

kyook 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Because, unlike some, I don't pretend to know all the answers. Plus, I have far less faith in what I read on the internet than some people.

Heck, we didn't even know that the celocamph still existed until a few years ago. The infallible scientists thought it went extinct eons ago.

JimboBear 8 months, 3 weeks ago

"The stakes are just too high to embrace ignorance."

The same might be said about arrogance. Think about it.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Arrogance is someone with no scientific training rejecting the opinions of thousands of experts who have spent decades studying and building upon the discoveries and knowledge that came before them for no reason except that they don't like the answer.

kyook 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Arrogance can also be defined as someone who thinks they know all there is to know.

Scientists do that quite often.

JimboBear 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Ohhhhh! I see! I thought you had to think you know everything there is to know, scientific or otherwise in order to be arrogant. Tell ya what. You go ahead and wait for the oceans to rise and flood the valleys. I think I'll just not worry about it.

JimboBear 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Milo, my comment above was uncalled for. I should not have said what I did and I apologize for being so rude. I don't even have an excuse other than I screwed up. I'm sorry I didn't keep my mouth shut. Unfortunately, when I had time to think about it it was too late to edit or remove it.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and those who are well read on a subject are perhaps even more so entitled. I have my opinion as well, but I'd like to think that I have more class than to express it the way I did. Sorry.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Thank you Jim, that's very gracious.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Had you actually looked at either article you would realize what a ridiculous statement you just made.

lonedog3 8 months, 3 weeks ago

someone else, and I forget now, said" you cannot argue with stupid"

kyook 8 months, 3 weeks ago

I think that was Ron (Tater Salad) White, and I think the line is: You can't fix stupid.

grecoehs73 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Know we know where they get there info from "Tater Salad" sounds about right for a bunch of ill-informed science haters.

kyook 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Oh, the irony.

JimboBear 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Let's see if I have this right. If one does not believe that the current global warming trend is anything more than a cyclic event in the atmospheric history of our planet, then they are "Science Haters"? Dang! What am I to do with yet another label to plaster on my forehead?

kyook 8 months, 3 weeks ago

It amuses me that some people think that climatology is an exact science and there is virtually no margin for error in the theories.

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

I don't think very many people think that at all, especially scientists.

kyook 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Then why do so many people quote theories as if they were gospel?

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

A theory is the best explanation that exists that explains all known data. A theory is considered valid until some new data is observed or discovered that contradicts the theory. Usually the theory is still valid and one of the underlying hypotheses just needs to be refined. The only theory that currently explains all of the observed data in the case of climate is AGW. There is a great deal of disagreement and competing hypotheses over the details such as how many degrees, in what time frame, the quantity of carbon the oceans can absorb, etc. There is virtually no disagreement that the phenomenon exists.

kyook 8 months, 3 weeks ago

"...all known data..."

That leaves a lot of wiggle room.

"There is virtually no disagreement that the phenomenon exists."

Sure there is.

Dudleydoright 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Because their funding demands it : )

Taxguru 8 months, 3 weeks ago

I love this one from ecoworld.com no less.....

What about the ice mass of Antarctica? Along with land based ice, which can raise sea levels when melted into the ocean, another significant indicator of polar temperature is the extent of floating sea ice. As the above table prepared by researchers at the University of Illinois indicates, the actual sea ice surrounding Antarctica is well above average. The black line represents the last 12 months of sea ice area, based on satellite data. You can see the sea ice reached a peak of 15 million square kilometers around September, during the peak of the southern winter. You can see it dropped to a low of 2 million square kilometers in mid-February, at the height of the southern summer. Currently the sea ice surrounding Antarctica is 7 million square kilometers and rising. The red line, however, is what is significant, because the red line indicates whether or not the sea ice is above or below the historical norm. And as you can see, as of May 2009, Antarctic sea ice is about 1.0 million square kilometers above normal.

Just like last year, to assist in the research for this post I contacted Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist at the University of Colorado whose blog www.climatesci.org is one of the most balanced forums and respected sources of technical information on global climate anywhere. In response to my inquiry, he wrote the following: “The sea ice around the continent is far above average (ref. UIUC). Also, note the colder than average sea surface temperatures around Antarctic (ref. NOAA). If the media is going to discuss the Wilkens Ice Shelf, they should also discuss this other data. The expansion of the sea ice coverage implies a cooling.”

milo 8 months, 3 weeks ago

This was addressed earlier in this thread. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100816-global-warming-antarctica-sea-ice-paradox-science-environment/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988-why-antarctic-ice-is-growing-despite-global-warming.html

grecoehs73 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Did you run this by Ron White, Taxguroo.Just want to make sure you ran this by your climate specilast.

Taxguru 8 months, 3 weeks ago

" There is virtually no disagreement that the phenomenon exists. "

Totally FALSE....!!!

Check google for Global warming deniers. There is virtually hundreds that are climatologists, science academies, and on and on......Russian scientists don't believe it, most asian do not, and on and on......

lonedog3 8 months, 3 weeks ago

I used to think there was something to this global warming so I planted some nice palm trees and coconut trees to be ahead of the curve with a marketable source of food. But they died was told it was too cold for them here with cooler springs and summers. darn!

Dudleydoright 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I see my comment of "so what" was ignored. Typical, the AGW croud really has no answer to the idea that global warming is a net positive on our world. Less starvation, more land that becomes habitable. Whether it is man caused or not a warmer climate is a net gain for humanity. Of course they will say "more and worse storms" but the data is way too thin to demonstrate any of their theories. IMO, it boils down to AGW is thier cash cow and it needs to be milked as long as possible. Those who follow this religion simply need something to worry about, much like some folks who need drama in their lives, pitiful and sad.

milo 8 months, 2 weeks ago

No, it was addressed over a week ago. "Climate change means much more than just warmer temperatures and rising sea levels. It means chaotic weather patterns, more droughts, crop failures, tens of millions of refugees, epidemics of insect born diseases like west nile virus, more forest fires, mass extinctions etc."

JimboBear 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Wow! With melodrama like that Milo, I think we are going to have to pump up the old Liberty Theater organ. If you decide to film it though, it will just have to be in black and white. Color would destroy the Sci Fi aspect of it all.

Norm 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Its science, not melodrama or science fiction. The fiction part is basing your beliefs on ideology rather than facts.

JimboBear 8 months, 2 weeks ago

That's YOUR opinion Norm, not mine. Mine differs. It's as simple as that and does not need debate. I reacted to a VERY melodramatic comment, not to reopen a debate on the subject.

Norm 8 months, 2 weeks ago

"That's YOUR opinion Norm, not mine."

No, its an objective fact.

" not to reopen a debate on the subject." = "I'm going to say whatever I want to say and everybody else should shut up."

milo 8 months, 2 weeks ago

There is no melodrama in my remarks. It isn't hard to look up this information. Many people are under the impression that all that climate change means is that oceans rise and it is a little warmer. The reality is far, far worse. I'm not really trying to convince you or Dudley either. My purpose is to rebut misinformation and to encourage other readers to check for facts from reputable sources.

Dudleydoright 8 months, 2 weeks ago

And my point is that the evidence is so thin as to be meaningless. The data shows the world has warmed and cooled many times without us or cow farts so rather than get all upset and destroy the economy with stupid ideas to punish fossel fuel use, live and let live.

milo 8 months, 2 weeks ago

The evidence is anything but thin and grows almost daily. The earths cycles in the past have nothing to do with the debate.

kyook 8 months, 2 weeks ago

This wouldn't just be every scientist in the world trying to justify their jobs, would it?

"The earths cycles in the past have nothing to do with the debate."

I'll bet the evidence that supports this contention is so thin that it's almost laughable.

milo 8 months, 2 weeks ago

"I'll bet the evidence that supports this contention is so thin that it's almost laughable." Actually the evidence that supports this contention is quite strong. Natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we’re now witnessing. There is no credible alternative theory other than anthropogenic warming.

I would like to respectfully point out that you have yet to offer any evidence whatsoever to support any of your contentions.

kyook 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I would really like to provide the evidence that you so desperately need to see beyond the narrow little scope of your imagination but I'm afraid the Neandrethal scientists weren't very good at keeping records.

If you could, if the evidence is so strong, would you please provide some evidence that extreme changes such as we are now seeing have never taken place before during the entire history of the planet?

milo 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Sure, see these:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/environmental-change/what-is-climate-change/past-warming/index.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mass-extinctions-tied-to-past-climate-changes

Or try this:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/basics/past.html

kyook 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Great!

Thanks for proving my point for me. All three links that you provided indicate that there have been many extreme climate change cycles on the planet, including mass extinctions, throughout history & long before SUV's were invented.

"Natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we’re now witnessing."

If I had to comment on this "fact", I would have to agree & concede that we have never before seen cycles like we are seeing now. They appear to have been much worse.

Thanks again. This has been tons of fun.

milo 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I never said there have not been extreme climate changes. I said that the causes of those events do not apply to what we see in the present day. Your "rebuttal" makes no sense.

kyook 8 months, 2 weeks ago

How can there have been extreme climate changes if "Natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we’re now witnessing. There is no credible alternative theory other than anthropogenic warming."

Seems like the climate changes in prehistoric times were pretty extreme and they were NOT man caused therefore there HAD to be some other credible alternative theory. Perhaps, just perhaps, what we are seeing today is not man caused & just part of a recurring cycle that takes place over many millenia. Until there is definitive evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that what is happening today is not exactly like what has happened a multitude of times before, I am unconvinced by the blink of an eye in a historical perspective alarmism.

Of course my rebuttal makes no sense thru a limited prism.

JimboBear 8 months, 2 weeks ago

OK, let me put this another way boys. Milo's list of the horrors we are about to see due to the carelessness of mankind and his abuse of this planet sounds like a list of biblical plagues and punishments from Revelations, and conjures up visions of hoards of zombie and ghoul-like creatures marching by on their way to eternal damnation and fiery consumption by the sun. THAT is melodrama my friends. Milo should be a story teller. His words provoke vivid images in the minds of both young and old. His theater background shows through in fine fashion.

As for you Norm, " not to reopen a debate on the subject." = "I'm going to say whatever I want to say and everybody else should shut up." is putting words in my mouth that I never said. It will be a cold day in Hades when I tell you or anyone else to "shut up". Again . . . that is yet another example of "your opinion" only. Everything that you choose to comment on is not "objective fact". You proved that immediately above with your comparison of my words to your imagination. Get over yourself and at least state that things are your opinions and interpretations, not hallowed words that are cast in stone like those on the tablets of Moses.

milo 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Jim I wasn't trying to be melodramatic, just accurate. You could look at these if you are interested.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2008/s05/en/index.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/climatechange/threatsimpacts/index.htm

http://globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment/previous-assessments/global-climate-change-impacts-in-the-us-2009

kyook 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Wow! This is really a dire situation!

Only our politicians can possibly save us from ourselves!

Where is Al Gore when we need him the most? Probably flew off to a tropical island or one of his estates in his private jet to replenish his supply of carbon credits, available now for only $19.95.

But wait! Don't order yet. If you're one of the first 50 callers they'll double your order. That's right, twice the carbon credits directly from Al Gore for only $19.95. You just pay normal shipping and handling charges. Call now...1-800-RIP-OFFS.

Taxguru 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Oh no, more from some of those "qualified" ones....

A study suggests the Britain of 2,000 years ago experienced a lengthy period of hotter summers than today.

German researchers used data from tree rings – a key indicator of past climate – to claim the world has been on a ‘long-term cooling trend’ for two millennia until the global warming of the twentieth century.

This cooling was punctuated by a couple of warm spells.

These are the Medieval Warm Period, which is well known, but also a period during the toga-wearing Roman times when temperatures were apparently 1 deg C warmer than now.

They say the very warm period during the years 21 to 50AD has been underestimated by climate scientists.

Lead author Professor Dr Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz said: ‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low.

‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant, however it is not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1 deg C.’

In general the scientists found a slow cooling of 0.6C over 2,000 years, which they attributed to changes in the Earth’s orbit which took it further away from the Sun.

The study is published in Nature Climate Change.

It is based on measurements stretching back to 138BC.

The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming

milo 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I don't know what you think this proves but it certainly does not negate current theories of climate change or it's impacts. It is just another example of a right-wing publication cherry picking select phrases from a document and misinterpreting them.

kyook 8 months, 2 weeks ago

LOL!

As if left-wing publications don't do the same thing.

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between.

Norm 8 months, 2 weeks ago

"As if left-wing publications don't do the same thing."

Peer-reviewed science is no-wing.

kyook 8 months, 2 weeks ago

That's correct. That is not to say that both left wing as well as right wing publications don't engage in biased reporting.

milo 8 months, 2 weeks ago

That is why when I post links to information I try to use sites like NASA, NOAA, EPA, World Health Organization, etc.

In response I get posts from DailyMail, WattsUp, Co2Science (a petroleum industry front group), etc.

I will leave it to other readers to judge the veracity of the sources.

Dudleydoright 8 months, 2 weeks ago

cow farts

Taxguru 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Alarmists aren't going to like this either....

Winter Snow Accumulation in the Andes of Chile and Argentina: What was learned Based on "an innovative time series analysis approach" that "allowed the identification of the onset, duration and statistical significance of the main intra- to multi-decadal patterns in the reconstructions," the eight researchers determined that "variations observed in the last 60 years are not particularly anomalous when assessed in a multi-century context." In fact, they report that "periods ending in the late 1100s, during the early 1300s and late 1400s, during the early and late 1600s, and during the mid 1700s and mid 1800s appear to have been at least as extreme as the early 20th century period and well above the highest levels seen in recent decades of the instrumental record."

What it means It most definitely appears that there has been nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about winter snow accumulation in the Andes of Chile and Argentina over the past few decades, when the world's climate alarmists claim the earth warmed to a degree and at a rate that they describe as unprecedented over the past millennium or two. http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N33/C2.php

milo 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I went to the original study. The whole "What it means..." part is editorializing on the part of the web site. The researchers who did the study drew no such conclusions.

Again,I don't know what you think this proves but it certainly does not negate current theories of climate change or it's impacts.

Taxguru 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Could it be....just a natural cycle. Al Gore isn't going to like this.....

We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled “Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice-shelf history” and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey (Nature, 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391), reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica.

Public media in the U.S., including National Public Radio (NPR), were quick to recognize the significance of this discovery. The past natural warming events reported by Mulvaney et al. are similar in amplitude and duration to the present global warming signal, and yet the past warmings occurred before the industrial revolution and therefore were not caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The present global warming cycle lies within the range of these past natural warming cycles, suggesting that the present global warming cycle may be of natural origin and not caused by human activity–as climate skeptics have been arguing for some time.

kyook 8 months, 2 weeks ago

"Public media in the U.S., including National Public Radio (NPR), were quick to recognize the significance of this discovery."

What!? They are making new discoveries that could potentially change the scope of our understanding? Do you mean to say that we don't already know all there is to know on this subject?

Who'd a thunk it?

Taxguru 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Their ending paragraph....

It is encouraging that in light the Mulvaney et al. paper the editors and reviewers of the Nature Publishing Group apparently no longer consider these natural warming events in ice core records as irrelevant climate “noise.” Among other implications, this change in editorial interpretation and practice opens a new avenue for analysis of ice core data and a new method for demonstrating that in historic terms, the current global warming cycle is far from exceptional. It appears to us that the current global warming signal LIES WELL WITHIN NATURAL LIMITS. In this case, it seems to us difficult to argue that the current global warming signal is the result of human activity.

We invite free and unrestricted duplication and use of the Figure and Table with appropriate credit to the source.

W. Jackson Davis and Peter Taylor

Norm 8 months, 2 weeks ago

"Do you mean to say that we don't already know all there is to know on this subject?"

We will never know all there is to know about any subject. No scientist would ever claim otherwise. Setting the bar so high that it will never be met is ridiculous.

We don't know all there is to know about how smoking tobacco affects the human body, but we know enough to know that it is detrimental to human health.

kyook 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Likewise, is it setting the bar too high by saying that global warming is definitively man caused?

milo 8 months, 2 weeks ago

It took me a while to figure out where you cut and pasted your text from. Lo and behold, our old friend Anthony Watts.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/

The actual study was published here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7414/full/nature11391.html

I don't really want to purchase it but the abstract and editor's summary don't suggest the conclusions that Watts is drawing from it.

I guess I have to repeat myself. "It is just another example of a right-wing publication cherry picking select phrases from a document and misinterpreting them."

kyook 8 months, 2 weeks ago

That's all very interesting (not really) but as someone correctly pointed out, global warming does not affect the entire globe in the same way. There are regional variations.

Does whatever is happening on the Antarctic continent have the same bearing on what might be happening in Sheboygan or is there some left wing cherry picking going on?

Dudleydoright 8 months, 2 weeks ago

As opposed to left wing hacks with a financial interest in "proving" AGW

Taxguru 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I'll stick with what most scientists who aren't living off AGW grants say.....

Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7