Alan,

Thanks for posting. You sound very confident in your understanding of climatic change and the role of humans. Rather than commenting, I am going to ask you a few questions.

1. What caused the MWP? What caused us to come out of the MWP?

2. What caused the LIA? What caused us to come out of the LIA?

3. What caused the last ice age? What caused us to come out of the last ice age, despite the feedback of extremely high albedo from massive snow cover?

4. Atmospheric absorption charts show CO2 infrared bands close to being 100% absorbed, and overlapping with H20. Please explain how additional CO2 could increase absorption further.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png

Thanks in advance,
Patrick

PH:

I guess you think Wikimedia (user-generated content) trumps all. Your bias is showing.

I have been doing some research about the campaign to discredit real science over the last 6 years. Most of the people responding to this blog are taking advantage of their free pass to spread disinformation and perhaps make a few more converts. I doubt the author of this research will take a second pass at trying to present his scientific research. Science is neither politics nor religion, and it pursues truth to the best of its ability, constantly updating its work in the light of reality. Too many of you make simple and sometimes nasty statements about the veracity of sources with which you disagree. Science, which made America great, cannot proceed if it is trumped by politics.

WeatherWatcher

Way to dodge the questions he asked.

You are right Science is not politics or religion. It is however greatly influenced by personal opinion of the person doing the study.

WW; Interesting comment. I take it that you believe that any "science" put forth by the IPCC or any AGW advocate is "Real Science" and anything else is Disinformation. Seems like blind faith to me. With no proof to back it up you sure seem to believe with a truely religeous ferver. Are you also a Creationist? I have seen similar comments form them as well. Or perhaps yo have stock in a carbon trading scam.
I would challange you to read just a few of the "peer reviewed" papers listed here:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

I have been doing some research about the campaign to discredit real science over the last 6 years. Most of the people responding to this blog are taking advantage of their free pass to spread disinformation and perhaps make a few more converts.
Reply: This is indeed how the global warming advocates operate, discredit any who publish against the warming mantra and demand immediate action to mitigate an unproven theory at great cost to the economy and no apparent gain.

I doubt the author of this research will take a second pass at trying to present his scientific research. Science is neither politics nor religion, and it pursues truth to the best of its ability, constantly updating its work in the light of reality. Too many of you make simple and sometimes nasty statements about the veracity of sources with which you disagree.
Reply: Patrick Henry asks reasonable questions in a very professional way and the authour will reply if he has the answers I'm sure. I see nothing in Patrick's post that's mean or nasty.

Science, which made America great, cannot proceed if it is trumped by politics.
Reply: The AGW crowd made sure this became political when the UN got involved. I'm not willing to let the UN take control of my country to push their unproven theory down my throat to take away my freedom to choose and take money out of my pocket to give to third world polluters. Show me the proof and I'll consider ways to comply, until then keep your maybe's, might be's and could's where they belong...out of our legislative system.

WeatherWatcher,

I agree science should not be trumped by politics...and it's the same reason I think the AGW people should remove Al Gore as their spokesperson.

"Too many of you make simple and sometimes nasty statements about the veracity of sources with which you disagree."

I really am still amazed how you can talk about 'nastiness' when you are so willing to break out the mud pies whenever someone challenges your arguments or the veracity of your sources. That sounds like ego being bruised rather than science to me.

To my point, when has it become a bad thing to ask questions? Especially in the context of this issue, asking questions and looking behind the curtain is critical. Science should never be about taking things at face value and where policy decisions will be made that is especially so. When we cease to ask questions or discourage others from doing so is when we're in serious trouble.

"Science is neither politics nor religion, and it pursues truth to the best of its ability, constantly updating its work in the light of reality."

I strongly disagree. Can you honestly tell me that your views are not influenced by your peers and their views? Can you honestly say that if you digressed and became a "denier" that your peers would look at your science and take the intellectual high road? I'm not looking to denigrate your colleagues, but it's a honest to goodness question that you should be willing to ask yourself since you're so concerned about the quality of science.

Further, whose "reality" are you talking about? The world of academia and the world of hard knocks are two entirely different things. Things might look good on the paper and in the computer models, but when you get out of the lab and into the trenches, "reality" takes on a whole different meaning.

Think about it.

Michael J, BSCIS, JD

"I would challange you to read just a few of the "peer reviewed" papers listed here:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?"

I'll read them any of them where the following refutations are wrong:

"1) New peer-reviewed study finds global warming over last century linked to natural causes:"

Funny. The El Nino cycle is every four years (and thus known and factored out by scientists), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation troughed (coldest) in the late-1990's, while the Earth was setting *warming* records. The North Atlantic Oscillation troughed (cool) over most of the 1950s and 1960s, exactly when (IR initiated)warming really started to take off. So this paper argues the opposite conclusion, that there is latent warming still to take place, no? :)

"2) Belgian weather institute�s (RMI) August 2007 study dismisses decisive role of CO2 in warming"

All this paper says is water vapour is a more important GHG than CO2. Scientists would of course agree with this true fact. Then the paper makes a (false, I think) statement about Belgium warm winters, and generalizes it to the whole surface of the Earth. To Republicans: Belgium is about the size of Rhode Island.

"3) New peer-reviewed study on Surface Warming and the Solar Cycle:"

Er, no. This is not the first study claiming statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, as the authors claim. This is one of the 1st places real scientists looked to explain warming. The effect is 1/4 the explaination of warming. I can't believe these authors didn't even bother to consult the previous literature.

"4) New peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce global warming:"

Known again, by the scientific community: high altitude clouds will increase the warming effect, low altitude clouds will mitigate it. This is all factored into the existing climate modelling uncertainty parameters. It is one feedback mechanism of about two dozen.

"5) New peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth�s climate"
- Excerpt: �According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun�s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth�s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth�s climate.

See previous explanation for the 1st conjecture's refutation. The 2nd sounds like astrology. The 3rd is Milankovitch Cycles and are already factored, despite the pseudo-scientists who claim they are a novel revelation (occur on timescales of hundreds of thousands of years or more, if they are climate relavent).

"6) A July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics."

Funny. I skimmed the paper and these abstracts aren't listed. If you can find a link I'll refute every single paper one by one.

"7) Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian�s 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2�s impact on warming may be �excessively exaggerated.�"

The authors claim global temperature was cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s, need I go on?

"8) Several recent scientific studies have debunked a media hyped UK study alleging there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years."

You "win" this round. Forgot to mention the effect is 4x too little to be responsible for Global Warming...

"Nuclear disarmament is the only way to remove this threat to the planet, and the US and Russia should begin immediately,"
This is a highly political statement, not science in any sense.

"to set an example for the rest of the world. Nuclear weapons can never be used."
This is a moral statement. Again not science.

If Mr. Robock is saying anything close to these two sentences, this is a beautiful example of a scientist stepping outside his area of competence and making irresponsible, POLITICAL recomendations.

"9) An August 2007 NASA temperature data error discovery has lead to 1934 -- not the previously hyped 1998 -- being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began."

The world is much larger than just the United States. At least it's better than claiming Belgium is the Earth's surface area. Was Alaska counted in the 1934 record keeping? If not, strange that the state most subject to warming was ignored.

"10) Numerous U.S. temperature collection data errors exposed by team of researchers led by Meteorologist Anthony Watts in 2007"

For the third time, its called frigging GLOBAL Warming. The USA is a very minor part of the Earth's surface area. The researcher even claims US measurement errors represent global errors. There are dozens of independant methods of measuring 20th century temperatures. Were there BBQ's near ocean bouys or weather balloons?!

"11) Team of Scientists Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'"

I guess it is possible tens of thousands of temperature stations are all simultaneously picking locations that happen to rise in temperature over deacdes, in concert, while remote locales (unmonitored) experience falling temperatures. I bet the odds for this are over 1
/10^20.

"12) A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise."

Another selective analysis. Maybe right about Antarctica, maybe not: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4228411.stm
Greenland is surely sliding into the North Atlantic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4783199.stm
This is the very first feedback mechanism within our (excepting neoconservatives) ability to stop. Summer meltwater is causing the glaciers here to literally slide into the ocean. If the global temperure increases another 1C beyond what we are already committed to with existing GHG emissions, Greenland's melt rate will become permanent and the "slide" will become irreversible. Here, your neoconservative "scientists" are very directly increasing the odds of a human extinction with their lies.

"13) Even the alarmist UN has cut sea level rise estimates dramatically since 2001 and has reduced man�s estimated impact on the climate by 25%."

Yep, they haven't yet imputted all the worst positive feedbacks into their models, but the 2006 estimates are a little less dire than 2001. Still bad enough to permanently turn GDP growth negative in the middle of the century and leave us back in the middle ages in the 22nd century.

"14) A May 2007 Senate Environment & Public Works report detailed a sampling of scientists who were once believers in man-made global warming and who now are skeptical."

They are probably the ones who would rather watch the second half of the ball-game than chase down and refute links like these. Smart people.
Seriously, I count 11 of them. Compared to 10000 (or 2000, depending on the specific document) IPCC scientists. This isn't a pissing contest, if they had any specific arguments in common, I'd refute them. These 11 scientists are all over the place.

"15) An upcoming Fall 2007 blockbuster U.S. Senate report is set to be released that will feature a sampling of peer-reviewed studies and hundreds of scientists (many current and former UN scientists) who have spoken out recently against Gore, the UN, and the media engineered climate �consensus.�"

Why keep referencing Gore? This science was decided in the 1980's by thousands of scientists. The scientific ouput of the world is based upon some political debate. Gore isn't a scientist. Pop culture isn't relevant to science in this arena (science).

�Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint,� Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press."

The other GHGs experience linear forcing rates. But yes, 600ppm CO2 is 1/2 the forcing effect of 300ppm, 1200ppm is 1/4...this is already known and factored. We are already in trouble by 500ppm (at 386ppm or so now).

"Spitting outside has �same effect� as doubling CO2"

Since there is not yet an Orwellian neoconservative world-order, mind if I ask how?

"Temperature drives CO2"

Here, the claim is that the first few billion years of Earth's history were warmer. This is true (volcanoes), they also weren't suitable for primate inhabitation, lacking oxygen and such. It is also claimed natural CO2 sinks will absorb most of the future CO2 rising emissions, when scientists blatently know the sinks are already losing efficacy.

"Man-made CO2 equivalent to linoleum on first floor of 100 story building"

Here, the "expert" is claiming atmosphere CO2 emmissions aren't rising (they have been from 280ppm pre-industrial to 386ppm now). That is the equivalent of 30 storeys of linoleum on a hundred storey building. These skeptics can't do basic math?

To AGW skeptics: you are endangering the future of our human civilization, the most likely way everything good and bad that we have ever done as a species, will end, is if we don't address Global Warming. We won't even get a chance to worry about the really cool human extinction threats if we can't address this most basic one. Do it for JFK, the guy that got us out the 20th century (against the *better* judgement of neoconservatives).

I hadn't realized that Brett edited out the first paragraph of Alan's post, and probably shouldn't have made my post on this thread.

Trying to get back on topic and perhaps playing devil's advocate a bit, I would point out that Europe has been much more peaceful since the invention of nuclear weapons and MAD. Also, it is likely that many lives were saved in 1945 by avoiding a full scale invasion of Japan. One more point is that disarmament of the west is not going to stop Middle Eastern extremists from obtaining nuclear weapons and calling the shots.

WW, what a very interesting position. I would concur with the efforts to subvert science by people of a certain philosophical worldview, however the effort isn't just a few years old, its roots stretch back for over a century. That is a bit off topic though.

"Science is neither politics nor religion, and it pursues truth to the best of its ability, constantly updating its work in the light of reality."

In its ideal, you are correct, but it is too often able to be and has been subverted by money or those with political and/or religious agendas. Heck, we need not be so sinister, it has been subverted by scientists with long held (and published) positions that wish to maintain those positions so they don't have to speak as a true scientist and say "We are here to learn." Instead, they resort to dogmatic "realities" that brook no dissent and they will take people to court(!) to "prove" their assertions.

Patrick makes unbaised opinions and shows his research all the time. He asks questions that should be asked and his been extremely considerate in so doing. You would have to be extremely sensitive to consider his answers as politically motivated or self serving. Bottom line is that he has got history which is his proof on his side versus a theory which is an unproven on AGW side. I know that I and many others thoroughly appreciate his contribution to this site.

It is funny how the individuals pushing what they call "scientific" fact just recycle the same old junk science.

Fact: During the 1950's several 1+ megaton bombs were detonated.
Fact: Hiroshima was only 16,000 tons yield.
Fact: 100 x 16k equals 1.6 megatons.

Where was the dramatic climate swing in the 1950's?

This theory also does not account for the power of volcanos. A single major eruption can equal thousands of Hiroshima bombs.

However if you wish to pursue this line of ridiculous propaganda, then maybe the net result is a reduced risk of global warming since the subcontinent will have mas starvation, social breakdown and generally see a huge drop in carbon emissions.

Question for Mr. Robock: Who is putting the money up for your grant and what did they tell you they expected in exchange for the cash?

"However, the world now faces the prospect
of other states developing small, but
remarkably deadly, nuclear arsenals...India
and Pakistan are estimated to have 110�180
weapons between them) could produce
direct fatalities comparable to all of those
worldwide in World War II."

I suppose there lies the rub. Even if the US and Russia disarm all of their nukes, there remains a growing list of nations who would refuse to disarm. Nukes are the great eqaulizer; no need to have a large virgorous economy, or a strong conventional military to be able to project influence. If Yeman or Belieze were to get nukes, everyone would step and take notice. Iran, which if you believe the press reports is less than 2 years from producing weapons grade nuclear material, and less than a decade from getting a delievery system accurate enough to target any capital in Western Europe. In 4 years of "talks" Iran has just gotten closer to its dream.

From a AGW point of view, at least some scientists admit that something other than CO2 has an effect on our climate. It is nice to see someone other than a "sceptic" refer to both Mt Timborao and Pinitumbo. That is, just one large volcanic event could cool much of the globe despite the presence of large quantities of GHGs. Just a few high payload nukes detonating in another part of the world could have a devastating effect on our global food supply. I wonder if Alan and other scientists could put some numbers to thier projections. I would think that the DOD would be interested.

A few days ago, there was an article that reported 12F of cooling from 12,000 weapons.

The latest article has just as much cooling from only 100.

So, how is it that the amount of cooling per weapon has changed so much?

Also, the study relies on the 5 Tg of Carbon per 100 weapons. How much material was actually released during the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was it proportional?

Finally, did any of the 700 or so test explosions result in significant releases of material into the atmosphere that could be expected to impact the climate?

There is no amount of disarmament that will change the direction of the Iranian President in his quest to change everyone on the planet to his doctrine. Disarm the U.S. and Russia and he will have free rein.

WW� Thank you for your detailed reply.
It supports my assertion quite well. It shows clearly that AGW is for you, an article of faith.
You adamantly dismiss any scientist that does not follow the party line as a psudo-scientest spreading lies.
This was the point I wanted to make. There is more science available than just what the IPCC publishes, but AGW faithful will not accept any dissent. Many of your comments are valid, many are supposition, some are just the usual discrediting slag.
Do you really contend that temps did not decline between 1945 and 1977?
Do you deny the existence of the MWP and the LIA as well? Mann Followers are required to.
You write as though we should simply accept your�refutations� as fact. Who are you? Do you posses some proof that the rest of us are not privy to?
You seem (as most AGWs do) to hold the UN�s IPCC up as some sort of Unbiased uberscience group. This would be the same UN that brought us the famous Oil for Food program. The same UN that is being investigated for fraud over altering temperature records. I suspect a Carbon for Food program at work here.
It seems to me that you guys are the ones spreading disinformation when you ridicule out of hand anything that you don�t agree with.
Your last paragraph tell the whole story. �you are endangering the future of our human civilization,� You are so convinced of the �truth� of the AGW theory that you see any disagreement as a threat to humanity. It is people like you that really scare me. How long will it be before AGW worriers begin killing skeptics in the name of saving the world. Antiabortionists had no trouble making that step in the name of saving just a few.
Your fervor tells me that we need to get active about opening peoples eyes before this thing gets really ugly.
Take a valium!

I did a little research and found out that France did not stop atmospheric testing until 1974 and China until 1980.
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/atmosphr/index.html

The peak year was 1962, which is also the minima for temperature on GISS graphs.
http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/TESTS.GIF

What is harder to account for is the sharp drop in temperature in some graphs starting in 1945, after the detonation of only three small fission devices. It wasn't until the mid-1950s that large scale thermonuclear testing began.