Just check out the following link, the consensus is clear enough.

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

Here is another interesting link.

Texas and most of the Eastern US were cooler than average in July.

Could this indicate the beginning of a change in the global warming scientific consensus?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=07&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=07&year1=2007&year2=2007&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg

I'd like to share some links that I found while Googling Schulte's piece. I'll reserve my own opinion for another comment.

One interesting approach, somewhat like Brett's, is initiated at Tim Lambert's blog: Classifying abstracts on global climate change.

Lambert writes:
Searching for "global climate change" in the Web of Science and restricting the search to "Papers" and "since 2004" gave me 576 results. A bit more than Schultz, but some were published after Feb 2007. I've put all the results on the web here. Christopher Monckton has posted seven of the papers that Schultz reckons explicitly reject the consensus. You'd think that those would the best seven, so I looked at them. He does better than Pieser, because three of them really so reject the consensus.

Let me just highlight the link embedded in the above -- we can each do our own checking, no pencils required. The abstracts in question are at: Abstracts on Global Climate Change

Lambert offers an analysis of the seven quoted by Schulte. Let's just say that Lambert comes to a different conclusion that Schulte about those seven.

Meanwhile, on the comments of Lambert's blog, is a link to Naomi Oreske responds to Schulte.

With Brett's permission, I quote Oreske's response in full:
Reply to EPW Blog: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears:

Naomi Oreskes, University of California, San Diego

1) The Schulte piece is being published in Energy and Environment, a known contrarian journal. It was posted on the minority blog of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, whose leader thinks that global warming is a "hoax." It was circulated on the internet by Marc Morano, a long-standing contrarian and former reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Show, and who was involved in the "swift boat" campaign against John Kerry.

2) The Schulte piece misrepresents the research question we posed. It was, "How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, "...most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"? This statement came from the IPCC (2001) and was reiterated explicitly by the 2001 NAS report, so we wanted to know how many papers diverged from that consensus position. The answer was none. The Schulte claim does not refutes that.

3) The piece misrepresents the results we obtained. In the original AAAS talk on which the paper was based, and in various interviews and conversations after, I repeated pointed out that very few papers analyzed said anything explicit at all about the consensus position.This was actually a very important result, for the following reason. Biologists today never write papers in which they explicitly say "we endorse evolution". Earth scientists never say "we explicitly endorse plate tectonics." This is because these things are now taken for granted. So when we read these papers and observed this pattern, we took this to be very significant.We realized that the basic issue was settled, and we observed that scientists had moved on to discussing details of the problem, mostly tempo and mode issues: how fast, how soon, in what manner, with what impacts, etc. (See Oreskes, 2007 for further discussion).

4) The Schulte piece misrepresents my own interpretation of the severity climate question, as well as that of the scientific societies whose positions we compiled. This is a typical contrarian tactic - to exaggerate or misrepresent the scientific claim and then "refute" it. My analysis was a summary of the position of scientific experts. I never said, nor have any of the major scientific societies said, that the scientific literature warns of an imminent "catastrophe." An analysis of how severe scientists think warming is or will be would have been a different paper. So you cannot "refute" my analysis by pointing out that the word "catastrophe" doesn't appear. I never said that it did. Nor would I expect it to. Scientists don't generally use that kind of language, although contrarians do.

5) The EPW press release accuses my paper of being "outdated." It is in fact a crucial element of the paper that the study that it goes back to 1993. We wanted to see how the arguments had developed over time, and to test, if we could, when the consensus position emerged. A crucial result for me was the realization that the basic consensus had already been established in the early 1990s. However, in hindsight this should actually have been obvious: it's why President George H.W. Bush signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The basic scientific insight was already in place.

6) The author is a medical researcher. As a historian of science I am trained to analyze and understand scientific arguments, their development, their progress, etc., and my specific expertise is in the history of earth science. This past summer I was invited to teach a graduate intensive course at Vienna International Summer University, Vienna Circle Institute, on Consensus in Science. I do not know why a medical researcher would feel qualified to undertake an analysis of consensus in the earth scientific literature.

7) Contrarians have been trying to refute my work for three years. A previous claim, also circulated and cited by Marc Morano, was subsequently retracted by its author. Evidently it has taken them three years to find some one foolish enough to try again.

I refer interested individuals back to the original paper (Oreskes, 2004) and to a more extended version of the argument (Oreskes, 2007).

Oreskes, Naomi, 2004."The scientific consensus on climate change," Science 306: 1686. [link]

Oreskes, Naomi, 2007, "The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong?" Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren, edited by Joseph F. C. DiMento and Pamela Doughman, MIT Press, pp. 65-99. [Download file]

More damning evidence this is nothing but a hoax:
http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=9489_0_1_0_M

Senator Inhofe also publicized a study this past week that claimed less than half of climate scientists endorse the global warming theory. Reply: yes, this is the same story. Brett. A lot of these "studies" have methods that are completely biased. One such bias is sample selection, usually by picking a set of studies or scientists with known opinions rather than a statistically accurate subset of opinions. In the Inhofe case, only 6% of studies actually had an opinion- most were silent on the issue and they counted this as being against consensus. There is also the Bray and von Storch study from 2003 which showed about 60% of climate scientists in support of the theory- this was back in 2003 when we had a lot less hard evidence about things like ice cap melt. I blogged about these studies here: http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2007/08/do-12-scientists-endorse-global-warming.html

Brett,

I don't see anything in this data even remotely indicating an "overwhelming consensus" - a term we often hear used as a reason to move forward with aggressive policy. Reply: yes Patrick, the last two studies support that. Brett. Looking around just on the NASA web sites I can find dozens of different papers with various theories about warming or cooling due to CO2, solar radiation, atmospheric thinning, etc.

By all indications the science of climate change is in it's infancy. Even the science of recording and analyzing temperatures appears to be very poorly understood. The politics is miles ahead of the science.

This may just indicate that tipping effects have already confused the consensus. Human activity will cause global warming only to an extent and thereafter natural processes will take over.
All the scientists agree that GW is occurring but some dispute it is all caused by human activity.
I agree,
Look at forests in heatwaves releasing CO2, drying out and burning, releasing far more co2 than from nature than the usual human source. This knock on effect is initially caused by AGW but the additional source of co2 is the natural response to climate change.
Look at acidic oceans now dissolving coral reefs and limestone and releasing stored co2 or the warming permafrost releasing tonnes of co2 and methane in arctic regions.
These vaults of co2 are natural and cannot be controlled Therefore warming in the future will occur as a direct result of an accelerated natural release of CO2 and methane hydrates rather than being caused solely by human activity.

Andrew, Do you really believe info on Wikipedia?
Info without responsibility......

Brett,

This isn't politics - it is science. If 25% of the people in my office are not willing to sign off that the product is ready, it wouldn't stand a chance of going out the door. A 25% chance of product failure is completely unacceptable and would destroy the company.

The reason being that everyone is looking at the problem from a different angle. The most recent study shows less than 50% ready to sign off. There is no consensus.

from http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2007/08/do-12-scientists-endorse-global-warming.html

'If a paper is silent on the issue of whether global warming is real or not, does this indicate "a refusal to accept or reject a hypothesis"?
No. Does it indicated lack of consensus in the scientists? No.
If only 6% of papers reviewed (and who knows what methods were used to select the papers) outright rejected the consensus (in a non-representative sample narrowly defined by a partisan study) then how can you say that over half of scientists refuse consensus? You can't. With the same data, you could say that scientists are in consensus because only 6% of all studies sampled outright deny global warming in their papers. The truth is that in order to find out if scientists endorse the theory of global warming you have to ask them.

I lived in Alaska for a long time watching glaciers melt, shorelines disappear, villages disappear into the sea, etc, etc. I traveled across Canada and around the US last year. Everywhere people are seeing the climate change, new animals in their area, spring coming three weeks early, growing seasons extending. It appears we're in a burning building. We're debating whether the most heat is coming from man made or naturally made materials. Not only that but whether it's 8% or 20%. Who did what to who, how much, who's at fault, did the fire start with a spark or a match, lets find some bit of trivial evidence or misinterpreted information, it was cooler the 4th of July in my hometown, on and on with the debates. And you can find somebody, somewhere who will disagree with anything.
eantime the building is burning. So argue on, doesn't change a damn thing.

Lubos Motl shredded Naomi's article two years ago..
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html

I did my own surveys to debunk other scientific myths:

95% of epidemiologists don't believe alcohol rub dispensors or soap and water, kill germs.

90% of doctors believe AIDS can be cured by faith healers (sadly, some politicians in the USA have much in common with some politicians in Africa regarding the scientific knowledge bases of Global Warming and AIDS, respectively).

75% of astronomers think NASA didn't go to the Moon, and the reflector mirrors lasers rebound off of when shone at the Moon, are really hitting the invisible roof over Earth.

AGW is a sound and mature science. Big Foot claims and claims UFOs aren't weather balloons, atmospheric phenomena or military prototypes, should be given the same credulence as AGW deniers. The same marketing forces were at play in claiming cigarettes didn't cause lung cancer and asbestos didn't cause cancer (thx to Stern for that last example).

It would be fine if deniers were choosing to stay off in their own little delusional sanctuary, but they are taking all of us back to the stone ages. Do the Stonecutters really think they can maintain control over a world regressed to a Middle Ages standard of living?! Time to give back a little bit. For those of you that aren't Stonecutters, what gives? You need at least a six figure net-worth to live off of compounding interest, they won't let you in their club just because you shine their shoes.

Zeke,

A few things to think about with respect to glacial retreat in Alaska. Most of the recorded glacial retreat in Glacier Bay was prior to 1880.

when European explorers first sailed along the Alaska coastline in the 1790s, they noted only a small embayment along the coastline. By the 1880s the glacier that filled what became known as Glacier Bay had retreated, leaving a bay that extended nearly 40 miles (64 kilometers). The glacier has continued to retreat and today Glacier Bay extends more than 60 miles (96 kilometers) into the Alaskan coastline.

What complicates the human-induced global warming question is the fact that some of the glaciers in Alaska began their retreat more than 250 years ago, before the human population expanded and the industrial revolution.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1217_alaskaglaciers.html

20,000 years ago glaciers covered most of North America to a depth of several thousand feet. We are now in an interglacial period, and yes glaciers are retreating.

Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt." .... "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063

Shannon,

Having read through the site you referenced and understanding that you want to do what you can, to help avert this AGW phenomenon, I will throw these questions out to the forum and see how many "realists" there are in the crowd of believers:

1) What would you have done to stop or slow the natural warming cycle, if you lived sometime between the years 800 and 1400 AD, when Greenland glaciers were melting, the Arctic ice was receeding and Icelanders were farming the newly exposed lands?

2) Do you think you would have tried to stop the natural cooling cycle if you had lived in the transition period, say 1360 to 1440 AD, so you would not have to relocate, when the ice came back and closed the ports to shipping?

3) Do you think anything could reverse the development of one mile thick of ice on more than half of North America and Russia, that dessimated everything in it's path 15,000 years ago, if the same ice age were to begin today?

Everything that you see around you today (if you live north of California) such as trees, lakes, rivers, grass covered prairies, towns, and all wildlife, did not exist until the ice sheet receeded. We are all living pretty well due to that warming.

Enjoy and find some good in the weather, find something to do that will actually make a difference for the less fortunate, relocate if you must, adapt and carry on. That's how we all ended up here in the first place. It's called natural progression and evolution and we're living it.

Two thousand years from now, they won't care what kind of lightbulbs you used or what type of car you drove. Everything you do today will be mostly irrelavent by then. That's the reality of climate and history repeating itself.

Texas and most of the Eastern US were cooler than average in July.

REPLY: Really???? Gee, and I thought this summer was supposed to be the B--- Buster of them all, with the Air Conditoners in the Northeast getting a workout. I am still waiting for it to start! When is it going to start???? Can someone tell me when this hotter than average summer for the Northeast is going to start??? But that's OK, Pittsburgh is hot and getting hotter! Didn't you hear??? Why, here's proof:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07205/803994-100.stm

Just so everyone knows, (especially the political leftys and Al Gore supporters) this story broke on a day in Pittsburgh in July that did not exceed 68 degrees F for a daytime high, and the head of "Penn Envrionmemnt" was at one point in history, a congressional lobbiest for "social change" while working for a similar organization in Connecticut. Does this tell you anything???

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

"growing seasons extending."

Heavens, no! This is a catastrophe. But the crop grown during this increased growing season will only be sand from what I understand.

Andrew,

More evidence from NASA of an impending ice age ;^)

For several decades, measurements of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet showed it to be retreating rapidly. But new data derived from satellite-borne radar sensors show the ice sheet to be growing. .... Do these new measurements signal the end of the ice sheet's 10,000-year retreat?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=7268

BTW - we are on track to set the all-time record for maximum southern hemisphere ice this week or next. Using the clever linear thinking of the AGW community, this extrapolates to Antarctic ice eventually covering the planet.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

-113F in Antarctica right now, as spring rapidly approaches. Hope the penguins are holding on tightly to their eggs. Nothing more annoying than a dancing baby penguin.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=-78.44999695,106.87000275

The American Meteorological Societys position on climate change.

Humans have significantly contributed to this change, and further climate
change will continue to have important impacts on human societies,
on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21 st century and beyond.

Prudence dictates extreme care in managing our relationship with the only planet known
to be capable of sustaining human life.

http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.pdf

John D,

I am not going to argue with you about the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warming Period when they have already been addressed by the IPCC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWP_and_LIA_in_IPCC_reports.

You say to adapt and move on, and that "two thousand years from now, they won't care what kind of lightbulbs you used or what type of car you drove. Everything you do today will be mostly irrelavent by then. That's the reality of climate and history repeating itself." I supposed that it true if you are a defeatist. But that's like saying why bother make a life or have children when you are going to die eventually anyway.

I think the deniers have to go back further than just a couple of hundred years to find a time when human activity has had no impact on the natural world
The problem with comparing past climate change with present day experience is one of numbers. Any mention of Greenlands agrarian past must also mention the population on the island in the days of the Vikings to really appreciate the size and number of farms likely to support the island at the time.

Pre-industrial climate change affected fewer people who had the space and time to retreat from the effects. In the current age a billion people now live on the shorelines of rising seas and due to inland populations and the need for farmland, timber and catchments, large coastal population will cause overwhelming problems when they are forced to retreat.

Some have supported the theory that natural GW was accelerated by human activity long before industrialisation, causing huge ice melt lakes to form inland within the Arctic Circle.
Pre-industrial climate change may have been caused in part because of a steady increase of co2 defused into the atmosphere due to land clearing practices common across Europe South America and Africa starting as far back as 8000 years ago.

Land clearing practice released tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere by AD1000 while inhibiting nature�s capacity to absorb the cycle of co2. Industrial land clearing and swamp draining occurred under various empires well before the industrial revolution which may well have led to climate change.
Land clearing, deforestation and erosion are things that today increase co2 atmospheric levels and cause high temperatures leading to drought. Bush fires and the associated soot levels falling in the Arctic would have increased the rate of ice melt in the pre-industrial time. Some say the glacial dams containing fresh water discharged enough volume into the Arctic sea which interupted the Gulf Stream in the 1700s causing the mini ice age.
We can argue all we like about how much human activity has accelerated GW but we cannot pretend that the climate has not changed.

Oiznop,

The West was busy getting burned in July. Texas was particularly cool during that period because it was getting flooded for yet another month.

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/maps/index.php?action=update_product&product=PNorm

Things got plenty hot in the East during August, especially in Kentucky and Tennessee. Sarcasm aside, it never did stay warm for an extended period of time in the Northeast, for which you may consider yourself fortunate.

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/maps/index.php?action=update_product&product=TDept

Things got plenty hot in the East during August, especially in Kentucky and Tennessee.

REPLY: (SIGH) Again, I have to emphasize. 2 weeks of "plenty hot" in August doesn't constitute a hot summer. Nor does a few sporadic 90 degree days.

Sarcasm aside, it never did stay warm for an extended period of time in the Northeast, for which you may consider yourself fortunate.

REPLY: You obviously have not been reading any of my posts, Travis. If you were, you would realize that I detest cool(er) weather of any form, especially these mornings in the 50s. That's not summer! This season was a huge disappointment, especially when everyone from the Al Gore, to the Accuweather people, to the mailman predicted a hotter than average summer this year in the NE, thanks to this Global Warming insanity and stupidity.

Translation (again): Anything below 80F for a daytime high, and below 65F for a night time low is WINTER! Sorry, paly. Other people from around here (the Northeast) may agree with you on your "fortunate" comment. This beach bum does not. And another miserable winter looms! Wonderful.
Great. Can hardly wait.

Pittsburgh Weather. Proof that Global Warming is a CROCK!!!!

Um... Simon.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the climate has not changed. It is the cause of that change that is so much in doubt.
Here is yet another paper disputing the AGW claim that man made CO2 is the cause.
And this one is from a European, so it Must be true... Just kidding.
Excerpt begins here:
Belgian Weather Institute (RMI) Study Dismisses Role of CO2
Brussels: Carbon dioxide is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study performed by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. �But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it,� climate scientist Luc Debontridder says.

�Not carbon dioxide, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore�s movie has hyped carbon dioxide so much that nobody seems to take note of it.� said Luc Debontridder. �Every change in weather conditions is blamed on carbon dioxide. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the �North-Atlantic Oscillation�. And this has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide.�

Translated into English from this story

http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/nieuws/wetenschap/540607?wt.bron=homeArt2

I suppose it's only Human Nature to want to deny that we could be doing something to harm our environment, especially when the 'fix' or reducing greenhouse gas emissions involves significant lifestyle changes.

If only we could look at it another way. Using imported oil costs us money - both in the price of the good, and the treasure to defend our ability to buy the good. Polluting the atmosphere with byproducts of the burning of fossil fuel harms human health. Aerosol pollution kills countless numbers of weak and elderly people every single year.

So - Just pretend that Global Warming doesn't exist. Do we really want to keep buying oil from the Middle East? Do we really want to keep burning fossil fuels that pollute our atmosphere in other, less controversial ways?

I think humanity would be better off to stop wasting energy arguing about the problem - and get to work on true, sustainable energy independance. If you want to liquefy coal - fine. Just sequester whatever it is you release. If you want Nuclear Fission, invest in converting the waste into a glass form, and bury it in Yucca. If you really want to get serious, take all the cash we spend over in the sand box and put it towards Nuclear Fusion research.

No matter what - just do SOMETHING. Even if you ignore all the signs and science all around you that the planet is warming - forget about Lake Mead's water level, the perpetual expansion of the world's deserts, the fact that Lake Superior hit an unbelievable 75 degrees this summer, the rapidly vanishing arctic ice cap, the string of cat 5 hurricanes that keep on forming, etc... the same clean environmentally friendly technologies that are being proposed to deal with Global Warming can also cure a world of other problems, that no one can possibly deny.

So - let's clean up the planet, and not quibble because Antarctica is having a cold winter this year, or because one particular area of the country hasn't gotten hot this year. Remember - Weather is not Climate. Even if global average temps get 10 degrees warmer - that doesn't mean NYC can't have a summer day where it doesn't break 70, or that Miami can't have a New Years Day snow shower. It just means those occurrences will get less, and less frequent or likely.

Travis,

Texas was particularly cool during that period because it was getting flooded for yet another month.

Half of the country was below normal temperatures in July, including regions where it was dry like Tennessee. I don't think your theory about floods causing cool weather is going to fly in this case.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/maps/index.php?action=update_product&product=TDept

If we were to accept the idea that man is having such an important impact on the world's weather, I wonder how the Ice Age ever ended without man polluting the atmosphere with green house gases?

I think one of the biggest myths of global warming is the whole idea of 'over sampling'. The truth is that there is no over sampling. Per Hansen et al (2001) in order to get the real trends, all the urban and semi-urban stations trends are modified by the rural trends. Per Hansen, within the USA, which has the most rural stations in the world, there are only ~250 rural stations. For the USA, NOAA/CRN says that in order to have a 95 percent of confidence, 300 stations are needed. The rest of the world is even worse. South America only has six stations that Hansen considers rural and of those most are on islands.

So the whole, 'over-sampling' means that any bias from bad stations is corrected is just a myth.

Simon,
I think the deniers have to go back further than just a couple of hundred years to find a time when human activity has had no impact on the natural world

We do. We go back thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions of years. I think we've even gotten to billions, but I'm not positive.

Geology, archeology and their related fields support the cyclical nature of the earth's climate with the current warming fitting right in the cycle.

BTW, you have any numbers on the quantities and rate of change for these ancient and medieval anthropogenic climate changes?

Can you then do a comparison with the current claims of AGW which require inputs orders of magnitude greater from humans to check your theory?

How do you plan to violate Occam's Razor this time with fancy AGW theories compared to simple cyclical periods of heating and cooling?

Do you realize that even though the evidence points to a cooling phase beginning now, that if the cycles are correct then the earth will be remaining in the current climactic optimum for the next few centuries?

Warren,

The Ice Age ended over 10,000 years ago when the amount of summer time solar radiation at 65 degrees north latitude was sufficient to melt the glaciers.

The distance between the earth and the sun varies. Currently, the earth is closest to the sun in January. However, between 10 to 15 K years ago, the earth was closet to the sun during the NH summer. This made the NH sun about 5 percent brighter than it is now and was enough to start melting the glaciers.

After the initial melting, CO2 gases were released, which provided additional warmth and increased the amount of rainfall. In response, plant growth accelerates and CO2 levels eventually fall.

With falling CO2 levels and orbital changes the NH cools off and eventually the glaciers start to grow again.

All a big cycle with CO2 levels rising and falling between 170 to 280 ppm.

Now, CO2 levels are 380 and rising. The result is that arctic sea ice has reached a new minimum and Greenland is starting to melt as well.

CO2 levels have not been this high in about a million years. No reason to panic, but there is no historical precedence for where we are heading either.

Patrick,

During July, most of the East was within three degrees of normal. I consider that to be an ordinary occurrence. Texas, on the other hand, was between three and nine degrees below normal for the month of July. THAT I consider significant, especially when it occurs over the course of an entire month. The same is true for Oklahoma and Arkansas in July where it also rained significantly more than normal.

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/maps/index.php?action=update_product&product=PNorm

Only a question about your CO2 numbers... these would be the ones from the ice cores? The one that capture air 80 years after the ice forms? The ones that use a trace gas that is so well mixed that we can use two sites, Vostock and Mouna Loa to measure CO2 levels but we cannot use most of the 90 thousand measurements made prior to 1950 because the measurements were tainted? Those are the measurements of CO2 your basing the 'in a million years.' on?

"that doesn't mean NYC can't have a summer day where it doesn't break 70,"

You are off by a full 10 degrees. The high temp on August 21 was 59. I'm pretty sure that is the record low/high for an August day in NYC. Due to this occurrence, I've put off plans to purchase a canoe and will be continuing to use the subway for a few more years.

Weather is not Climate. Even if global average temps get 10 degrees warmer - that doesn't mean NYC can't have a summer day where it doesn't break 70, or that Miami can't have a New Years Day snow shower. It just means those occurrences will get less, and less frequent or likely.

REPLY: Same old gorg from you guys. Hey, did you all hear? Hamburger has nothing to do with Meat Loaf!!!!!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!

p.s. Here's a little tid bit from our friends overseas. More evidence that global warming is a colossal fraud:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=479572&in_page_id=1770

Two-thirds of people think politicians are using the green issue as an excuse to pull in more cash. NO! Really??? How could they think that when the poor polar bears are going to be extinct in a few years??? When it�s for the trees! When it�s for the common good???

"Geology, archeology and their related fields support the cyclical nature of the earth's climate with the current warming fitting right in the cycle."

Prove this. This is a central denier tenet and everytime any specific cycle is examined by science it always comes up irrelevant or insignificant to initiate warming. The field of archaelogy supports the thesis that everytime droughts happen human civilizations die off.
What geology, what "related fields?

"I think one of the biggest myths of global warming is the whole idea of 'over sampling'. The truth is that there is no over sampling. Per Hansen et al (2001) in order to get the real trends, all the urban and semi-urban stations trends are modified by the rural trends. Per Hansen, within the USA, which has the most rural stations in the world, there are only ~250 rural stations. For the USA, NOAA/CRN says that in order to have a 95 percent of confidence, 300 stations are needed. The rest of the world is even worse. South America only has six stations that Hansen considers rural and of those most are on islands.

So the whole, 'over-sampling' means that any bias from bad stations is corrected is just a myth."

Personally, I don't even care about sampling and heat island effects. This is what global warming opponents think global warming's case rests on?! It's very simple. CO2 blocks out outgoing infrared radiation more than incoming light. The presence of atmospheric water vapour amplifies this effect. Various other processes (I'll list all the known ones one by one if desired) amplify, mask or reduce warming to lesser degrees. Various future processes will heighten global warming within decades. Where are the denialists in denying this explanation of what GW really is? Why the focus on the sideshow of sampling errors?

I want to here neoconservatives tell me CO2 *doesn't* act as a one-way mirror, initiating a Greenhouse Effect. If they can't do that and defend their position, you know what they're full of.

Since deniers can't differentiate between weather and climate anyway, I figure they'd love to know these statistics:

Warmest August ever in Raleigh
Warmest August in Cincinnati
Warmest summer in Las Vegas (breaking last year's record)
2nd warmest August in Denver
Warmest August in Nashville

Oh yeah, and just for you Oiznop, Pittsburgh finished about 3 degrees above average for August. I haven't looked at June & July numbers, but I suspect Pittsburgh had above normal temperatures for meteorological summer.

Guess those predictions of a hot summer were correct, after all.

Brett, first you said:

"I have no way of confirming whether or not the latest survey results by Schulte show a clear trend away from consensus."

But then you seem to have found a way:

"The results of all three studies still suggest that there is still a very small percentage of scientific papers that reject consensus, but there is a growing number that are not totally buying into it and are beginning to question it."

Given that of the three authors only Oreskes is actually qualified to interpret the abstracts, what basis do you have for saying such a thing?

Or perhaps let's put it this way: How much credibility would you give to a climate scientist's interpretation of medical paper abstracts?

Mark,

I figure they'd love to know these statistics:

2,000 stations, 100 year record. That means 20 stations on average will have their hottest August every year. 20 stations on average will every their hottest summer every year. 20 stations on average will have their hottest July every year......

Simple statistics, not Armageddon. Climate hypochondria can be cured through education.

Pittsburgh's average high was 81 so far this summer with a maximum of 91. That is well below normal, though sounds quite pleasant.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KAGC/2007/6/21/CustomHistory.html?dayend=4&monthend=9&yearend=2007&req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Reply: here is the data from PIT dor the period Jun22nd-Sep03.............

Highest temp 92
Lowest temp 48
Average temp 71.8, which is 0.3 above normal for the period, which you would term as normal.

Brett.

The American Bar Association has just published Global Climate Change and U.S. Law, a 784-page multi-author book edited by Michael B. Gerrard. The book sells for $59.95 (minus a discount for ABA members). It will be updated by a web site.

After a summary of the factual and scientific background, the book begins by addressing the international and national frameworks of climate change law, including clean air regulation, civil remedies and the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on many domestic actions. The book then describes emerging regional, state and local actions, and includes a 50-state survey. Next is coverage of issues of concern to corporations, including disclosure, fiduciary duties, insurance, and subsidies. The book ends with an examination of the legal aspects of various efforts to reduce emissions, including voluntary programs, emissions trading programs and carbon sequestration.

Of what use is arguing over how many people agree with AGW consensus, have no opinion, or reject it when NO studies have ever been done that attempt to show how CO2 has caused AGW and of what portion of the ONE degree increase since the end of the LIA (where we saw a ONE degree decrease) has been caused by CO2 (the extra 100 ppm)?

If no one can show how or how much, who cares if there is consensus or not? Consensus is a Majority of OPINION.

How many people think Jesus is causing GW? How much proof is needed if consensus can be gathered? Any? Who determines when consensus is met?

Brett, you seem to defend AGW by replying to Patrick that the "last two studies" support overwhelming consensus. What does that mean? Consensus without proof is nothing more than religion. Reply: I didn't say that. Brett

Can anyone give an example of when a Scientific Majority of OPINION has ever been of use?

Brett,

I was referring to high temperatures which are below normal in Pittsburgh. Low temperatures in cities are more affected by UHI.

What are the baseline years for "normal" anyway?

Reply: From what I know, they come up with normals using 30 year averages. But I must say, I have been working here for 18 years now and the averages do not seem to change, so I assume they are still using 30 year averages starting no later than the early 60s.

"2,000 stations, 100 year record. That means 20 stations on average will have their hottest August every year. 20 stations on average will every their hottest summer every year. 20 stations on average will have their hottest July every year"

The problem with your statement is that there are likely hundreds of stations having their hottest August on record. I gave you a sampling which spanned from the west coast all the way to the east coast. In other words, it's a rare statistical anomaly.

Perhaps this map will help you, Patrick:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/tanal/30day/mean/20070902.30day.meanf.gif

Phillip,

What geology, what "related fields?

Here is a graph of average "global" temperature vs. CO2 concentration for the last 600 million years. The temperature is based on this work. The CO2 concentrations are derived from this paper. Last time I checked, this type of work is considered geology. Notice the percentage of time that the earth was "warm" (20-22 deg C) versus "cold" (12-17 deg C). Can you see how well CO2 concentration correlates with temperature fluctuations during the Phanerozoic?

Neither can I.

You also need to look at the Vostok ice cores. Apparently, to the consternation of the AGW crowd, CO2 concentration increases lag behind temperature increases. This is geology, also.

It's very simple. CO2 blocks out outgoing infrared radiation more than incoming light. The presence of atmospheric water vapour amplifies this effect. Various other processes (I'll list all the known ones one by one if desired) amplify, mask or reduce warming to lesser degrees.

First of all, Phillip, you need to do a little more research on CO2 and its effect on infrared radiation. As Luboš Motl at the Reference Frame explains, "Contrary to conventional wisdom, the additional greenhouse effect becomes increasingly unimportant as the concentration of CO2 increases. Even though we have only completed about 40% of the proverbial CO2 doubling, we have already achieved about 75% of the warming effect that is expected from such a doubling: the difference is a result of the exponentially suppressed influence of the growing carbon dioxide concentration." Basically, as the frequencies at which CO2 become saturated with infrared radiation become more and more saturated, the concentration no longer is a factor and the radiation is no longer stopped from radiating into space. At 380 ppm CO2, we are about 75% there. It's not a linear relation, which means runaway temperatures are not possible. If you want an example, check out the graphs I've reference above. One would think that at CO2 concentrations of 1,000 ppm or more, temperatures would have gone off the chart. Yet, they reached no higher than 22 deg C once in the Permian and that's it. Then there's that pesky correlation problem....

I eagerly await your response, Phillip.

Since deniers can't differentiate between weather and climate anyway.

REPLY: Keep spewing BS, and it becomes the truth eventually.

Pittsburgh's average high was 81 so far this summer with a maximum of 91. That is well below normal, though sounds quite pleasant.

REPLY: For some, Patrick. In the Afternoon, maybe. In the mornings, it wasn't.

Guess those predictions of a hot summer were correct, after all.

REPLY: Mark, I am pretty much sick and tired of your twisting things. So, let me make myself perfectly clear. When it's a hot summer here where I live, I will tell you guys. OK? Every last one of you. Deniers, Skeptics, Middle of the roaders, weather people and Al Gore supporters like yourself. I will tell you when we have a hot summer here in Western Pennsylvania. 2005 was a hot summer. 2002 was a hot summer. 1995 was a hot summer. 1993 and 91 were hot summers, and 1988 was probably the hottest of them all up here that I can recollect. This summer had it's (very sporadic) moments, but was a wet noodle compared to those years just mentioned. So take your statistics, your climate babble and your political agenda and just go away. It's not going to work with me.

Reply: I agree with oiznop, the summer here in central PA has been dry, but nothing unusual in terms of heat, fairly typical summer temperatures for what its worth. Brett.

Love and Kisses,

The Jester

P.S. Wanted to mention. Travis stated earlier that I should consider myself fortunate. Let see how fortunate we are here in SW PA come December, January, February, March, and yes ladies and germs, even April! Again, I can hardly wait.

Brett,

The fact that most comparisons showing above normal temperatures use baselines from the cold 1960s and 70s - makes me question the intent of the authors. Why not use a more complete baseline extending back to the 1930s? The numbers look quite different when Hansen's newly found warmest decade is included.

Mark,

Thanks for the graph. It shows a hot spot over Al Gore's 20,000 foot house. The AGW storm troopers should turn his home into a giant shelter for the homeless to protect them from his seemingly endless hot air.

August saw record cold in much of South America. Antarctica has been extremely cold the last few weeks as has Greenland. Temperatures in the interior of Greenland are averaging well below zero (F) this month - and it is still summer. Last month (the second warmest month of the the year) they averaged only 3F.

According to AGW models, it should be hot in Greenland and Antarctica and cool in Tennessee. In places with high humidity (like Tennessee), water vapor absorbs essentially all the infrared that CO2 might have absorbed.

I'd suggest Al Gore take a field trip to Vostok to see it snow dry ice at -112F.

Oiznop,

Considering your affinity for warm weather, have you ever considered moving somewhere other than west Pennsylvania? I personally prefer cool weather, which is why I chose to live in the Pacific Northwest.

If you're looking for heat, I would suggest either the Southeast, or perhaps the West/Southwest if you prefer something with less humidity. You can go as far north as Boise, Idaho and still have 90 to 100 degree summers every year (and you still get a decent winter, too
).

"Mark, I am pretty much sick and tired of your twisting things."

Touched a nerve, eh Oz? Most of the United States has had a hot summer. Ask your friends in Cincinnati, Charleston WV, and Louisville how "cool" this summer has been.

It was forecast to be a hot summer across most of the country. Most of the country, in fact, was very hot. Ergo, the forecast was largely correct. I challenge you to dispute this.

Paul,

Please clarify your first two paragraphs for me. In the first, you assert that there is no correlation between global temperature and CO2 levels, but then in your second paragraph (about the Vostok Ice Cores) you assert that CO2 levels lag behind increases in global temperature.

It looks as if you're trying to have it both ways; if CO2 levels do in fact follow global temperatures, then there is an obvious correlation. If there is no correlation, then any similarities between CO2 levels and global temperatures are purely coincidental.

My argument would be that over the course of hundreds of millions of years, there are many different factors that effect the climate: positions of the continents relative to the poles and the equator, levels of different atmospheric gasses, tectonic activity, solar activity, etc. The fact that global temperatures have peaked at 22 degrees C and bottomed out at 12 degrees C suggests that all of these factors serve as dampening effects to prevent runaway heating or cooling beyond those norms.

I agree that the relationship between CO2 and global temps is nonlinear. It will take much more than an increase in CO2 levels to push us to global temperatures seen during most of the Mesozoic Era, when giant lizards and insects roamed the Earth. But it shouldn't take that much to seriously alter the global climate we have today. As your first reference states:

We are actually in an ice age climate today. However for the last 10,000 years or so we have enjoyed a warm but temporary interglacial vacation.

Yet still we are in one of the coolest periods in the history of the planet. Two degrees C cooler would mean most of us would be back under a mile or two of ice. A long term shift of two degrees warmer would probably cause events of comparable magnitude in the other direction. I think it quite possible that GHGs could cause a sustained increase in global temperatures of that small a magnitude. Mind you I'm not sold on GHGs, but I think it's important enough to be given due consideration and caution.

Paul, your references are out of date. This 2004 paper and this 2007 paper are better. You can use Google Scholar to check this stuff for yourself, although it's probably easier to start with the material in the AR4 paleoclimate chapter.

As the above material demonstrates, CO2 played (and continues to play) an important role throughout paleohistory. Other things that don't operate on time-scales we can directly perceive also play important roles (e.g., solar brightening, plate tectonics, orbital cycles), which is why analyzing ancient climate change will always be more complex than looking at the present climate where CO2 is the dominant forcing.

Regarding the lag: Under natural conditions (for deglaciations), orbital (Milankovitch) cycles (the initial forcing) result in high-latitude warming that in turn drives CO2 out of the carbon sinks into the atmosphere (which in turn results in more warming until an equilibrium is reached). This is not an instantaneous process, thus the lag. Now we have turned the CO2 into a forcing by adding it directly, so there is no lag. I've *never* seen anyone but a denialist confused on this point after it's been explained once.

"The American Bar Association has just published Global Climate Change and U.S. Law, a 784-page multi-author book edited by Michael B. Gerrard. The book sells for $59.95 (minus a discount for ABA members). It will be updated by a web site."

Good catch Cullen. I'll have to check that book out for myself.

Can alarmist tell the difference between fact and fiction? Over on RC Gavin Schmidt made the statement:

It has been estimated that the mean anomaly in the Northern hemisphere at the monthly scale only has around 60 degrees of freedom - that is, 60 well-place stations would be sufficient to give a reasonable estimate of the large scale month to month changes. Currently, although they are not necessarily ideally placed, there are thousands of stations - many times more than would be theoretically necessary.

Which is little more than a lie wrapped up in 'estimation' when the facts are not quite so good for the alarmist position. NOAA/CRN says that a minimum of 100 stations are needed for the USA alone, not the whole NH! To get a higher confidence of the climate, 95 percent, a full 300 stations are needed just for the USA. Saying only 60 stations are needed is just untrue and a climatologist should know this.

Further, Gavin goes on to say that 'thousands of stations - many times more than would be theoretically necessary' when this is a lie. The fact remains that for surface stations GISS, where Gavin works, uses Hansen et al (2001) to adjust the station trends. For UHI this means that only ~250 stations are used to adjust the other ~1000 stations within the USA.

Now why does Gavin misrepresent reality like this? Because surfacestations.org is showing that a significant number of stations do not meet NOAA/NWS/WMO site guidance. Studies have found that failure to meet site guidance will lead to 1-5 degree C errors for the station.

The impact of this is that errors at a small number of 'rural' surface stations will inject a warming trend that is just an artifact of the errors. Hansen pointed this out in his 2001 paper but does not want to believe it now.

This is even worse for the rest of the world. South America for example, only has six 'rural' stations and half of them are islands.

So the 'accelerated' warming from instrumented readings that diverge from the proxies and cause the divergence problem could be nothing more than a warming bias due to improperly sited stations.

Oh, and this 'accelerated' warming is the reason given that solar could not be the cause of warming, but in the USA, which has the best 'rural' stations network, there is almost no warming trend in the 20th century.

It was forecast to be a hot summer across most of the country. Most of the country, in fact, was very hot. Ergo, the forecast was largely correct. I challenge you to dispute this.

REPLY: Challenge accepted! Forgive me, but if you have been paying attention, I have been referring to THE NORTHEAST!!!! NOT the rest of the country. Yes, you touch a nerve when you try to twist things. The preditions were (supposedly) dead on for most of the country. NOT IN THE NORTHEAST as the same forecast was predicted. Go back and do some research and get a clue.

Travis: My job is here, my family is here. Come retirement, though, I will NOT remain here. I refuse to spend my elder years shoveling snow and slipping on frozen slop. (of course to hear the Enviros talk, by that time there will be no snow here -- oops sorry, confusing the "Climate" with the "weather") So to answer your question, yes. But unless my employment comes to an end, I am here. Suring such time, Summer Vacations, however, will be no where north of here, I can assure you. As for your preference, you can keep it, paly! Have fun with your horizontal rain, your gloomy skies, and your "comfortable" temperatures. I am headed for the sunshine!

Love and Kisses,

The Denier

Considering your affinity for warm weather, have you ever considered moving somewhere other than west Pennsylvania.

REPLY: Just to add to the answer to your question, Travis...To hear you alarmists out there talk, I shouldn't have to!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!

Patrick Henry said I don't see anything in this data even remotely indicating an "overwhelming consensus" - a term we often hear used as a reason to move forward with aggressive policy.

Reply: yes Patrick, the last two studies support that. Brett.

Brett, the last two studies support what?
Reply: I should have phrased this better. Basically I was agreeing with Patrick's statement. I should have said, yes Patrick, the last two studies agree with your reasoning. Sorry for the confusion Steve. Brett

Travis,

When did CO2 concentrations really start to rise? 1940? What did the temperatures do starting in the late 40's-early 50s? CO2 concentrations rise, temperatures fall; CO2 concentrations continue to rise, temperatures rise. Great correlation, eh? Your entire premise is that increasing CO2 concentrations are causing runaway temperature increases globally with CO2 being the driver as Mr. Bloom has informed me. However, the Vostok cores show that CO2 increases (along with methane) lag behind temperature increases by some 800 years which strongly suggests temperature is the driver.

Mr. Bloom,

From your first reference, Regardless of semantics, the important issue is determining the forcings responsible for global climate change. To this end, Dromart et al. (2003) reported evidence for a temporary drawdown in atmospheric CO2 across the 160 Ma icy event. If correct, a CO2-driven reverse greenhouse effect appears responsible for this brief cool period.

What caused the reduction in CO2 concentration? If CO2 caused the temperature drop and resultant ice age, what initiated the CO2 drop?

A better, non-pc model is one that has been around for a few years. One in which plate tectonics play a major role in creating Gondwanaland and Laurasia, reducing ocean circulation especially in the polar regions, a large landmass over a pole (Gondwanaland). This results in a temperature drop (cooling of the oceans) which also results in more CO2 being dissolved in the oceans.

As for your second reference, it is rather difficult to discern an 800 year lag time in temperature-CO2 when your sampling interval is in the range of a million years. They just don't have the resolution to determine that rising/falling CO2 concentrations caused rising/falling temperatures.

Regarding the lag: Under natural conditions (for deglaciations), orbital (Milankovitch) cycles (the initial forcing) result in high-latitude warming that in turn drives CO2 out of the carbon sinks into the atmosphere (which in turn results in more warming until an equilibrium is reached).

So, Steve, what is that equilibrium CO2 concentration? I'll address the remainder of your lag theory/non-theory after you answer this question.

Regarding the lag: Under natural conditions (for deglaciations), orbital (Milankovitch) cycles (the initial forcing) result in high-latitude warming that in turn drives CO2 out of the carbon sinks into the atmosphere (which in turn results in more warming until an equilibrium is reached). This is not an instantaneous process, thus the lag. Now we have turned the CO2 into a forcing by adding it directly, so there is no lag. I've *never* seen anyone but a denialist confused on this point after it's been explained once.

Somebody's eyes are turning brown :) There is NO proof that CO2 causes warming today nor does it exist in the last several hundred thousand years. There is no evidence that anything other than solar energy variation caused the ice ages and is causing this warm period. The lag is due to Henry's Law. Please explain how this equilibrium is reached.

Give you a tip: If you're going to BS, you need to write up a report that is 1,400 pages long that never actually states anything definitive like the IPCC. Also, be careful of your use of "forcing", even the IPCC labels it as a "concept", I'll let you look up the definition yourself.

If the estimate by NASA is correct that Solar Irradiation has been increasing by .05% per decade of over the last 3 decades that would mean 43 quadrillion more Watts per day the Earth gets than 30 years ago.

Were you the one explaining? Did you have an audience of *believers* that were enlightened? :)

the present climate where CO2 is the dominant forcing

Steve Bloom,

In a few hours when the sun sets, temperatures at my house will drop about about 10 degrees. Now I know it must be due to CO2. Thx for the insight.

The last 15 years have seen temperatures rise while teen pregnancy has dropped. The correlation proves that climate is driven inversely by teen pregnancy rates. I suppose it could also be due to theater ticket prices, or average weight of Wal-Mart shoppers.

NGW Steve and Patrick,

Please, no piling on.

Brett's reply above: "I should have phrased this better. Basically I was agreeing with Patrick's statement. I should have said, yes Patrick, the last two studies agree with your reasoning. Sorry for the confusion [NGW] Steve."

*sigh* Brett, the evidence at this point seems to be that you've been instructed to handle this blog so as to maintain a rhetorical "balance" between climate science and denialism. Reply: I have not been instructed to do anything. The last two studies did not show overwhelming support for the consensus, the first one certainly did. How accurate those surveys are and which one is most correct is still up for debate. Brett. That this approach is policy here at AccuWeather was underlined the other day in the video where the "expert" forecaster went after the NOAA attribution of last summer's U.S. heat to AGW with a ridiculous line of reasoning that's about what we would expect from NGW Steve or Oiznop. No wonder Bastardi looked embarassed. None of this is especially your fault since you just work here, and possibly at this point it has a lot to do with maintaining a contrast with the competition's climate scientist-run site, but it's still sad to see.

One small note to Paul, whose reply was a little better on a rhetorical level: I said "an" equilibrium, i.e. one that will vary in level depending on circumstances. You responded by asking me for a figure for "that" equilibrium even though I think the distinction was quite clear to you. I could tell you that for the Pleistocene glacial maximums CO2 levels are at approximately 180 ppm and for interglacials approximately 280 ppm, but of course you already knew that. IOW, as this and each of your other points made clear, you just want to keep an argument going.

Vernon: You gloss over the distinction between the minimual GHCN coverage needed to get a reasonably accurate global trend and the coverage needed for the far more comprehensive objectives of the CRN, which in particular includes data good enough for future regional modeling needs. But actually I don't think you're even slightly confused on this point, which is why Gavin no longer let's you post such things on RealClimate.

Otherwise -- Paul, NGW Steve, Patrick, Vernon, of course Oiznop: Sorry, no more arguing with me. You guys have more than amply demonstrated your complete disdain for the facts and the science; IOW I'm wasting my time when I argue with you. In future I may drop in the occasional link or short refutation, but I won't engage with you.

As long as we're on the general subject of denialism, folks may be interested in this study. The title says it all: "Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults' mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter." It's really very depressing, but does tend to explain why many seemingly intelligent people make denialist arguments.

My first thought on seeing these results is that they must have excluded people with a science or related background. Wrong, unfortunately. 60% of the respondents had math, science or engineering backgrounds, as might be expected from a population of graduate students at MIT. I wish I were kidding.

Steve Bloom,

You sound like an intellectually and morally superior person and we are graced to have your presence amongst us.

Are you bored since Pielke's blog shut down? Thank you so much for coming here and enlightening us with your wisdom and pleasant attitude.

Mr. Bloom,

Thanks for the answer to my question, what is that equilibrium CO2 concentration?

Now to address your lag problem. You stated, Regarding the lag: Under natural conditions (for deglaciations), orbital (Milankovitch) cycles (the initial forcing) result in high-latitude warming that in turn drives CO2 out of the carbon sinks into the atmosphere (which in turn results in more warming until an equilibrium is reached).

According to your hypothesis, since the only way CO2 can accumulate in the atmosphere beyond the hypothetical equilibrium concentration of 280 ppm, give or take a 100 ppm, is by anthropogenic sources; this hypothesis suggests an upper limit to naturally occurring CO2 concentrations. If this were, indeed, the case, how did CO2 concentrations rebound to 3500 ppm after the Mississipian-Permian ice age? This could not happen if your equilibrium condition is to be maintained. So, either the physics in the Carboniferous Era is different or your hypothesis is flawed. Which is it?

Paul,

You never actually answered my question--in fact you repeated the logic that I took issue with.

If you are so adamant that there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels, how can you credibly turn around and state that CO2 levels are determined by global temperature? You stated: the Vostok cores show that CO2 increases (along with methane) lag behind temperature increases by some 800 years which strongly suggests temperature is the driver.

To turn your non-correlation argument back on you, if temperatures drive increases in CO2 levels, then why do CO2 levels drop during the temperature increase of the Silurian period of the Paleozoic Era? Why do they drop when temperatures are increasing, then steadily high during the Cretaceous in the Mesozoic Era?

Either there is a correlation between global temps and CO2 or there isn't. Take your pick. You can't have it both ways.

Also, I never claimed that CO2 increases would cause "runaway" global temperatures. This is what I said:

A long term shift of two degrees warmer would probably cause events of comparable magnitude in the other direction. I think it quite possible that GHGs could cause a sustained increase in global temperatures of that small a magnitude.

Please do not misquote me.

Furthermore, I attribute the decline in global temperature during the middle of the 20th Century to increases in atmospheric aerosols. The arguments I've seen for that theory are sound enough to consider that a viable explanation. If someone can present good enough evidence of the contrary, I will reconsider my position.

In the meantime, I await an answer to my question.

Thanks to a better understanding of GHG and feedback mechanisms, we can now finally explain the seasons.

In autumn, the leaves fall off the trees causing lower CH4 emissions. These leads to lower temperatures and snow. The snow causes further negative feedback, and by December temperatures are headed into a downwards spiral. Moose can't find enough food and quit belching - further aggravating winter misery.

Fortunately, the Christmas shopping rush pumps massive amounts of CO2 into the air - just in time to avert catastrophe. This, combined with all the CO2 released from champagne and beer on New Year's, causes positive feedback and temperatures rise towards spring. As the snow melts and the leaves come back on the trees, more CH4 gets released causing a dangerous feedback loop into summer.

Fortunately, school gets out in June and CO2 emissions from soccer mom vans and school buses drop. Children hole up and play World of Warcraft in their basement all summer. If they do leave their game, it is normally to ride their bicycles to 7-11 to get more energy drinks. Video games have an excellent carbon footprint, compared to say - drag racing like we did as kids.

And thus the cycle repeats. I never believed that nonsense about the sun controlling temperatures anyway.

Mr. Bloom, you say:

blockquote>Vernon: You gloss over the distinction between the minimual GHCN coverage needed to get a reasonably accurate global trend and the coverage needed for the far more comprehensive objectives of the CRN, which in particular includes data good enough for future regional modeling needs.

First, please provide a cite that shows only 60 stations are needed to get a reasonably accurate Northern Hemisphere trend.

Second, how about addressing my argument. It is that alarmist, such as yourself, are presenting lies as facts. All the non Hansen rural are having their trends adjusted based on the few lights = 0 rural stations. In South America that is six stations. In the USA it is ~250 stations.

This clearly indicates that a few stations are not enough to qualify as over-sampling when it is less than the number needed to get a 95 percent confidence interval.

Basically, alarmist are play hard and fast with the truth. Pretty much, the proxy readings do not show accelerated warming, the only thing that does is the direct instruments.

By the way, if you read Hansen (2001) did you notice that 20th century warming just happens to match the graph that shows all adjustments. Who knew.

Patrick,

Don't forget that the kids also play Halo. Otherwise, I'd say you have a sound theory!

Anyone else notice that alarmist offer lots of 'reasonable' explanations but no facts? A theory without empirical evidence to support it?

Steve Bloom,

I've *never* seen anyone but a denialist confused on this point after it's been explained once.

See the thing is that I nor many other people need this to be explained like I'm some Church goer that needs the Bible, Koran, Torah, pick your favorite one, explained to them. You and many others continue to state ideas as fact that are simply wrong or have no evidence to support them. Give us a HYPOTHESIS, your METHODS, and your CONCLUSIONS. Afterwards if I am confused I will ask you to explain yourself.

Case in point; You said orbital (Milankovitch) cycles (the initial forcing) result in high-latitude warming that in turn drives CO2 out of the carbon sinks into the atmosphere (which in turn results in more warming until an equilibrium is reached).

No issue with the Milankovitch cycle, there is good evidence for it, however there is no evidence that the CO2 released due to Henry's Law and other factors caused more warming, if you have any you did not share it.

I could tell you that for the Pleistocene glacial maximums CO2 levels are at approximately 180 ppm and for interglacials approximately 280 ppm, but of course you already knew that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

So the Earth's orbit caused the NH to warm to melt ice and raise temps so CO2 is released from Ice and Oceans. 100 ppm, from 180 to 280 and temps went up ~12 degrees. How much of that was CO2? CO2 levels have gone up another 100 ppm and we have seen a ~ONE degree increase that follows a ONE degree decrease during the LITTLE ICE AGE where CO2 levels stayed level at 280 ppm.

You go on to complain about Brett being instructed to maintain a balance between "climate science and denialism". Why don't you use this so called "Climate Science" to explain the above? Go on to explain how an additional 43 Quadrillion Watts of energy per DAY from the Sun is insignificant. If this Climate Science does indeed trump Physics, then clearly show it and I will climb aboard the AGW train and lambast the AGW Deniers I stand with now.

Drop in as often as you like, but if you're not going to back up controversial statements with solid evidence then expect a reply that fits your statement.

Regards,

Steve

Travis,

It's called 'cause and effect". Temperature driving carbon dioxide has a pretty good correlation with a lag of approximately 800 years. This correlation extends to methane, also. This means that rising temperature will cause a rise in carbon dioxide and methane approximately 800 years later.

Now, this correlation does not mean that the reverse is also true. Carbon dioxide driving temperature does not correlate for the reasons I pointed out before; therefore, carbon dioxide does not drive temperature. Now, I'll leave it up to you to figure out why this is true.

if temperatures drive increases in CO2 levels, then why do CO2 levels drop during the temperature increase of the Silurian period of the Paleozoic Era? Why do they drop when temperatures are increasing, then steadily high during the Cretaceous in the Mesozoic Era?

Probably had a lot to do with the absence of abundant terrigenous plant life until the end of the Silurian. Actually, CO2 concentrations dropped all through the Cretaceous with the advent of grasses and flowering plants.

Paul,

I think I see where the confusion arose. To me, correlation implies reciprocality, whereas you consider it more a matter of cause and effect.

Thanks for your suppositions.

"My first thought on seeing these results is that they must have excluded people with a science or related background. Wrong, unfortunately. 60% of the respondents had math, science or engineering backgrounds, as might be expected from a population of graduate students at MIT. I wish I were kidding."

Or perhaps it means people are thinking for themselves? Kudos to them.

Michael J writes:
Or perhaps it means people are thinking for themselves? Kudos to them.

I wonder if Michael J bothered to actually read the paper or its abstract before offering his cheapshot.

Here's a relevant excerpt from the abstract:
GHG emissions are now about twice the rate of GHG removal from the atmosphere. GHG concentrations will therefore continue to rise even if emissions fall, stabilizing only when emissions equal removal. In contrast, results show most subjects believe atmospheric GHG concentrations can be stabilized while emissions into the atmosphere continuously exceed the removal of GHGs from it. These beliefs-analogous to arguing a bathtub filled faster than it drains will never overflow-support wait-and-see policies but violate conservation of matter.

Michael J apparently will have us believe that "thinking for themselves" means denying conservation of matter.

"Michael J apparently will have us believe that "thinking for themselves" means denying conservation of matter."

Tell you what, why don't you let me be the authority of what I am saying...I'm a lot better at it and probably a lot more unbiased judge of it.

As for cheapshots...well, I guess you have more experience in that department so I will defer to you on that.

In addendum, I should have referenced the follwing blurb about "denial" before the comment of "...thinking for themselves...":

"My first thought on seeing these results is that they must have excluded people with a science or related background. Wrong, unfortunately. 60% of the respondents had math, science or engineering backgrounds, as might be expected from a population of graduate students at MIT. I wish I were kidding."

My ommission which I squarely lay on the shoulders of not having more than one cup of coffee before writing.

Is a retraction in order Tom or was you commentary applicable to any comment whether it was taken out of context or not? We all make mistakes as I just proved.

Is a retraction in order Tom or was you commentary applicable to any comment whether it was taken out of context or not? We all make mistakes as I just proved.

In Michael J's September 7, 2007 5:23AM post, he quotes Steve Bloom's earlier comment about the graduate students at MIT. He then offers this comment:

Or perhaps it means people are thinking for themselves? Kudos to them.

Perhaps I misunderstand Michael's comment -- I read it to mean, to paraphrase, "perhaps it means graduate students from MIT are thinking for themselves." I fail to see how a graduate student at MIT could assert the opinions reported in the cited paper without denying conservation of matter.

If I have misunderstood Michael's comment, I hope he'll please clear up my confusion. If not, then I stand by my own response.

Late note to Brett: I apologize for starting a conversation in the comments about blog policy. In retrospect, that's best done off-line.

Reply: No problem Steve

Perhaps it would have been clearer had I referred directly to the link Steve was referring to. I apologize for the confusion Tom...I should have been more specific.

Explaining my comment would probably be a useless gesture since I am looking at context, i.e. this is why they are deniers and you are looking at content, these people really don't understand the science (which gets back to the presupposition that the science is correct.) So, I guess since your comment still stands, mine still stands as well as the rebuttal. We can be two stubborn jerks sitting in front of our computers on a Friday night. I'm sure you have a great comment to slam me with so take your best shot...I'm sure it will amuse everyone. This stubborn jerk has a date in an hour.