I read both parts of the debate and believe that it shows clearly that there are GOOD reasons for more of this type of discourse.

I am tired of the one-sided media bias (redundant) where every significant disaster is blamed on 'warming'.

Let's hear from the subject matter experts on both sides of the debate.

It seems to me that this topic has turned into a religion and is no longer about science and honest disagreement that can and should be a non-emotional process.

Trenberth

I will let the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC stand on its own merits.

This might be a good idea given the fact that it was given to Obama, who was nominated after only a dozen days in office. The Peace Prize is given out by parliamentarians and is driven by political standards. Given the fact that the IPCC is a political organization that has a lot of support among the Nobel committee it has little credibility.

Trenberth

...The pattern of observed warming is unlike any natural variation and the rates of change are faster. Hence we can prove that the observed warming is not natural and we can point to the cause: observed increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that trap infrared radiation from escaping to space.

Actually, they can't prove anything of the kind. We know that the warming trend that ended in the 1930s was at the same rate as the reported warming in the 1990s. And that was at the same rate as the warming that ended in the 1880s. The first two came at a time when human emissions of CO2 were not material.

And it is clear that Lindzen's work shows how little the IPCC modellers understand the process. His examination of the decadal tropical mean ERBS nonscanner radiation data shows that all of the IPCC models have used the wrong feedback assumptions. Lindzen's work has been verified by others. (List provided below this paragraph.) At the same time we also see that the IPCC models assume a 100 year residency for CO2 when the science overwhelmingly comes up with a number that is lower than 10 years. Both of these errors are required to come up with the scary predictions and without them the models start to reflect the observations.

Chen, J., B.E. Carlson, and A.D. Del Genio, 2002: Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science, 295, 838-841.

Cess, R.D. and P.M. Udelhofen, 2003: Climate change during 1985–1999: Cloud interactions determined from satellite measurements. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 30, No. 1, 1019, doi:10.1029/2002GL016128.

Hatzidimitriou, D., I. Vardavas, K. G. Pavlakis, N. Hatzianastassiou, C. Matsoukas, and E. Drakakis (2004) On the decadal increase in the tropical mean outgoing longwave radiation for the period 1984–2000. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 1419–1425.

Clement, A.C. and B. Soden (2005) The sensitivity of the tropical-mean radiation budget. J. Clim., 18, 3189-3203.

Trenberth

Grants to scientists to understand climate are not synonymous with studying global warming.

The point made by Gray is that the people that disagree do not get funded so they are either silent or report their findings with qualifiers that seem to support what they do not agree with. That point has not been refuted.

Trenberth

Conferences and discussions about warming, climate models, and what, if anything, to do about it occur all the time. However, a scientific approach takes evidence into account. Beliefs that are not consistent with evidence discredit the person who continues with them, and such a person is less likely to be invited to participate in the events.

This is also nonsense. The people who pointed out that the hockey stick was an outright fraud have been told that they are not welcome. The recent conference about polar bears excluded an expert because he was honest enough to point out that polar bear populations have increased over the past three decades. He was told not to attend because of his views about AGW even though he was an expert in the subject being covered. At the same time, presentations were given by non-experts who happened to be pushing the AGW message.

And Trenberth was the person who made comments about hurricane activity, which were flat out wrong and contradicted the actual evidence just so that he could create headlines for the media looking to promote AGW after the New Orleans levees failed during the Katrina storm. By the time the error was quietly acknowledged the false information was already being accepted as fact. That makes his claims about fact based science unsupportable by actual evidence.

Trenberth

Today’s best climate models are now able to reproduce the observed major climate changes of the past century.

This is not true. The models can only do that when special plug ins chosen by modellers to replicate the past are used. To prove that the models work would requires that the modellers prove that their plug in factors are correct. So far they have failed to do that. And as I pointed out above, the IPCC models use a CO2 retention assumption that is overwhelmingly rejected by scientific studies. They also use made up feedback numbers that are not supported by the real world observations.

I could go on but it should be clear that Trenberth is actually using rhetoric and avoiding discussing the facts as they are. The bottom line is that the real world observations do not agree with the AGW position. And where there is information to support his views, the data seems to be unavailable for review. When the data finally is forced in the open we find the support melting away each and every time.

Let me beat the Alarmists to the punch.....

Dr. Gray is an evil shill of somekind of energy concern and is hell bent on destroying the environment.
He drives cars and flys in Jets and probably eats meat.
All in all, completely incompetant to voice an opinion on such an important issue for mankind.

Dr. Trenberth, on the other hand, is a ranking member of the IPCC and as such is completley above critisism of any kind. Everything he says is absolute Gospel truth and anyone that disagrees is either Demented or Paid by Exxon.

Did I get it streight guys?

The headline here is ridiculous:

"A Rare GW Debate between Climate Experts"

Perhaps you're not aware of this, Brett, but debate between climate experts happens regularly, both at scientific conferences (face to face) and in the peer-reviewed literature. It just doesn't usually play out in the provocative way the media would like, with spherical Earthers vs flat Earthers, or with a consensus scientists vs a fringe contrarian arguing about matters already long-accepted within the scientific community.

Gray's statements in the interview consist largely of the usual conspiracy rhetoric along with various unsupported statements (claims that water vapor is not a positive feedback). Since "debates" like these don't require reliable citations, who is perceived to win is the individual who has the most convincing rhetoric, which of course is highly subjective. If one were to critically examine Gray's claim on water vapor, for example, one would find it lacking a scientific basis.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035333.shtml

Here's an interesting article on William Gray, who strikes me as a hot-headed cranky emotion-driven conspiracy theorist.

Quote:And Gray has no governor on his rhetoric. At one point during our meeting in Colorado he blurts out, "Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews."

Also an insightful quote about what motivates scientists to be contrarian:

"There're people like [Lindzen] in every field of science. There are always people in the fringes. They're attracted to the fringe . . . It may be as simple as, how do you prove you're smarter than everyone else? You don't do that by being part of the consensus," Held says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html

You also don't get much media attention by being part of the consensus. Anyone with a contrarian view and a heartbeat passes for a climate expert.

To me, the crux of the issue comes in Trenberth's first rebuttal of Gray's comments.
Do we know that the global ocean is warming or is it because calculation of such temperature has changed? Tisdale?
Do we know sea level rise is unprecedented? I understand that it is measured in millimeters. How reliable is any historical record of sea level rise?
The pattern of observed warming is unlike any natural variation? How many natural variations have come under the scrutiny of modern technology? Did the warming of the MWP look different than now? If so, how?

Whoa!!!!

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has spoken: "

Well that sure took the wind out of my sails.

I repent Al, I repent!

I did not have to get past Kevnin's second sentence. Sounds like a 3rd grade sandbox fight to me.

The fact that a discussion took place makes the event interesting due to it's rarity. The debate itself was uninteresting. I have seen better here. GK

Trenberth says:
"The pattern of observed warming is unlike any natural variation and the rates of change are faster. Hence we can prove that the observed warming is not natural and we can point to the cause: "

To believe this statement one MUST accept the completely discredited Hokey Schtick.

Only true religious adhearents admit to accepting that bit of Fraud now.

So much for the foundation of his agrument.

Trenberth accedentally supports Gray's position with this one:

"A grant is to carry out prescribed work and is very different than a gift to an individual to do what one likes with."

Many have said on many occaisions that Grants come with "prescribed" obligations.
However, there is a courious lack of Grant money offered to research other possible causes of warming than AGW.
Wouldn't it be useful to ask the basic question at least once?
You know.... start with: "What is causing this warming"
instead of "Please find out why Mann Made CO2 is causing Warming"

Thanks Kevin

I'll be brief:
I didn't like Dr. Trenberth's tone, but perhaps that only reflects my bias. Beyond that it seems silly to me to refer to a climate model as a tool for observation. In order to be observed, something has to first exist. The climate of the Earth in 2050 won't exist for at least another 41 years. I also find the assertion that the economy can be grown, or even sustained without increased energy production to be laughable. And the idea that anyone would now hold up California as an example of economic success is just plain silly. If I had a PhD I would avoid silly at all costs. But maybe that's just me.

Aaron

In other news, more cases of political tampering with scientific findings revealed...

WASHINGTON – A controversial e-mail message buried by the Bush administration because of its conclusions on global warming surfaced Tuesday, nearly two years after it was first sent to the White House and never opened.

The e-mail and the 28-page document attached to it, released Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency, show that back in December of 2007 the agency concluded that six gases linked to global warming pose dangers to public welfare, and wanted to take steps to regulate their release from automobiles and the burning of gasoline.

The document specifically cites global warming's effects on air quality, agriculture, forestry, water resources and coastal areas as endangering public welfare.

That finding was rejected by the Bush White House, which strongly opposed using the Clean Air Act to address climate change and stalled on producing a so-called "endangerment finding" that had been ordered by the Supreme Court in 2007.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091014/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_bush_global_warming_3

In positive news, Lindsey Graham, a McCain ally, is indicating a more constructive approach to climate legislation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?_r=2&em

Vangel,

Your assertions are much like Gray's - unsupported and easily refuted:

"At the same time we also see that the IPCC models assume a 100 year residency for CO2 when the science overwhelmingly comes up with a number that is lower than 10 years. "

Nice try. The only thing I've read claiming "10 years" is from a fossil fuel publication. It's actually much longer than the several hundred years typically mentioned. The IPCC underestimates the long tail.

"The carbon cycle of the biosphere will take a long time to completely neutralize and sequester anthropogenic CO2. We show a wide range of model forecasts of this effect. For the best guess cases, which include air/seawater, CaCO3, and silicate weathering equilibria as affected by an
ocean temperature feedback, we expect that 17–33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10–15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30–35 kyr."

http://geosci-webdev.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf

"The point made by Gray is that the people that disagree do not get funded so they are either silent or report their findings with qualifiers that seem to support what they do not agree with. That point has not been refuted. "

Actually, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the conspiracy theorists. However, it's easily refuted by the fact that notable skeptics get government funding, including Lindzen and Spencer. Government funding is not contingent on result. Industry funding is.

"The models can only do that when special plug ins chosen by modellers to replicate the past are used."

Ah, "special plug-ins". Perhaps you could describe these plug-ins and what makes them special. Please reference a scientific study to back your point.

Brett, thank you for the link and your headline. I am not surprised by GaryB's complaint that you did not say "Scientist and Skeptic". He wrote "You also don't get much media attention by being part of the consensus. Anyone with a contrarian view and a heartbeat passes for a climate expert."

To see Dr. Gray's work:
http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/

To see Dr. Lindzen's page at MIT:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
(BTW, lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change)

Science works by data collection, then development of theories, then testing by more data collection.

Politics works by consensus.

Regards,
Bob

Dr. Trenberth points out the sea level rise determined by TOPEX-Jason satellites. The 60-day smoothing for the graph at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_global.jpg shows NO overall rise since 2007. The claim that the 3.1 mm/yr rise is unprecedented is when it is compared to a hundred years of data for direct tidal gauge measurements.

Why is 17 years of satellite data the gold standard for sea level rise?

Why is 30 years of satellite data the gold standard for ice at the Arctic?

Why is 30 years of satellite data NOT the gold standard for global temperature?

Regards,
Bob

Thank you for the linkback, friend. It was high-time this remarkable exchange got the publicity it deserves.

Reply: Thanks goes to you Harvey!

MarkB. Your right again. When you deny the significance and importance of settled science, you are part of a fringe which effects nothing. As the Copenhagen Summit which meets in December to agree on cutting carbon use, it will include countries like China,India, and Japan, and most countries, that agreed two years ago to not agree.
Since the Scientific world understands Global Warming, a few scientifically challenged people will have no say in the debate, and will sound like Gary, and the unimportant hockey stick graph.
Again I say you should understand the Physics of Global Warming and the many ways CO2 is measured.
CO2, not just water vapour has benn keeping the Earth nice and warm until we added too much of it in the bandwidths that co2 and other gases reside. CO2 absorbs OLR, and the world is too hot for the irradiance it recieves. Satellites have shown exactly how much CO2 is in the troposphere,and scientists know what CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and re-radiates at least 50%back to Earth. Basiclly the deniers have lost and will fade away as soon as Global Warming effects them directly. Selfishness is not a good quality either. KIPP

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has spoken..." That is, it's so "because I (and my mommy) say so."

Can I have my grant money yet?

I didn't find the "debate" very informative.

What I'm looking for is a simple statement of the AGW hypothesis and a list of predictions or other testable metrics that can be used to confirm or disprove the hypothesis.

A major problem in doing an objective comparison of predictions vs observations is the lack of clear statements of prediction (or projections as the IPCC prefers to call them), along with uncertainty bands.

I've observed that, in the media at least, there is a tendency to take any short lived warming trend as confirmation of anthropogenic global warming, but any counter trends are dismissed as "merely weather".

This also happens in the IPCC documents and peer-reviewed literature. For example, Rahmstorf 2007 had a graph of observations vs. IPCC projections. It was updated for the Copenhagen report, but if the original smoothing algorith were used, it wouldn't have the "right" results. So Rahmstorf changed the smoothing algorithm. The graph was erroneously labeled in the orignal Copenhagen report. Only after various bloggers pointed out the error did Rahmstorf/IPCC say that the smoothing period needed to be extended to show the climate rather than weather. Yet inadequate smoothing that needed to be corrected is what was used by Rahmstorf in his peer-reviewed 2007 paper.

So far, the Copenhagen Synthesis report has been issued in 4 versions. Unfortunately, there isn't any sort of change control or bug report that tells a reader which version of the synthesis report he is reading and how it changed from the original release. Engineers would be fired for this sloppy of work.

Journalista: You asked, "Do we know that the global ocean is warming or is it because calculation of such temperature has changed? Tisdale?"

Journalista, you'll have to cut and paste the website addresses for the three graphs in the following.

The ocean warmed. I don't believe that's in question. Have SST measurement technologies changed? Yup, there have been changes in type of buckets, transitions from buckets to ship inlets to satellites, but that's a few hundredths of a deg C here and there. The Hadley Centre is supposed to revise its HADSST dataset sometime this year to accommodate the 1945 "discontinuity".

To me, the big question is, did the accelerated rise in CO2 during the latter warming period of the 20th Century cause SST to rise any faster than it did during the early warming period? That is, if we look at a typical graph that correlates global temperature and CO2 rise, we can see that from ~1910 to ~1943 CO2 rose ~10ppm, and between ~1975 and 2007, CO2 rose more than 50ppm. The graph appears to show that global temperature anomalies have accelerated in agreement with the acceleration of CO2 concentration.
i37.tinypic.com/6j0eux.jpg

But has it or is the perceived acceleration in global temperature anomalies an illusion? It's an illusion. Let's look at the linear trend of global SST anomalies from 1910 to 1943. It's 0.116 deg C/decade.
s5.tinypic.com/119qzk6.jpg

And the linear trend of global SST anomalies from 1975 to 2007 is 0.115 deg C/decade.
s5.tinypic.com/2vuk978.jpg

The change in the rate of rise of CO2 has had NO IMPACT on SST anomaly trends during the two 20th Century warming periods. I've written the following before on other threads here at Accuweather and I'll probably write it again: If an increase in CO2 does have an effect on SST, it is not apparent.

The SST anomaly trend graphs are from the post linked to my name.

Regards

And MarkB jumps in right on que with the old "discredit the messenger" and "ignor the message" standard leftie response.

Way to go MarkB. We were counting on you...

Gary | October 14, 2009 1:09 PM --- Science adherents:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

Lots of diffferent hockey sticks.

Dr. Gray is an evil shill of somekind of energy concern and is hell bent on destroying the environment.
He drives cars and flys in Jets and probably eats meat.
All in all, completely incompetant to voice an opinion on such an important issue for mankind.

Dr. Trenberth, on the other hand, is a ranking member of the IPCC and as such is completley above critisism of any kind. Everything he says is absolute Gospel truth and anyone that disagrees is either Demented or Paid by Exxon.

REPLY: LOL! Dude. Love all the comments. You are on a role. Keep it up and don't hold back!

Remember. Unless you have a melting glacier in your neighborhood, it's all back yard weather.

Love and Kisses,

Knuckles. Proud member of the MOB.

NO TO CRAP AND TRADE...NO TO FORCED GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE!!!! OR YOU ARE FIRED!!!!...F-I-R-E-D!!!! FIRED!!!!! NOVEMBER 2010....YOU ARE FIRED!!!!!

My primary Huh? moment of the entire debate was this sentence by Trenberth: " It may be impossible to model climate, as Gray suggests, but we are doing it anyway."

Gray was stating that weather and climate is very difficult to model from an initial value point for very long because its complexity soon causes the model to disconnect from the observed results. Trenberth on the other hand appears not to worry about that part of modeling but is just "doing it anyway" which has a fair degree of hubris associated with the attitude.

My primary concerns about the claims that AGW is huge and will get huger are simple:

1. Modeling climate and weather is extremely difficult and may never be done to satisfaction. It is necessary to test model predictions of the something like this for years to see if the model is capable of even the most basic forecasting. Statements like I have seen from other scientists, such as "We know more about wha tthe climate will be in 2050 than in the next few years" are highly alarming given the concern about accurate modeling from a set of initial values.

2. It is also pretty clear that the climate models have difficulties in making predictions on a regional or local scale. As a result, claims that there will be droughts, floods, etc. are essentially pure speculation. Even the claim of increased worldwide variability due to AGW is tough to make given the record of droughts, major hurricanes etc. that indicates that major events occurred decades and centuries ago at scales larger than we have recently seen (Southwest megadroughts, major hurricanes hitting East Coast of US etc.)

3. The AGW crowd keep pointing back to the mid-1800s as a starting point. That period is at the tail end of the Little Ice Age which appears to be the coldest period, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, since much of North America and Eurasia was covered by continental glaciers. Thank God it warmed up from those temperatures - that was hardly a period that we want to repeat in the near future.

4. The recent Yamal controversy highlights the paucity of real, accurate global data from decent global temperature records for the past 10,000 years. Hanging major arguments on the backs of a few tree rings from one region that appear to have a dubious overall history of documentation and true peer review is a pretty tenuous basis to drive worldwide expenditures of trillions of dollars over a few years. We are slowly getting improved data from ice cores, sediment cores etc. but the science on those is still evolving. It will likely be several more years before that data is adequate on a spatial and time basis.

Why is it that sea level rise is only contributed to global warming? What about the constant erosion of soil from the continents and islands into the ocean? What about the continuous building of volcanoes below the sea which displace water? How can all of the natural causes be ignored?

Dr, Gray on the basis of logic, not emotion.

To Gary:
Can you show that the hockey stick has been discredited?

Dr. Gray is an evil shill of somekind of energy concern and is hell bent on destroying the environment. He drives cars and flys in Jets and probably eats meat. All in all, completely incompetant to voice an opinion on such an important issue for mankind.

I don't know about any of that, but Gray isn't a climate expert.

Journalista: watch this space for responses to your questions, unlesss someone else gets to them first. Not possible at the moment.

That was a very informational exchange. Dr. Gray, I believe won out that debate purely on the fact that for every time Dr. Trenberth attempted to support his views, they ultimately fell back on the IPCC's modeling and accolades such as the "nobel peace prize". Dr. Gray was calculated, articulate and precise in his criticism of GWA's. Better yet, Dr. Trenberth retort was pure rhetoric, as Dr. Gray pointed out. Dr. Trenberth didn't even address the most basic questions ANY true scientist ought to keep in mind, how did the earth already go through ice age upon global desert and back again without humans? Yet they cling to these shortsighted and biased claims that human activity is the sole and strongest contributor to and "change" in the global climate? I do believe however, how can 7 billion people not have an effect on the climate? Dr. gray addresses this point as well. I was very glad to have read this.

Trenberth says:
"The pattern of observed warming is unlike any natural variation and the rates of change are faster. Hence we can prove that the observed warming is not natural and we can point to the cause: "

So now scientists are getting away with saying that because they've never seen it before, it can't be natural? What is this the Dark Ages?

Actually, this is a debate between a climate expert and a meteorologist. Dr. Gray, like your own Joe Bastardi has often done in the past, illustrates through his ignorance the large gulf between meterology and climate science.

It is kind of long, but I thought a well formatted debate.

The Egyptians believed that the earth was round. It was not until the Greeks came along and set the world straight that we were able to finally flatten out the planet.

Global warming science goes right up there with the fact the world is flat. If you believe anything hard enough, for a long enough period of time, and people in white coats with pretty titles preach about it, I guess you will ignore the facts and eventually come to the truth.

Jeff Green:

Can I show that the hockey Schtick has been discredited?

No.

I don't have to. Many others with far more science education than me have done a more than satisfactory job already. It is so well documented that you simply have to "want not to see it" to miss it.

All that is left is wimpering from those who have lost credibility and reputation trying to salvage some little bit of dignity.

Only problem is that they needed to have dignity before they tried to pull such a huge Fraud.

Related to Gray's rhetoric (and the "hockey stick" rhetoric):

"Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn't because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it's that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information. "

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

Gray gives us this nugget: "We need to maintain a vibrant growing economy so that we can afford a large commitment to research alternate energy sources."

He points out, and I agree, that cutting use of fossil fuels until such time as economical alternate energy sources are available is going to do anything and everything but "maintain a vibrant economy." If we cut our use of fossil fuels as population continues to grow, the poor nations will remain poor, and the wealthy nations will become poor. Any hope of finding a replacement for fossil fuels will vanish. I cannot understand why that is so difficult to comprehend.

The focus, as I have said for years, must be on reducing our use of fossil fuels as best we can, NOT on reducing our emissions of CO2. If we are successful in finding alternate means of energy, the problem will take care of itself rather neatly (if such a problem indeed exists).

If on the other hand, we merely cut emissions by reducing our energy consumption, I cannot imagine how we will ever be able to afford the research needed to save the human race.

Or maybe the AGW crowd has already thrown in the towel on humanity and just hasn't admitted it yet.

Gary:
As Dr. Benson has said,there are many hockey like graphs beside your Mann graph that says the same thing. Than when you are asked to support your remark, you chicken out with a meek retort. If you don;t understand what you are against, than where is your reality based. On the Hansen et al hate machine, Read Target co2 by Dr. Hansen and tell me what's wrong with that small beautiful paper. As the world meets, and CO2 becomes a pollutant, it seems to me that you deniers have lost. Your delaying now is against American business, that's what you guys will hurt now. You know the panels we could make and the wind farms that will be built, with Chinese technologies. Strange Brew, to hurt your country too. The Cream. KIPP

I get very annoyed when I see statements like "Since 1992 when a new satellite was launched that can provide true global measurements, sea level has risen at a rate of one foot per century, confirming the reality of global warming."

Here is the USGS site on climate and sea levels: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Please note three key facts in this:

1. There is evidence that past interglacial sea levels have been 20m higher than today;
2. Sea levels have risen 125m in the past 20,000 yrs; and
3. There is evidence that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been smaller than today and may even have melted completely in the "recent geologic past."

The 125m rise over 20,000 yrs is about 2 feet per centruy over that period. In reality, much of that rise occurred in a very short time frame over 5,000 years or so for an even greater rate. There is a great deal of speculation that this pre-historic process was the genesis of the various legends of the Great Flood found in numerous cultures.

The latent heat of ice is 80 cal/g, so it takes as much energy to convert a gram of ice into water as it does to then heat it to 80C (almost hot enough to make coffee and tea). This was a huge energy input required during that period to cause that sea level rise.

What is going on with our sea levels today is relatively normal, if that term is even appropriate given the mad swings of climate we have had over the past million years.

The problem is that modern civilization has elected to put most of its people right on the edge of a huge body of water that actually has a pretty variable elevation both in the short term (tsunamis and storm surges) and long term (glaciation and deglaciation causing 100m+ swings). If we wanted to locate everybody at the "normal" sea level for the past million years, the average person would currently be under about 60m of water.

Trying to immobilize our planet so that we do not get variations on a scale that is well within the known recent geological framework is behaving like King Canute attempting to stop the tide. We need to focus our attention and resources on developing resilient infrastructure and ecosystems instead. Expanding development on beaches while demanding carbon dioxide emission limits is suicidal lunacy.

rd | October 14, 2009 10:03 PM
Rusty Lugnut | October 15, 2009 3:33 PM

Thanks for proving my statement "The debate itself was uninteresting. I have seen better here."

Both your comments make this thread an excellent read. GK

Prof. Bleen: says:
Actually, this is a debate between a climate expert and a meteorologist.

Close!

Actually it is between a Meterologist and an Alchemist.

Oh... Kipp.

My point was that the debunking of the Fraud stick has been posted ad-nosium nearly everywhere.
It has been posted here many times.
It is clear and unoquivical and too easy to look up to bother reposting now.

And yes there are many hockey sticks.
And many of the debunking articles reference them as well since many of them are built from the same bad data and by the same group of Mann Cheer leaders.

Give it up. The Hokey Schtick dead.
Trying to defend it now just make you look silly.

Prof Bleen.

Trenberth has never been a climate expert. He has far less to do with this field then Dr. Gray. I think you should do some research.

Of course Lidzen is and I wonder what his opinion is? LOL

Gary-

Silly? You already won thaT AWARD MONTHS AGO. lol

Thanks Idecline.

I appreciate your support.

Can someone tell me whether any laboratory experiments have been carried out to measure the infra-red radiation absorption by atmospheres containing various concentrations of CO2 in therange, say, 300ppm to 500ppm to indicate directly the effect of CO2 on global warming? I realise that the path length for the samples would probably have to be quite long and the detectors quite sensitive to get meaningful results but such work surely would produce more meaningful graphs than the ones which Al Gore and his pals using historical 'evidence' to correlate CO2 levels with global temperatures.

Here is a recent essay on the value of skepticism (AGW) from the BBC. GK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8322513.stm