CO2 is not causing changes of climate

[BethesdaWX]

Do you know what equivocal means?

It means inconclusive.

They are saying that changes in radiative flux (both for SW and for LW) are inconclusive.

Yes! Now, do you know why this is important?

[Isotherm]

Damn, you guys are insane.

All I have to say is I agree with Will's post a few pages back regarding the next decade+ really putting the theory that Co2 is the primary driver to the test. There's plenty we don't understand with our climate system, and I don't like when folks make it seem like science has explained virtually everything, i.e. "the science is settled." When in reality it's extremely difficult to quantify Earth's natural feedback mechanisms.

[BethesdaWX]

Damn, you guys are insane.

All I have to say is I agree with Will's post a few pages back regarding the next decade+ really putting the theory that Co2 is the primary driver to the test. There's plenty we don't understand with our climate system, and I don't like when folks make it seem like science has explained virtually everything, i.e. "the science is settled."

Well its the last attempt there for them. I think the question has already been anwered Re: CO2 as a primary Driver....A big fat _We don't know_ but that won't stop alarmists.

[WeatherRusty]

Well its the last attempt there for them. I think the question has already been anwered Re: CO2 as a primary Driver....A big fat _We don't know_ but that won't stop alarmists.

Over the course of the next century what will be the primary driver of climate change? In 100 years what will have proved to have been the most prominent forcing? The next decade will not prove anything any more than the last decade has.

Why not wait 30 more years? Even that would not prove anything just like the 40's to 70's didn't. What will have proven to be the strongest global warming factor after 200 more years?

If you trust the physics, you understand the answer. If you don't you won't. If you are overly concerned with short term variability, that's what you will measure in 10 years.

[Isotherm]

Below is a table depicting natural and anthropogenic sources of Co2. Note the anthropogenic contribution is about 23K out of 793K. We're talking about approximately 2.9% of Co2 release into the atmosphere is due to human activity, when the gas itself is already very miniscule in the atmosphere. So our 2.9% contribution is said to be the primary driver of climate according to mainstream science; that claim is rather amazing in my opinion.

[Isotherm]

Over the course of the next century what will be the primary driver of climate change? In 100 years what will have proved to have been the most prominent forcing? The next decade will not prove anything any more than the last decade has.

Why not wait 30 more years? Even that would not prove anything just like the 40's to 70's didn't. What will have proven to be the strongest global warming factor after 200 more years?

If you trust the physics, you understand the answer. If you don't you won't. If you are overly concerned with short term variability, that's what you will measure in 10 years.

The correlation coefficient between Co2 and global temps over the past 100 years is not as high as other factors, so let me ask you this. When will Co2 emerge as the primary driver? In 200, 300 years? It won't be able to hold off the next major ice age which the Earth is now overdue for.

[skierinvermont]

Below is a table depicting natural and anthropogenic sources of Co2. Note the anthropogenic contribution is about 23K out of 793K. We're talking about approximately 2.9% of Co2 release into the atmosphere is due to human activity, when the gas itself is already very miniscule in the atmosphere. So our 2.9% contribution is said to be the primary driver of climate according to mainstream science; that claim is rather amazing in my opinion.

Saying that the amount of CO2 is "small" and that you can't comprehend how that would make a difference is not a valid argument.

Human CFC emissions are tiny (even compared to CO2) but have drastically altered the ozone layer, UV radiation reaching earth, and climate. Saying something seems small to you doesn't mean diddly squat.

I hope you understand that even though we are only 2.9% of annual emissions we are essentially 100% responsible for the rise from less than 300ppm to 400ppm.

[skierinvermont]

The correlation coefficient between Co2 and global temps over the past 100 years is not as high as other factors, so let me ask you this. When will Co2 emerge as the primary driver? In 200, 300 years? It won't be able to hold off the next major ice age which the Earth is now overdue for.

First of all, correlation does not equal causation.

Second of all there are tons of ways to perform such a statistical test, many of which show CO2 to have the strongest correlation to temperature of any factor. It's easy to mess with statistics to get the result you want, which is why they require proper interpretation. Don S. performed one such statistical test and posted it earlier this year showing CO2 to have the strongest correlation.

[gracetoyou]

Damn, you guys are insane.

All I have to say is I agree with Will's post a few pages back regarding the next decade+ really putting the theory that Co2 is the primary driver to the test. There's plenty we don't understand with our climate system, and I don't like when folks make it seem like science has explained virtually everything, i.e. "the science is settled." When in reality it's extremely difficult to quantify Earth's natural feedback mechanisms.

Most objective & most logical post on this entire thread!!! Thanks!

[skierinvermont]

Don's statistical analysis of the PDO, AMO, solar, ENSO, AO and CO2, concludes that CO2 has by far the strongest long-term correlation to temperature. This is a complete and properly executed statistical analysis which directly contradicts your claim that natural factors have the strongest correlation.

Here is the ANOVA performed by Don on various possible causation scenarios. Two things to note:

1. Scenario 4 which includes CO2 has by far the strongest correlation coefficient.

2. In Scenario 4, CO2 has a correlation of .008C / ppm of CO2. That comes out to .8C per 100 ppm.

Thus Don's statistical analysis of natural and anthropenic correlations concludes that the best correlation occurs for a relationship of .8C per 100ppm of CO2.

If we extrapolate that relationship out further, a 300ppm rise in CO2 by the end of this century would cause an additional 2.4C rise in temperature.

The following are the Coefficients of Determination ( r² ) for a range of scenarios using 10-year moving average figures:

1. AMO & PDO: 0.867 (scenario 1)

2. AMO, PDO, ENSO, AO, and Solar Flux: 0.950 (scenario 2)

3. Atmospheric CO²only: 0.981 (scenario 3)

4. All the natural variables and atmospheric CO²: 0.998 (scenario 4)

5. Time only (as a dummy): 0.955 (scenario 5)

What's interesting is that when the atmospheric CO² is introduced, some of the relationships between the natural variables and temperature trends change e.g., from direct to indirect relationships.

Unfortunately, I was unable to attach the spreadsheet to this message. The following are the images:

Climate Spreadsheet (10-year Moving Average):

Scenario 1:

Scenario 2:

Scenario 3:

Scenario 4:

Scenario 5:

Note: "Anomaly" refers to the temperature anomaly in degrees ( C ).

[LakeEffectKing]

Over the course of the next century what will be the primary driver of climate change? In 100 years what will have proved to have been the most prominent forcing? The next decade will not prove anything any more than the last decade has.

Why not wait 30 more years? Even that would not prove anything just like the 40's to 70's didn't. What will have proven to be the strongest global warming factor after 200 more years?

If you trust the physics, you understand the answer. If you don't you won't. If you are overly concerned with short term variability, that's what you will measure in 10 years.

If over the next few decades we continue with a global temp of +.6 or below....it will prove that the alarmists talking about death spirals, mass coastal evacuations due to sea level, etc. etc. with have been complete BS. If the AGW hypothesis was "what will be the most prominent forcing in 100 years", that's what they should have laid out for us to "test"....but all the dire consequenses, are the "testing" that is going on.....and if you don't want those to be a hinderance to validity of the AGW hypothesis, then the extremists making such claims should stuff a sock in it.....or the science is going to suffer due to a cry wolf syndrome!

[skierinvermont]

If over the next few decades we continue with a global temp of +.6 or below....it will prove that the alarmists talking about death spirals, mass coastal evacuations due to sea level, etc. etc. with have been complete BS. If the AGW hypothesis was "what will be the most prominent forcing in 100 years", that's what they should have laid out for us to "test"....but all the dire consequenses, are the "testing" that is going on.....and if you don't want those to be a hinderance to validity of the AGW hypothesis, then the extremists making such claims should stuff a sock in it.....or the science is going to suffer due to a cry wolf syndrome!

The way in which rising temperature will affect sea ice or ice sheets is not part of the AGW theory.. it has more to do with glaciology.

Current AGW theory can most quickly be summed up as "2-5C per doubling CO2"

[DoctorMu]

You can determine how many parts per million of carbon dioxide are human caused by taking the amount of carbon burned yearly, determing from it the number of tons of carbon dioxide produced and taking into account it's weight, and then dividing that weight by the total weight of the amosphere. When comparing the ppm number determined to the actual the rise of CO2 yearly, the numbers show a little more than 40% is absorbed by the environment. The results will also show that close to 100% of the current CO2 emissions are man made.

Natural CO2 would include the C14 isotope, whereas CO2 from fossil fuels does not. The C14 in fossil fuel hydrocarbons decayed hundred of millions of years ago.

[LakeEffectKing]

The way in which rising temperature will affect sea ice or ice sheets is not part of the AGW theory.. it has more to do with glaciology.

AGW theory can most quickly be summed up as "2-5C per doubling CO2"

OK!!! I'll note that as we approach this season's min extent.

They are so tied at the hip, it's not possible to make arguments seperating the two!!

[skierinvermont]

OK!!! I'll note that as we approach this season's min extent.

They are so tied at the hip, it's not possible to make arguments seperating the two!!

yes please do remember that. If global temperatures do go up and the ice doesn't melt... that has nothing to do with AGW theory.. it means we need to reexamine how ice melts.

The 'ice experts' are in a completely different field of science than climatologists.

[valkhorn]

Below is a table depicting natural and anthropogenic sources of Co2. Note the anthropogenic contribution is about 23K out of 793K. We're talking about approximately 2.9% of Co2 release into the atmosphere is due to human activity, when the gas itself is already very miniscule in the atmosphere. So our 2.9% contribution is said to be the primary driver of climate according to mainstream science; that claim is rather amazing in my opinion.

Because that 2.9% is more than nature has adapted to handle. Nature adapts, but it adapts slowly. Over time, it will adapt to the mixture and content of the atmosphere as long as life can still survive. This is why over time life adapted to high oxygen levels in the carboniferous (and why we had foot-long cockroaches). All that extra life over time built up, then the atmosphere changed again and couldn't support most carboniferous life, and it died off and turned into carboniferous biomass in carboniferous layers. Again, nature can adapt, but we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than nature can fully adapt to. Over time, it will cause things to tilt in favor of more CO2 and more warming.

Think of the atmosphere like an engine in your car. At a certain RPM, the engine will build up enough heat, but the radiator will keep it cool so you will be able to drive for as long as there is gas in the tank - and probably a lot longer. Yet, imagine a 3% loss in cooling so that the system is generating more heat over time than it can dissipate. Then over time, this will cause a feedback loop and cause the engine to overheat.

[valkhorn]

I think he's progressing. Hopefully once he is finally convinced the OLR data is no good, we can stop reading his crackpot OLR-cloud theory every other post.

I stopped bothering with that weeks ago. When it was clear that his whole premise was based on when Earth passed through spiral bands of the galaxy and when I showed that the timing was completely incorrect thanks to the Spitzer space telescope, he didn't even bother to acknowledge me, and even posted a graphic from 2003 with the old incorrect data.

He's welcome to stick to that idea as long as he wants, but he'll have his work cut out for him. Not only will he have to show a direct link (and not an indirect link), he'll have to map GCRs over time, have a better picture of the galaxy than the Spitzer telescope can provide, know more about recent nova/supernova events, and show how they can outweigh larger changes brought on by changes in albedo, solar output, etc.

It seems like an awfully sparse pile of straws to cling on to when research like that could take 50 years to show anything, but if that's his deal, that's his deal.

[WeatherRusty]

The way in which rising temperature will affect sea ice or ice sheets is not part of the AGW theory.. it has more to do with glaciology.

Current AGW theory can most quickly be summed up as "2-5C per doubling CO2"

Exactly. My main interest revolves around the physics which induces the first part of that warming (CO2 warms the planet as an external forcing (absorbed solar energy=Earth's radiation)) and the reasons why climate science believes a net positive feedback to that forced warming will, as seems to have been the case for past global warmings/coolings, to reside somewhere in that 2C-5C range.

There we have a summation of what is AGW. What does that imply for climate change? Ask the glaciologists, the paleoclimatologists, the oceanologist, the meteorologists, the geologists etc.....

[WeatherRusty]

If over the next few decades we continue with a global temp of +.6 or below....it will prove that the alarmists talking about death spirals, mass coastal evacuations due to sea level, etc. etc. with have been complete BS. If the AGW hypothesis was "what will be the most prominent forcing in 100 years", that's what they should have laid out for us to "test"....but all the dire consequenses, are the "testing" that is going on.....and if you don't want those to be a hinderance to validity of the AGW hypothesis, then the extremists making such claims should stuff a sock in it.....or the science is going to suffer due to a cry wolf syndrome!

I don't think so. First it is unlikely that temps will fail to rise further, but even if that turns out to be the case the physical constraints imposed by the forcing will still have to met at some point. There is absolutely no way the Earth can fail to warm if greenhouse gases continue to rise. Nature doesn't play by your rules of investigation LEK. It abides by the rules which govern how any planetary surface warms or cools. Period......

[LakeEffectKing]

I don't think so. First it is unlikely that temps will fail to rise further, but even if that turns out to be the case the physical constraints imposed by the forcing will still have to met at some point. There is absolutely no way the Earth can fail to warm if greenhouse gases continue to rise. Nature doesn't play by your rules of investigation LEK. It abides by the rules which govern how any planetary surface warms or cools. Period......

I'd counter that the "rules" we think we know so much about, cannot be ascribed a set degree of forcing wrt the ultimate output of temperatures as the system changes. You cannot have people making claims that it's a certainty that in a set number of years, we will (insert doomsday scenario) and have the prognostication not verify, and think the general public isn't going to lay the failure at the feet of ALL scientists who support the CAGW line of thinking, regardless of how "extreme" they are. Those extreme prognostication only serve to polarize the debate even further...and really has no place in scientific dialogue. Report the tested science, not assumptions upon assumptions.

[WeatherRusty]

I'd counter that the "rules" we think we know so much about, cannot be ascribed a set degree of forcing wrt the ultimate output of temperatures as the system changes. You cannot have people making claims that it's a certainty that in a set number of years, we will (insert doomsday scenario) and have the prognostication not verify, and think the general public isn't going to lay the failure at the feet of ALL scientists who support the CAGW line of thinking, regardless of how "extreme" they are. Those extreme prognostication only serve to polarize the debate even further...and really has no place in scientific dialogue. Report the tested science, not assumptions upon assumptions.

I would say that there exists a lack of precision in the spacial and time based estimates of effects and also a lack of precision wrt climate sensitivity. However, people want to know what is likely to be the outcome. They don't want a wishy washy answer. They don't really want to hear there is a 30% chance of thunderstorms in their area. They want to know if it will rain or not..period. To bad we can't give them what they want, but there are limitations beyond which we can not venture. In climate science, maybe scientists and the media venture to far into the area of uncertainty and present a very real possibility as likely when it is just one of many possible outcomes. It comes down to risk assessment. At this point we can't rule out any possibility within the most likely range of probability.

[LakeEffectKing]

I would say that there exists a lack of precision in the spacial and time based estimates of effects and also a lack of precision wrt climate sensitivity. However, people want to know what is likely to be the outcome. They don't want a wishy washy answer. They don't really want to hear there is a 30% chance of thunderstorms in their area. They want to know if it will rain or not..period. To bad we can't give them what they want, but there are limitations beyond which we can not venture. In climate science, maybe scientists and the media venture to far into the area of uncertainty and present a very real possibility as likely when it is just one of many possible outcomes. It comes down to risk assessment. At this point we can't rule out any possibility within the most likely range of probability.

It is the arbitrary definition of "most likely range" that is the meat and potatoes of the argument.

Again, how does the AGW hypothesis become falsified??? Be hypothetical if you will.....a global decline over the next 20 years of .3C?? over 50 years? I argue that as laid out....it can't be falsified (big red flag in scientific method) unless we wait until 2100.

[WeatherRusty]

It is the arbitrary definition of "most likely range" that is the meat and potatoes of the argument.

Again, how does the AGW hypothesis become falsified??? Be hypothetical if you will.....a global decline over the next 20 years of .3C?? over 50 years? I argue that as laid out....it can't be falsified (big red flag in scientific method) unless we wait until 2100.

Let's not deal with a hypothetical. CO2 has risen about 40% since the advent of the industrial revolution. This should produce a forcing of 1.6W/m^2 by itself. When we take all the other estimated forcing agents into account they pretty much produce a net zero forcing, there being about 1W of positive forcing opposed by1W of negative forcing. So we are left with a net forcing about the equal of CO2 by itself. If we take climate sensitivity to be 3C then temperature should rise by about 1.2C or a bit more. It has risen about 0.8C. The difference will be accounted for when we consider that the system has not reached thermal equilibrium with the 1.6W forcing. Thus the warming in the pipeline. I know that sounds like a cop out, but these are equilibrium numbers and the system is not in equilibrium. So I would argue that the theory is performing well given the leeway for yet unrealized warming. No good you say?

Einstein's theory of General Relativity was not tested for over 20 years in waiting for a total solar eclipse to reveal the exact location of the planet Mercury, which according to Einstein's theory would be at a position not accounted for exactly by Newtonian Gravity. Mercury was right where Einstein said it would be.

Sometimes we just have to wait, but we don't have to wait 100 years in the case of AGW. We can see GW happening right now. There is nothing magic about 2100. A doubling of CO2 should be reached around mid century with a few decade delay for thermal equilibrium to occur. Temperatures should continue to rise when the net of all forcing is positive which according to AGW should be most of the time...but not all of the time on decadal time scales.

[valkhorn]

It is the arbitrary definition of "most likely range" that is the meat and potatoes of the argument.

Again, how does the AGW hypothesis become falsified??? Be hypothetical if you will.....a global decline over the next 20 years of .3C?? over 50 years? I argue that as laid out....it can't be falsified (big red flag in scientific method) unless we wait until 2100.

There are a few ways that AGW could be falsified:

1. There is some other source of warming going on that we are not aware of
2. It could be shown that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
3. It could be shown that the earth is in fact cooling

Recall that for 2 and 3, this hasn't been shown. Also, recall that the earth is indeed warming, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that we're producing more of it. If there is some source of natural warming that we don't yet know about that is beyond the scope of man made CO2, then that could at least falsify the theory.

[salbers]

Let's not deal with a hypothetical. CO2 has risen about 40% since the advent of the industrial revolution. This should produce a forcing of 1.6W/m^2 by itself. When we take all the other estimated forcing agents into account they pretty much produce a net zero forcing, there being about 1W of positive forcing opposed by1W of negative forcing. So we are left with a net forcing about the equal of CO2 by itself. If we take climate sensitivity to be 3C then temperature should rise by about 1.2C or a bit more. It has risen about 0.8C. The difference will be accounted for when we consider that the system has not reached thermal equilibrium with the 1.6W forcing. Thus the warming in the pipeline. I know that sounds like a cop out, but these are equilibrium numbers and the system is not in equilibrium. So I would argue that the theory is performing well given the leeway for yet unrealized warming. No good you say?

Einstein's theory of General Relativity was not tested for over 20 years in waiting for a total solar eclipse to reveal the exact location of the planet Mercury, which according to Einstein's theory would be at a position not accounted for exactly by Newtonian Gravity. Mercury was right where Einstein said it would be.

Sometimes we just have to wait, but we don't have to wait 100 years in the case of AGW. We can see GW happening right now. There is nothing magic about 2100. A doubling of CO2 should be reached around mid century with a few decade delay for thermal equilibrium to occur. Temperatures should continue to rise when the net of all forcing is positive which according to AGW should be most of the time...but not all of the time on decadal time scales.

Very good assessment of AGW.

Though a bit OT, the Einstein part could be clarified to mention it was background stars that were primarily being measured for displacement during an eclipse. The initial results were actually over hyped as confirmation. Later results have been a much better vindication of GR.

I'm unsure if Mercury really needed to be measured during an eclipse, since it can be seen against the stars during more routine greatest elongations.

[gracetoyou]

Very good assessment of AGW.

Though a bit OT, the Einstein part could be clarified to mention it was background stars that were primarily being measured for displacement during an eclipse. The initial results were actually over hyped as confirmation. Later results have been a much better vindication of GR.

I'm unsure if Mercury really needed to be measured during an eclipse, since it can be seen against the stars during more routine greatest elongations.

I don't care who produces this graph...it's accurate. If the above trend continues...how long will it take before we say Co2 is not doing what everyone said it would do? I've read German Scientist Mojib Latif's explanation:

"What we are experiencing now is a weather phenomenon," says Latif. "The natural variation occurs side by side with the manmade warming. Sometimes it has a cooling effect and can offset this warming and other times it can accelerate it."

And then there was the peer reviewed piece by Robert K. Kaufmanna, Heikki Kauppib, Michael L. Manna, and James H. Stock that basically just blames the leveling off of temps the last 10-11 years on:

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by

natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the

observed increase in global average temperature since the mid

20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic

greenhouse gas concentrations (14).” As indicated in

Fig. 1, anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely

cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play

a more significant role. The 1998-2008 hiatus is not the first period

in the instrumental temperature record when the effects of

anthropogenic changes in greenhouse gases and sulfur emissions

on radiative forcing largely cancel. In-sample simulations indicate

that temperature does not rise between the 1940’s and 1970’s

because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions rise slightly faster

than the warming effect of greenhouse gases. The post 1970 period

of warming, which constitutes a significant portion of the

increase in global surface temperature since the mid 20th century,

is driven by efforts to reduce air pollution in general and acid

deposition in particular, which cause sulfur emissions to decline

while the concentration of greenhouse gases continues to rise (7).

The results of this analysis indicate that observed temperature

after 1998 is consistent with the current understanding of the

relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability,

and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors

that have well known warming and cooling effects. Both of these

effects, along with changes in natural variables must be examined

explicitly by efforts to understand climate change and devise

policy that complies with the objective of Article 2 of the 1992

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to

stabilize “greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a

level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in

the climate system.”

http://wattsupwithth...s-201102467.pdf

I think we will learn a whole lot more of what's really going on with global temps over the next 20-40yrs. I think right now it's utterly absurd for anyone to act is if the 100% know what's going on. About the only thing everyone can agree about on each side of the issue is to disagree.

[WeatherRusty]

Very good assessment of AGW.

Though a bit OT, the Einstein part could be clarified to mention it was background stars that were primarily being measured for displacement during an eclipse. The initial results were actually over hyped as confirmation. Later results have been a much better vindication of GR.

I'm unsure if Mercury really needed to be measured during an eclipse, since it can be seen against the stars during more routine greatest elongations.

I think you are correct concerning Mercury. However, the gravity well produced by the Sun most strongly influences Mercury as the planet closest to the Sun. Astronomers had noticed a slight deviation in the position of Mercury which was not accounted for by Newtonian Gravity. The position of the stars during total solar eclipse provided an early test of General Relativity.

More to the point, General Relativity ( a theory of gravity) had to wade through decades of testing in order to confirm its validity empirically. From Wikipedia:

At its introduction in 1915, the general theory of relativity did not have a solid empirical foundation. It was known that it correctly accounted for the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury and on philosophical grounds it was considered satisfying that it was able to unify Newton's law of universal gravitation with special relativity. That light appeared to bend in gravitational fields in line with the predictions of general relativity was found in 1919 but it was not until a program of precision tests was started in 1959 that the various predictions of general relativity were tested to any further degree of accuracy in the weak gravitational field limit, severely limiting possible deviations from the theory. Beginning in 1974, Hulse, Taylor and others have studied the behaviour of binary pulsars experiencing much stronger gravitational fields than found in our solar system. Both in the weak field limit (as in our solar system) and with the stronger fields present in systems of binary pulsars the predictions of general relativity have been extremely well tested locally.

This idea that AGW stands apart from the scientific method as some untestable, poorly conducted science that is unusual in its development and not to be trusted holds no water in my eyes. One of the great pillars of modern science, the General Theory of Relativity lacked strongly confirming empirical support for many decades. It was first accepted with reluctance, however well demonstrated on theoretical grounds. We have a similar situation with today's AGW theory being strongly based in theoretic physics and paleoclimatology, but that is not good enough for some people.

[LakeEffectKing]

I think you are correct concerning Mercury. However, the gravity well produced by the Sun most strongly influences Mercury as the planet closest to the Sun. Astronomers had noticed a slight deviation in the position of Mercury which was not accounted for by Newtonian Gravity. The position of the stars during total solar eclipse provided an early test of General Relativity.

More to the point, General Relativity ( a theory of gravity) had to wade through decades of testing in order to confirm its validity empirically. From Wikipedia:

At its introduction in 1915, the general theory of relativity did not have a solid empirical foundation. It was known that it correctly accounted for the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury and on philosophical grounds it was considered satisfying that it was able to unify Newton's law of universal gravitation with special relativity. That light appeared to bend in gravitational fields in line with the predictions of general relativity was found in 1919 but it was not until a program of precision tests was started in 1959 that the various predictions of general relativity were tested to any further degree of accuracy in the weak gravitational field limit, severely limiting possible deviations from the theory. Beginning in 1974, Hulse, Taylor and others have studied the behaviour of binary pulsars experiencing much stronger gravitational fields than found in our solar system. Both in the weak field limit (as in our solar system) and with the stronger fields present in systems of binary pulsars the predictions of general relativity have been extremely well tested locally.

This idea that AGW stands apart from the scientific method as some untestable, poorly conducted science that is unusual in its development and not to be trusted holds no water in my eyes. One of the great pillars of modern science, the General Theory of Relativity lacked strongly confirming empirical support for many decades. It was first accepted with reluctance, however well demonstrated on theoretical grounds. We have a similar situation with today's AGW theory being strongly based in theoretic physics and paleoclimatology, but that is not good enough for some people.

The conclusions drawn, especially the extreme ones, from either side of the debate are what gets to true skeptics. There is nothing inherently wrong with the hypothesis, other than the long time frames that are required for it to pass the overall test. Every other data, observations, or "is consistant with" type stuff, are just EVIDENCE for the hypothesis...and some of the evidence goes contrary to the hypothesis. IOW, we are in the data collecting phase of the Sci Method as it relates to AGW hypothesis.

So the main argument to skeptics is that confident conclusions cannot be drawn at this early stage, especially when we see a constant reassessment of the projected implications or outright failure of earlier predictions for those in the field.

Knowledgeable skeptics don't argue the physics involved....we argue for the unknown aspects/physics/interactions that can equally be demonstrated to have plausibility.

[WeatherRusty]

The conclusions drawn, especially the extreme ones, from either side of the debate are what gets to true skeptics. There is nothing inherently wrong with the hypothesis, other than the long time frames that are required for it to pass the overall test. Every other data, observations, or "is consistant with" type stuff, are just EVIDENCE for the hypothesis...and some of the evidence goes contrary to the hypothesis. IOW, we are in the data collecting phase of the Sci Method as it relates to AGW hypothesis.

So the main argument to skeptics is that confident conclusions cannot be drawn at this early stage, especially when we see a constant reassessment of the projected implications or outright failure of earlier predictions for those in the field.

Knowledgeable skeptics don't argue the physics involved....we argue for the unknown aspects/physics/interactions that can equally be demonstrated to have plausibility.

The mainstream of science would argue that the unknowns can not be shown to have equal plausibility. After all, they are unknowns!

If only most skeptics were as reasonable as you, we might make some progress toward some sort of strategic action. Right know, the issue is so polarized there is little to no hope of getting anything accomplished. If this has become a political issue and good politics is the art of compromise we could at least take baby steps toward mitigation. As things stand however, those who seek only to delay action have won the day and will continue to do so successfully.

Changing how the world produces energy will not happen overnight. According to the science it must happen overnight however. It should have begun 20 years ago if effective progress were to be made. If climate sensitivity becomes close to 3C per doubling of CO2 the world 50 to 100 years from now will be a considerably different place even given any reasonable, probable transition toward alternative energies and land use changes. Continued warming is going to happen no matter what we do at this point....if the science is correct. Holding warming to less than 2C at this point is probably a hopeless dream.

[LakeEffectKing]

The mainstream of science would argue that the unknowns can not be shown to have equal plausibility. After all, they are unknowns!

If only most skeptics were as reasonable as you, we might make some progress toward some sort of strategic action. Right know, the issue is so polarized there is little to no hope of getting anything accomplished. If this has become a political issue and good politics is the art of compromise we could at least take baby steps toward mitigation. As things stand however, those who seek only to delay action have won the day and will continue to do so successfully.

Changing how the world produces energy will not happen overnight. According to the science it must happen overnight however. It should have begun 20 years ago if effective progress were to be made. If climate sensitivity becomes close to 3C per doubling of CO2 the world 50 to 100 years from now will be a considerably different place even given any reasonable, probable transition toward alternative energies and land use changes. Continued warming is going to happen no matter what we do at this point....if the science is correct. Holding warming to less than 2C at this point is probably a hopeless dream.

What would be good for the pro AGW climatologists to "throw a bone to skeptics" would be to provide some medium term thresholds of various "consequences" that are directly tied to AGW.....GIVE a "line in the sand" type benchmark, where THEY believe their hypothesis would become falsified....then skeptics could debate those thresholds, and maybe we could come to a comprimise (of some say 20 year from now benchmark) outlining the details. There could be a number of these (say for the upper thoughts of 3Cper doubling to the lower limits) and caveats that would generally explain any deviation....

But the vagueness and widely ranging predictions that come from "mainstream" AGW folk and extemists, only clouds a skeptics perception of what in the hell the actual hypothesis (and it's implications) are!

BTW, I'd like to get off FF sources in a heartbeat, we probably agree in so many ways regarding "true" pollutants and what we do to the air quality of our cities....CO2 just isn't one of those reasons to do so, IMO.....