Do you think CAGW is just a UN scheme to impose global governance...

[vortmax]

Getting back to the original post, a majority (if not all) people are influenced by their chosen core beliefs. Anyone that denies this is either not human or lying. With that said, very few people have the ability to step outside of their beliefs and see different perspective without much bias. Unfortunately this is rare and part of the reason why we have polar extremes (pun intended) to the subject of GW/AGW/CAGW... whatever you want to call it!!

 

If GW/AGW/CAGW is just about empirical data, who's to agree or deny that we may only have about .01% of the data necessary to make a conclusion one way or the other? We tend to think we know more then we do, another undeniable human trait. When it comes to climate and how it's affected, I think we'll need unbiased data & analysis (by that rare breed of people as mentioned above) for the next 100 years before we truly begin to understand how this planet really works...and that may be a stretch.

[Msalgado]

Getting back to the original post, a majority (if not all) people are influenced by their chosen core beliefs. Anyone that denies this is either not human or lying. With that said, very few people have the ability to step outside of their beliefs and see different perspective without much bias. Unfortunately this is rare and part of the reason why we have polar extremes (pun intended) to the subject of GW/AGW/CAGW... whatever you want to call it!!

 

If GW/AGW/CAGW is just about empirical data, who's to agree or deny that we may only have about .01% of the data necessary to make a conclusion one way or the other? We tend to think we know more then we do, another undeniable human trait. When it comes to climate and how it's affected, I think we'll need unbiased data & analysis (by that rare breed of people as mentioned above) for the next 100 years before we truly begin to understand how this planet really works...and that may be a stretch.

 

When I respond to the bolded by pointing out this is utterly wrong, is it because of my world view or because it is actually wrong?  Its frustrating to read things like this which are very obviously spoken out of ignorance and spoken under the guise of rationality.  How does one communicate the science to a person who thinks that we won't begin to understand how the planet works for an arbitrary number of years?  Are we expected to teach what amounts to a freshman level geoscience course to everyone with this "view" because that sounds simply exhausting.

 

I honestly mean no offense when I use the term ignorant here but I know no other way to describe making assertions that we know a hundreth of a percent of the data we need to describe our climate.  If you don't understand and/or know how things work then that is fine, but why would you make such statements out of ignorance?  I wish people who don't know would simply say they don't know instead of making opinions out of thin air.

[PhillipS]

Msalgado - well said.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Getting back to the original post, a majority (if not all) people are influenced by their chosen core beliefs. Anyone that denies this is either not human or lying. With that said, very few people have the ability to step outside of their beliefs and see different perspective without much bias. Unfortunately this is rare and part of the reason why we have polar extremes (pun intended) to the subject of GW/AGW/CAGW... whatever you want to call it!!

 

If GW/AGW/CAGW is just about empirical data, who's to agree or deny that we may only have about .01% of the data necessary to make a conclusion one way or the other? We tend to think we know more then we do, another undeniable human trait. When it comes to climate and how it's affected, I think we'll need unbiased data & analysis (by that rare breed of people as mentioned above) for the next 100 years before we truly begin to understand how this planet really works...and that may be a stretch.

 

Total Rubbish.  Are you saying that your own bias precludes you from doing about 8 minutes of reading up on the history of the greenhouse effect that was discovered and publish about 120 years ago for the first time?

 

Or that it has been directly measured in multiple ways with modern technology?

 

How are we supposed to have a discussion when you deny over a century of scientific research? 

[Isotherm]

Several of those papers are twenty or more years old, and the first one had Ole Humlum as a co-author. (If you're not familiar with Ole, he is the pseudo-skeptic who created and runs the denialist website Climate4you.)  That paper is more recent but it only deals with a handful of Northern European sites, nothing global.  

 

Do you have any recent peer-reviewed papers on solar variability and global warming that you can share?

 

 

 

Just getting a chance to fully respond now. There are numerous peer-reviewed papers on the subject of solar forcing and its influence on climatic processes. I will post several below:

 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018207005214

 

 

 

 

http://benthamopen.com/toascj/articles/V002/181TOASCJ.htm

 

 

 

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/solaractivandclimate-nethjgeosci.pdf

 

 

http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract.php?iid=201&id=4&aid=1050#.U_p1y1_D-pq

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201016173&Itemid=129

[The_Global_Warmer]

Global SSTs have smashed their own record again.

There is no sign of cooling.

Without a niño this is quite incredible.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Just getting a chance to fully respond now. There are numerous peer-reviewed papers on the subject of solar forcing and its influence on climatic processes. I will post several below:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018207005214

http://benthamopen.com/toascj/articles/V002/181TOASCJ.htm

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/solaractivandclimate-nethjgeosci.pdf

http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract.php?iid=201&id=4&aid=1050#.U_p1y1_D-pq

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201016173&Itemid=129

The problem with solar forcing is, even if it does exist in any substantial manner, you're not going to be able to statistically correlate it to temperature due to the immense the specific heat capacity of the oceans. Depending on the depth of the upper oceanic mixing layer (which is still debated), you're looking at a 30-60yr equilibration-time for the mixing layer itself (about 80% of the thermal response) then another 5000yr equilibration-time for the deep oceans (about 20% of the thermal response). You'll never get anywhere with solar forcing, at least as far as statistical analysis is concerned

[Isotherm]

The problem with solar forcing is, even if it does exist in any substantial manner, you're not going to be able to statistically correlate it to temperature due to the immense the specific heat capacity of the oceans. Depending on the depth of the upper oceanic mixing layer (which is still debated), you're looking at a 30-60yr equilibration-time for the mixing layer itself (about 80% of the thermal response) then another 5000yr equilibration-time for the deep oceans (about 20% of the thermal response). You'll never get anywhere with solar forcing, at least as far as statistical analysis is concerned

 

 

 

Ok, so let's assume for a second that what you're saying is true. How would solar forcing differ from GHG forcing in the way you described? The oceans will act as a heat sink for other forcings such as GHG, and the temperature rise associated with current and past anthropogenic influence may not be realized for a very long time. This is one of the reasons why it's difficult to isolate one variable/forcing and assert that its largely to blame for a long term temperature trend, as the effects of the forcing aren't realized quickly. The Earth fortunately or unfortunately is not a contained laboratory experiment like many other scientific fields, and there are numerous non-linear, chaotic interactions with obscure feedbacks that are not fully understood at this juncture.

 

Furthermore, even if there might be limitations in analyzing solar impacts right now, that certainly doesn't mean we should discount it or that those impacts aren't occurring.

[chrisf97212]

The problem with solar forcing is, even if it does exist in any substantial manner, you're not going to be able to statistically correlate it to temperature due to the immense the specific heat capacity of the oceans. Depending on the depth of the upper oceanic mixing layer (which is still debated), you're looking at a 30-60yr equilibration-time for the mixing layer itself (about 80% of the thermal response) then another 5000yr equilibration-time for the deep oceans (about 20% of the thermal response). You'll never get anywhere with solar forcing, at least as far as statistical analysis is concerned

 

I assume you mean variations in solar forcing, not solar forcing itself.  We have measured solar variations, although imprecisely, going back hundreds of years. The correlation to temperature change may or may not have been observed with the Maunder and Dalton minimums, and depending on who you talk to, the late 20th century.

[AvantHiatus]

I assume you mean variations in solar forcing, not solar forcing itself.  We have measured solar variations, although imprecisely, going back hundreds of years. The correlation to temperature change may or may not have been observed with the Maunder and Dalton minimums, and depending on who you talk to, the late 20th century.

Again, the correlation between temperature and solar would grow stronger in a global environment with less CO2 forcing. It's another illusion that has misled many people in regards to the science.

[chrisf97212]

Again, the correlation between temperature and solar would grow stronger in a global environment with less CO2 forcing. It's another illusion that has misled many people in regards to the science.

 

I often wonder if solar and GHG are offsetting each other so that when the sun becomes active again, global temps spike through the roof. 

[nflwxman]

I often wonder if solar and GHG are offsetting each other so that when the sun becomes active again, global temps spike through the roof. 

A normal sun cycle from top to bottom contains a forcing of +/- 0.25 watts/m^2.  This is calculated to be approximately a 0.12C temperature delta.

 

Not terribly significant in the long term compared to GhG forcing.  However, it may beenough to significantly change temperature profiles on a short scale (15 years or less).  Another reason why it's quite disingenuous to use short term trends as a measure of AGW.  Notice 1998 and 2001 (both skeptic favorites to start a trend) have much higher TSI values than recent years.

 

I think it's clear that it's a mix of internal variability (ENSO), TSI, and Measurement Bias that have contributed to the "slowdown" in surface temperature rise.  I think the coming 3-5 years will be proof of that.

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

Again, the correlation between temperature and solar would grow stronger in a global environment with less CO2 forcing. It's another illusion that has misled many people in regards to the science.

There would be NO correlation unless you were to use at least a 30yr resolution. Deniers constantly refer to the Sun as a forcing, yet shoot themselves in the foot with it. If there were any correlation, it'd operate on at least a 30-50 year resolution, possibly longer.

[Hambone]

The problem most "corporate types" have with addressing carbon reduction is the impact on an economy that is struggling to create well paid jobs to begin with, while remaining competitive with the world's emerging economies.  Without reining in China, India, Southeast Asian etc. emissions the actions of the US will have minimal impact on carbon reduction and will have significant impact on GDP.

 

Our carbon production has been relatively flat while the rest of the world is exploding.

 

 

So the issue becomes do we put a bullet in our own head and martyr ourselves, while much of the rest of the world continues to prosper and spews ever increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere?

[chubbs]

You are right it makes no sense to go it alone on carbon control and almost all the growth in energy use and CO2 emissions in the next 30 years will come from the developing world. Flip your perspective around though, why would poor developing countries want to take the lead on this issue? They just want what we already have. Its not all bad news though, China's  energy policy has become a lot like ours recently in discouraging coal and encouraging solar and wind  Their growth in coal use has slowed dramatically in the past few years and they install much more solar and wind than we do. 

[AvantHiatus]

The counter-argument is to not base emissions reduction on AGW theory. One should instead see it as a quality of life investment and a safety net. Eventually carbon fuels will need to be abandoned due to the process of peak oil.

 

Corporate types are only interested in maintaining the current system rather than adapting to the future.

[stadiumwave]

I think it's pretty clear that it's still too early to make an accurate judgment with any certainty just how much of the global warming is due to increased atmospheric C02 & how much is due to nature.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be diligently looking for better, cleaner energy alternatives but I don't so the fruition of any doomsday predictions fulfilling for perhaps another 200 years or so.  There's just been way to many exaggerated predictions....maybe the motive is stir people to action through fear but when the predictions do not come to fruition it ends up backfiring creating more deniers.  Then we have a greater problem than we started with.

[Msalgado]

I think it's pretty clear that it's still too early to make an accurate judgment with any certainty just how much of the global warming is due to increased atmospheric C02 & how much is due to nature.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be diligently looking for better, cleaner energy alternatives but I don't so the fruition of any doomsday predictions fulfilling for perhaps another 200 years or so.  There's just been way to many exaggerated predictions....maybe the motive is stir people to action through fear but when the predictions do not come to fruition it ends up backfiring creating more deniers.  Then we have a greater problem than we started with.

 

 

It is ok to hold this opinion as long as you realize science disagrees with you completely.  

[sokolow]

The problem most "corporate types" have with addressing carbon reduction is the impact on an economy that is struggling to create well paid jobs to begin with, while remaining competitive with the world's emerging economies. Without reining in China, India, Southeast Asian etc. emissions the actions of the US will have minimal impact on carbon reduction and will have significant impact on GDP.

So the issue becomes do we put a bullet in our own head and martyr ourselves, while much of the rest of the world continues to prosper and spews ever increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere?

???

Frankly the US could straight pay for rapid decarbonization through old school cold war deficit spending and a cold war tax structure and the result would be full employment and prosperity

[BNAwx]

It is ok to hold this opinion as long as you realize science disagrees with you completely.  

 

His statement is accurate.  Saying the science is settled (as popular as it is on this forum) is dishonest and dangerous.  At the same time, it's just as dishonest and dangerous to say "there's nothing to see here".   We have much to learn and I truly wish both sides would get off their high horse and work together. 

[sokolow]

n/m

[StudentOfClimatology]

As a relatively young scientist, I've already reached the conclusion that while we, as humans, tend to talk-up our wisdom and knowledge of our species, we're really a lot dumber than we think we are

This really manifests itself in the realm of theoretical physics. Right now we're relying on a boatload of crazy, fanatical theories to hold the standard model of the universe together. Literally, we use enough fitting-parameters to make the elephant twerk, while skydiving from the space shuttle in a bikini

[sokolow]

From a certain perspective I always thought the argument from iPad (formerly thinkpad) was the pragmatic response to that concern in the sense you're giving it, and also a real pointed sense thats maybe outside the scope of this thread.

[sokolow]

edit: sorry I'm not being terribly constructive or collegiate this PM

[Msalgado]

His statement is accurate.  Saying the science is settled (as popular as it is on this forum) is dishonest and dangerous.  At the same time, it's just as dishonest and dangerous to say "there's nothing to see here".   We have much to learn and I truly wish both sides would get off their high horse and work together. 

 

His statement is completely inaccurate and I need look no further than the most recent IPCC report to prove that.  The IPCC report is an overview of what the scientific literature says.  So when he says that its too early to tell how much of the warming is due to CO2 he's incredibly wrong.  We have a mechanism that explains the warming and we have a lack of any other mechanism that could explain the warming so it becomes pretty damn easy to see what is causing the warming.

 

I'm not going to play some false equivalency game here.  There's not a middle ground on firm quantifiable situations.  2+2 does not become equal to 3 just because it is politically contentious and enough people say it is.  It is not about two sides but about the truth.  One side owns the scientific truth while the other is either lying or ignorant of the truth.  Its pretty damn simple on this front.

 

There are certainly aspects of climate science that are much harder to understand and where a great deal of uncertainty lies.  That CO2 is driving the warming is not one of them.

[Msalgado]

As a relatively young scientist, I've already reached the conclusion that while we, as humans, tend to talk-up our wisdom and knowledge of our species, we're really a lot dumber than we think we are

This really manifests itself in the realm of theoretical physics. Right now we're relying on a boatload of crazy, fanatical theories to hold the standard model of the universe together. Literally, we use enough fitting-parameters to make the elephant twerk, while skydiving from the space shuttle in a bikini

 

I think you're quite smart, but as a young scientist myself I think this is utter rubbish.  As humans, we have a great deal of wisdom relative to what we started with.   How dumb do we think we are, exactly?  And for that matter, how dumb are we?  I've never met a physicist who thought we had it figured out, but I do know that we've come a long way in understanding in the past 100 years.  I don't know what you expect exactly?

 

You can certainly focus on every place we lack knowledge and see that we are missing a lot of information but perhaps the more relevant approach is to see how much we have learned and furthermore, how much FASTER we learn now than we ever have before.

[StudentOfClimatology]

His statement is completely inaccurate and I need look no further than the most recent IPCC report to prove that. The IPCC report is an overview of what the scientific literature says. So when he says that its too early to tell how much of the warming is due to CO2 he's incredibly wrong. We have a mechanism that explains the warming and we have a lack of any other mechanism that could explain the warming so it becomes pretty damn easy to see what is causing the warming.

I'm not going to play some false equivalency game here. There's not a middle ground on firm quantifiable situations. 2+2 does not become equal to 3 just because it is politically contentious and enough people say it is. It is not about two sides but about the truth. One side owns the scientific truth while the other is either lying or ignorant of the truth. Its pretty damn simple on this front.

There are certainly aspects of climate science that are much harder to understand and where a great deal of uncertainty lies. That CO2 is driving the warming is not one of them.

As compelling as the case for anthropogenic warming is (personally I think it's fairly straightforward), you're definitely not following the scientific method here. One must be careful not to speak in absolutes...especially when you're trying to theoretically model a system full of non-linear dynamics and macro/microscale thresholds. Science has been burned countless times by this sort of thinking.

In this case, evidence in the ice-core data leads me to believe climate sensitivity lies in the 3.5-5K range per doubling of CO^2 concentration...however I'm not going to throw away the scientific method to suit my belief system, as so many professionals unfortunately do.

In fact I've come across this sort of behavior so frequently that I've developed my own personal "smell-test.". The test is....if can derive one's political leanings based on his/her views on AGW, I take any scientific opinions from these individuals with a grain of salt

[Msalgado]

As compelling as the case for anthropogenic warming is (personally I think it's fairly straightforward), you're definitely not following the scientific method here. One must be careful not to speak in absolutes...especially when you're trying to theoretically model a system full of non-linear dynamics and macro/microscale thresholds. Science has been burned countless times by this sort of thinking.

In this case, evidence in the ice-core data leads me to believe climate sensitivity lies in the 3.5-5K range per doubling of CO^2 concentration...however I'm not going to throw away the scientific method to suit my belief system, as so many professional unfortunately do.

In fact I've come across this sort of behavior so frequently that I've developed my own personal "smell-test.". The test is....if can derive one's political leanings based on his/her views on AGW, I take any scientific opinions from these indivuals with a grain of salt

 

 

Wait, how exactly is the scientific method being thrown away here?  This should be good.  I find your final paragraph to be incredibly laughable but if that's how you want to go around judging scientific opinions then you're free to do so.  I prefer to listen to their scientific justifications.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Wait, how exactly is the scientific method being thrown away here? This should be good.

Your standing on "equivalency" is totally self-defeating because there are no standings or baselines in theoretical science from which to derive truth.

Your statement below reads a lot like what scientists were saying about stomach ulcers back in the mid-late 20th century...supposedly based on sound biochemical science.

I'm not going to play some false equivalency game here. There's not a middle ground on firm quantifiable situations. 2+2 does not become equal to 3 just because it is politically contentious and enough people say it is.

I may agree with your position on climate science, but your argumentative reasoning is very weak and unscientific.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I think you're quite smart, but as a young scientist myself I think this is utter rubbish. As humans, we have a great deal of wisdom relative to what we started with. How dumb do we think we are, exactly? And for that matter, how dumb are we? I've never met a physicist who thought we had it figured out, but I do know that we've come a long way in understanding in the past 100 years. I don't know what you expect exactly?

You can certainly focus on every place we lack knowledge and see that we are missing a lot of information but perhaps the more relevant approach is to see how much we have learned and furthermore, how much FASTER we learn now than we ever have before.

My statement was light-hearted in nature. We've definitely come a long way since tribalism, but everything is relative in nature...we're still pretty darn stupid

Perhaps one day science will ditch materialism as its foundation...I know that would make a lot of physicists very happy.