subscribe

Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

Also
Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

Donate to SolveClimate News

Climate Science Links

U.S. Government

International

Academic, Non-Governmental

Google Takes on Climate Change Skeptics with New Technology Effort

The search giant has brought together a team of 21 climate researchers to improve the way the science of global warming is communicated using new media

By Maria Gallucci

Mar 18, 2011
Google Earth image

Climate change skeptics who have created a political megaphone in Washington may finally meet their match in the world's largest search engine.

Google.org, the technology giant's philanthropic arm, has hand-picked a team of working in climate research to improve the way the science of global warming is communicated to the public and lawmakers through new media.

"We are seeing very clearly with climate change that our policy choices are currently not grounded in knowledge and understanding," said Paul Higgins, a Google fellow and an associate policy director for the .

The Google Science Communication Fellows program named its first round of participants on Tuesday. The announcement could not have come at a more timely juncture.

On Monday, an annual on the environment nearly 20 percent of Americans surveyed believe the effects of global warming will never happen, up from 11 percent three years ago, while fewer respondents are concerned about climate change than in the past.

A day later, House Republicans in the Energy and Commerce Committee against three amendments offered by Democrats that would accept that climate change is occurring; that it is largely due to human activity; and that human-made warming poses a threat to public health and welfare.

Democrats on the panel, all of whom voted for the measures, tied the proposals to larger GOP-backed legislation seeking to block the from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

That global warming is doubted by large swathes of the country — despite a consensus among climate scientists worldwide that says otherwise — underscores the large gap between the data and America's understanding of it, scientists say.

'They're Just Trying to Make Noise'

"The uncertainty argument, that we really don't know what is going on and that climate scientists are corrupt, has been reasonably effective in the last few years," said Andrew Dessler, also a Google fellow and a climate scientist at .

"We don’t know everything about the climate from a scientific standpoint and there are uncertainties, but they are uncertainties over whether climate change is going to either be bad or really, really bad," he told SolveClimate News.

"People who are opposed to regulation ... [are] not trying to prove that climate change [science] is wrong. They're trying to prove that there is an argument going on," he said. "They're just trying to create noise."

Higgins of AMS said that depending on their political beliefs, lawmakers have used skepticism or affirmation of climate science to stall or advance progress on partisan policy issues — such as the EPA's "tailoring" rules or cap-and-trade schemes for controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

For him, passing or rejecting the House amendments is less important than whether lawmakers actually understand climate science and are thoughtfully considering the risks of inaction.

"If we were well informed as a society — and if policymakers were well informed — then they would be taking the risk that climate change should be taken seriously."

Higgins pointed out that the Google fellowship is geared just as much toward influencing those who believe that climate change poses serious consequences, but may not yet grasp the science.

"The vast majority of people don't know and understand the details of climate science," he said. "The science of climate change spans 20 to 30 disciplines and sub-disciplines, at least ... It is an enormous amount of information, and distilling it is a bit of a challenge."

Kelly Levin, a senior research associate at the , a conservation group, said she hoped the Google program could tackle that challenge by engaging wider audiences in the scientific discussion.

"Given the pace and scale of human-induced climate change, it is of great importance that climate change science, and the urgency of addressing the climate change problem, is communicated effectively to the public and decision makers," she said.

She added: "Involving the public more directly in the scientific process could increase the acceptance of ideas and help scientific advancements inform governmental policies."

A More Accessible Approach

Throughout the year, the Google fellows will sharpen their new media skills, learn data-sharing technologies and improve communication strategies to lend a more accessible approach to climate science.

Following a workshop in June, fellows will have the chance to apply for grants to support projects fostering scientific dialogue. Future participants will take on other socially relevant topics tied to science and the environment.

"The public's understanding of science across all disciplines is extremely low, because the scientific community is really siloed from the community in general," Amy Luers, Google's senior environment program manager, told SolveClimate News.

"If the scientists understand [data] in a different way than the public does, it is impossible to see how this information is going to be integrated in the way it needs to be to make policy and management decisions," she said.

To much complexity mean models are inaccurate

"The vast majority of people don't know and understand the details of climate science," he said. "The science of climate change spans 20 to 30 disciplines and sub-disciplines, at least ... It is an enormous amount of information, and distilling it is a bit of a challenge."  Higgins of AMS

How can a model which encompasses as many as 30 disciplines have any chance of being accurate?  Climate forecasting has so many variables that any forecasts are meaningless.  Simple models work.   Complex models fail because their are too many opportunities for mistakes to be made.

Is it really AGW we should be worried about?

Based on the temperature history over the past 400000 yrs, should we really be focusing on global warming? Looks to me we are on the verge of taking an 8C temperature drop in the very near (geologically speaking) future.

 

 

Temperature

Studies of the Milankovitch

Studies of the Milankovitch cycles (which are understood as the primary drivers of the glacial/interglacial changes) indicate that they are not expected to cause a glacial period for another 20-50,000 years, due to the current minimum in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit and comparisons with similar interglacial periods seen in the ice core records. See (2002), and (2004).

Climate Science Links

BTW -- on the home page is a block that contains 24 climate science links for curious readers who want to know what various agencies of the US government (including USDA, DOE, the Navy, NASA and the National Science Foundation), as well as international bodies, and academic institutions and NGOs, think about climate change, based on the peer-reviewed empirical evidence.

$75 Billion incentives to tow the Party Line

The  over $75 BILLION spent to promote AGW climate science which the US taxpayer has been soaked for, kinda' makes the $19 million Exxon gave CEI (over a period of six years) to promote its 'agenda'.. look a little more like a drop in the bucket, than a ' well-funded disinformation machine'..dontcha' think ?

Can you say 'Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Fourty Seven to ONE ??

3,947 to 1 Isn't that the

3,947 to 1

Isn't that the ratio of climate scientists who understand that climate change is man-made, to those who deny it?

 

You're bang on !

Pythagoras said:


' Isn't that the ratio of climate scientists who understand that climate change is man-made, to those who deny it?'


 


Thanks for that comment, Pythagoras. You've reminded us once again that plenty of money can buy allegiance, but rarely delivers objective science.

Charts and Graphs

When I looked at this blog yesterday (Saturday) there were no charts and graphs, but there are some now. It looks as if the AGW supporters have been prodded into action with the intensity of the scientific sceptical views expressed here.

I welcome this, as at last some of the warmists are responding not with the usual parrotted responses, ad hominem attacks, and quotes from authority figures, but are resorting to a semblance of scientific discourse.

I have replied with a few charts of my own, on ocean cooling and growing scepticism towards the AGW case.



Hi Edward, I've been here for

Hi Edward, I've been here for the past two days, posting links to charts and literature references.  I'm used to discussing on Newsvine (which uses similar software but does not allow posting images), so I initially linked to the charts rather than displaying them. 

Warmistas stung into action

When I looked at this blog yesterday (Saturday) there were no charts and graphs, but there are some now. It looks as if the AGW supporters have been prodded into action with the intensity of the scientific sceptical views expressed here.

I welcome this, as at last some of the warmists are responding not with the usual parrotted responses, ad hominem attacks, and quotes from authority figures, but are resorting to a semblance of scientific discourse.

I have replied with a few charts of my own, on ocean cooling and growing scepticism towards the AGW case.

Warmistas stung into action

When I looked at this blog yesterday (Saturday) there were no charts and graphs, but there are some now. It looks as if the AGW supporters have been prodded into action with the intensity of the scientific sceptical views expressed here.

I welcome this, as at last some of the warmists are responding not with the usual parrotted responses, ad hominem attacks, and quotes from authority figures, but are resorting to a semblance of scientific discourse.

I have replied with a few charts of my own, on ocean cooling and growing scepticism towards the AGW case.

Great Plan Google

Please communicate the science, start with the scientific method, open source your data and methodology and then persuade all you want.Otherwise your fellows attempts to communicate anything at all will just be more noise and googles credibility will spiral.The message has been heard worldwide from IPCC team Climatology and you really do not want to go there again, the art of defending the indefensible being extremely deadly to how you are precieved by others. However I am very receptive to genuine science and would be most greatful if the google fellows would produce some. Especially some that is reproducable, maybe your money would be well spent if your fellows who seem a very clever bunch, would first review and math check the science they intend to communicate. Anyhow great plan google lots a luck with that propaganda effort and goodbye, I will use Bing for now.

I just watched a show about

I just watched a show about the planets and listened to someone, supposedly educated, that claimed that the reason that Venus is 30 degrees warmer than the Earth is, yes, you guessed it "Global Warming." His assertion was that even though Venus was approximately the same mass, density, and size, that due to runaway "Global Warming" Venus was 30 degrees warmer than the earth. Am I to assume that the fact that Venus is about 1/3 of the distance closer to the Sun has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Venus is warmer than the Earth. And the AGW Ministers claim they do not spread falsehoods! Oh, that's right, I forgot, the AGW Ministers have told me the Sun has nothing to do with global warming! I need re-educated - GOOGLE is going to re-educate me!

Typo

Sorry, typo - 30 degrees should be 430 degrees. For some reason my cut-n-paste didn't work. It is correct in my MSWord doc. (and that is Celsius for the nit pickers.)

That Venus has a very strong

That Venus has a very strong greenhouse effect is not something that comes from the "AGW ministers".  Here, read about the .

Google has been seen to be

Google has been seen to be biased in the past. It is a huge financial corporation with a huge amount (through directors and associates) invested in the bet on an AGW panic. This means, if they do not like an answer then they will censor it. Has this happened before, sure, just google it. Now they are even more out in the open.

 

I will change search engines, avoid Android and not believe everything they say. Censorship is evil. Google is just "adjusting" the data to influence our thoughts.

How did Google come to get

How did Google come to get involved? Is it just something they wanted to do? I am seeing other unlikely people stepping into this as well, so I am wondering who is behind it.

It could be a good thing if things get done.

Reggie

  •  

    online casino, Texas Hold'em is slechts één van de spelen die u kunt spelen terwijl u gokt in dit casino. De Nederlandse goksoftware ziet er bovendien erg eenvoudig uit in gebruik.

look who's blogging...

Never seen a blog response this long on solveclimate.com

And never so many climate change nay sayers either...

You climate sceptics must be shivering already about Google's initiative.

 

By the way, empirical science is not based on proofs, but on experiment and observation. So, don't ask any scientists to prove their theories. If you are a skeptic, you would have to point out any shortcomings in the measurement techniques, for example. But ouch - isn't that the job scientists are doing anyways?

Not true

The null hypothesis is that the current temperature falls within natural variation.  Someone proposing a new theory such as AGW must DISPROVE the null not the other way around.

Fanatics

The good news is that every news article and blog you review regarding the Anthropogenic Global Warming SCAM that allows comments always has the same pattern. Dozens if not hundreds of independent thinkers post credible objections/concerns and scientific proof for their beliefs, and then you have one or two AGW fanatics (sailrick?) who post comment after comment repeating the same discredited propaganda over and over. The are isolated and very alone in their devotion to this false religion and no proof will ever shake their belief. The whole world is turning away from this costly and dangerous SCAM and ethical scientists everywhere are beginning to take back the peer review process and demand accountability for all the lies and data manipulation. Belief in AGW will someday soon be recognized as a mental illness. Those who are not simply trying to gain money and power are in love with themselves and the idea that they are battling 'evil' people to 'save the world'. They think they are in a Star Wars episode and they are the good guys!!! LOL

Delusional!!! (see also...Superiority Complex, Superman Complex...)

Nothing changes

Try going to scientific blogs where people have the time to debunk your so called theories not opinion websites where any old blogger can write unsubstantiated claims. I think I will listen to the scientists not Fox media.

 Sorry but considering how many countries and scientific organizations believe in climate change we are definitely not alone.

Sailrick has put forward proof that sceptics use discredited, misleading information, I noticed no one has proven his statements wrong or even replied. Since it is discredited propaganda it should be easy but we wait and wait.

And when you start going on about false religion, mental illness, fanatics and general name calling it just proves to me that you have no proof.

Consensus leads to Phlogiston and Geocentrism

Anonymous said:


' Sorry but considering how many countries and scientific organizations believe in climate change we are definitely not alone.'


 


In May 2010, an open letter endorsed by the membership of the National Academy of Sciences,  was sent to the Guardian in the UK claiming to represent the position of the 'membership', in regards to indescretions by fellow scientists (Climategate), and to reaffirm the 'consensus view' of the membership, in regards to Anthropogenic Climate Change.


FACT: 12.1% of the membership were Signatories to that letter


FACT: The top 7 fields of knowledge represented by those signatories, were fields unrelated to climate science. Geology and Geophysics came in 8th and 9th.


FACT: Only 26.7% of the signatories can be related, by kind criteria, to climate science. 87.9% of members didn't even sign the letter.


 


FACT: Not a single scientific organization has directly polled its entire membership in order to assemble a public position paper in regards to Anthropogenic Global Warming. By and large, they are assembled by a tiny number of elitists within each organization.


 


 

Opposition to overt stance by Google on AGW

Take at look at this open letter to Google on the recent AGW developments and the lively, open debate it has engendered.

It very much sums up the attitude and the scale of the response to this attempt by Google to force their opinion on the Google Internet world by overt spin doctoring.

 

Google & climate skeptics

From the article:  "People who are opposed to regulation ... [are] not trying to prove that climate change [science] is wrong. They're trying to prove that there is an argument going on," he said. "They're just trying to create noise.

Well now...  the skeptics should not have to DISPROVE the CO2-caused climate catastrophe theory; those who hold to the theory should have to PROVE it! -- before asking us to invest 100s of billions to prevent it.  Isn't that what the argument is about?  Yes, indeed:  there is an argument going on.  And there should be.

If you're really looking for spin ...

"It was hard to choose just 21 fellows from such an impressive pool of scientists; ultimately, we chose scientists who had the strongest potential to become excellent communicators. That meant previous training in science communication; research in topics related to understanding or managing climate change; and experience experimenting with innovative approaches or technology tools for science communication."

Really? Sounds like they are more interested in spin doctors vs. scientists.  If you are looking for experts in communication wouldn't it make sense to hire one of those firms that made Madison avenue famous? Why pick amatuers?

 

 

A list of 'Yes men' (and women)

Not a single Physics or Chemistry department is represented! How can this be, that disciplines with the best understanding of natural physical processes are excluded?

And, the list of fellows, that we are supposed to be so impressed with, shows names and institutions, but not research disciplines (hardly an example of better communication, Google!) - if you want to appeal to authority, at least show some!

Google should use its resources to promote better science, not better communication of a 'science' that is being increasingly scrutinised and shown to be flawed by experienced scientists and the public alike.

This initiative will be seen as partisan, and politically and financially motivated, by the growing numbers aware of the scientific counter-evidence in this heated debate. It is certainly not about science. Get a grip Google!

Google Taking Sides? What's new?

Google, a public corporation with shareholders, takes sides in a scientific debate and intervenes in the political process.   So Google comes out of the closet as just another rent seeking corporation.  But actually they have been doing this for years via manipulation of their search algorithms.  Follow the money. 

Thankfully Google is taking sides...

Nobless Oblige - You should feel lucky that a company as influencial as Google is working to quiet the climate change detractors.  Botton line is that you cannot argue the fact that our environment is grossly mistreated and abused.  Without companies like Google working to create change, I would hate to see where we end up in the next few decades.

The Google Truth Society

Isn't it just as well they've come out & declared so shamelessly though?

Better to see what they are rather than believe them to be the impartial arbiter we might have wished.

It's the shamelessness though , that betrays this iintellectual elite just don't get it.

While most of them still believe in it (AGW) what most of them still don't get, is that the rest of us just don't trust them (whether it were true or not).

Now they might convince casual browsers, who are more concerned with finding their latest I -Tunes, but no one who thinks about it will be taken in for long.

However, perhaps Search Engines need to carry a Government Health Warning, but which Government?

What government hasn' t been seduced by the prospect of managing public perception. Certainly not that Global one we keep being threatened with...

CAGW is where the big money is

I'm not so sure Bing is the way to go .


For instance The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a funding partner of The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), which on the face of it is very worthy. But dig a bit deeper and you find that CIFF is a funding partner for The European Climate Foundation, a pro AGW alarmist think tank that aims to promote climate and energy policies that greatly reduce Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions.


I've read some of the other comments on here whinging about about big oil funded think tanks. However the real money is with the alarmists. For instance two organisations, The Seachange Foundation and Climate Works each have a pot of over $1 billion to promote the AGW cause. Others include The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The McKnight Foundation, The Schmidt Family Foundation, The Oak Foundation, Arcadia Fund.


Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmism is where the really big money is at.

Well Done Google

It amazes me our upset people get, if the climate researchers and the countless scientific organizations that agree with the IPCC about AGW are wrong why has no one actually proved it. All I ever see are opinion websites that cherry pick data and say it is a global scam. Well prove it, show us the data in a peer reviewed article and hey guess what, that person will become a world famous hero and win a noble prize. I mean it has been at least a couple of decades and still no scientific proof the climate scientists working in the field are wrong. Why has no one stepped up to the plate? Just the same old bogus arguments/opinions which never, ever, stand up to decent analysis.
And you talk about the money, gees how much money behind fossil fuels.
By the way nice move Google, especially as you are using a team of 21 climate researchers.
I expect the usual links to opinion websites and so called experts who put their opinions in books but can they back it up with scientific articles (that don't get ripped apart by scientists who actually know what they are talking about) ........ no. Umm why not?

read it..... all of it

climateaudit.org         

Burden of Proof

Allow me to quote a previous poster:


' (We will prove that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam)right after we've proved that, contrary to various highly educated priests and popes, God doesn't exist. This is, after all, what distinguishes religion from science: In science the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the hypothesis, not on those who are sceptical of it.


It is here, in your request - and in a similar demand from leading climatologist Kevin Trenberth - where the distinction is made between the science of climate and the religion of catastrophic anthropogenic climatological impact, AKA global warming, AKA climate change, AKA global climate disruption.


Let's end the pretence that CAGW is anything but junk science with cultish religious designs. The truth is that, beyond the basic theory that the climate changes naturally and cyclicly, climate alarmism is in fact entirely derived from pseudo-scientific scarelore and fearmongery.'

Ex-Enviro, there is ample

Ex-Enviro, there is ample evidence in support of AGW theory.  We have evidence supporting these statements:

  • That CO2 is a greenhouse gas
  • That human activity is dramatically increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
  • That average global temperatures have been increasing in recent decades
  • That this recent temperature trend cannot be explained by the natural forcings which can also affect climate, such as variations in solar inputs (which have not been increasing)
  • That the temperature trend is consistent with what would be expected with the observed rise in CO2.

Thus what is being requested is the evidence that refutes these observations and falsifies the theory.  I'd be happy to go into the evidence that supports them with you.

Ex-Enviro

  • That this recent temperature trend cannot be explained by the natural forcings which can also affect climate, such as variations in solar inputs (which have not been increasing)

  • This is false. This premise relies on the thoroughly and completely discredited Hockey Stick temperarture reconstruction being correct. If instead of the fraudulent Hockey Stick reco you use the reconstruction from the IPCC 1990 report, you can readily show all but about 0.3 degrees of warming in the 1900s is due purely to natural causes. Using this early reconstruction, it would also predict cooling starting just after the year 2000 and continued cooling (~1 degree) the rest of this century.

This premise relies on the

This premise relies on the thoroughly and completely discredited Hockey Stick temperarture reconstruction being correct.

No, it doesn't.   I don't know why the "skeptics" on this particular site keep bringing it up, it's only one of many global temperature reconstructions, and they all support my point.

If instead of the fraudulent Hockey Stick reco you use the reconstruction from the IPCC 1990 report, you can readily show all but about 0.3 degrees of warming in the 1900s is due purely to natural causes.

Yes, up until about the 1980s, much of the variation can be explained by natural causes.  However, since that time, the temperature trend has strongly diverged from such natural forcings as variations in solar inputs.  Temperature has showed an upward trend no matter which record you look at, while natural forcings such as TSI (total solar irradiance) have not been increasing.  (data are 12-month running means for both global temp anomaly and PMOD composite TSI).

Using this early reconstruction, it would also predict cooling starting just after the year 2000 and continued cooling (~1 degree) the rest of this century.

I'd love to hear how you come up with that conclusion.

Fairly simple actually. Start

Fairly simple actually. Start with the 1990 IPCC temperature reconstruction graph. Use the temperatures from 900AD up to 1900AD as your baseline period (since even AGW believers contend pre 1900 is free of CO2 induced effects). 1) Fit that 900-1900AD data with a sine wave which models the "low mode" warming feature over the 1000 yr period.   2) Add in a series of evenly spaced gaussian warming spikes (separated ~235 yrs apart) that are about 0.4degrees high by 60 years in width. THese two things alone will give a very good fit of your all natural model to the data. Now, extend your model to cover the years 1900-2000... and low and behold once again you see a very good fit of the model to the observed data, except the observed data peaks about 0.3 degrees higher than the model. If you extend the model out to the year 2100, it is flat to about 2010 and then slowly drops about 0.5 degrees out to 2100. Obviously this model will not work well at all for long term extrapolations but there is a very good reason to expect it may work quite well for a few hundred years worth of decent predictions.

In other words, that

In other words, that prediction is based on a "model" that is completely lacking in any mechanistic basis.  That is to say, no basis in cause and effect from the natural or man-made forcings and feedbacks that cause climate changes.  And thus there is no reason (let alone a "very good" one) to think that it will work at all.

I guess you prefer to start

I guess you prefer to start with your model first and then go back thru the data and try and find evidence to support it rather than starting with the evidence and looking for reasons to explain why it is? I sought to make a graph of what the current temperatures would look like based only on the data from the recent past. You prefer to start with a model and then look for evidence to support it.

Nonsense, the models are

Nonsense, the models are evidence-based.  Your "model" is completely subjective and lacking in any predictive or explanatory power.

Nonsense

The model I proposed above is completely evidence based and free of any preconceived (explanatory power) Once you have the data then as a scientist you propose a model that explains the data... and then look for new data especially data that might prove it wrong, not discard all data that doesn't agree with the model.

Nonsense

The model I proposed above is completely evidence based and free of any preconcieved (explanatory power) Once you have the data then as a scientist you propose a model that explains the data... and then look for new data especially data that might prove it wrong, not discard all data that doesn't agree with the model.

Speaking as a scientist, once

Speaking as a scientist, once one observes a trend, it's not sufficient to characterize that trend mathematically.  In order to have predictive and explanatory power, you have to be able to characterize it mechanistically - that is, you have to explain why the observations occur in the pattern(s) that they do.  That's what's missing in your "model".

I would agree partially..

I would agree that in order to have eplanatory powers you have to understand why it does what it does, but you don't need to understand it to have predictive powers. For instance, take radioactive decay... if an element has a halflife of 1000 years,... I can predictively say with a high degree of confidence that half of it will be gone in 1000 years. Because I don't understand why it decays I can't explain it but I can certainly make accurate predictions. Its up to the scientists to figure out the why once they have the data.

- It has indeed been shown

- It has indeed been shown that natural forces can account for the variation in temperature (warming as well as the current cool spell).

- The temperature trend since 1998 is certainly NOT consistent with the IPCC's projections in 2007.

- CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its effect on temperature is logarithmic (i.e. each unit increase in CO2 causes less warming than the previous unit increase).

- There's plenty of empirical evidence to show that CO2 change follows, not leads, temperature increase.

- Warm ocean surface water absorb less CO2, meaning more remain ins in the atmosphere, therefore elevated CO2 is partly due to warmer ocean surface, not the other way around.

I very much doubt that the Google "Climate spin team" will tell us things like this or give us impartial and thorough information.  I suspect that it will become like Wikipedia was on these matters when it was under the control of William Connelly (fortunately now banned).

 

Usual answers, opinions again

Oh dear it is a religion is it? Wow that is scientific. Junk science? Really? You cannot do better than that? Why oh why do so many science organisations (Someone has already given a list in this blog) support climate change?

Thanks for the reference to leading climatologist Kevin Trenberth just another highly qualified person for me to read up about.

In science a theory is put forward and is then supported by the evidence taken from real world data observations. Until evidence is shown it is incorrect that theory remains, so once again, prove it wrong. All science is theories until proven otherwise.

Co2 increase is due to oceans warming? So why are the oceans ph levels decreasing? Why is the isotope of C02 from burning fossil fuels increasing? Why are the oceans warming? Why does one of your favourite sceptic sites WattsUpWithThat now states Co2 is increasing but guess what, it will be good for us. Gees looking forward to that.

Why oh why do you guys only reference from 1998(cherry picking ), that it was the warmest decade for 2000 years means little I suppose. Let me guess Medieval Warm Period was warmer, well that was only a local effect not global as any search for the latest scientific papers on that time period will show. Anyway only the sceptic sites say it has been cooling since 1998 it definitely is not a consensus among scientists working in the field.

Try watching this video from Richard Alley (Asked to speak to the US government) may explain a lot if you can be bothered.

'Scientific Consensus' What cowards default to if all else fails

why the fuss said:


' Why oh why do so many science organisations (Someone has already given a list in this blog) support climate change?'


 


List a single scientific organization which polled its entire membership, in order to determine wording for a public position paper on CAGW.

- It has indeed been shown

- It has indeed been shown that natural forces can account for the variation in temperature (warming as well as the current cool spell).

Where and by whom has this been shown?

- The temperature trend since 1998 is certainly NOT consistent with the IPCC's projections in 2007.

Ah, I smell cherry-picking at work.  Did you pick 1998 as your new starting point because it was a spike above the overall trend?   I hope that's not the case, because it would be horribly dishonest. 

- CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its effect on temperature is logarithmic (i.e. each unit increase in CO2 causes less warming than the previous unit increase).

Yes, which is exactly how it is modeled by climate researchers.

 

- There's plenty of empirical evidence to show that CO2 change follows, not leads, temperature increase.

Well, it DID, in the glacial/interglacial changes seen in the ice core records.  During those time periods, CO2 is understood as a feedback that magnified the effects of natural forcings such as Milankovitch cycles, rather than a primary cause of climate change.  But that's no longer the case, now that we are directly increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

- Warm ocean surface water absorb less CO2, meaning more remain ins in the atmosphere, therefore elevated CO2 is partly due to warmer ocean surface, not the other way around.

Yes, warmer water will absorb less of the additional CO2, but at this point it is still acting as a net sink for our human sources of CO2 - that's largely why atmospheric CO2 has risen at a rate of about 2 ppm/year, about half of what we've been releasing.

According to AGW theory, most life should be extinct

Belfrey said:


'Well, it DID, in the glacial/interglacial changes seen in the ice core records.  During those time periods, CO2 is understood as a feedback that magnified the effects of natural forcings such as Milankovitch cycles, rather than a primary cause of climate change.  But that's no longer the case, now that we are directly increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2.'


 


Millions of species presently thrive on the planet. If rising CO2 can only be a positive feedback and it has been determined there are no checks and balances within the system (which seems to be your position), then what repeatedly caused temps and CO2 levels to drop after rising so dramatically, throught the millenium?


What caused temps to drop even while CO2 was elevated ?


What caused temps to drop even whilst CO2 continued to rise ?


And after all that, why do you believe that man's puny (compared to historic periods of intense volcanic activity, where ppm's were much, much higher than today) CO2 contribution poses a threat which this old earth has proven to be more than apt at dealing with ?

Hi Ex-Enviro, Millions of

Hi Ex-Enviro,

Millions of species presently thrive on the planet. If rising CO2 can only be a positive feedback and it has been determined there are no checks and balances within the system (which seems to be your position), then what repeatedly caused temps and CO2 levels to drop after rising so dramatically, throught the millenium?

I don't think you've accurately characterized my position.  The theory of climate change through the Quaternary glacial/interglacial changes, to simplify and generalize greatly, is that variations in earth's orbit around the sun (the Milankovitch cycles) triggered changes in temperature, which were then greatly magnified by the feedback response of CO2. 

Contrary to what you said above, this CO2 feedback can be both negative and positive, in response to negative or positive primary forcings.  That is to say, if the Milankovitch phase started a cooling trend, CO2 would tend to decrease, thus magnifying that negative effect.  It takes CO2 a long time to reach its equilibrium response, so we see lags of centuries in the ice core.  The same thing can happen (both negative and positive) with the water vapor feedback, but due to the short residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere, it reaches its equilibrium response much more rapidly.

And after all that, why do you believe that man's puny (compared to historic periods of intense volcanic activity, where ppm's were much, much higher than today) CO2 contribution poses a threat which this old earth has proven to be more than apt at dealing with ?

This is a great question, and an important point to bring up.  The earth will certainly go on even in the worst-case warming scenario, and life on it will continue, albeit with the likely loss of many species.  As an optimistic type, I'd even say that humans as a species would probably survive and adapt to the worst-case AGW scenario. 

In my view, the concern over CO2 is not based on the desire to preserve current conditions as some sort of "optimum", but rather the desire to avoid causing rapid change.  Major, relatively rapid climate change is likely to have many direct and indirect effects on our economic and agricultural systems.  I think it's fair to say that any major, rapid change tends to be disruptive to those systems.  The earth's climate is likely to change on its own eventually, but I'd rather give us a few thousand years to develop and prepare, rather than rushing into it headlong.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options