It’s Hansen’s repeated arrests and overt zealotry that removes him from being considered an independent observer.
Linus Pauling was arrested many times, he was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his zeal. How does this dismiss his Nobel Prize for Chemistry?
Correction, it’s the “man-made-CO2-must-be-at-fault” camp who must provide positive proof that their guesstimations and assumptions are or will be correct “IF” they expect others to change their position. History shows that the global temp increases and then decreases between ice ages. The MMCO2MBAF camp seems to be under the impression that the Earth will not see another ice age.
And since the mid-Pleistocene transition to ~100Ky glaciation cycles about 1.2 million years ago, that cycle has been characterized by CO2 transitions between a low of around 180 ppm at the peak of ice ages to a high of around 280 ppm at the peak of interglacials – about where it was at the start of industrialization. This has been a remarkably consistent range of natural CO2 excursion between ocean and atmosphere, between glacial and interglacial.
Ice ages occur when CO2 starts to drop back from 280 to 180 ppm. It is now 400 ppm and rising at an unprecedented rate. Just exactly when are **YOU ** expecting the next ice age?
You’ll have to tell me. You brought Pauling’s name up. What was Pauling charged with? What were his views on “global warming”? Are massive doses of vitamins responsible for global warming?
How did CO2 “drop back” from 280 to 180 ppm without human intervention? Is that even possible? Certainly seems like it is.
Is it not true that global cooling would reduce the number of CO2 producing plants which would in turn reduce the global concentration of CO2? Does that mean that CO2 levels would follow global temps?
My apologies, his passport was revoked, but never arrested. They had bigger problems back then, global warming is a pathetic excuse of a problem compared to 3,000 nuclear bombs going off in the next hour or so.
The point is that just because a person believes in something, and speaks about his belief, doesn’t mean his science is discredited. The responsibility of independence rests with the peer-reviewers, not at all with the author.
Already done, you still want to tell others that the evidence convinced even conservative scientists, that you want to make lay people (that are in the minority also) the only ones that should be convinced is really silly. It is the contrarians the ones that need to produce evidence to contradict all that evidence that has convinced even former skeptic scientists.
Read the history I linked to already and stop your ignorance. It is precisely for the data going the opposite of the expected cooling the reason why you are wrong.
Anthropogenic … yes, I’m making a pun … a pun with a deeper meaning. That is a very curious word, even more curious is that climatologists would use it with the laity. It comes across as doublespeak, as though something is being hidden. If you mean man-made, you should say man-made. Sheesh, it’s not like women had anything to do with this.
(It size important to you? 
)
It was Hansen’s NASA-GISS that used ill-placed and poorly maintained temp gauges to come up with his contributions to the IPCC’s “let’s prove CO2 is at fault” reports.
Did Pauling provide piss-poor or unqualified data to verify his chemistry or is the Pauling reference now discredited?
Well, even skeptics (that become former ones when they bother to check the evidence) know that the word is used properly.
Indeed, current solar intensity and the orbital cycles are not doing much for the rise in temperature observed now.
Now, the anthropologists, **they **have gone too far by hiding the fact that they are part of the NSA because they are investigating us humans. 
…Yes? “Anthropogenic” means “human-caused”. So, “AGW” would include all upward shifts in temperature that are as a result of human activity. There is also “ACC,” Anthropogenic Climate Change, which includes all changes - plus or minus. You can, of course, refer to the entire change in question, or you can focus on a small part to address severity and/or reason.
What, exactly, was the point of your question?
Science uses words based on Latin and Greek as their jargon, which helps segregate it from standard literature. This is hardly new. When someone says they had a hysterectomy or mastectomy, would you rather have them say “I had my uterus removed.” or “I had one of my breasts removed.”?
Forgive me but that entire missive sounds to me like an exercise in obfuscation. To begin with, stabilization wedges are not check boxes (yep, check, next…) they are areas of endeavor with vastly different possible levels of implementation. I’ll just take your example #1 to illustrate the obvious…
Yes, I have heard of the Chevy Volt. Have you heard of the SUV or the pickup truck? Which are you going to see more of down at the grocery store where soccer moms drop in to pick up a loaf of bread – electric cars or the seemingly ubiquitous big-ass gas-guzzling fume-belching SUVs?
No, I’m quite familiar with what was known in the 70s. It was a point where the plateau in warming at the time was not well understood; there is a paper from the National Academy of Sciences circa 1972 or so which stated that “we don’t even know the right questions to ask.” Climate science as we know it today was then, relatively speaking, in its infancy.
Incidentally, statements of humility such as that one and the traditional intellectual conservatism of science – and the skepticism that prevails in the absence of strong evidence – should be contrasted with the situation today where the national science bodies of all major nations have made joint statements unequivocally endorsing the IPCC position on the imminent dangers of AGW.
I’m afraid that statement makes no sense to me. Scientifically it’s the kind of statement that can be described as “not even wrong”.
What do you mean by “atmospheric temperatures”? It’s the earth’s surface temperatures and ocean heat content that are the primary arbiters of climate. Atmospheric temperatures are different at the upper atmosphere, stratosphere, mid-troposphere, and lower troposphere for a variety of different reasons, and the proportions thereof vary as the climate transitions through different forcings. The current signature, incidentally, is characteristic of GHG-induced forcing, as one would expect.
If you’re trying to imply that either orbital perturbations or changes in solar output (either of which would affect TSI on the upper atmosphere) have been the primary climate drivers then you are just simply dead wrong. Atmospheric components – primarily carbon in the form of CO2 and CH4 – have always been front and center in the earth’s climate history for at least several hundred million years. See for instance an extraordinary period called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum that resulted from a (relatively) sudden elevation in atmospheric carbon. And in geologically recent times it is of course the carbon cycles that have driven glaciation cycles.
Not sure what you mean by “other atmospheres”. Are you talking about other planets? Perhaps you were not, but there is indeed an amusing denialist mythology that “other planets are warming, too”. The same folks who tell us we can’t be sure that the earth is warming because of instrument calibration issues have no problem making solid determinations about other planets! 
For the record, about claims that “Mars is warming, too” – no it isn’t. End of story. Mars experiences seasons and cyclical orbital variations like any other planet. But compared to earth, it has a much, much higher climate sensitivity, for at least three reasons: greater orbital eccentricity, greater inclination of its axis of revolution, and its very thin atmosphere. All of these things drive greater cyclical climate extremes, some of which we see from time to time.
(Of course, if a shill for Big Oil can further enrich himself by fabricating a new denialist talking point from such an observation, one must at least admire his resourcefulness! :D)
Basically once cooling begins the process is self-sustaining through feedbacks (see below). The question is what triggers the initial cooling (or warming). Probably the best prevailing theory is the Milankovitch orbital perturbations previously discussed. This is, however, now getting far far away from the point. By injecting vast amounts of new CO2 from outside this natural cycle, we have permanently altered that balance. The salient point here is that any possibility of future cooling from a natural cycle is non-existent when atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm and rising. This is the meaning of anthropogenic CO2 being the “dominant” effect on climate.
Plants are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters. It’s predominantly the oceans that contribute to the feedback by increasing CO2 uptake as they cool. By the same token, though, when they are warming as they are doing now their ability to continue absorbing CO2 diminishes.
Thank you for answering.
Well if you look back a few posts, the exchange started with nachtmusik’s assertion that there is very strong evidence for “AGW” and that nevertheless some people remain skeptical.
For my part, although I am sometimes referred to as a “skeptic” and a “denier,” I completely accept “AGW” as you have defined it. Probably most prominent people on my side of the debate accept “AGW.” So to a large extent, nachtmusik is attacking a strawman. Assuming, of course, that his definition of “AGW” is the same as yours. I have asked him for a definition – I doubt that one will be forthcoming.
What in the world does it mean to say that you accept that definition? It is essentially saying that “AGW” refers to that component of global warming that is due to human activity, which is self-evident from the definition of “anthropogenic”. One can believe that and also believe that the amount of such anthropogenic warming is zero, or negative.
A more pragmatic functional definition of AGW consists of the points I listed in this post which begins with “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal…” and ends with “…It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (“Extremely likely” as used by the IPCC has a specifically calibrated meaning, which is >95% probability.)
The salient question is whether you accept that and all the other scientifically supportable points listed. If not, then you may count yourself in the company of those who reject overwhelming scientific evidence, whatever you may want to call yourselves.
No, if you believe that mankind’s activities have not and do not cause an increase in global surface temperatures then you do not believe in “AGW” as that term was defined a couple posts back.
Well perhaps you care to share this “overwhelming scientific evidence.”
In particular, please let me know the following:
-
What caused global warming between 1900 and 1950?
-
How can one know that the same cause did not play a large role in warming between 1950 and the present?
Also, do you agree that your definition of AGW does not contain a claim that there will be big negative consequences from continued CO2 emissions by mankind?
My definition of AGW seems to be the same as everyone else’s - I don’t see what that has to do with anything.
I wrote a post in response to someone calling themselves a “GW skeptic.” If you are not one, good for you.
The goalposts in the worldwide argument have already moved once from GW to AGW. That is, very few people still doubt there is warming, but many still question whether it is human-caused (“anthropogenic”). If you and your prominent friends accept that also, than I am not sure where the goalpost has been moved to. Is it a question of whether anything should be done about it?
As for the graph, note that it is taken out to 2100. The quoted study is concluding, based on paleoclimatic data, that the projections made by the IPCC show that the temperature will rise above any average seen in the Holocene. I offered this study in response to a poster who seemed to think that the recent global temperature rise was within the range of normal climate variation, as we understand it.
Given that two definitions have been proposed in this thread, that’s not a very good answer.
What exactly do you mean by AGW? If your definition has already been stated in this thread, please just block quote it. It will take about 20 seconds.
You seem to have been attacking a strawman.
It depends what “GW skeptic” means.
There is a difference between claiming that mankind’s activities are likely to cause warming and claiming that mankind’s activities are the primary cause of observed warming.
Agreed?
Ok, so your answer to my question is “no,” i.e. you are not claiming that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that current global surface temperatures are significantly higher than they have been in 11,000 years. Right?
Before 1950 natural cycles and forcings had most of the control, but the human influences were being noticed as growing by people like Calender. The increasing CO2 became a clear driver of the current warming in the 60’s.
That is called grasping at straws.