Regarding the proposed rate of temperature increase that I mentioned, Rog wrote:
“The rise is predicted by a worthless computer model which has been shown to give wildly varying output depending on the inital conditions and unproven assumptions about the effect of CO2 on temperature you start off with.”
Well, then it must be eight worthless computer models:
Hmm. I gotta figure out how to post pictures, huh? I've asked several times, so can somebody tell me how to do that? It rather disappoints when my graph doesn't materialize.
Aha! I have found the "Insert Image at Cursor" button that was right in front of my face. (I maintain that it was too obvious.) Evidently I had found it once before, since I posted a picture of a rocket nozzle a while back, but it must have been during a drunken stupor, as I do not remember it.
Rog also wrote:
“Study the cause and effect issue with the ice core sample results. If rises in CO2 lag behing [sic] rises in temperature by hundreds of years, how can CO2 be the cause of temperature rise rather than an effect of that temperature rise?”
That statement is based upon a pretty poor scientific assumption, namely: that the mechanism of current temperature rise is the same as the historical temperature rises that you mention. I think you will agree that rising temperatures lead, through various mechanisms, to a feedback cycle that releases CO2 into the atmosphere. (This is one reason for worries about a “runaway greenhouse effect.”) The reverse holds true, as well. Thus, if other incredibly complex mechanisms initiated the temperature rises and falls in the historical record, which most people will agree with you on, that is why the CO2 levels lag. CO2 probably didn't cause these temperature fluctuations, but rather were a result of them and fed back on them, as you said. Your graph starts in the Cambrian, when there were an awful lot of differences compared to the modern biosphere, atmosphere, geology, insolation, etc. A lot of the variables were wildly different, not just CO2!
The proposed mechanism for modern temperature rise is different, and concentrates on the variable that is changing the most significantly: CO2. The IPCC statement only covers the last 50 years, after all. And I will grant that the IPCC isn't a perfect scientific body, but until you can find me a better one that has a dissenting opinion, I'll listen to what they say.
Regarding the Urban Heat Island argument, I can name papers disputing that the effect is real. For example:
Sorry, those are links to an abstracts only, as I do not subscribe to the journal in question. Of course, these papers have attracted criticism, so before you post it, I will. McIntyre:
I would point out, however, that McIntyre was never published on this subject in any way, let alone peer-reviewed. A better criticism is Pielke:
But, these dissenting opinions are definitely a minority. You will notice this theme throughout my post...
When you talk about solar irradiation vs erruptivity, you're taling about the Solanki paper, right? Well, I think I recall that Solanki says in his paper that he has no idea what is causing global warming, and specifically doesn't attribute it to solar activity of any kind. So I would propose that it is neutral on the subject, not dissenting.
Regarding criticisms of the solar hypothesis for global warming, I'd be interested in your critique of this other paper that disagrees with it, and concludes that the observed changes in solar activity have minimal effect:
Regarding the Oreskes paper, Rog Wrote:
“Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research.”
And also pointed out the Ms Oreskes is, in fact, a science historian, not a scientist. Well, yes, she is a science historian. I wasn't trying to sneak anything past anyone, and in fact called her work an “essay” for that reason. I could have been more explicit but, shucks, my posts are too long already. (Can I hear an "Amen!"?) I would propose that she is somewhat qualified to perform literature reviews, since that is basically what a science historian does. And, in her defense, she was published and peer-reviewed.
Which is more than can be said of Dr Schulte's work. First, he is an endocrinologist, as you hinted at, so he's not really any better a source than Oreskes, and probably a worse one. (I'm a surgeon, so my opinion of internal medicine specialties is, of course, low. *humor*) Second, the paper in question was never published. Regarding your link, note that it is from a blog, and is a sort of a “heads up” about a paper that will be published soon. Well, it wasn't. I am forced to resort to another blog entry to give the brief story to those who are interested:
In short, Dr Schulte's proposed study was apparently about some sort of psychological patient population who were experiencing angst and anxiety about global warming, and the statistics that you quoted were a by-product of trying to “prove” that such anxiety is irrational. I would thus propose that Schulte may have been biased, since if these fears are not irrational then he has no reason to treat these patients. (And his study covers a different, more recent time period that Oreske's, as you said.) Apparently he and Oreskes got a little heated with each other, and Schulte published a rebuttal to her statements. Here:
An exerpt: Schulte reviewed all 928 papers included in Oreske's paper, and he found a grand total of five that he thinks were mis-categorized in it and should have been analyzed as discounting anthropogenic climate change. That's still only 5/928! And one of them was an AAPG paper- an organization which, as I mentioned earlier, revised it's statements in 2007. Another is obviously more neutral than contradictory (Fernau et al. 1993).
And agin, it wasn't reviewed or published. So, Shulte: not a great source, either.
But BOTH Oreskes and Schulte are individual researchers. I still maintain that consensus from large organizations is a better metric. You will always be able to find someone on the fringe to disagree with even the most obvious conclusions. (Though obvious conclusions HAVE been proven wrong in the past, I know. Look up H. pylori some time...)
Regarding publishing bias, Rog wrote:
“Very few climatologists are in the pay of oil companies, compared with the estimated 3.2 billion dollar global warming gravy train funding the research of the 'pro global warming camp'. “
I refer you to another blog (unfortunately) discussing how the U.S government is subtly pressuring scientists to minimize support for anthropogenic global warming:
IF you want a more formal report, here is the one discussed in the blog entry, published by the Union of Concerned Scientists:
“Wikipedia cannot be taken as a neutral or definitive source on this issue.”
Well, duh. That's why I said “granted, I got this list from Wikipedia” by way of warning. I think I made my disclaimer obvious, so criticisms by you and others aren't terribly productive. (Agreement and a friendly jab, there, not hostility.) In fact I would go further to state that it isn't a definitive source on ANY issue. But, I find it a good place to start, and then follow the references, and google them, and find dissenting opinions, etc. Realistically, what else are you going to use in a timely fashion? Google- where you can PAY to have your site listed first in the search results?
DISCLAIMER! My graph, above, is from a Wikipedia site! (But, it's such a pretty graph...)
Regarding the sankey website you linked regarding historical CO2 levels: again, a private website, so not a great source. (note my caveats, above, whenever I link a blog, and I always try to find the primary sources.) And not many sources are referenced. Still, it is interesting. I did, despite my protestations, know roughly how the global climate has changed in the past few hundred million years, but I'm learning from this reading. Do you have anything published and peer-reviewed?
“Clearly this page has an agenda, as do all pages on the net regarding the climate issue, continue your own research and form your own conclusions on the scientific evidence...”
You got that right, Brother, and I always do. That's why I take everything you say with a grain of salt, too. Note how I check sources. I've discovered that a lot of people posting on fora like this try to bully their way around with inconceivably bad sources. Not all, but probably a majority, and I choose to call them on it. I'm not a geologist or climatologist but I am a scientist, so I at least have a chance of reviewing most scientific papers on global warming with a critical eye. I do not, however, have the time to devote my life to it.
Anyway, we can go back and forth like this FOREVER.
My position in a nutshell:
I think all this discussion is moot. We can argue degree, but the truth is that a VAST majority of scientific organizations AND individual scientists support the anthropogenic hypothesis for global warming. As you mentioned I got that list from Wikipedia, but I also CHECKED it. Can you find me dissenting statements from reputable national or international organizations? Seriously. I haven't had much chance to look, since I have now spent all of my free time on this post so far, but I'm going to try.
I'm willing to agree to disagree if you are. Frankly, I work VERY long hours and this is cutting into quality time with my daughter. Unfortunately I am almost incapable of backing down from an argument, but my knowledge base on this subject isn't as comprehensive as on carbon emissions specifically, so eventually I'm going to tire of the effort that I have to put into this "he said- she said" stuff. (I lay claim to the masculine side of that metaphor, by the way...) (*humor* again)
Glad to hear your concurrence about burning wood. But then again, if you are a “global warming is hogwash” guy, I can hardly imagine that you'd disagree...
Wow. Isn't this fun ???