global warming: salvaging fact from heaps of BS

[gib65]

Nothing bugs me more than global warming deniers except being lied to about global warming. Who exactly is lying is something I can't say, but someone definitely is.

 

I want to start this thread so that I can post articles I've come across contradicting the evidence in support of global warming and/or the anthropocentric account of it.

 

I don't know who to trust and I feel like a helpless child in a custody battle - who gets to convert me over to their side? - and I feel like shouting out "Just tell me the goddam truth!!!"

 

I'll accept the words of the noble scientists on SFN, but that's not to say I won't challenge them. I'll take whatever you say and pit it against the words of others on other forums and then come back with more fodder for debate. I hope that over the long haul, some meaningful picture will emerge that explains the riff between the data and the misconceptions that appear on both sides so that a most-plausible-scenario can be built for me to latch onto.

 

In short, the goal of this thread is to build for myself (and others) a more firm foundation on which to take a stand on the GW issue and to stick to it on grounds other than blind faith or ignorance. It seems so hard to do this on this issue though because of all the conflicting reports and my lack of expertise in both the subject and my BS detection skills.

 

So here's a couple articles to start:

 

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2871

 

This one claims that the steady increase in the average yearly global temperature in a myth, that...

 

The earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary” 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration—and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.

 

This blatantly contradicts Gore's claim that the average yearly global temperature has been increasing at an alarming rate well into the 21st century, 2005 (I think it was) marking a global record.

 

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080506/EDITORIAL/404827900/1013

 

This one claims that the supposed consensus among climatologists and other relevant experts is fraudulent. It says that a significant number of scientists don't want to voice their assessments on the anthropocentric question in fear of being ridiculed or losing their jobs, and that a high number of dissenters come from within the circle of experts itself.

 

Another point I'd like to know more about (which I don't have an article on unfortunately) is the melting of the Martian polar ice caps that seems to be happening at the same rate and in parallel to all the GW symptoms here on Earth. This can't be explained by anthropocentrism, but it easily can by sunspot theories.

 

I'm not taking sides here. How can I when I have no idea how to sieve the facts from the bull shit? I want to challenge the GW naysayers, but not because I'm taking up a contrary position, just because that seems to be the only way to force people to backup their claims with something substantial.

[swansont]

You have to go to the source — the scientific papers — or someone who can legitimately interpret them, i.e. scientists working in that field. Newspaper articles are bad, in general, since they suffer from the temptation to sensationalize things, and reporters often can't separate the wheat from the chaff. Op-eds are a mixed bag, but generally, the argument there isn't science — too much political argument to score points, rather than present science. (I've discussed the difference in those argument styles before, most recently here) Blogs have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

 

You can look at the arguments and evaluate them similar to creationism arguments — the tactics are remarkably similar. Look for the ones relying on peer-reviewed science and looking at the whole breadth and depth of the material, as they are probably making decent points. If it's a rebuttal argument, they will be pointing out the flaws I am about to list: The ones using logical fallacies, appeals to conspiracy, using selected evidence (cherry-picking), and making sweeping statements that are not backed up by any science, and often from some false authority — those are the denialists.

 

————

 

Now, as to the cases you've presented, they've been discussed here before. The warming that happened starting around 1915 occurred right after some significant cooling, largely induced by volcanic activity. Some of the warming, perhaps upwards of half, was due to a reduction in the volcanic material in the atmosphere (AFAIK, from both large eruptions and general volcanic activity). Some amount was due to CO2, though at a lower rate than later in the century, and some was solar; these latter two making roughly equal contributions

 

The choice of ~1915 would be an example of cherry-picking, since it's choosing the coolest point on the graph. Temperatures can't help but be higher at a later point.

 

The other is the claim that we've been cooling since 1998. It's not true, but 1998 was a very hot year. Again, selecting that data point skews the analysis because it was a fluctuation, this time on the high side. Since we're interested in trends and not fluctuations, one should look for analyses that use averages (five year, ten year or even longer) to ensure the noise isn't a distraction.

[SkepticLance]

It is better to look at the situation from about 1976 onwards. Before that, we are dealing with smaller increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and a number of other factors that alter warming/cooling. After 1976, CO2 levels are growing at a substantial rate, and other factors are minimal. Over that period there is warming of 0.18 C per decade on average. A clear cut response without the picture being muddied by extraneous other factors.

[Chris C]

gib,

 

I would recommend an introductory textbook on the matter. David Archer's is a good start

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/

[gib65]

Thanks for everyone's replies. Those are helpful.

 

I found an article on that Martial polar ice caps melting:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

 

There's this one quote that says:

 

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

[Chris C]

Thanks for everyone's replies. Those are helpful.

 

I found an article on that Martial polar ice caps melting:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

 

There's this one quote that says:

 

gib, check this article

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

 

As another addition on top of that, there appears to be some changes in albedo on Mars (that's the change in how much incoming sunlight gets reflected back to space before it interacts thermodynamically with the planet); Mars gets a lot of dust storms, and because of no oceans and a very thin atmosphere it is much more sensitive than Earth to things like a changing sun, or how much of that sunlight is reflected, seasonal/orbital changes, etc. So if you instantly change the planetary albedo, you'll get a pretty quick and large response on a planet like that. We don't have much data to see the "long term trends" on the various planets, even Mars, but it appears it has warmed and cooled up and down by several degrees just over the last couple decades, which on Earth would be devastating.

 

There are something near 150 bodies in our solar system. It shouldn't be a surprise that some might be warming, or cooling (Uranus seems to be), etc. because of other things going on. A planet or its moons temperature is governed by a large variety of factors including the incoming sunlight (from the planet's perspective that may vary not just with a hotter sun, but with seasonal and orbital changes), how the ratio of the absorbed vs. reflected sunlight that it gets plays out, the chemistry of its atmosphere, and in the case of the giant planets, heating from the interior. Venus for example is closer to the sun than Earth, but gets far less sunlight at its surface than Earth because of its enormous cloud cover which reflects most of it back out to space, yet it is the hottest planet in the solar system (it's oceans have long evaporated away) because its atmosphere has some 90 times the pressure of Earth, and it's mostly CO2.

 

Then you need to consider the quality of data we have and our interpretation of it. Are we seeing global changes or just changes in one spot (like the poles) on the planet? Are we seeing a short term fluctuation or a long term trend?

 

Although you may often here something silly like "Mars is warming so man-made global warming must be wrong" you could invalidate this on a number of grounds. For one thing, if another planet is warming, it doesn't automatically mean the sun is getting hotter (or anything else that might effect both planets at the same time). It also doesn't mean that warming from humans is wrong if you find something else going on. You will often see the "either-or" fallacy, which reads like "if the sun is brightening, than CO2 isn't doing it" which is high level nonsense. You have to sum up everything going on. It could be half sun, half CO2 or it could be 3/4 CO2, or 1/4 the sun. It could be 100% the sun from 1900-1950, and 100% CO2 from 1950-2000. You really need to watch out for how people present their arguments, and the logical and scientific validity of them. Spotting logical fallacies shouldn't be hard, but learning the scientific details (often logically coherent and convincing, but inaccurate) will take time and reading.

 

As far as the solar argument goes in general, changes in solar variations have certainly contributed to previous changes, and probably a large part of warming between 1900 and 1950. It has not showed any significant secular trend since 1950 though, while the impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have diverged from the noise of natural variability probably around 1970 or so.

 

See for example the various graphs from figures 1 and 2

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_additivity.pdf

[gib65]

Thanks Chris.

 

Tell me something...

 

Who are our world leaders listening to? Are they listening to the actual experts, real climatologists and IPCC members, or are they just going on their own opinions or misinformed sources like the great majority of people?

[SkepticLance]

World leaders mostly listen to themselves and act according to their own self interest. That is what politics is about.

 

Oh, they pretend to listen to experts, and they are often charming enough to make the expert believe they have hung onto every word. But at the end of the day, they do what helps themselves and their quest for power and money.

[gib65]

World leaders mostly listen to themselves and act according to their own self interest. That is what politics is about.

 

Oh, they pretend to listen to experts, and they are often charming enough to make the expert believe they have hung onto every word. But at the end of the day, they do what helps themselves and their quest for power and money.

 

That's true, but they still need information in order to make well throught out moves - even if it's for themselves. They still need to consults experts on whatever issue they're dealing with. I'm just wondering what kind of advisors they're surrouding themselves with. Do they at least get the right information?

[coreview2]

I've seen a lot of bs from a lot of sources and all stirred in a pot of politics which is also from many sources. The one thing I find more revealing is that when I read directly from researchers papers or web sites, healthy scientific skepticism is very much alive on both sides of the issue. That's a good thing.

 

It tends to be the journalists and political activists who preach on either extreme as though it was a religion.

 

When I read into Mann's "hockey stick" which is the primary launch point of much of the political frenzy, I can't help but notice that the Medieval Warming that is so well documented in recorded history is missing. That bothers me a lot. I like history and have for quite a few decades. Then too there is the fact that Vikings were farming on Greenland for quite some time.

 

My favorite question to ask is: If we had a simple thermostat that could change climate, based on the reliability of the models, should we chose to do so now?

 

My biggest doubt is the computer modeling. There are just too many unknowns in the soup and reliability on post predicting known climate is sometimes almost silly. Then too use of data that has the smell "form fitting" about it.

[SkepticLance]

To coreview

 

I agree with you. You may notice that I started a thread a little while back about the validity or otherwise of global climate models. I argue that the models were not accurate or reliable.

 

However, I think that we should avoid the extreme views on climate change. It is real. It is happening. It is mainly due to human action. However, how harmful is it? Certainly not as stated by such luminaries as James Lovelock (It is already too late. We are doooomed!) or James Hansen (all coastal cities will be flooded). I think there will be harm and benefits in a strange kind of mix. Some places will experience a surge in plant growth with more warmth and water, and record crops. Other places will experience drought.

 

It is appropriate that we try to manage carbon emissions, but not at enormous cost.

[bascule]

I agree with you. You may notice that I started a thread a little while back about the validity or otherwise of global climate models. I argue that the models were not accurate or reliable.

 

You say that despite agreeing that they are reasonably accurate for reconstructions...

[SkepticLance]

Bascule

Those were not the words I used. In reconstructions, they were moderately close in some scenarios and substantially different in others. The accuracy left much to be desired overall.

[bascule]

Bascule

Those were not the words I used. In reconstructions, they were moderately close in some scenarios and substantially different in others. The accuracy left much to be desired overall.

 

Well that's an entirely different opinion than you expressed before, not that it's unexpected as you tend to voice baseless FUD whenever it suits your antiscientific purposes...

 

That said, please leverage your (scientific) complaints against Meehl et al. (2004) in regard to your supposed allegations that "the accuracy left much to be desired overall"

 

Honestly, I've tried to respect your opinions, but you're so prone to inject antiscientific FUD that I feel I have to call you on this. You've been spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt as to the diagnostic powers of GCMs lately, leveraging entirely irrelevant complaints against what is otherwise good science.

 

SkepticLance, I accepted your previous responses as to my complaints that the opinions you were leveraging in the past were anti-scientific.

 

Now you're expressing completely baseless doubt without a scientific basis.

 

If you are a "skeptic" as your handle claims, what is the basis of your doubt regarding historical reconstructions? Is there any science to it at all, or do you simply eschew science in lieu of fear and uncertainty?

 

It is quite easy to slander science with antiscientific fear, uncertainty, and doubt? Do you have ANY scientific complaints against climate reconstructions, or do you simply have the typical nonscientific complaints of a layman, i.e. "I don't understand it, therefore how can it be accurate???" How would you affirm a scientifically accurate paper regarding historical climate reconstructions? Can it be done, or do you have impossible, scientifically untenable standards for such affirmation? My experience with you thus far would suggest the latter... rather than accepting scientific conclusions you would rather instill the confusion of fear, uncertainty, and doubt...

 

Please suggest to us a scientific basis for your antiscientific claims... you do realise the claims you make fly directly in the face of established science and you have not thus far managed to defend such claims in scientific terms, instead you merely suggest the science is wrong without any arguments as to why, except through vague suggestions that scientists are overstepping the bounds of their own comprehensibility, without first attempting to comprehend their claims.

 

This is incredibly annoying behavior, as you frame your arguments in the guise of scientific vocabulary without actually trying to understand the scientific arguments. Sadly I think you've picked most of that vocabulary up from me in a pathetic attempt to sound credible among your peers. As the apparent main source of such plagarism, I can assure you that you're full of shit... please learn what the f*uck you're talking about before attempting to voice your opinion.

[coreview2]

To coreview

 

I agree with you. You may notice that I started a thread a little while back about the validity or otherwise of global climate models. I argue that the models were not accurate or reliable.

 

However, I think that we should avoid the extreme views on climate change. It is real. It is happening. It is mainly due to human action. However, how harmful is it? Certainly not as stated by such luminaries as James Lovelock (It is already too late. We are doooomed!) or James Hansen (all coastal cities will be flooded). I think there will be harm and benefits in a strange kind of mix. Some places will experience a surge in plant growth with more warmth and water, and record crops. Other places will experience drought.

 

It is appropriate that we try to manage carbon emissions, but not at enormous cost.

 

I don't have much faith in the models as they exist now. As far as I can see there are too many unknowns filled in with guesses, presumptions and assumptions. That being said, I think modeling climate is important work for our species future that has been politically contaminated with a lot more hyperbole than hypothesis.

 

The most depressing part of the entire global warming movement is the nature of the non-solutions offered.

 

In reality, the threat of a new ice age is far more frightening because in the real world when the Vikings were farming on Greenland, it was a golden era and time of plenty. When the Little Ice Age came along, half the population of Europe died off. Assessments that don't account for positive benefits are not science, but political manipulations otherwise known as propaganda.

 

My funniest experience with the global warming craze was in the NYTimes a few years back. They had a long article on a young scientist who studied years of satellite maps of the Chesapeake basin and tracked the amount of reflectivity as an indication of sea level rise. His conclusion was global warming caused sea level raise which resulted in a significant increase in reflectivity.

 

The same day there was another report in the NYTimes about the big Nutria rodent population problem in the Chesapeake basin's marsh lands. It seems this species was imported for fur farms but escaped decades ago and the population exploded causing devastation on a wide scale for marsh land because they eat the roots of marsh grasses and plants denuding the environment.

 

 

To keep things in perspective, it is important to note that NYC was under 4,000 of ice around 12,000 years ago.

[gib65]

The most depressing part of the entire global warming movement is the nature of the non-solutions offered.

 

My sentiments exactly.

[SkepticLance]

Bascule said :

"Well that's an entirely different opinion than you expressed before, not that it's unexpected as you tend to voice baseless FUD whenever it suits your antiscientific purposes..."

 

Careful Bascule. That is verging on an ad hom attack. You misunderstood my earlier statement. I am sorry that happened, and perhaps I am partly to fault for not making my earlier comments clearer, but I have been consistent in my statements, and you should appreciate that. Computer models are NOT accurate and reliable. As I have stated repeatedly, there are just too many unknowns in climatology for it to be otherwise. Arctic warming was substantially underestimated because the modellers were not aware of a warm oceanic current. That is just one example.

 

Bascule also said :

 

"If you are a "skeptic" as your handle claims, what is the basis of your doubt regarding historical reconstructions?"

 

 

I assume you are referring to the set of graphs you posted earlier on another thread. Most of them, the reconstruction was not too bad - not quite right, but getting there. However, there were several reconstructions that were well off the mark. You may choose to use selective vision and see only the best reconstructions, while ignoring the worst, which is a very human quality. I see it differently.

 

We also need to look at the myriad interpretations of climatologists based on these models. They range from James Hansen's five metre sea level rise within 100 years, down to others who predict a 20 cm rise. Ditto for temperature predictions etc.

 

The only thing we know for sure is that the world is warming, and sea level rising, albeit at a rate unlikely to cause too much hassle for the next few decades, unless something drastic happens. Lots of people predict 'tipping points' and disasters. But I cannot be too impressed bearing in mind the variations in predictions by difference climate scientists.

[Chris C]

I've seen a lot of bs from a lot of sources and all stirred in a pot of politics which is also from many sources. The one thing I find more revealing is that when I read directly from researchers papers or web sites, healthy scientific skepticism is very much alive on both sides of the issue. That's a good thing.

 

It tends to be the journalists and political activists who preach on either extreme as though it was a religion.

 

When I read into Mann's "hockey stick" which is the primary launch point of much of the political frenzy, I can't help but notice that the Medieval Warming that is so well documented in recorded history is missing. That bothers me a lot. I like history and have for quite a few decades. Then too there is the fact that Vikings were farming on Greenland for quite some time.

 

My favorite question to ask is: If we had a simple thermostat that could change climate, based on the reliability of the models, should we chose to do so now?

 

My biggest doubt is the computer modeling. There are just too many unknowns in the soup and reliability on post predicting known climate is sometimes almost silly. Then too use of data that has the smell "form fitting" about it.

 

 

I'm not sure where computer modeling follows from proxy reconstructions, or if you're just making a separate objection? I also don't know what you are reading if you think that Mann's paper is that significant (errorneous or not), or some kind of "launching point" for this topic.

 

The fact is that several papers have confirmed that the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of the past 1,000 and even 2,000 years (this is not Mann's conclusion alone), and likely longer. I'm not going to get into this whole "Hockey stick" debate since this has had at least four or five peer-reviewed papers dedicated to it, and also turned out to have the National Academies, Wegman Reports etc spend a great deal of time with it, and the statistics and paleoclimatic details (which are beyond my understanding) are still debated, but the academic literature does support the overall conclusions of an especially late 20th century (by the way, Mann doesn't "get rid" of a MWP, he shows that the MWP is comparable to the mid-20th century, but that recent times were probably a bit warmer). The uncertanties are large enough in the paleoclimate reconstructions such that the MWP could be a tenth of a degree warmer or so, but you're comparing the peak of warming period with the start of another (not a very good analysis). The most up-to-date literature also suggests that the Europe/Greenalnd areas were on the same order of magnitude, but globally a bit cooler. What's more, climate may not have been the most important factor controlling the pattern of Viking settlement. From Jones and Mann (2004) [Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, , Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004

 

If you are going to use things like "wine" or "farming" as proxies for paleotemperature, all of these things can be found today. In fact, this region in south-west Greenland (near K’agssiarssuk) is lush and green today.

[coreview2]

Bascule said :

 

The only thing we know for sure is that the world is warming, and sea level rising, albeit at a rate unlikely to cause too much hassle for the next few decades, unless something drastic happens. Lots of people predict 'tipping points' and disasters. But I cannot be too impressed bearing in mind the variations in predictions by difference climate scientists.

 

In that regard, remember that NYC's location was under 4,000 feet of ice a mere 12,000 years ago. Central Park was carved by glaciers.

 

In reality, our species is has a number of means of reversing global warming if the level of C02 does in deed cause things to get too warm. The combination of access to space, the upper atmosphere, world wide communication and organization makes a concerted effort entirely possible.

 

Some things that can be done on short order:

 

1. painting the world white or at least significant parts of it.

 

2. seeding the upper atmosphere with heat reflective particles (bio-degradable please).

 

3. deep space solar shades (maybe a cure for powerful hurricanes too)

 

4. biological means of reducing CO2 (seeding the oceans with iron for example)

 

5. ideas, suggestions

 

6.

 

7.

 

I worry more about an ice age.

[swansont]

A problem with solutions other than "reduce the amount of CO2 produced" is the likelihood of unintended consequences. Systems are all interconnected. Attack the cause, instead of trying to mitigate it through other avenues.

[JohnB]

Bascule, maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see how the Meehl paper backs your argument. To counter the idea of inaccuracy, you offer a paper that projects 200 years into the future. If you are referring to the passage

The warming in both the PCM and CCSM3 is close to the observed value of about 0.6°C for the 20th century (19), with PCM warming 0.6°C and CCSM3 warming 0.7° (averaged over the period 1980–1999 in relation to 1890–1919).

as providing some proof of skill, it falls far short. It is not enough for a model to meet these absolute minimum requirements of final temp change/century. For example, a model might show a drop of 10⁰ over 50 years and a rise of 10.6⁰ and still meet this requirement. No one is suggesting this has happened, or that such a model would be accepted, but it illustrates that just getting the temp rise over a century roughly right is no proof of skill. They should model the full century, using real world values.

 

You're big on the proof thing. In another thread I asked if you could produce one climate model projection that had a plateau in it, you have so far failed to do so. In a different thread I asked if you could supply papers that reference the actual levels of pollutants and compare these to the models, again you failed to provide backing scientific papers.

 

I also notice that neither you or your comrades in arms have been able to supply any sort of answer to the question posed in this thread. To wit, "Why is there evidence of warming for the nation of New Zealand during the 20th Century only after GISS adjusted the data?"

 

As to the accuracy of the models, Douglass 2007 and "Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series" delivered at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2008 should be a good start.

 

Lastly, what's with the "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" bit? In what way is SL attempting to spread "fear"? Who is he trying to scare, and to what purpose? Perhaps he is out to instill fear into people that they won't drown and their cities won't be inundated, but I really can't see how anyone would be scared of that. Or is he simply instilling fear into the AGW crowd by asking questions that don't have easy answers?

 

"Uncertainty"? Are you claiming the models and projections are "certain"? To what level of accuracy?

 

"Doubt"? What's wrong with doubt? The only people who don't "doubt" are those who are so sure they are right that no evidence will convince them otherwise. I always thought that was the realm of the psychotic and the religious rather than science.

 

Unless you share the view of Gavin Schmidt over at RC that there is "tacit" knowledge.

My piece tries to make the point that most of what scientists know is "tacit" (i.e. not explicitly or often written down in the technical literature) and it is that knowledge that allows them to quickly distinguish (with reasonable accuracy) what new papers are worth looking at in detail and which are not.

If it's not in the literature, how do you get the knowledge? Is there some sort of ritual? Darkened rooms, hooded cloaks, candles and goats come to mind. For the life of me, I can't imagine Swansont or any other person here making such a claim. But it must be true, RC says so.

[Chris C]

My guess is a few introductory courses in climate? It appears Christy and friends could use that as well.

[JohnB]

My guess is a few introductory courses in climate?

Since Gavin states that it isn't in the literature, I would say your guess is wrong.

It appears Christy and friends could use that as well.

Is that just an opinion, or would you care to provide a cite?

 

Chris, I'm well aware that there is no love lost between various segments of the Climate community. (Nominated for "Understatement of the Year" award.)I am concerned that the science might get lost in the midst of point scoring though.

[Chris C]

Since Gavin states that it isn't in the literature, I would say your guess is wrong.

 

Is that just an opinion, or would you care to provide a cite?

 

Chris, I'm well aware that there is no love lost between various segments of the Climate community. (Nominated for "Understatement of the Year" award.)I am concerned that the science might get lost in the midst of point scoring though.

 

You'll have to ask Gavin what exactly he meant, but the technical literature is generally intended for audiences that understand the science at a high level. Find me a peer-reviewed document that discusses how freezing water decreases the entropy of the system. Maybe you will, but it is such a simple concept, it is probably assumed knowledge and can be found in a textbook. Now a lot of this could be in very, very, old papers (I'm sure the information gets out somehow) but I'm not sure if Gavin is talking about this. This seems to be a distraction though.

 

John Christy's statements in the "swindle video" and in various quotes I can find in op-eds across the internet have already undermined his credibility. There is plenty of indefensible nonsense that comes out of him (which is hardly an "opinion"). If you have serious credentials, you can't just go throwing sloppy statements around and expect people to take you seriously, regardless if you do it in the technical literature, a blog, or channel 4. The error in Douglass et al is that their estimate of the uncertainty in the model projections is the uncertainty in the determination of the mean of the model projections rather than the spread. It's like saying the mean of rolling a dice 100 times is 3.5 +/- 0.1 and claiming that one throw of 2 is a mismatch. Using older data without justification, and looking at time periods of high internal variability doesn't help either.

[coreview2]

A problem with solutions other than "reduce the amount of CO2 produced" is the likelihood of unintended consequences. Systems are all interconnected. Attack the cause, instead of trying to mitigate it through other avenues.

 

I certainly agree that the cause, should it be proven to be CO2, should be addressed, but there are options in the short term that would appear to be viable that our species never before had. These options do give us a little breathing room should CO2 turn into a driver uncharacteristic of its history.

 

I'm all for getting beyond the Fossil Fuel Age as soon as possible for reasons far more concrete than the global warming hypothesis though I think that the only real solution is to find better and cleaner energy sources. As the saying goes: We didn't leave the Stone Age because we ran out of rocks.

 

I am concerned that the science might get lost in the midst of point scoring though.

 

Now there's a fundamental law of Internet debate if ever there was one!