Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

You people keep arguing different questions within the same argument, very confused:

1. Is there global warming?

-Yes. Humans have increased CO2 and temperatures are rising due to the greenhouse effect. The science behind this is solid.

2. How much and how fast will temperatures rise?

-The science behind this is strong but it is just a range estimate, a prediction.

3. What will happen to the climate if temperatures rise X in Y years?

-Predications based on what scientist now.

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Great that people are doing real positive work, bringing people closer together from around the world, rather then sitting around watching Fox News all afternoon acting as an anti-global warming mouthpiece for the oil & gas industry. You can't stop progress.

http://www.350.org/

Our mission is to inspire the world to rise to the challenge of the climate crisis—to create a new sense of urgency and of possibility for our planet.

Our focus is on the number 350--as in parts per million, the level scientists have identified as the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere. But 350 is more than a number--it's a symbol of where we need to head as a planet.

To tackle climate change we need to move quickly, and we need to act in unison—and 2009 will be an absolutely crucial year. This December, world leaders will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark to craft a new global treaty on cutting emissions. The problem is, the treaty currently on the table doesn't meet the severity of the climate crisis—it doesn't pass the 350 test.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

And I do think your team, especially Cow have been nothing short of reasonable but utterly udderly wrong.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I appeal to no authority

Of course you don't.:rolleyes:

There was global warming just as there was global cooling before that. And now there appears to be global cooling.

Every knows that's why the 10 warmest years in the instrumental measurement era are 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

I'm afraid I disagree with you on this assertion. The Toast'd one in particular seems to think that anyone who disagrees with his thesis is an oil industry sellout, stupid, and/or a right wing think tank-er.

He did call you out for trying to pass off the canard of US temperature records as somehow important with regard to the debate regarding world wide warming. Maybe you should bring up 1934 again as if it matters globally?

The entirety of your argument is consensus and IPCC.

As you stated above, you reject global warming. You said there 'appears to be global cooling'. Good luck with that one. Your denier scientists are even beginning to vacate the bunker and advocate the new, new denier line...global warming may be a good thing.

Then of course there's the 'gambler' line. Asserting I'm a gambler is irrelevant to the facts of the discussion in addition to being a passive aggressive attack.

You are a gambler. There is more than enough scientific evidence to be deeply concerned with our current climate trajectory. You want to throw the dice and refer to climate science as a religion. Fine. Boring but fine.

For one thing, weather related deaths are down both in absolute and relative terms with the sole exception of Katrina - which itself was not during the 'hottest' year of 1998 but rather 2005:

So you're saying that if a US based weather disaster doesn't occur during the hottest global temperature year on record, it's not related to global warming. You are of course confusing a US issue with the discussion of global warming but even worse, you're confusing weather with climate. When it's convenient for you, you mix US issues with global issues. When you're just seeing what will stick on the wall you confuse weather with climate. That's denier 101.

So the historical trend seems against the AGW scaremongers: even during the warming cycle there were very few weather related deaths both in absolute and relative terms at least in the United States.

I'm confused. You said we appear to be in in a cooling cycle. Now you want to assert that we're in a warming cycle? By the way, the scaremonger label was a nice touch and you tossed in another weather reference in a climate discussion. You get denier bonus points for that.

Your disrespect is already patently obvious. In this thread you've already called me a gambler whose actions you despise and implied I'm not a human being.

I had no idea you were so touchy-feely...I'll try to restrain my remarks...

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Every knows that's why the 10 warmest years in the instrumental measurement era are 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Yes, the 10 warmest years in the instrument measurement era.

And what is the instrument measurement era?

The start of the industrial revolution. So you're telling me the data derived from satellites today are comparable to the mercury thermometers in the 1880s? That the worldwide data and communication network today is the same as the 1880s?

Even were I to grant this ridiculous assertion, again you try to conflate correlation with causation. Is the recent rise in temperature largely man made? If it is largely man made, is it due to CO2? If it is both largely man made and due to CO2, will this increase result in a catastrophic climate change?

I've demonstrated using your own 'ice core' data that temperature increases and CO2 increases have occurred many times in the past - long before man made causes.

I've brought up very specific criticisms of the climate models as demonstrated by peer reviewed papers - the same models being used to project a catastrophic 'tipping point' 20 to 50 years from now.

I've even shown that alarmist crap about rising sea levels, more and worse hurricanes, etc etc are just that: crap.

But you must return back to the old hockey stick.

Here's an example of the hockey stick in action, or the 'dramatization' which AGW alarmists (whom you clear believe) employ:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
cru1.png

cru2.png

cru3.png

The hockey stick is #2. But all 3 graphs are from the same data.

The first candidate, although lacking the amplitude to allow easy detail examination, is perhaps the most visually accurate and least useful. Clearly global temperature has been on an overall warming trend through the series and this warming is very small compared with say, seasonal variation. Likewise, the two order of magnitude magnification of carbon dioxide (by scaling parts per million on a 10K range) has made our trace gas visible while maintaining perspective (two times a tiny fraction of the atmosphere still gives you a tiny fraction of the atmosphere).
Our next graphic is a mixed bag, rather restrained in the temperature variation when compared with most publications but sufficient to readily observe variation. The representation of rapidly climbing carbon dioxide is achieved by scaling against only a tiny portion of the valid range. ACIA, in this graphic, manage to present virtually a perpendicular change which gives the impression of being about 500% over 'background' levels and fitted neatly to a representation of the infamous 'hockey stick' graph when in fact the total change in atmospheric carbon dioxide is under 35%. Oh well, that's the impression they want to give, we suppose, although we think it an appalling piece of chart work. Finally, our third chart depicts unrestrained temperature variation, utilising maximum plot space in order to easily depict temperature changes (albeit vastly magnified) and with a greatly magnified but proportionately correct trace gas representation (316-377ppmv annual CO₂ (Keeling and Whorf, May, 2005), missing values omitted). This is our preferred graphic and the style we present. Granted, it greatly amplifies apparent temperature change and, if this worries readers just visualise the world as a relatively flat 14°C ± 0.7°C and you'll be in the ballpark.

This is from the CRU - the temperature record for which the base data was 'lost'

You are a gambler. There is more than enough scientific evidence to be deeply concerned with our current climate trajectory. You want to throw the dice and refer to climate science as a religion. Fine. Boring but fine.

And you are trying to shout 'FIRE' in a crowded theater, an alarmist, a Chicken Little.

There is more than enough scientific evidence raised showing that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming/climate change is not conclusive nor even likely.

You have yet to answer why past CO2 levels were as high as they are today without the presence of man and in some cases with lower temperatures.

You have yet to answer why past temperature levels rose as much as the past century without the influence of man or why said CO2 levels LAGGED temperature.

You have yet to show why the purported tipping point should be trusted when key underlying assertions behind the climate models are in doubt.

You want to force everyone to agree with your alarmist views or you will 'destroy' them.

So you're saying that if a US based weather disaster doesn't occur during the hottest global temperature year on record, it's not related to global warming. You are of course confusing a US issue with the discussion of global warming but even worse, you're confusing weather with climate.

The pattern of weather related deaths in the recent 3 decades vs. the 3 decades prior is quite opposite with the exception of a single incident. And it is equally clear that the number of deaths due to Katrina were significantly if not largely due to well known but never addressed infrastructure neglect in New Orleans as well as population growth in unsafe areas of that city.

And you should note - Dr. Richard Lindzen actually asserts that higher global temperatures imply LOWER hurricane strength and activity.

This is in direct opposition to what Gore and your fellow alarmists say.

This is because the strength of a hurricane is not due to absolute temperature. It is due to temperature differentials. Temperature differentials in a warmer world are lower. This has the irony of the hurricane record being consistent with global warming but inconsistent with alarmist crap.

But then scientific fact is irrelevant if not convenient to Torquemada types.

I'm confused. You said we appear to be in in a cooling cycle. Now you want to assert that we're in a warming cycle? By the way, the scaremonger label was a nice touch and you tossed in another weather reference in a climate discussion. You get denier bonus points for that.

Since you cannot read, let me be more specific.

The warming cycle from 1976 to 1998 showed the fewest number of weather related deaths on average in the US of any 22 year period from 1940 to the present.

This is in direct contradiction to AGW ortho-scare-doxy.

You get AGW fanatic bonus points for not being tempted by facts.

I had no idea you were so touchy-feely...I'll try to restrain my remarks

What restraint? It is now quite obvious that your prior restraint was simply due to fear of alienating the undecided - a veritable 'catch flies with honey' mode of discourse.

But as you have continued to fail to answer a long series of very reasonable questions - unsurprisingly you are now attacking me personally since I don't meekly agree with your conclusions.

I don't mind - in fact I am curious to see what the next installment of AGW fanatic fatwah brings.

For that matter I have restrained from asking questions about your own personal 'green'ness. How many miles a year do you drive? How many Kwh do you use a month? Do you buy organic produce and meats?

That's because these questions are irrelevant from a scientific and skeptical standpoint.

Nor do I ask specifically what you do in your solar company. Is it fundamental research? Marketing? Sales? IT?

Again irrelevant.

To reiterate those still unanswered questions (with a few new ones):

1) Why should we be concerned about rising CO2 levels when CO2 levels have spiked in the past - before man?

2) Why should man made CO2 cause temperature rises when dramatic temperature increases have occurred in the past before human presence?

3) Why should man made CO2 levels cause a catastrophic climate tipping point at 350 ppm, 560 ppm or whatever when the historical record shows periods where there were Ice Ages during CO2 levels of 4000 ppm?

4) Why should the climate models projecting 20 year or more future climate behavior - temperature or otherwise - be trustworthy and actionable when these models cannot predict even 2 or 5 year behavior?

5) Why should the climate models be trustworthy and actionable when even the basic underlying assumptions are being scientifically challenged?

6) Why should AGW alarmism be considered objective science when there is a ton of money on its side ($70B+ US federal, plus UN and EU) vs. the purported corrupting $23M from Exxon?

7) Why was there a 40 year (1936-1976) cooling of global temperatures exactly during a period of rising US industrialization and world warfare?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html

US historical energy use.jpg

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

What restraint? It is now quite obvious that your prior restraint was simply due to fear of alienating the undecided - a veritable 'catch flies with honey' mode of discourse.

I agree with that observation, c1ue.

On so many topics, millenia after millenia, the perceived wisdom of the tribal elders is defended so eagerly by those who would be respectable. Whether it be the flatness of the earth, the warmth of the earth or les événements du onze septembre de l'année de notre Seigneur 2001, some of the most important topics of the day always seem beyond sensible consideration.

It would seem that an essential basis of this enormous beehive we call human civilization is this often used ability to coagulate around perceived wisdoms. One does not require conspiracy theories involving some few evil elite to explain humanities grand mistakes. Such malformation of a group's understanding seems to be an inherent capacity of any society of intelligent beings.

C1ue, as a child, poking a stick at some rhino dung.

[vanvaley1]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I agree with that observation, c1ue.

On so many topics, millenia after millenia, the perceived wisdom of the tribal elders is defended so eagerly by those who would be respectable. Whether it be the flatness of the earth, the warmth of the earth or les événements du onze septembre de l'année de notre Seigneur 2001, some of the most important topics of the day always seem beyond sensible consideration.

It would seem that an essential basis of this enormous beehive we call human civilization is this often used ability to coagulate around perceived wisdoms. One does not require conspiracy theories involving some few evil elite to explain humanities grand mistakes. Such malformation of a group's understanding seems to be an inherent capacity of any society of intelligent beings.

C1ue, as a child, poking a stick at some rhino dung.

I don't know, Cow...those look like toxic mortgages to me. Suppose it's apropos the kid is playing with em and getting to understand them as he'll be doing the same for years as he 'deleverages' them with his future paychecks.

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Global Cooling Is Proven As Rubish Science.

Once again scientists are forced to waste time refuting anti-global warming, Fox News watching retards.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750...s-environment/

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

1) Why should we be concerned about rising CO2 levels when CO2 levels have spiked in the past - before man?

LOL! A few billion years ago there was no Oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere - before man - why should we be concerned about Oxgen?

That is such a retarded attempt at an argument that I did not even read any further. LOL.

These anti-global warming arguments are approaching "Intelligent Design"

How about this? The climate is so complex that human beings will never understand it and so it must be under the control of a supreme being. It is God's will and we should not mess with God's creation - except of course to keep CO2 polution pumping out because that is what God want us to do. Please give as much as you can each Sunday.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

LOL! A few billion years ago there was no Oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere - before man - why should we be concerned about Oxgen?

The question goes to the heart of the argument, that is climate sensitivity, feedback loops and tipping points. you may feel the question is inappropriately framed, not in context or just plain disagree with it and offer alternative data, but your response seems to indicate you do not have a rudimentary understanding of the mechanisms and mechanics of the theory you are defending.

Here is a pro-AGW site commenting on climate sensitivity, if you are interested the site offers the mainstream view and discusses much of the science and mechanics behind the AGW view, and I suppose is a useful resource if this is your inclination.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...etm-weirdness/

Here is the abstract from the paper in question from the piece - the author maintains this paper could point to greater climate sensitivity, many people on the other side maintain the climatologists just don't know and the models and science is not nearly where it should be at, to be using it to make the huge policy decisions which are on the table. Nothing to do with creationism or Fox news.

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

Richard E. Zeebe1, James C. Zachos2 & Gerald R. Dickens3

Top of page

The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks1, 2. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth's surface, although the source remains an open issue3, 4. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and stable carbon isotope composition10, 15, 16, 17 along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50permil. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...s/ngeo578.html

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

You have yet to answer why past CO2 levels were as high as they are today without the presence of man and in some cases with lower temperatures.

I did, many, many posts ago. I suppose you were too busy lighting your hair on fire and screaming on your green and white ethereal soap box about AGM as a religion to notice.

One could jump back to my post but here's a good overview on the subject for critical thinkers. For the pious and theistic denier...not so much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I did, many, many posts ago. I suppose you were too busy lighting your hair on fire and screaming on your green and white ethereal soap box about AGM as a religion to notice.

Nice Bullhorn video. And to sink to your level: no doubt you were too busy hugging trees and protesting against DDT in your organic recycled cardboard sandwich board outfit about man destroying the environment.

end is nigh.jpg

But to return to reality: let's look at what the video says:

1) CO2 is not the controlling factor in global temperature increases in previous cases. The previous orbital changes were responsible for increased temperatures in turn releasing CO2 and methane. But then the video says the temperatures increased too much with respect to the actual orbital change and that the CO2 must have amplified the actual energy transfer. This is almost neatly circular.

Fallacy 1: CO2 amplification. See 3)

Fallacy 2: Let's say we allow the assumption that CO2 is amplifying. The argument being made is that CO2 amplifies temperature due to an increase in incoming solar energy due to a orbital tilt change.

Yet still more questions arise:

Why did not temperatures continue to rise as CO2 levels kept rising? i.e. Why did temperatures fall even as CO2 levels rose?

Since CO2 is only an amplifier - there must have been some other force which caused both the rise to the peak and the fall from the peak since increasing CO2 levels are clearly unrelated to either the rise or fall.

However if CO2 is a dampener - then the data is very consistent. The effects of a dampener would be overridden (read delayed) until the incoming energy increase is offset enough to be negative. The rise of levels of the dampener lagging the peak could then be explained by the pass through cycle time between incoming energy levels hitting temperature and the dampener reducing temperature effects. Throw a brick up in the air for a real life example of a dampener in action. Also see 3)

2) The Vostok cores shown above are because of Hansen's request for more data. Therefore what?

3) CO2 is a positive feedback amplifier thus will make this era of rising CO2/Temperatures worse.

Already posted peer reviewed evidence that feedback may actually negative much less the significant positive multiplier asserted. Similarly positive climate temperature feedback due to CO2 has yet to be proven to be true - its existence is a deduction.

4) Climate change deniers are paid by the oil companies. But the video doesn't mention the $720,000 paid by Soros to Hansen in support of AGW. Why is oil company money different than Soros' money? Why is the $70B+ federal money different than the $23M Exxon money?

More interesting NASA/GISS talk vs. GISS data:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

But from the exact same site we see the data for which a dump and sort in Excel yields:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

1954	0.84
1938	0.86
1990	0.88
1953	0.9
1999	0.94
1931	1.08
2006	1.08
1921	1.13
1934	1.24
1998	1.24

Only 3 years past 1995 are in the top 10 warmest - and 3 years in the '30s.

Strange discrepancy no? Perhaps what GISS really means is that the warmest years in questions are only in the satellite data - which only started in 1981.

If so, then what does the 'warmest years on record prior to 1995 ... 1990' really mean? There are only 28 years on the record - unless GISS is Lake Woebegon then above median would be 14 of them.

Some other views of the data:

GISS temp record 2008.bmp

GISS temp record average 2008.bmp

Interesting how there was a temperature spike in the midst of the Great Depression.

So, nice video but again no conclusive proof.

In fact if I were to look at the GISS historical data vs. the US energy use as a proxy for world energy consumption in turn as a proxy for fossil fuel air pollution - a reasonable assumption up to around 1995:

US historical energy use.jpg

We see a rise in coal use from 1900 to 1915 - staying level for many years. There is no rise in global temperatures then though - odd given the Industrial Revolution. A rise in temperatures doesn't start until the 1930s.

So empirically there is a 15-20 year lag. But CO2 as a positive multiplier is inconsistent with this theory - coal usage was fairly steady from 1915 onwards to the '60s and CO2 levels were increasing this entire time even as temperatures dropped.

Then petroleum usage started spiking around WW II and passed the coal level in 1950 or so, peaking in the 1970s.

Yet temperatures didn't start increasing until the late 70s/early 80s even as US oil and natural gas usage dropped from 1975 to 1985.

Clearly the concept of CO2 as a simple multiplier is inaccurate to describe this data.

What might be more accurate? (pure conjecture)

It could be the localized climate changes due to fossil fuel consumption increase temperatures with a 15-20 lag, with CO2 then damping out the temperature spike once the effects of the fossil fuel consumption levels off or stops. Decreasing CO2 levels may thus actually impede the return of temperatures to normal - an implication of CO2 as a negative feedback mechanism in the climate.

It should be noted that the soot and other levels associated with coal use decrease significantly as time progresses on the energy use graph - ditto for petroleum. The ever more modern hence efficient engines primarily reduce the products of inefficient combustion (and release more usable energy): soot which in turn is pure carbon. As the chemical process of combustion converts CHx hydrocarbons + O2 oxygen into CO2 and H20 - modern engines are likely to produce more proportional CO2 than older engines but less soot.

Because of the above, it could be the opposite: the soot from early adoption of new energy sources offsets the temperature increases due to fossil fuel combustion pollutants.

But it could also be that the act of burning fossil fuels releases more water vapor into the atmosphere as water is a product of the fossil fuel combustion process. Water vapor is indisputably the primary driver of the greenhouse effect and water vapor from fossil fuel combustion is both gaseous and already at a high temperature.

The point is that the association of CO2 with global temperature increases is very tenuous and circumstantial. The energy use graphs vs. CO2 graphs vs. temperature records even in the last 130 years indicate neither a simple conclusion nor a simple solution.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

The question goes to the heart of the argument, that is climate sensitivity, feedback loops and tipping points. you may feel the question is inappropriately framed, not in context or just plain disagree with it and offer alternative data, but your response seems to indicate you do not have a rudimentary understanding of the mechanisms and mechanics of the theory you are defending.

Here is a pro-AGW site commenting on climate sensitivity, if you are interested the site offers the mainstream view and discusses much of the science and mechanics behind the AGW view, and I suppose is a useful resource if this is your inclination.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...etm-weirdness/

Here is the abstract from the paper in question from the piece - the author maintains this paper could point to greater climate sensitivity, many people on the other side maintain the climatologists just don't know and the models and science is not nearly where it should be at, to be using it to make the huge policy decisions which are on the table. Nothing to do with creationism or Fox news.

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

Richard E. Zeebe1, James C. Zachos2 & Gerald R. Dickens3

Top of page

The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks1, 2. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth's surface, although the source remains an open issue3, 4. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and stable carbon isotope composition10, 15, 16, 17 along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50permil. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...s/ngeo578.html

Thanks for posting this. It's nice to have some real science discussed.
But actually there is some Faux News Nutwork involved in this. The article explains it like this:
Bolding added.

it took no time at all for the press release to get passed along by Marc Morano, posted on Drudge, and declared the final nail in the coffin for ‘alarmist’ global warming science on WUWT (Andrew Freedman at WaPo has a good discussion of this). The fact that what was really being said was that climate sensitivity is probably larger than produced in standard climate models seemed to pass almost all of these people by (though a few of their more astute commenters did pick up on it). Regardless, the message went out that ‘climate models are wrong’ with the implicit sub-text that current global warming is nothing to worry about. Almost the exact opposite point that the authors wanted to make

Also, I think you may have inadvertently edited an important piece from your quote that might add to a better understanding of many of the other warming feedback mechanisms associated with an increase in CO2. If I might continue the quote you took from the article, to try and clarify a little about the paper;

At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. However, this is inappropriate for at least two reasons. First, the Charney sensitivity is a quite carefully defined metric that is used to compare a certain class of atmospheric models. It assumes that there are no other changes in atmospheric composition (aerosols, methane, ozone) and no changes in vegetation, ice sheets or ocean circulation. It is not the warming we expect if we just increase CO2 and let everything else adjust.

In fact, the concept we should be looking at is the Earth System Sensitivity (a usage I am trying to get more widely adopted) as we mentioned last year in our discussion of ‘Target CO2‘. The point is that all of those factors left out of the Charney sensitivity are going to change, and we are interested in the response of the whole Earth System – not just an idealised little piece of it that happens to fit with what was included in GCMs in 1979.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

copy of thread below editing caused a second post

[Diarmuid]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Thanks for posting this. It's nice to have some real science discussed.
But actually there is some Faux News Nutwork involved in this. The article explains it like this:
Bolding added.
Also, I think you may have inadvertently edited an important piece from your quote that might add to a better understanding of many of the other warming feedback mechanisms associated with an increase in CO2. If I might continue the quote you took from the article, to try and clarify a little about the paper;

There was no intentional editing I linked the realclimate article and the link to the abstract for the full article. People will interrupt it as they see fit I suppose, as evidenced by this thread, the realclimate commentary and the so called "denier" view point. Bias weighs heavy on both sides it seems to me.