Chart of the Day - 4.23.2009

Given that global temperatures have been flat to declining since 1998, it looks like the Republicans have the better of the argument. And as for Al Gore, when he starts living in a modest home and stops flying around all over the world burning up more carbon in one trip than the average family's SUV does in year, then I'll take him seriously. Until then, he's a just a huckster getting rich on gullible globaloney warming true believers' fears.

So, as climate science becomes increasingly certain and increasingly dire, less people believe it. Aside from the partisan stuff, maybe this is just people refusing to believe the science because they don't want to make the lifestyle changes necessary to properly deal with climate change.

I mean, some days the air is just worse than others. Today, in St. Louis, the air is perfectly clear. That obviously means that pollution doesn't exist, right? Jeebus. All you "pollution exists" freaks just sicken me, I tells ya, you sicken me!

Hi all, I am a Democrat living in Nancy Pelosi's district in San Francisco. I consider myself a progressive on most issue, but most of you would consider me a skeptic on global climate change. About twenty seconds after I submit this, I expect to see words like 'denier', crank, anti-science and ignorant used to describe me. We'll see. This invective will issue forth despite the following: 1. I believe completely that the greenhouse effect is true and non-controversial (as indeed do most 'skeptics') 2. I understand completely that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the mechanism by which it drives the atmosphere to retain heat. 3. As with scientists on both sides, I understand and accept that, in isolation, a doubling of CO2 will result in a 1.2 degree rise in temperatures (although, like most skeptics, I also understand that about 70% of the temperature increase from this doubling has already occurred). 4. I completely support President Obama's energy plan, including the cap and trade proposal (in part due to our host's intelligent explanation of it over the past few months, but also for many of the same reasons that the late Michael Crichton supported it 25 years ago). I believe in weatherising houses, investing in alternative energy generating technologies, and especially in more research. But what will get me in trouble with regular commenters such as SecularAnimist and others here is that I do not believe that catastrophe awaits us due to global climate change. The special theory of climate change holds that CO2 increases will interact with other greenhouse gases, especially water vapour, and create a positive feedback loop that drives temperatures even higher than CO2 will in and of itself. This positive feedback loop is assumed, not proven, and evidence available to date does not indicate this assumption should be taken for granted. All of the computer models on which policy is being debated use this unproven feedback loop as an input that guarantees the result will show dramatic temperature rises. It doesn't help that many of the most passionate people regarding climate change are acting badly--from scientists such as Mann playing games with the data (using bristlecones as a proxy for temperature rises when the originator of the series explicitly and specifically said they could not be used as a temperature proxy, and gave the reasons why), to zealous commenters on weblogs that are insulting, rude and seemingly ignorant of the state of debate today. An unending series of ad hominem attacks against prominent skeptics have essentially left alarmists calling a Nobel Prize winner for Physics a dotard, and Freeman Dyson a dilettante, while defending Al Gore, who has no scientific training whatsoever. What should trouble you more about the polling results is the fact that the more people are exposed to scientific discussion of the subject, the more skeptical they become about your claims. You are not losing this battle because people are being deceived--it's because a) they are being educated and b) they can see that temperatures have not risen since 1998--they have plateaued (recent decreases are not significant enough to be called a trend of any sort). This planet has been warmer than it is today for half of the past six million years, including the Holocene Optimum, Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warming Period. CO2 has been as high as 6,000 ppm in the past, and the planet has still maintained its climatic cycles.

I'd like to agree with Marc regarding the IPCC--but read the actual working reports, not the summaries for policy makers. The websites I visit frequently for the skeptical point of view include: http://wattsupwiththat.com/ http://climatesci.org/ http://www.climateaudit.org/ http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/ http://rankexploits.com/musings/ If there are specific points in my comment that you would like a cite for, make a list and I'll try and respond point by point (might take a bit of time, as I'm working). I'm sure SecularAnimist and friends can provide a longer list of websites for the 'alarmist' position (I don't like using that term, but haven't found one that I like any better...), but I would assume they would include Real Climate, at http://www.realclimate.org/, which has a long blogroll of additional sources. And yes, I've finally started my own weblog, called Liberals Can Be Skeptics, Too, found at http://newsfan.typepad.co.uk/liberals_can_be_skeptics_/ .

Tom Fuller wrote: "The websites I visit frequently for the skeptical point of view include ..." All of them purveyors of politically-driven, fake, phony, pseudo-scientific drivel. How unsurprising. You recommend the IPCC working reports -- yet you post a litany of absurd denialist talking points that are completely contradicted by the IPCC's reports. The only problem with the IPCC reports is that the nature of the IPCC process and the infrequency of the reports mean that with regard to empirical observations of the actual, ongoing effects of anthropogenic global warming, they are out of date when they are published and quickly become even more out of date. Actual observations of ongoing CO2 emissions and their effects are already exceeding the worst-case scenarios that the IPCC discussed even as recently as 2007.

Irrespective of your perspective on "Global Climate Change", "Global Warming" or whatever label you choose I think the following information needs to be considered. I am not intending on taking either side on this matter (I have come to think that there is an additional factor involved in this phenomena but I shall not bore you with that), just passing along an interesting, to me, piece of information that needs to be included in one's thinking. "The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century...it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity...Professor Lockwood believes that as well as the Sun's 11-year cycle, there is an underlying solar oscillation lasting hundreds of years. He suggests that 1985 marked the "grand maximum" in this long-term cycle and the Maunder Minimum marked its low point. "We are re-entering the middle ground after a period which has seen the Sun in its top 10% of activity," said Professor Lockwood. "We would expect it to be more than 100 years before we get down to the levels of the Maunder Minimum."..." "...I'd rather have the best data and theories as a guide than have whacked out skepticism...." - D Pecan

Secular Animist writes, "Actual observations of ongoing CO2 emissions and their effects are already exceeding the worst-case scenarios that the IPCC discussed even as recently as 2007." Indeed CO2 emissions are higher than the IPCC projected when forecasting a 3.7 degree rise in temperatures this century. However, temperatures are stubbornly refusing to follow suit, having decreased since 2002 (although not to a significant extent) and having essentially plateaued since 1998. The reason is that the atmosphere does not seem to be as sensitive as IPCC reviewers (and the scientists who wrote the papers they reviewed) initially feared. To be fair, the IPCC reviewers have always said that, because they cannot model cloud cover adequately, that this was a real possibility. Sadly, those who wrote the Summaries for Policy Makers not only ignored this, they wrote those concerns out of the picture entirely.

Hi Boring and Bogus, Real Climate's library of pre-packaged ad hominem attacks on anyone who has ever opposed catastrophic climate change is convenient for messenger boys such as yourself. Perhaps less helpful to those who think--someone might actually say, hmm. Is everyone opposed to climate alarmism actually such a villain? Much in the vein of Joe McCarthy, Grist describes Real Climate's Director of research as an expert in the background of those opposing climate alarmism. I guess that's a more important area of research than say, the climate... Your polemics are pathetic.

While trying to panic us all, the alarmists sometimes say strange things: "Antarctic ice melting faster than expected April 6, 2009 UP TO one-third of all Antarctic sea ice is likely to melt by the end of the century, seriously contributing to dangerous sea level rises, updated scientific modelling on global warming shows." Antarctic ice spreading AM - Thursday, 23 April , 2009 Reporter: Simon Santow TONY EASTLEY: In recent years all the headlines have been about ice melting in some of the globe's chilliest places but it seems that global warming may actually be leading to an increase in sea ice in parts of the Antarctic. Scientists in the United Kingdom have produced a study which shows ice has grown by 100,000 square kilometres each decade over the past 30 years and perversely the increase is being put down to the hole in the ozone layer. Ah, me.

Arctic ice almost disappeared in 2007, but it has since recovered dramatically. Obviously, since it almost disappeared two years ago, there is very little multi-year ice. As we have only been measuring Arctic ice for 30 years, we don't even know if this is unusual. There are huge fluctuations in measurements, depending on how you measure. Bottom up sonar, which I'm familiar with, doesn't catch the snow on top. Top down radar can miss the thickness. Side radar can miss the breadth. Buoys decay quickly and move. Drilling is accurate, but tends to only take place in areas where people can get to, which is often where the ice is thinnest. As for Thumb, sigh. The point of my comment was to juxtapose two different claims put forward by global warming alarmists. One was that Antarctic ice was disappearing. The other was that Antarctic ice was increasing rapidly. But when you have to explain the punchline, a bit of the flavor goes missing.

Er, Thumb, what are you saying I propose does not exist? Global warming? See above. Twice I say that it does exist, that CO2 does contribute to it. Arctic ice melt? See above. I say that Arctic ice melted almost completely. Antarctic ice melt? See above. I say it has melted on the 5% of the continent that juts out into the warmer part of the ocean. I guess what I'm willing to propose doesn't exist is some level of attention on the part of other correspondents... What time zone are you in? (What planet are you on?)

Thumb, I think global climate change has the potential to be alarming. However, I think that, pace some of the most vocal alarmists, we have time to collect the data properly and do the science right--something that seems fairly clear has not yet been done. This is especially true if we act on a sane and well-balanced energy plan like President Obama's. He has the numbers and direction right, and if enacted it will be good for our country if global warming proves to be a danger. It will be equally as good for the country if it all turns out to be so much hot air. Er, and yes, I do get that a lot. Usually it's worse. Much worse.

Wonder what it's like when everyone who disagrees with you has to be an enemy with a medieval title? Are you that afraid?