Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benhocking (talk | contribs) at 00:49, 28 September 2007 (→Jim Hansen's earlier prediction of coming Ice Age: copyedit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 February 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about editors' personal beliefs about global warming. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about editors' personal beliefs about global warming at the Reference desk.

Subpages:

• /sides in the GW controversy

Archives
February 2003 – December 2004 December 2004 – February 2007 Febraury 2007 – March 2007

List of...

Ron added the good ol' list of sci... . As has been said often before (usually to a chorus of yes-we-know-that) that page can't be used to assess scientific opinion, because it includes people who are clearly no longer scientist, and scientists with no climate expertise at all. Until that page gets cleaned up, leave it out of things like this William M. Connolley 19:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

William, I completely disagree. The list is a good list of scientists including many eminent who are "Professor Emeritus" of climate science. To say they are no longer scientists is just bogus. RonCram 04:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be a bit not pc for some, but on the topic of Emeritus professor's views... A friend of mine studies physics and he mentioned that (he read it somewhere) in physics the new 'consensus' tends not to be established because scientists change their minds. It basically happens because all those that believed in the old stuff die. I thought it was funny. Brusegadi 04:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I will revert your edit because the article you link to is not primarily about climate scientists. To be more precise, most of them are not either not climate scientists or not engaged in current research. Also, I think there is a thread about this in the archives. Brusegadi 04:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, this article is about the controversy regarding the science. It is completely POV to give readers access to the majority view and not give access to skeptical scientists. The list of skeptical scientists includes both climate scientists and other types of geophysical scientists. It is not a list of social scientists or some other unrelated field. Give me the date of the archived discussion and I will read it.RonCram 05:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron, just a question -- do you know what "emeritus" means? Raymond Arritt 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you really need to stop treating me as if I am uneducated. Maybe I am just in a bad mood tonight, but I am beginning to find your questions offensive. Of course I know what "emeritus" means - not every retired prof is given the status of "emeritus." This is a title of honor and usually means the prof still keeps an office at the university, at least the ones I knew did, even though they do not have any teaching responsibilities. These older gents have tons of wisdom and are often asked to attend meetings with contributors to the university. BTW, instead of insulting me with these silly questions, you ought to start paying me for all the things I have taught you. Without me you would not know about the data archiving policies of AGU - or how the distribution of weather stations could yield a non-warming trend overall but still show a warming trend using the grid cell method. RonCram 06:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The practice varies, but at most universities "emeritus" simply means retired after a certain minimum period of service. It's not usually a "title of honor" as you say. Raymond Arritt 13:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, that is nonsense. I defy you to name me one university (in the U.S.) that has such a practice. RonCram 23:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look under emeritus here you will see that it does not say anything about "achievements" and that the title is "customarily awarded" to faculty that is retiring after 15 years of service. You do not have to be a full professor so associates may get it too. Finally, right under "18.4 Retired Faculty" emeritus is used interchangeably with "retired faculty." What I did not know is that it could also be awarded to people doing mostly administrative work. For those of you who like to learn about places other than the United States, Cambridge has definitions for some slang terms they use; including one that seems right on for this "argument." Brusegadi 23:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your first link, I'm wondering if Ron will accept such a reference to an obscure backwater college. Raymond Arritt 23:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And Cambridge? Isn't that Europe? Where everybody is a socialist weeny?--Stephan Schulz 00:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He can always say that it is a school for liberal potheads... :) Brusegadi 00:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bellamy is no longer a scientist, not because he's emeritus, but because he has switched to PR. But also, the list contains many scientists with no climate expertise, and hence doesn't belong under the heading "sci cons" William M. Connolley 13:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pielke and sea ice

Ron insists on re-inserting an edit that looks barking to me: "arctic sea ice is approaching its record low, but its current level is within natural climate variability". First, Pielke doesn't say "within natural climate variability" or indeed anything very similar to it, AFAICS. Second, Pielkes original post was on the 10th of Aug and can (just about) be excused noticing that the very data he was relying on said it was already a minimum. But now the ice has declined even further, there is no doubt that "is approaching" is simply wrong: it *is* a record low. We don't have to print everything RP says, especially when its obviously false. RP knows precious little about sea ice, as evidenced by his "Antarctic" comments in the same post William M. Connolley 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that. If the record low is an outlier then being close to the record does not imply being within natural variability. Including it constitutes WP:OR. Furthermore, if we already have a new record-low inclusion of that paragraph is not correct, as William Connolley points out. Ciao, Brusegadi 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

William, Pielke makes clear from his post that he prefers the site you linked to because it is updated daily. Your conclusion that Pielke would write about a daily website without looking at it for two days seems ridiculous to me. There is no question Pielke has read it just prior to his post because he is talking about the news media picking up the story soon. Pielke does indicate that sea ice will continue to shrink since it is still summer and he provides a link to another website which is updated weekly. The NSIDC website says the previous record was set in 2005. If the article says sea ice has reached a record low, it also needs to mention when records began to be kept so readers will know these types of measurements were not made in the 1930s. Pielke's view that sea ice low is due to regional warming and not global warming is a common view among skeptics, including Syun-Ichi Akasofu - the founding director of the International Arctic Research Center. I used Pielke's quote because it is more recent and directly applicable to the current situation. RonCram 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Still makes no sense at all. Pielke is getting data from his preferred site, which says that sea ice has just reached a record low, and you insist he knew that, and he writes a post saying "approaching a record low"? Its obviously wrong. We could perhaps put it on the Pielke page as an example of his errors; but there is no point putting it in here. I notice you haven't troubled to defend your inventing of the stuff about within natural variability William M. Connolley 08:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, William, it is not obviously wrong. The data from Cryosphere Today is great data, but the data only goes back a short time. They did not take those measurements in the 1930s when the previous low happened. Pielke is also exactly right about the question of arctic sea ice melt being from regional or global warming. I have referenced the images from Cryosphere Today he used for Southern Hemisphere. In addition, I referenced a Letter to Nature that points out the high natural variability of arctic sea ice and how changes there do not conform to expectations of global warming. Since this article is about the science controversy, it is important these views are made available to readers. RonCram 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring for a moment your WP:OR regarding 1930 (which neither Pielke nor anyone else but you mention). Where do you get the information that the 1930s should be the "previous low"? (Chapman and Walsh(1993) as well as Vinnikov et al(1999) seem to disagree .... a lot). --Kim D. Petersen 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not read the Vinnikov paper but I know that 1934 was the warmest year in the U.S. in the 20th century. 1934 was also the warmest year in Europe, if you only count the rural stations. 1934 does not show to be the warmest in Russia, but the Russian temp histories are not reliable. To reach a record low in sea ice melt, you need warm temperatures and you need the arctic to be in a warm period of its 8-10 oscillation. Since the entire decade of the 1930s was warm, one of those years had to be in the warm period of the regional oscillation. I think it is clear from Pielke's writings that he is aware of some measure of sea ice that showed it to be quite low in the 1930s. I do not know what measurement that could be. Obviously, it is not the satellite method currently being used. RonCram 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Laxon et al.

As far as i can see the insertion of a paper by Laxon et al(2003), is misrepresenting the results of the paper (by cherry-picking a quote):

However, researchers claim computer models predictions poorly represent observed changes in arctic sea ice.

'The observed variability of Arctic sea ice thickness, which shows that the sea ice mass can change by up to 16% within one year, contrasts with the concept of a slowly dwindling ice pack, produced by greenhouse warming.

This makes us think that Laxon et al are arguing against the previous paragraph, which as far as i can see is entirely wrong. If i read the paper correctly - then Laxon et al. are arguing that the melt is being underestimated by models (corresponding well with the former paragraph) - not that it is being overestimated as the text implies. (i'm btw. a bit confused about what this is doing here - since it seems more appropriate elsewhere - and looks to me to be an "invented" controversy). --Kim D. Petersen 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kim, you seem to be confused by many things. If you read the paper in its entirety, you would the authors are convinced the arctic sea ice melt is not related to global warming but to natural climate variability, including sometimes longer summer seasons. They see an eight year oscillation between longer and shorter summer melt seasons and they also see a much greater variability in arctic sea ice on an annual basis than the computer models show. This is further support of Pielke's position that arctic sea ice melt is related to regional warming and not global warming. Pielke's comments continue to be germane to this aspect of the scientific controversy. If you still want to delete this section, I suggest you try WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RonCram 14:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead, how about a short summary in the style of "However, in light of recent studies and observations made in Antartica, some scientists argue that Arctic ice melting is attributable to regional warming instead of global warming (refs)" ? --Childhood's End 14:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That would implicitely accept a broken use of language. Global warming and local warming don't conflict, one is an expression of the other. I could just as well claim that the "arctic sea ice is not melting, just some chunks of ice swimming in the arctic ocean". --Stephan Schulz 14:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You can obviously have ice melting because the region has warmed without it being a consequence of planetary warming.... That does not mean that global warming and regional warming are conflicting. --Childhood's End 15:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused here, where exactly does the Laxon paper argue against global warming or argue for local variability? It actually does the opposite. Its stating that the circulation issues have little effect - and (again from my reading) that the GCM's are understating the consequences in loss of sea-ice. The actual cherry-picked quote is even further misrepresenting since the current melt is way beyond 16% (annual variation) - since its currently more than 20% below the last record.... --Kim D. Petersen 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You should read my proposal as "Provided Ron is right"... But at least Pielke seems to make the suggestion no? --Childhood's End 15:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron misrepresents the paper; if we could stop to talk about it he might learn but I don't have high hopes. Peilkes views are simply silly in this instance. Things don't belong just because Pielke says them - this article is about the controversy in general. You need more people saying this wacko stuff, *then* it can go in. This is "depresys" Smith, BTW William M. Connolley 20:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

William, I resent you saying I am misrepresenting the paper. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of my statements have been accurate. Laxon, Peacock and Smith write: "However, it is unclear from model results whether ice thickness is controlled mainly by changes in thermodynamic (radiative or thermal) forcing5, or by dynamic (ocean and wind stress) forcing7." Thermodynamic forcings may be global but dynamic forcings are more closely related to regional climate. They also write: "The majority of Arctic Ocean models suggest that variability in Arctic ice thickness occurs on decadal timescales5,6,9, and is caused mainly by dynamic forcing6–8." They write: "However, numerical simulations of ice thickness are undermined by uncertainties in the representation of physical processes9, and by differences in methods used to couple the ice, ocean and atmosphere12, resulting in significant discrepancies between model simulations of ice thickness evolution14." Here they admit the models are not very good. They also write: "The lack of continuous large-scale thickness measurements means that conclusions drawn from numerical simulations regarding the variability of Arctic sea ice thickness, and the processes that control it, remain untested3,12." Here they admit that we simply do not have much data about sea ice in the past. Pielke writes that we are "approaching" record lows and he must have a reason for his view. No doubt Pielke has the 1930s in view as the time period of the previous low but satellite records were not kept at that time. To make a big deal out of the current level of sea ice is unscientific. We do not have enough data to make claims about record lows in arctic sea ice. RonCram 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Resent all you like, it doesn't change your inability to learn, though your ablilty to read Pielkes mind is impressive. But I agree, making a big deal of the current Arctic sea ice is a bad idea - see the current t:GW or indeed http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/09/betting_on_sea_ice.php William M. Connolley 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

William, you are just being pejorative. You did not attempt to deal with any of the facts I presented so you did not support your claim regarding my "inability to learn." I accurately represented the paper which shows the authors are not convinced the level of sea ice is related to global warming. Your blog link does not really deal with issue of regional vs. global warming. You only project that next year will not set a new record. It seems a safe bet to me. Let me know if you get any takers. RonCram 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For more on arctic ice in the 1930s, you can visit the Arctic Warming website that summarizes a number of research papers. See specifically this. It is pretty clear that arctic warming and sea ice melt has considerable natural variability. RonCram 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Energy and Environment journal rejects Schulte's consensus article

see here Count Iblis 15:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

World Conference on Research Integrity to Foster Responsible Research

European Science Foundation has reported on the "World Conference on Research Integrity" which met in Portugal from Sep 16-19. It was organized by the ESF and the U.S. Office of Research Integrity. They discussed two incidents touching on global warming - the misrepresentation of the examination of station history in China and the NASA error found by Steve McIntyre. The misrepresentation regarding Chinese station histories is an issue being pushed by Doug Keenan. Keenan has accused Wang, a co-author of Phil Jones, of unethical behavior. Both of these issues were originally raised by Steve McIntyre. It seems misconduct by climatologists to push an alarmist view of global warming is becoming a more important issue all the time. The article should discuss this. RonCram 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Happens where you least expect it. Brusegadi 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi, climate science is a field with one of the worst reputations regarding unethical behavior by scientists. This is mainly due to their refusal to provide data, methods and code so other researchers can reproduce their work. Almost whenever this info is provided, errors both intentional and unintentional are found. Lindzen is correct to be negative about the state of affairs in climate science. RonCram 21:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's funny... a few years back it was secondhand-smoke researchers who, we were told, had a horrible reputation for unethically bending the data to support their "alarmist" views on the harms of passive smoking (cf. anything by Steven Milloy). Now it looks like climate scientists have surpassed even that ethical low point (cf., well, anything by Steven Milloy). It's almost like there's a pattern er something... though I'm sure more study would be needed to establish one. MastCell 21:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Never mind... that was probably better kept to myself. MastCell 21:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I wish you hadn't done that... now I feel obliged to ask Ron to stop ranting, again. Ron, please see WP:SOAP and try to use the talk to discuss improvements to the article William M. Connolley 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the substance: why should this article discuss the conf? According to their prog they have nothing to say about climate, but a lot to say about medical. Why not try over there? William M. Connolley 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

William, if you read the article I linked to, you would see that climate issues were discussed just as I wrote. My earlier comment was a response to Brusegadi since he seemed to think that climate science was a rare place to find unethical behavior. The two fields with these greatest number of these kinds of problems seem to be medicine and climate. My post is all about making the article better. Unethical behavior is a major part of this controversy. RonCram 22:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

William, Howard Alper specifically pointed to medicine and climate science as fields with ethical issues. I have to agree with him. RonCram 23:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Predictions of global warming are not based on scientific forecasting

J. Scott Armstrong has presented on this issue. I just recently found his presentation online. The PowerPoint (in pdf form) is here. Video of him making the presentation is here. Armstrong audited IPCC chapter 8 and found 72 principles of scientific forecasting were violated. I believe this was discussed here before. Why is it not in the article? If there was a reason, I have forgotten. RonCram 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is an extremely important criticism of the IPCC methodology. Further coverage here

BadCop666 08:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If I can point to him again, David Orrell makes a similar claim, and few would say he's not an authority in this regard. You can take a glimpse at . --Childhood's End 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher, Miner's Strike, Nuclear Power, Global Warming

Margaret Thatcher's initial interest in Carbon Dioxide emissions (and eventually, Global Warming) was motivated by long-term strategic concerns for British Capitalism - in particular, energy stability following the miner's strike of the mid-1980's - and NOT by concerns for the environment. Stimulating public concerns around atmospheric pollution was seen as the key to her pro-nuclear policies - which was to be promoted as a clean alternative to energy production which was heavily reliant on burning fossil fuels.

I believe this important point should be included as context to Margaret Thatcher's 'interest' in global warming mentioned at the beginning of this article.BadCop666 07:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Given Thatcher's reputation, the above makes sense to me; but for the sake of verifiability do not forget the sources. Take care, Brusegadi 07:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

== Sources ==

Global Warming: How it all began

Documentary - The Great Global Warming Swindle (further details pending)

BadCop666 08:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Which are both unreliable sources according to WP:RS. --Kim D. Petersen 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

agreed, haven't had time to get to the library yet, school holidays, so late next week I'll track down some of my biblio's 121.72.242.32 06:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jim Hansen's earlier prediction of coming Ice Age

Interesting opinion piece in the Investor's Business Daily based on a story in the Washington Post in 1971. Recently, global warming alarmists have tried to distance themselves from the prediction of a coming Ice Age back in the 70s. But it is hard to distance your camp when one of the leaders of the current alarmism was a leader of the Ice Age alarmism. I think this deserves to be in the article. RonCram 13:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

See talk:James Hansen and try to centralize the discussion in one place, please. --Stephan Schulz 13:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I do not see the point in that. This is relevant to both articles. Different editors are involved in the two articles. Everyone should be involved in the discussion. RonCram 14:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And they can now all go over to talk:James Hansen so that we do not need to copy and paste the same arguments all over the place. --Stephan Schulz 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, Stephan, your request is nonsensical. Arguments (reasons for inclusion or exclusion) will differ depending on the article. Each article has its own discussion page for a reason. RonCram 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That is sound reasoning in general. In this particular case, however, the source you cite is simply wrong, as explained at Talk:James Hansen. An unreliable source has no place in either article. --Stephan Schulz 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If the argument was about weight or relevance, you'd have a point Ron. However, that article is inaccurate as the talk page on James Hansen's page shows. There's no point in having two separate discussions about the accuracy of the claim. It's either accurate or it's not (it's not), irrespective of which article we're talking about. Ben Hocking 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so your real argument (for both Stephan and Benhocking) is that this published (and reliable) source is wrong and you do not want to have to explain this on both pages. At least now you have explained your reasoning. But your reasoning is still not valid because it has to be explained to two separate groups of editors. After a quick glance through the Talk page on James Hansen, I am not convinced the published source is wrong. It may be possible to convince me, but it has not happened yet. RonCram 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Both sets of editors can go read it over there. Surprisingly, you don't need a permit to read other than your normal pages on Misplaced Pages. And I suggest you take more than a "quick glance" over there and read how your obviously unreliable (why am I even discussing this? It's an editorial by someone who has not an inkling of science) fourth-hand source mangles the third-hand source (a recent Washington Times article) until it is unrecognizable. You can than see how the third-hand source misrepresents the second hand source in various ways, but in particular by omitting that Hansen's program was not a climate program, but a program that simulated how aerosols shatter sunlight (and developed for the analysis of clouds on Venus). The second-hand source, this 1971 Washington Post article describes this reasonably well, but of course oversimplifies the first-hand Science paper. --Stephan Schulz 23:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, okay so now you are saying you do not want Hansen's name mentioned in relation to this article? Even if I agreed with you, and I do not yet, that still would not preclude these articles from mention in this article on global warming controversy. I think it is important that fossil fuel burning has been the predicted cause of both global cooling and global warming. First, scientists claim fossil fuels cause aerosols that will cause an Ice Age. Then, they claim fossil fuels cause greenhouse gases that will overheat the Earth. And you do not think that is important to this debate? RonCram 12:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I did a little research on Rasool. He was a colleague of Robert Jastrow with whom he co-wrote a book on the atmosphere of Venus. Venus must have been an important topic of study at the time because Hansen wrote his computer program with its initial application on Venus. It seems to me to be a complete jump in your logic to assume that Hansen was not involved in the application of his computer program to Earth's atmosphere. Hansen was working with Rasool on the atmosphere of Venus and when Rasool decided to look into Earth's atmosphere, one would naturally believe Hansen was involved in the application to Earth. The importance of Hansen's contribution is seen by the fact Rasool went out of his way to comment on Hansen's contribution. RonCram 12:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Hansen was main developer of the software. Judging from the time period, I would guess that IBM wrote the compiler. So IBM was responsible the global cooling scare too, right? Raymond Arritt 13:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense, Raymond. Was IBM a physicist working on atmospheric issues involving aerosols? No, I didn't think so. I cannot imagine Rasool publishing a result involving Hansen's software without asking Hansen to look over this new application of his software and see if any errors were made in the new application. And you cannot imagine it either. RonCram 13:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You may very well be right, Ron. However, do you have any reliable sources beyond pure conjecture that make this point? Ben Hocking 14:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I do not think the article needs to make this "point." The article only needs to state that NASA scientists published a prediction of global cooling and they credited James Hansen for developing the software that made their prediction possible. That is a clear statement of the facts. Nothing more is warranted. RonCram 19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is covered in much more depth on the Talk:James Hansen page. If you read the discussion there, you'll note that what you said isn't exactly correct. It's definitely not germane to this article. Ben Hocking 19:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, what did I say that is not correct? I read through the Hansen Talk page and I saw arguments that claimed Hansen's contribution was not significant. I saw ridiculous analogies comparing Hansen's software to Microsoft software, but the authors did not credit any other software for making the study possible. They credited Hansen's software. On what basis do you think this is not germane to this article? RonCram 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to Hansen's reply. Hansen wrote an algorithm that they modified for their use. Here's what Hansen said about this:

Hence, the IBM analogy made earlier was quite apt. Ben Hocking 00:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, the analogy is not apt. The code Hansen wrote was written specifically for atmospheric studies. It was specialized software and no reasonable person would question the fact R and S talked to Hansen about their application of it. However, I agree that Hansen is not responsible for the theory since his name is not on the article as co-author. Above I wrote: "The article only needs to state that NASA scientists published a prediction of global cooling and they credited James Hansen for developing the software that made their prediction possible." I still do not see anything wrong with that statement. RonCram 00:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

But the thing is, he didn't write the software, he wrote one component that was used by it. That's what I mean when I said you're not exactly correct. Regardless, that he wrote that component is definitely not notable here, is it? Ben Hocking 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

NASA scientist claims CO2 is not a problem

I just read the abstract of the S.I. Rasool article in Science discussed above. It is interesting because the abstract makes the same claim regarding CO2 that many skeptics of global warming also make. Here's the quote:

It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Most skeptics believe that whatever warming that may be caused by CO2 has already happened. It is interesting that Rasool also agrees that CO2 is not a problem. RonCram 12:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a tense problem. That was from 1971. This is all on global cooling anyway William M. Connolley 12:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, this is not news. The effect of adding CO₂ on forcing is logarithmic, IIRC. (William will correct me if I'm wrong.) Ben Hocking 12:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

William, I am well aware it was from 1971. However, I have never seen any science to refute this finding and I know a good many skeptics who continue to hold this position. Ben, thank you for pointing out that it is not news. The article should have included this information long ago. I added it. RonCram 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron, the logarithmic effect of CO2 was known to Arrhenius in 1899, has been known since, and it is part of the IPCC consensus. What this has to do with " whatever warming that may be caused by CO2 has already happened" is unclear, though. CO2 has "only" increased a bit more than 30% compared to pre-industrial times. It's projeced to go much higher. And of course we are not in temperature equilibrium with respect to current forcing, either. --Stephan Schulz 13:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, if Arrhenius knew of the logarithmic effect in 1899, that only confirms that this should be discussed in this controversy. The controversial part may be the "whatever warming that may be caused by CO2 has already happened," but it is clear that Rasool did not see CO2 as a problem in the future. There is no reason the logarithmic nature of CO2 should be left out of an article on the controversy about global warming. Please explain that to Kim. RonCram 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the logarithmic nature is not controversial at all. That's why climate sensitivity is given in degrees Celsius (or whatever unit of temperature) per CO2 doubling. CO2 grows exponentially - temperature grows linearly. Or, equivalently, linear increase of CO2 causes logarithmic increase in (equilibrium) temperature. And your summary of the abstract is almost entirely wrong. At least the abstract does not say that "CO2 is not a problem", it contrasts the logarithmic influence of CO2 with the different behavior of areosols. --Stephan Schulz 16:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The model used by R+S in 1971 is very primitive; its not a GCM, its a 1-d RC model. It was "refuted" a long time ago. In fact its self-refuting: as they say in the paper, the model is only suitable for studying small perturbations, but they use it for large ones. I recommend reading note 3 to the article. As everyone has pointd out to you, the logarithmic nature is well known; its in all the current GCMs; the results you refuse to believe incorporate it; it is not in dispute William M. Connolley 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan and William, your comments show that you are either unfamiliar with the arguments of the skeptics or you are being intellectually dishonest. The fact the logarithmic nature of CO2 is still among the arguments of the skeptics can be seen here. Now, if you already knew of these arguments, you are being intellectually dishonest in saying this is not part of the controversy. You may disagree with Motl and Junk Science, but you do not have the right to say their arguments do not exist. RonCram 13:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron, you are confused. Neither of us said that the claim of logarithmic increase is not "part of the controversy". We said that the fact is not controversial. Everybody with a modicum of knowledge agrees (that, interestingly, seems to exclude Lubos, who uses an self-invented oversimplified model which results not in logarithmic increase, but in a hard asymptotic cap) about this. The fact that skeptics tout this well-known fact, fully accounted for in current models, as a big flaw in the theory, should tell you something about intellectual (dis-)honesty. But back to the topic: What does the Rasool&Schneider paper have to do with this? --Stephan Schulz 14:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I am not confused. The difference between "controversial" and "part of the controversy" is too fine a distinction for an honest man. Let us put away distinctions between synonyms. Regarding current models, they are worthless - as Orrin Pilkey, J. Scott Armstrong and many others attest. In addition, current models do not model the negative feedback found by Roy Spencer. Perhaps most importantly, the models are checked against global surface temp series by CRU or NOAA. Now, due to the work of Anthony Watts, Stephen McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke, we know these global temp series probably greatly exaggerate the amount of warming in the 20th century. This preliminary indication is in accordance with the much lower climate sensitivity published by Stephen Schwartz. Like many things in climate science, I do not think most climate scientists understand the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO2 well. I think Rasool understood the issue better in 1971 than most climate scientists do today. RonCram 14:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Like many things in climate science, I do not think most climate scientists understand the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO2 well." That's either astonishingly ill-informed, or astonishingly arrogant, or both. Ron, your tendency to give condescending lectures to others, while at the same time making it clear that you are unable to grasp even the simplest quantitative concepts, is wearing thin. Raymond Arritt 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, it is possible I am both ill-informed and arrogant but my opinion of climate scientists stands. When I began my study of climate, I did not have this opinion. It has been formed only after reading about their poor quality science and their antics to cover it up. However, this discussion really is not furthering the article. I suggest we go back to the discussing the article and making certain the views of both sides of the controversy are presented. RonCram 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd like Ron to find one — just one — climate scientist who he thinks doesn't understand the logarithmic effect of atmospheric CO₂. Since he claims that "most" don't, this should be easy for him to find. Ben Hocking 14:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Benhocking, I would say any climate scientist who thinks CO2 is a major problem does not understand the issue clearly. Am I able to explain their error quantitatively? No. But their results do not make sense. More to the point, as a Misplaced Pages editor, I do not have to explain this. Misplaced Pages has to represent both sides of the controversy. The proper response here is to find a citation for readers to go to that would explain the error the skeptics are making. That is how we provide a service to readers, not by trying to censor out arguments if you don't like them. RonCram 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not for censoring this information, but I am in favor of providing it accurately. Unlike you, I believe this will make the critics who make this argument look uninformed. I won't argue why the climate scientists "get it", as I don't expect it'll do much good. Ben Hocking 17:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(dedent) Ron, if you are not confused, I am confused. Above, you claim that the fact that "the logarithmic nature of CO2 is still among the arguments of the skeptics" makes the logarithmic influence of CO2 on temperature part of the controversy. By doing so, you are using an inclusive definition of "part of the controversy", assuming that anything said by either side is part of the controversy, even if it is not in dispute. But by my understanding, to be actually controversial, a statement must be in dispute between the parties. The logarithmic effect of CO2 is not in dispute. Do you understand the point that I tried to make above? The very definition of climate sensitivity as the temperature reaction to a doubling of CO2 implies a logarithmic response. Every scientist who accepts this definition (and that includes everyone in rough agreement with the IPCC) is aware of this fact. --Stephan Schulz 15:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction, the logarithmic influence of CO2 on long-wave emissivity isn't accepted just by those "in rough agreement with the IPCC" but by anyone working in the field whether they are pro- or con-IPCC. It's simply a basic fact, measurable in the laboratory and derivable from theory, like water having a dipole moment. Raymond Arritt 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, perhaps I did not write clearly enough for you. I should have written "the effect resulting from the logarithmic nature of CO2 is still among the arguments of the skeptics." Please excuse the ellipsis. I assumed it was clear from the context. The fact atmospheric CO2 is logarithmic is not disputed. What is disputed (and therefore part of the controversy) is whether this logarithmic effect will prevent a doubling of CO2 from having a major effect on climate. Each new molecule of CO2 in the air has a decreasing effect. This is well established. Motl, Junk Science and Rasool all argue that increasing atmospheric CO2 is not a problem because of this. Rather, Rasool feared a coming Ice Age. A large minority among the skeptics also fear global cooling - which if you look at the history of the planet would appear to be the more reasonable possibility. RonCram 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

For this wiki article, the old article by Rasool is not relevant anyway. We have to focus on the controversy as it exists today. The current article does mention that some dispute the consensus figure for climate senisivity. New input by skeptics today about this issue can be mentioned. Count Iblis 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that Rasool is not relevant. His analysis was once the majority opinion and many of the older climatologists still think this is correct. RonCram 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

When was it every a majority opinion? Ben Hocking 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In the reality-based community, never. Raymond Arritt 00:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben, it was the majority opinion throughout the 1970s. I remember the first time I heard a news story on global warming in 1979. It was very much a minority opinion among climate scientists at that time. Many of them were still fearing global cooling. Check out the opinions of the retired climatology profs. It is difficult to find some of them but the more honored professors, the "Professor Emeritus of Climatology" are easier to find. Almost all of them still hold to the opinion that CO2 is not a big problem. Check out these guys: Antonino Zichichi, Hendrik Tennekes, Reid Bryson and George Kukla.RonCram 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.cpom.org/research/swl-nature.pdf High interannual variability of sea ice thickness in the Arctic region] by Seymour Laxon, Neil Peacock & Doug Smith published by Nature, October 30, 2003

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics