There is an ever growing body of evidence that the way we all live is having a marked influence on our global climate.
Image: Flickr/freefotouk
Climate change is likely to be worse than many computer models have projected, according to a new analysis.
The work, published yesterday in Science, finds evidence that Earth's climate is more sensitive to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than some earlier studies had suggested.
If the new results are correct, that means warming will come on faster, and be more intense, than many current predictions. Moreover, the impacts of that warming, including sea level rise, drought, floods and other extreme weather, could hit earlier and harder than many models project, said study co-author John Fasullo, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
"Temperatures are likely to go up to the high side of current projections, as is [atmospheric] water vapor," he said. "To the extent those environmental impacts influence events like [Superstorm] Sandy, expect the impacts to be on the high side."
For scientists like Fasullo and co-author Kevin Trenberth, head of NCAR's climate analysis section, determining the climate's precise sensitivity to the CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has been an unusually tough task.
Researchers normally define the problem, known as equilibrium climate sensitivity, as the warming that would result if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rises to twice the preindustrial level.
Probing the behavior of clouds
A groundbreaking 1979 climate report from the National Academy of Sciences put the likely warming from that doubling of CO2 at 1.8 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit. But over the next 28 years, scientists were able to narrow that range only slightly. The estimate listed in 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is 3.6 to 8.1 degrees F, with a best guess of 5.4 degrees.
That uncertainty is represented in the latest crop of global climate models, which assume a climate sensitivity of anywhere from about 3 to 8 degrees F.
What the new study does is attempt to change the angle of attack on the sensitivity problem. It tries to turn a major factor in the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates -- the behavior of clouds -- into a strength.
Clouds can act to heat or cool the atmosphere, depending on their location and structure. But scientists have had a hard time representing cloud behavior in models, in part because there is little high-quality data on cloud behavior.
To get around the problem, Fasullo and Trenberth decided to examine how well 16 global climate models reproduce recent satellite observations of relative humidity in the tropics and subtropics, a quantity that is directly related to cloud formation.
Relative humidity is the measure of the actual amount of water vapor in a given location's atmosphere, compared with the maximum it could hold. When relative humidity is high enough, it triggers cloud formation.
"The trick here is we're not using any trends, [not] looking at trends in dry zones," Fasullo said. "Instead, we're just trying to ask the question, do the models resolve dry zones? We're trying to get at the processes that drive sensitivity, instead of observing the actual changes themselves."
When the scientists compared the output of climate models with a decade of satellite measurements of relative humidity, they found that the models that best reproduced observed conditions were built on the premise that climate sensitivity is relatively high -- 7 degrees F or more.
The models that were least accurate also had the lowest climate sensitivity baked in, the scientists said.
The results are promising, Fasullo said, but he also sounded a note of caution.
A way to judge the models
"This problem has been around for 30 years, and very little progress has actually been made on it in 30 years," he said. "In no way would I be under the delusion that this solves the problem."
See what we're tweeting about
54 Comments
Add CommentSo the 'scientific' climate models were wrong. Shock..but these ones are 'right'..ha!...ha!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe MET Office confirmed there has been no significant warming in 16 years. Let's not get our panties in a bunch. I'm not sure what's driving this alarmism except maybe that modern technologies have allowed us to better observe and be aware of how our world changes and this frightens some. The Little Ice Age ended just 150 years ago - why are we looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"why are we looking a gift horse in the mouth. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, if there is a 10% chance the scientists are right (a vast majority of scientists, by the way) then I think its time to start pouring some real concrete resources into confirmation and/or solutions simultaneously.
Have you looked at the Artic icecap? Greenland glaciers? Tell us about the great growth or even stability therein. And, don't say the Antartic is growing enough to offset the north's losses, it isn't. Besides, I live in the NORTHERN hemisphere, the southern is far away.
Propaganda about the MET Office debunked by... the MET Office, at http://bit.ly/PKsb2Y
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's cut to the chase - the observations all show the effects of global warming such as reduced ice coverage (or even more relevant, and shown to be even more severe - reduced ice volume taking into account coverage and average thickness) are happening faster that the mid-range of consensus models predicted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo an attempt to reduce the uncertainty in the models, shows that models predicting a high range of climate sensitivity better fit the cloud formation and humidity data.
Which amazingly is also consistent with the observed effects.
Only global warming critics in deep denial can turn this advances in modeling accuracy into an attack on the science.
@ jelly, W Holder, R Prins
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are you folks even here?
I’m curious, are any one of you actually published, peer reviewed climatologists? If you happen to be please link us to any studies you have published, would be very interested.
Otherwise….
@ jelly, W Holder, R Prins
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are you folks even here?
I’m curious, are any one of you actually published, peer reviewed climatologists? If you happen to be please link us to any studies you have published, would be very interested.
Otherwise….
good to see the typical 'that's not a fact' rebuttal from right-thinkers - when you can believe in invisible friends who are always on your side in a war (or both sides) - it's only a small step to believing that anyone who disagrees with your belief is just plain - wrong - 'them there facts is just wrong, I tells ya!'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeard a great story today about the election. Some conservative politician was expressing anger at his perception that the Republican Party had been "fleeced" by the conservative entertainment industry and convinced by them that Romney was going to win the election. This conservative politician was upset that they had allowed themselves to be duped by the likes, I suppose, of Rush Limbaugh. He was lamenting that perhaps he and his colleagues needed to pay better attention to actual data next time. I almost drove off the rode! But why should we be surprised? If conservatives refuse to listen to data about the climate, of course they're not going to listen to data about the election.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMartin Hoerling, who chairs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) climate variability research program, and who oversees NOAA’s Climate Scene Investigators, observed, “neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over the North Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change, nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decades.” Political Scientist, not to be confused with people who actually are familiar with scientific method and principles are the first to exploit natural events in an attempt to further a political or social agenda. Shame on you. There have been many cyclic changes of weather from the ice age to warming periods that are much warm than it is now in Earth's history. There is not one shred of evidence that links current weather to man made conditions. The now debunked Mickel Man's hockey shtick can no longer be used without losing credibility. When temperature changes are looked at using what we know about the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation the corrolation coefficient is much greater than when using climate models. Computer climate models based on atmospheric CO2 can only draw a straight line between a preconceived notion to a foregone conclusion. No data required.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe number of misconceptions in these comments are astounding. The article is about the predictions of climate models and cloud behavior coupled with predicted humidity by some models and the increase in temperature which follows. By comparing humidity with temperature predictions the models with the best fit to observed humidity predict higher temperature. They are not about the lack of consequences; climate scientists are not refuting that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe next challenge for the predictions is the behavior of clouds and the outcome of warming.
The results of climate change are not changes in the number of storms, frequency, but the effects of the storms. Mann's data has not been refuted but has been reinforced by Richard Muller's Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature.
The results for the US will be crop losses, flooding, and more damages by storms with greater energy, not to mention loss of lives. These are already becoming evident as well but the increase in disease, habitat changes and migratory patterns are evident as well.
I can see why there are so few scientists own comments on these pages since there isn't an honest discussion of the article. Some of these comments amount to little more than rants.
Where is this whacko pseudo-science repository where you get this nonsense from? Mann's 'hockey stick'(by which I assume you mean his original paper containing the graph extended back using climate proxies) has actually held up quite well. There is NO published paper refuting it. The numbers have been refined by later research (we ARE talking about work dating back over 20 years) but there are no substantial differences between our best current estimates of historical temperatures and Mann's original work. The hockey stick is alive and well, sadly for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the hurricanes... yeah, give us a citation first of all because I don't even believe anything you people post, it is like 95% bunkum. Even if it is accurately stated I'm highly dubious about it meaning what you think it means or that it isn't taken totally out of context and cherry-picked. There's simply no credibility left on the denialist side.
I guess you're correct, if you discount 10's of thousands of papers published over the last 60 years and all the evidence they represent to "a shred" then yeah, nothing links AGW to AC02, it is just ALL CHANCE! Yeah. I have this bridge you clearly need badly.
They didn't debunk anything - it's their data. The emperor isn't wearing any clothes. Stop being a denier.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey didn't debunk anything - it's their data. The emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre we living in a warmer period - yes, can we see and measure the impact of this warmth - yes, are our CO2 emissions the primary driver of climate - the data doesn't support this.
The warmists are ridiculous. It is like listening to a 9 year old tell some tall tale and as you point out the inconsistencies, he just changes the story. Hey kid, that climate model didnt work, you sure it wasnt this other new one, "oh yeah thats it"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry warmists, your models are wrong, old or new because they are flawed. You warmists do not know enough about the atmosphere or this planet to be able to make any kind of statistical model work. That is why your so called predictions have about as much relevance as a mayan prophecy. None at all.
How about a new approach. Get out of the computer rooms and actually look at the real atmosphere occasionally and see what is happening and maybe try to prove something real about the actual planet instead of your fantasy planet as constructed by your old or new computer models.
Does anyone on here think we can keep adding Co2 to the atmosphere at a rate that is increasing year on year and expect no climate change?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere HAS to be radical change, it's making detailed predictions in the severity and the time line that is proving to be difficult...
Hey GeoJellyRole(Brain) . . . one reality about observing climate change over the last 30 years has been constant -- the observed rate of climate change effects have consistently outpaced the predictions of the climate change models. We learn more about the atmosphere and what is happening, then adjust the models, and still continue to fall behind mother natures reactions to the changes. I fail to see the comedy you see by denying and hiding from science, facts, and reality -- which could revert humanity to an agrarian existence or even drive our frail biological species into extinction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Met office web site doesn't say anything about there not being any climate change in 16 years. This erroneous statement was on another comment board so it's obviously a piece of misinformation being disseminated somewhere and people are not checking facts before they re-post. I'm surprised there are people reading Scientific American AND ridiculing Climate Change, since people who deny the evidence of thousands of climate scientists from all over the world would probably be more comfortable reading the National Enquirer. BTW, for those who ridicule the IPCC and climate science in general, opting instead to get misinformation disseminated by the Koch Brothers and their Republican party mouth pieces at FOX News, I'm sure the National Enquirer also has some titillating ideas about climate change - cause enquiring minds want to know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of us do not understand the gravity of the situation. Maybe in western countries the situation is good and fast improving, but some of the eastern countries are seriously in deep shit which will affect the rest of the globe. Countries like mine(India) are so polluted you cannot breathe without getting the familiar smell of vehicle exhaust..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm seriously worried that if we don't do something about it, we're seriously in big trouble..
People, just stop arguing with the denialists. The argument has been won, there's no question anymore. Anyone who is still denying REALITY is clearly immune to reason and will never stop spouting bullcrap. Don't feed these trolls anymore, it is pointless. In 30 years they're still going to be sticking their hands in their ears and denying everything they see around them. It is simply impossible for some people to accept responsibility for what we've done. Just remember that every day fewer and less credible people are with them and we're at a point where real action can start to be taken now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, it seems that things might be worse than we've been telling ourselves. How do we react to this? What more needs to be done? The arguments are over, the serious planning has to start now. Clearly its going to have to happen at all levels, so what's the best starting point?
There's no point in arguing with the climate-change "denialists."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are either being paid (by parties that have a financial stake in preventing remedial legislation) to participate in a disinformation campaign, or they relying solely on frauduant claims from utterly untrustworthy sources (such as Fox "Fake" News).
In either case, they cannot be persuaded by any logic or fact, because they have no interest in honesty or doing the right thing for our Nation and descendents.
priddseren said, "Sorry warmists, your models are wrong..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs opposed to the models of used by deniers which are simply faith-based gut feelings?
The climate models used by the right (i.e. faith-based gut feelings) are the same models used to predict a Romney landslide. Sorry, I'll stick with Nate Silver (yes, that liberal New York Times blogger).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisultimobo, I really like the way you did that, jump from the use of one word straight to an inference of illiteracy, good stuff there. (if mistaken in this I apologize, but when folks make assumptions the very often find themselves mistaken)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must admit that my implication that a lay-person couldn’t understand science well enough to participate in a meaningful discourse was inaccurate. But in my defense, an unending rant re: collusion between wasteful government and a rather sizable and pertinent portion of the global scientific community is neither helpful, nor harmful; it’s quite simply a rant.
In regards to this particular article, I’m troubled by people who would cite the application of the scientific method to denigrate science they do not agree with. Of course faults in predictive models are actively searched for and when found corrected or compensated for, that is after all the definition of the scientific method (hypothesis, theory, experiment, incorporate observations and begin again.)
By far the vast majority of the scientific community believes that the numerous global climatic models correctly indicate long term climate change which is at least aggravated by human introduction of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The open and rigorous application of the scientific method surly points to the overall veracity of the trends inferred from the climatic models.
Priddseren,
The constant statements that predictive modeling cannot be applied to climate are counterintuitive at best. When dealing with any chaotic systems modeling has become the norm. Take fluid dynamics where velocity, temperature, pressure and density all interact, while doable in a hit and miss manner modeling delivers more accuracy in a shorter period. And climate is of course fluid dynamics.
As to “Get out of the computer rooms and actually look at the real atmosphere occasionally,” where else do the data points for the data sets come from. Granted a lot of theorists farm out that job, but a lot also do the work themselves. Either way, a measurement is a measurement, and when taken properly just as valid.
Brian, you are clearly immune to logic. Are you a published climatologist with an actual post-bachelor's degree in climatology or a related field? Have you done a rigorous statistical analysis of climatological data because AP Env-sci was too easy at the age of 15? Do you have an IQ known to be at or above 160? If you don't fill any of the above criteria, then you don't have the right to comment here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd like you to know that I fill two of the above criteria, and that dubay.denis fills at least one. Stop arguing with people who really do know better than you.
Ok. I spend half of every Saturday outside doing bird surveys, and I spend 80% or more of my free time birding, and I can tell you that the planet is absolutely warming, and at a rate that outstrips earlier models. Earlier models were much too conservative, and even the above study tries too hard to be "moderate".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy waste your time denying known facts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment shows that your brain doesn't process facts correctly.
Some people say whatever they want you to believe, without any commonsense behind it. Most times people are very good at spotting fibs.
I am interested in how the sun would increase 700 % for 7 days . Predicted by Isaiah 30. Predicted by Nostradamus. I don't believe that is part of the CO2 models....haha.I would also like to know if it is true that the solar system is warming from the outside in (pluto to earth) .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am in favour of population reduction and the abolition of the internal combustion engine.The solution will likely be violent....as predicted.
Hope there are some natural resources left for the future kids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe national debt would be the least of their problems, without clean water, breathable air, safe foods, life isn't going to make it.
The problem with the models would be the assumptions. The most prevalent, that the concept of a "global average temperature" has any meaning at all, for example. 4 billion years, multiple 100 million year ice ages and somehow we know what this average should be or that the average has any kind of meaning. The fact that as reported by SA, Cloud cover and its effects were not even understood until a few months ago, let alone in models. The fact that we measure temperature of maybe a millionth of the total atmosphere, primarily thermometers in first world countries, only at the surface and maybe a couple of points on the ocean and the belief that the less accurate measures of 100+ years ago in like 10 land locations in Europe or America has any relevance when comparing it to day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen the rest of the data comes from ice cores and tree rings, all of which is statistical and extrapolated and untestable for accuracy.
Finally, the total lack of considering heat sources like the sun itself, the 7 billion humans, the billions of livestock, the heat from engines, homes, factories, cook fired and buildings, all totally ignored and finally the focus on CO2 as the sole and only possible way to cause this warming to the exclusion of all other possibilities, excluded because of a rigged analysis of 150 year old data where any Temp/Co2 data from like 1850 or 1880 was simply discarded as inaccurate if it did not fit the belief.
I am not saying there is no global warming nor that it is human caused, I am saying your models, predictions, beliefs and lack of true knowledge of anything all contribute to a false belief that you know what is going on and more importantly the insane ideas that you can tax CO2 away and even if you did the total lack of evidence that taking CO2 away would have any effect.
I program statistical models for a living, I have in fact teams of people who do it with me and I know a flawed model and its data when I see one. Maybe I dont know enough to write a model for climate change but I do know a bad model when I see it.
Nice, make your point with insults that have no meaning. Hate to break the news to you but your models, your warmist theory, your predictions of doom, blaming CO2 and then pay in taxes you or money to some sort of CO2 neutral company to fix it all, THAT is the same as religion. I take no stock in religion at all and your nonsense is exactly that. You have a bible called computer models, it makes ridiculous predictions based on the most circumstantial evidence or possibly the truth but as altered by your priests to ensure there is always a predictions of doom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen taxes and permist to in effect get into climate saving heaven. Pay the government climate tax and you are saved. Or better, we warmist priests can take your money and trust us to magically come up with a way to save the planet from doom predicted in the bible, sorry model.
Perhaps before you spew out nonsense that is not even close to accurate, I am neither religious or right wing(not left wing communist either) check your own rhetoric. It is you warmists who sound like bible thumping non-thinking sheep, not me.
I can only be accused of not believing half baked unproven but possible theories.
The problem with the models would be the assumptions. The most prevalent, that the concept of a "global average temperature" has any meaning at all..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is ridiculous hogwash. No hypothesis or analysis relies on any concept of an average temperature, but there certainly IS a global average temperature at any given time, and there certainly are populations of temperatures for which statistical measures such as 'arithmetic mean' can be determined. This is just plain on the face of it.
"The fact that we measure temperature of maybe a millionth of the total atmosphere, primarily thermometers in first world countries, only at the surface and maybe a couple of points on the ocean and the belief that the less accurate measures of 100+ years ago in like 10 land locations in Europe or America has any relevance when comparing it to day."
Except we've PROVEN that this data IS relevant. If I were to measure the GPS location of your car once an hour as you drive around are you going to protest that this data is meaningless and tells me nothing about where you've been? Its again ridiculous.
"Then the rest of the data comes from ice cores and tree rings, all of which is statistical and extrapolated and untestable for accuracy."
It most certainly IS testable for accuracy. I can measure tree rings for years which I have direct measurements for and establish correlations. Likewise for other proxies.
"Finally, the total lack of considering heat sources like the sun itself, the 7 billion humans, the billions of livestock, the heat from engines, homes, factories, cook fired and buildings, all totally ignored and finally the focus on CO2 as the sole and only possible way to cause this warming to the exclusion of all other possibilities, excluded because of a rigged analysis of 150 year old data where any Temp/Co2 data from like 1850 or 1880 was simply discarded as inaccurate if it did not fit the belief."
ROFLMAO! So GCMs don't take into account the SUN???!!! What do you smoke? The heat output of ALL human activity combined in all of history doesn't equal ONE HOUR of net insolation of the Earth, it isn't accounted for because it is meaninglessly trivial. The heat added by humans and animals has to come from somewhere, sunlight via biological productivity. Humans just co-opt it from other pre-existing pathways, the net difference is zero, or negligible.
"Maybe I dont know enough to write a model for climate change but I do know a bad model when I see it."
But you CLEARLY do not understand complex dynamical systems. All models are not =.
First paragraph: What the hell are you smoking? Because I've got to get me some of that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond: It doesn't have to be violent. Education will help, so that there are fewer stupid people for the oil companies to exploit.
I only commented on climate models. Pridsseren's rant about predictions of doom, religion, and taxes is simply a straw man.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease provide me with one model that shows the climate is not warming and/or CO2 is not causing it. The only model that I know of is a faith-based gut feeling model (similar to those used by the Republicans to predict a Romney landslide). By faith I do not mean formal religous beliefs, I mean beliefs based on zero concrete evidence (i.e. non-scientific).
prid said, "global average temperature" has any meaning at all." Yes, that's why modeling is based on temperature changes (anomalies) rather than absolute temperatures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen talking about trusting "science", remember we're talking about placing reliance in tables of numbers that were not provably vouched for, that were supposedly observed only by the same people ordering that they be believed, that no records are kept of results that challenge the "conclusion", which are simply discarded as "noise". "Science" is a politically and corporately manipulated vehicle, comprising a select group of enfranchised individuals. If just anyone tries to get into that club, they are opposed, unless that person shows they're the kind of crook that'll "go along". Shills will say "science" attacks big business and fossil fuel usage. Face facts, if anything that wasn't a paid quisling had proof big business was harming the earth, they would do a lot more than "science" ever has! "Science" claims to represent the welfare of the public, but it never has! It didn't stop thalidomide, fen-phen, or any of the score of other frugs that were sold without mandatory testing periods and now have massive lawsuits pending, they never opposed the lie that there were banned weapons systems in Iraq, they never pointed out the fatal flaws in the "official story" of September 11, they never contested the lie that scraping a wall in a race "killed" Dale Earnhardt, Sr., they never pointed out the lie that O.J. Simpson was in that white bronco. "Science" pretends to oppose things like fossil fuel burning so the gullible won't take matters into their own hands and produce genuine political results! In fact, climate is changing, but it's as a result of the pumping of weather control chemicals in the air from high flying jets, what's come to be called "chemtrails". But "science" won't address the issue. The New World Order doesn't want to stop the denaturing of the atmosphere with chemtrails, so they order "science" to pursue the impotent false path of opposing fossil fuel burning, which is not guilty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything you said can be summarized in one of your sentences, "If just anyone tries to get into that club [i.e. science], they are opposed, unless that person shows they're the kind of crook that'll "go along".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis sentence says you are not a scientist and know nothing about science. Your so-called "club" makes all other conspiracy theories appear to be indisputable historical facts in comparison. There have been many scientists who have tried to disprove AGW (it would make their career); they are now mostly what you call "warmists." The last convert that I can remember is Richard Muller.
Penrod:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are truly the most entertaining poster out here.
Every time I log on, my stomach quivers in anticipation of the potential of a Julian Penrod comment.
Keep fighting the good fight, man, and please do not remove the tin-foil hat. . . or drapes. . . or roof.
Cramer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't make Penrod angry. You may not like him when he's angry. I don't know where he lives, and, not wanting to be a victim of someone perched in a clock tower, let's let the Penrod be.
Climate Change Faster Than Predicted? Really? Such a surprise. I am flabbergasted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWas it the opening of the Northwest Passage, or what was it that gave it away?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood article with lots to think about. The argument about whats causing GW needs to ended and studies like this about whats actually happening, how fast, and what if anything can be done about it, not necessarily for us, but for the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalso,
im starting to feel SA should require some form of scientific exam before allowing users to comment.
Perhaps some of you would be more comfortable at the kids table? They have sticks and glue, you can even still call pluto a planet if you want, we wont tell the grown ups.
"""im starting to feel SA should require some form of scientific exam before allowing users to comment."""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent idea. I'm getting tired of putting down denialists and creationists.
While I have little patience for the peanut gallery of denialists restricting the discussion to people you agree with (as they will certainly perceive it, and rightly IMHO) won't magically create a useful discussion. You can certainly create such a forum. I guess there are uses for it. Probably exists somewhere already. My advice is at this point just ignore the people you're never going to convince. Yes, they're going to contribute some noise, but there's always a chance they'll eventually come around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt does not HAVE to be a radical change. It is a change which we are uncertain of the impact. Do not be so quick to jump to conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPenrod Alert!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould someone please notify the penrod's caretaker and tell him/her that the penrod needs to take his/her meds.
I have, on numerous occasions, offered to sell the penrod a tinfoil hat. I make them as a hobby.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are our comments being edited?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just want the penrod back. I will browse more articles for his insight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis posts should be archived for their scientific value.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContinued due overzealous enter key use.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis comments are a fantastic resource for psychologists. A textbook example of paranoid schizophrenia.
Another fawning handwringing article from SCIAM's hopeless and hapless Alarmists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo paraphrase an earlier comment on tabloid journalism:
"Unless it fries, it dies" This is the new SCIAM mantra for eco-tabloid discussion.
Another annoying rant from an irrational troll. Please go away, Shoshin. Nobody likes you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, BobCopp (comment 3), it doesn't matter whether you live in the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere. Climate is a global phenomenon, so if it's stuffed down south you can bet that it's stuffed up north.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for data, have a look at this example from Down Under.
Catalyst Series 13 Episode 25
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/28262
There are 12 days remaining before this video expires.