More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Some people, such as Judith Curry, raise questions about the way climate policy is conducted and criticize specific aspects of climate science, but scientists--including Curry herself--broadly agree on the fundamentals: that the climate is warming, and that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity is the leading cause. Scientific American has covered aspects of this issue for 50 years, starting with an article in July 1959 ("Carbon Dioxide and Climate," by Gilbert N. Plass). We offer a selection of articles about root causes of climate shifts, possible solutions to the problem, and policy-related aspects. We hope these articles will help in continuing the discussion of this issue--perhaps the most important facing humans today.
Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense
The New Normal?: Average Global Temperatures Continue to Rise
How Much Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal-Fired Power Plants Today?
U.S., China, India and Other Nations Arrive at Nonbinding Agreement at U.N. Climate Summit
What Is the Right Number to Combat Climate Change?
Draft text of new "Copenhagen Accord"
In Deep Water: Will Essential Ocean Currents Be Altered by Climate Change? [Slide Show]
Ice Escapades: Greenland's Ice Sheet Is Speeding to the Sea
U.S. Forests Soak Up Carbon Dioxide, but for How Long?
Blowing in the Wind: Arctic Plants Move Fast as Climate Changes
Global Warming Spurs Ocean Methane Release
Weather is not climate, even as some U.S. cities near record temps
Lonely senator says Copenhagen necessary for climate action in U.S.
From our print issues (digital subscription may be required):
The Physical Science behind Climate Change; August 2007; Scientific American Magazine; by William Collins, Robert Colman, James Haywood, Martin R. Manning and Philip Mote; 10 page(s). Why climatologists are now so confident that human activity is to blame for a warming world
The Ethics of Climate Change; June 2008; Scientific American Magazine; by John Broome; 6 page(s). Weighing our own prosperity against the chances that climate change will diminish the well-being of our grandchildren calls on economists to make hard ethical judgments
Abrupt Climate Change; November 2004; Scientific American Magazine; by Richard B. Alley; 8 page(s). Winter temperatures plummeting six degrees Celsius and sudden droughts scorching farmland around the globe are not just the stuff of scary movies. Such striking climate jumps have happened before--sometimes within a matter of years
The Coming Climate; May 1997; Scientific American Magazine; by Karl, Nicholls, Gregory; 6 page(s). Meteorological records and computer models permit insights into some of the broad weather patterns of a warmer world
Defusing the Global Warming Time Bomb; March 2004; Scientific American Magazine; by James Hansen; 10 page(s). Global warming is real, and the consequences are potentially disastrous. Nevertheless, practical actions, which would also yield a cleaner, healthier atmosphere, could slow, and eventually stop, the process
The Human Impact on Climate; December 1999; Scientific American Magazine; by Karl, Trenberth; 6 page(s). How much of a disruption do we cause? The much-awaited answer could be ours by 2050, but only if nations of the world commit to long-term monitoring now
Climate in Flux/Warming to Climate Change; Weather; Scientific American Presents; by Brown; 6 page(s). Global warming is upon us, scientists say - and some communities are ready to react. Together researchers and local leaders are planning for hot, wet - or just plain bizarre - weather to come
Greenland Ice Cores: Frozen in Time; February 1998; Scientific American Magazine; by Alley, Bender; 6 page(s). Ice, frozen in place for tens of thousands of years, provides scientists with clues to past-and future-climate
Beyond the Tipping Point; September 2008; Scientific American Earth 3.0; by Michael D. Lemonick; 8 page(s). The world¿s most outspoken climatologist argues that today¿s carbon dioxide levels are already dangerously too high. What can we do if he is right?
Is Global Warming Harmful to Health?; August 2000; Scientific American Magazine; by Paul R. Epstein; 8 page(s). Computer models indicate that many diseases will surge as the earth's atmosphere heats up. Signs of the predicted troubles have begun to appear
Meltdown in the North; October 2003; Scientific American Magazine; by Matthew Sturm, Donald K. Perovich and Mark C. Serreze; 8 page(s). Sea ice and glaciers are melting, permafrost is thawing, tundra is yielding to shrubs - and scientists are struggling to understand how these changes will affect not just the Arctic but the entire planet
Spring Forward; January 2004; Scientific American Magazine; by Daniel Grossman; 8 page(s). As temperatures rise sooner in spring, interdependent species in many ecosystems are shifting dangerously out of sync
Sulfate Aerosol and Climatic Change; February 1994; Scientific American Magazine; by Charlson, Wigley; 8 page(s). Industrial emissions of sulfur form particles that may be reflecting solar radiation back into space, thereby masking the greenhouse effect over some parts of the earth
Living on a New Earth; Boundaries for a Healthy Planet; Solutions to Environmental Threats; April 2010; Scientific American Magazine; by The Editors; Jonathan Foley; Gretchen C. Daily; Robert Howarth; David A. Vaccari; Adele C. Morris; Eric F. Lambin; Scott C. Doney; Peter H. Gleick; David W. Fahey; 8 page(s). Humankind has fundamentally altered the planet. But new thinking and new actions can prevent us from destroying ourselves; Scientists have set thresholds for key environmental processes that, if crossed, could threaten Earth's habitability. Ominously, three have already been exceeded; Experts tell Scientific American which actions will keep key processes in bounds
Underground Records of Changing Climate; June 1993; Scientific American Magazine; by Henry N. Pollack and David S. Chapman; 7 page(s). Boreholes drilled into continental rock can recover fossil temperatures that reveal the climate of past eras. The results require careful interpretation
Capturing Greenhouse Gases; February 2000; Scientific American Magazine; by Herzog, Eliasson, Kaarstad, sidebars by Martindale and Keith, Parson; 8 page(s). Sequestering carbon dioxide underground or in the deep ocean could help alleviate concerns about climate change
Chaotic Climate; November 1995; Scientific American Magazine; by Broecker; 7 page(s). Global temperatures have been known to change substantially in only a decade or two. Could another jump be in the offng?
Climate Change: A Controlled Experiment; March 2010; Scientific American Magazine; by Stan D. Wullschleger and Maya Strahl; 6 page(s). Scientists have carefully manipulated grasslands and forests to see how precipitation, carbon dioxide and temperature changes affect the biosphere, allowing them to forecast the future
Arctic Plants Feel the Heat; May 2010; Scientific American Magazine; by Matthew Sturm; 8 page(s). Global warming is dramatically revamping not only the ice but also tundra and forests at the top of the world, greening some parts and browning others. The alterations could exacerbate climate change
Making Carbon Markets Work; December 2007; Scientific American Magazine; by David G. Victor and Danny Cullenward; 8 page(s). Limiting climate change without damaging the world economy depends on stronger and smarter market signals to regulate carbon dioxide
Warmer Oceans, Stronger Hurricanes; July 2007; Scientific American Magazine; by Kevin E. Trenberth; 8 page(s). Evidence is mounting that global warming enhances a cyclone's damaging winds and flooding rains
Misleading Math about the Earth; January 2002; Scientific American Magazine; by Stephen Schneider, John P. Holdren, John Bongaarts and Thomas Lovejoy. Introduction by John Rennie; 11 page(s). Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist
How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?; March 2005; Scientific American Magazine; by William F. Ruddiman; 8 page(s). A bold new hypothesis suggests that our ancestors' farming practices kicked off global warming thousands of years before we started burning coal and driving cars
A Sunshade for Planet Earth; November 2008; Scientific American Magazine; by Robert Kunzig; 10 page(s). Global warming has become such an overriding emergency that some climate experts are willing to consider schemes for partly shielding the planet from the sun¿s rays. But no such scheme is a magic bullet
Methane, Plants and Climate Change; February 2007; Scientific American Magazine; by Frank Keppler and Thomas R¿ckmann; 6 page(s). The surprising discovery that living plants produce a potent greenhouse gas poses new questions for managing global warming
Methane: A Menace Surfaces; December 2009; Scientific American Magazine; by Katey Walter Anthony; 8 page(s). Arctic permafrost is already thawing, creating lakes that emit methane. The heat-trapping gas could dramatically accelerate global warming. How big is the threat? What can be done?
The Rising Seas; The Oceans; Scientific American Presents; by Schneider; 8 page(s). Although some voice concern that global warming will lead to a meltdown of polar ice, flooding coastlines everywhere, the true threat remains difficult to gauge
The Unquiet Ice; February 2008; Scientific American Magazine; by Robin E. Bell; 8 page(s). Abundant liquid water discovered underneath the great polar ice sheets could catastrophically intensify the effects of global warming on the rise of sea level around the world
The Rising Seas; March 1997; Scientific American Magazine; by Schneider; 6 page(s). Although some voice concern that global warming will lead to a meltdown of polar ice, flooding coastlines everywhere, the true threat remais difficult to gauge
Threatening Ocean Life from the Inside Out; August 2010; Scientific American Magazine; by Marah J. Hardt and Carl Safina; 8 page(s). Carbon dioxide emissions are making the oceans more acidic, imperiling the growth and reproduction of species from plankton to squid
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentScientific American continues to support the concept that human caused CO2 is the number 1 issue on the planet, and that America must immediately, and at great cost; implement measures to reduce the output of CO2 in order to save the planet from a terrible temperature rise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of us who have studied the issue do not believe that human caused CO2 is the polluter that others state, do not think a warmer planet is necessarily bad, and do not think that carbon capture is a good idea at all. In fact, what the United States does will have a relatively minor role in the long term levels CO2 on planet earth.
It is absurd that humans cause climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo warm you have to add energy. Adding CO2 and Water Vapor feedback does NOT add energy.
The Greenhouse Effect is limited by the number of energy photons available. Once they are all in use then you can't get anymore GHE unless you add more energy. All you get is more excess CO2 or water vapor.
WHen the ground temperature generates the IR photons for the GHE it generates about the same number of 15um CO2 absorbable photons as 20um WV absorbable phootns, SO when all the photons are absorbed there are nome left over for all the excess Water Vapor to absorb. Ther is 2-4% or 40,000ppm of water vapor in teh air, & only 390ppm of CO2. That leaves 39610ppm of unused water vapor. THe IPCC & climate scientists claim that more CO2 generates more heat which generates more water vapor feedback. BUT why would mother nature wait for man to gnerate CO2's water vapor instead of just directly using the water vapor available in the air. The answer is that the climate scientists are defrauding you.
WHen you add extra WV or CO2 it just becomes MORE excess in the air. It doesn't cause warming.
ALl this so called science in Scientific American is a LIE. They can't even do the physics properly.
I didn't realize that this column was only about pro-AGW hysteria and propaganda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought it was something serious for a minute. Fooled again by the SCAM editors.
Scientific Amer must be crapping themselves, how much GW advertising will they loose, balanced with new readership. I guess they see that the GW billions will/are start drying up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile you are thinking about an article on the suppression of cheap electricity, how about another article on the starvation and deprivation caused by the US subsidies and policy encouraging the production of alcohol from corn sugar. Even if one buys into the CO2 theme, no CO2 emissions are being 'saved' by converting food to alcohol, and millions of people are being harmed by higher food prices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou could do a similar article on the people in Europe who now must pay much more for electricity due to subsidies for worthless windmills. Some of them have a difficulties keeping warm and buying food because their utility bills are larger now. All so a few well connected companies can build and operate windmills that again have never had even the slightest chance of affecting the climate but make lots of money for the well connected. Could the net power put into the grid by windmills, and the cost of same, and the amount of backup generating equipment required for each wind mill, be the subject of a Sci Am article?
A recent statement in Popular Mechanics (I believe) said the earth was 4-5degrees warmer 100,000 years ago, was there a industrial revolution back then we don't know about. If there was an ice age and then the earth warmed up again, doesn't that suggest that the climate changes in mega year cycles and looking at climate over the course of a couple 100 years is like judging evolution by looking at fruit flies. Look, all I am saying is the gold standard in science is a double blind study, unless we can find an earth in orbit on the other side of the sun that is exactly the same and has different levels of CO2, it is all a theory. You can never, ever, ever prove what we are seeing (or being told we are seeing) is due to CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWRT money spent by who, studies show a few million by right wing group to support the non believer side where as over $100 billion has been spent on the warmest side. Big oil doesnt really care because they will sell their product, if not in US somewhere else at the world price, GE loves it because they will sell more windmills, Goldman Sacs love it becuase they will sell Carbon Credits. The money to support GW bill in Cal is coming from the likes of George Soro's, very well politically connected, his daughter hosted C.Clintons wedding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe big loser, 95% of the population who can not afford large increases in energy costs.
Big winners, the likes of Al Gore, already made $200+million off it, do you see him conserving? Why not if he believes.
Thanks, Scientific American for providing this important information. I'd like to see more of the same, including older articles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlah, blah, blah. Ten deniers and only 1 makes an attempt to understand the science, and he, JDoddsGW, gets it completely wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJDoddsGW, the energy isn't coming from CO2; it's coming from the sun. The extra CO2 just inhibits its escape to space a little longer. Tell me this, when a photon is absorbed by a molecule, what happens next? Does it stay in the earth system forever, or is it eventually radiated off into space?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe overwhelming paleoclimate evidence from around the globe is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today.
However, the MWP deniers, such as the IPCC, US EPA and the UK’s MET Office, will never admit the existence of the MWP because it means that their religious-like belief in AGW is exposed for the steaming pile of junk science that it truly is.
In total, climate change is complex and not well understood.
But this part is simple.
Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's temperature regulator. There must be other factors.
In the past, the Earth was warmer than it is today; before the social and industrial advances that have made modern people the healthiest and most prosperous in history. MWP deniers want us to believe that plant friendly and life giving CO2 is a bad thing to better advance their meglomanical desire to both boss around the developed world and further impoverish the poor while pocketing a lot of taxpayer money along the way.
Useless, misguided attempts to control carbon are not the answer to the ever changing climate.There is only one answer to changes in climate that has ever worked for humanity.
That is adaptation.
One of the many links to the overwhelming Paleoclimate evidence of the global nature of the MWP is below.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
More information
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
@Robertschmidt- LOL-- since you have frequently been shown to have little valid information (as you again show here) why don't you go pray to the alter of CO2 is bad and ignore any facts and continue to write stupid meaningless insults.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOrkneygal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 is not the only factor affecting climate; it just happens to be the only factor that has been changing in recent decades. The medieval warm period, global and synchronous or not, means nothing. What you are saying is like saying because Sirhan Sirhan was not around when Oetzi was killed, means that he must not have been the one to kill Ghandi.
Ach, that would be Kennedy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat do we know about climate change:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The earth does show evidence of warming- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
2. There is a likely relationship between increased human released CO2 in the atmosphere and the increased temperatures on planet earth, but there are also other potential causes that are not fully understood. CO2 in earth's atmosphere has risen by between 16% an 18% in the last 50 years. This is an undisputed fact based upon two different sets of measurements. (that are even pretty close)
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/flask_co2_and_isotopic/monthly_co2/monthly_mlf.csv
http://co2now.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=1
The data used in the 2007 IPCC report which stated "Since the Industrial Revolution, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen about 36 percent (IPCC 2007), principally due to the combustion of fossil fuels." overstated the rise and assigned a cause which the evidence does not support. Better information shows that the ice core data used for that estimate understated pre-industrial revolution CO2 by 25 ppm. The actual percentage CO2 growth since the industrial revolution is much closer to 18 to 20%. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=soils-emit-carbon-dioxide I quote from that article- "The researchers found that soil respiration had increased by about 0.1 percent per year between 1989 and 2008, the span when soil measurement techniques had become standardized. In 2008, the global total reached roughly 98 billion tons, about 10 times more carbon than humans are now putting into the atmosphere each year."
3. There is no reliable evidence that a warmer earth is bad for humanity overall
4. If human released CO2 were completely eliminated (which is not possible) it is unknown what the effect would be on the climate
5. Increases in worldwide CO2 emissions over the next 50 years will not come from the United States but will come from countries that are currently highly populated, but do not have electricity or automobiles widely
6. A cap and trade approach to lower CO2 emissions in the United States is a terrible approach as it will not effect climate, but would harm the US taxpayer.
Chris G-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour comment Sirhan is inane, factually incorrect, a logical fallacy and reflective of the lack of any scientific, empirical data to back your claims.
Orkneygal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn what way?
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. OK
2. You should be aware that your first two links to support your lower estimate of the increase in CO2 use a starting point of 1958, and the industrial revolution started, oh, let's say in the neighborhood of 1850. That's 18% in the last 50 years versus 36% over ~150 years. Sorry, what was your point?
You should also note that your last link states, "...match predictions that increasing temperatures will cause a net release of carbon dioxide from soils by triggering microbes to speed up their consumption of plant debris and other organic matter."
This is more of a feedback than a root cause.
Also, check your math related to your SciAm link.
Total output by soils: 98 billion tons
Annual output by humans: (div 10) ~9.8 billion tons
Increased output by soils: (98 x 0.001) 0.098 billion tons
Again, what was your point?
3. Really? So, you are prepared to make the claim that climate zones shifting poleward will have no negative effect on our agricultural production?
4. Yeah, so? The only really sure thing that can be known is that the disruptions to climate will not be as large as if we continue BAU.
5. That's a fine bit of prognosticating. How does it relate to anything you've said otherwise? Sounds like you are saying that the warming, which might not be caused by our CO2 emissions, is good for us, and in the future, it will be someone else's fault anyway, because of their CO2 emissions.
6. Who here is arguing for cap-and-trade?
Personally, I think a tax-and-dividend scheme would stand a better chance of achieving reductions. The taxes are returned to the taxpayer, and it forces an internalization of the externalized costs that fossils fuels have enjoyed to date.
Chris- My point regarding CO2 is that it is more complex than generally thought. You are correct that CO2 release from soils is a secondary effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOverall, a shift to a warmer climate will benefit many areas, while harming others. The net effect is probably beneficial to humanity overall in the long term.
People at this site and Scientific American often state (or at least imply) that America must cut it CO2 emissions "or the world's temperature will rise and flood all the coastal cities in the next 10 years". The point is that what America does to reduce CO2 output will actually have almost a very minor impact on total atmospheric CO2 levels.
I believe that Scientific American is a significant proponent of a cap and trade policy in the USA. I believe that would be a misguided policy.
Orkneygal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI spent a little time over at the CO2 Science link and I noticed a couple of things.
They have selected just 3 of the large volume of temperature proxy studies in their
"Level 1 Studies
Studies that allow a quantitative comparison ..."
If you get on Google Scholar and search for 'proxy temperature', just articles, you get, IDK, pages and pages of them.
One of the three they have selected to make their case says exactly the opposite of what they are trying to say: "..."a period of extended warmth between AD 1100 and 1400," which clearly represents the Medieval Warm Period. And the peak LST of this period was 1.4°C _cooler_ than the peak LST at the end of the 20th century."
Of the other two papers, by the same main authors, at the same geographic location, one of them indicates that the MWP ran from about 800-1100 AD, and the other indicates that it was from 1000-1300 AD.
Let's say your evidence is not only immaterial, but a bit underwhelming at that.
The CO2 site reveals only some of the paleoclimate studies about past warmings, not all of them. Of course a google search might lead to more results that found at co2science. The site owners are continuously adding to the library of compelling peer-reviewed evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Medieval Warm Period was global in scope, synchronous in time and generally warmer than today. However, it has not been proven to be homogeneously warmer.
Since paleoclimate studies are generally isolated to a specific geographic area, any particular study might yield a result that is non-homogeneous to the overall results. Cherry picking an individual example of that is, as you have proven, possible.
But, even the paper that you refer to shows that the Medieval Warm period existed, doesn't it.
Rahmstorf/Schellnhuber Confirm No Anthropogenic Climate Change-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this......Easy to recognize, at least using the studies done by Rahmstorf, we are living in a comparably cold time today. During the MWP 1000 years ago, when the vikings were farming Greenland, it was 1°C warmer than today. During the Roman Optimum 2000 years ago, when Hannibal crossed the Alps with his elephants in the wintertime, it was even 2°C warmer than today. And during the Holocene climate optimum 3500 years ago it was about 3°C warmer than today. Since about 3200 years ago, there has been a cooling of about 2°C.
Multiple studies confirm that the warming was not a regional phenomena..........
In a paper published in 2003, using their own studies, the authors concluded there had been no global warming over the last decades. (J.F. Eichner, E. Koscielny-Bunde, A. Bunde, S. Havlin, and H.-J. Schellnhuber: Power-law persistence and trends in the atmosphere, a detailed study of long temperature records, Phys. Rev. E 68 2003),
The temperature records of 95 stations distributed over the globe were studied. In the paper’s summary discussion, Schellnhuber and his colleagues wrote:
“In the vast majority of stations we did not see indications for a global warming of the atmosphere.”
and
Most of the continental stations where we observed significant trends are large cities where probably the fast urban growth in the last century gave rise to temperature increases.
And la pièce de resistance!
“The fact that we found it difficult to discern warming trends at many stations that are not located in rapidly developing urban areas may indicate that the actual increase in global temperature caused by anthropogenic perturbation is less pronounced than estimated in the last IPCC Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change.”
Commentary
http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/25/rahmstorfschellnhuber-confirm-no-anthropogenic-climate-change/
Original, German Document-
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_abrupteklimawechsel_2004.pdf
So, in other words, there are hundreds of papers to choose from, they have cherry-picked a handful, and even those don't support their case very well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can you say, "synchronous in time", when the first three studies, cherry-picked by the site you reference, show intervals for the MWP of
800-1100
1000-1300
1100-1400
?
Does that look synchronous to you?
Whatever, it doesn't matter. It is a logical fallacy to say that past warming periods were not caused by anthropogenic CO2; therefore, warming today is not caused by anthropogenic CO2. I'm not sure why you don't get that.
Rahmstorf, whatever. He picks 95 out of about 18,000 thermometers around the globe and concludes there is no warming. Does he explain away the trend observed through satellite data or ocean thermal content?
Here, pick a data set
http://woodfortrees.org/
Climate Optimum?
You mean this climate optimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
If you really want to talk about abrupt changes in the past, the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is much more interesting.
BTW, I wouldn't get too attached to any one study; as you can see, there is a lot of variance between papers.
"Notice How They Never Directly Compare Temperature With Human Emissions of CO2?.........
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this....The current global warming trend started before 1700, yet human CO2 emissions were negligible before 1850. So the theory that humans started the recent global warming is absurd and obviously wrong.
Have you ever seen a graph of human CO2 emissions versus temperature (the alleged cause and effect) anywhere in the media or from the climate establishment? Why not?
Why do the climate establishment and mainstream media instead show us graphs of atmospheric CO2 levels versus temperature? Isn’t this misdirection to disguise the almost complete non-correlation between our emissions and the temperature?....."
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-5-co2-emissions-versus-temperature/#more-10989
CO2science tends to only select papers that include the Medieval Warm Period that have sufficient resolution, such as decadal, to illustrate that period. There are paleoclimate reconstructions that go back millions and tens of millions of years. Since the period of interest is the MWP, excluding proxy studies that do not include that period with sufficient resolution is hardly "cherry picking".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes the date ranges you have provided do look synchronous to me. All there reports include the year 1100 with "error bars" surrounding that date. That is one way that proper statistical method, applied to paleoclimate reconstructions work.
I notice you have chosen wikipedia as a link to make a point. Are you aware of the recent events surrounding the editing of wikipedia climate related material and the punishment action taken by wikipedia against one of their most prolific, propogandist editors of climate related subjects?
For many things, such as dates, time lines and basic maths, history and science, wikipedia is a reasonable source. However, by wikipedia's own findings, it is not useful for any authoritative information about climate science.
Ever notice how they change the subject when you pin them down on details?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, it's not hard.
CO2 Levels
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
Temperature (As I mentioned before, pick a data set, any data set.)
Well, here, let's just take a composite of all of them.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:12/plot/wti/trend
Can you not see an increase in both?
I suppose you will say, "But the increase is not smooth!"
And I will say, "So what?"
When has anyone ever claimed that only CO2 affects temperature?
Or, you might say, "Correlation is not causation!"
And I'll say, "Duh."
However, we know that the CO2 absorbs radiation in the fat part of the spectrum that the earth emits. First year thermodynamics (or perhaps common sense) is enough to tell you that if the rate of energy input stays the same, and the rate of energy lost goes down, the temperature goes up until Stefan-Boltzmann forces a new equilibrium. We have a known cause and we have an observed effect; it's not that hard to put 2 and 2 together.
"I notice you have chosen wikipedia as a link to make a point. ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuh. I suppose you aren't aware that there are references at the bottom of these links that can be checked.
I give you links to multiple references, and you tell me that 800-1100 is synchronous with 1100-1400, and put up links to sites that outright say that they are looking for evidence in favor of their position. (As in, they aren't interested in any countering information.) Just me, but that doesn't sound like good scientific methodology.
So, let's look at CO2 Science some more. You claim they are not cherry picking the studies they use. Let's test that with a simple search
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=medieval+proxy+temperature&as_sdt=2001&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
Just reading the first five abstracts,
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature03265.html
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/aprilc/data/my%20stuff/MBH1999.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;274/5292/1503
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full
One of them agrees that, at least in the Sargasso Sea, temperatures might have been higher then than today. The other four do not. Statistically, that isn't randomized, nor is it large enough to have any confidence that it is representative of the collection. However, it is some indication that CO2 Science site is biased in the papers they use. Also, it's not that hard to find papers covering the MWP.
OK, below is my google search. 1410 hits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=paleoclimate+reconstruction&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=medieval+warm+period&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1&as_subj=bio&as_subj=phy&as_subj=chm&as_subj=eng&as_sdts=5&hl=en&as_vis=1
As I typed above, the co2science site continues to add papers as the site owners see fit and as new papers come to their attention. The number of papers on the site seems to be a far representation of the information available, especially since some of the papers presented are actually written by AGW alarmists, and given the fact that all are in English.
It would be best if interested individuals examine the material at the site rather than to rely what others, including myself, type about it. That way they can make up their own mind.
After all, the title of this article is "Want to learn more about climate change?" To do that you have to read.
Here is the link again.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
I just took a Shell sponsored multiple choice poll on this site about how energy companies can help alternative energy startups. It had a box for "other", and said to comment in the space provided, but there was no space provided. Like the Complaint Department turns out to be the back door, leading to the alley.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's my comment in the "Other" box:
Energy companies should quit financing denier studies and propaganda, and maintain energy dominance by using their money and influence for R&D to jump out in front of the pack , instead of trying to maintain the status quo. The free market works on innovation at all levels, not paranoia at the top.
Why are all the climate change articles in Scientific American biased towards human-caused warming? I think the problem is exactly like at Wikipedia where biased editors introduced bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the real fact is that CO2 is incredibly transparent to photons, and so CO2 is used in microwave wave-guides. CO2 only stops two types of photons. And only the 15-micron photons need be considered because water vapor totally stops the other type.
CO2 stops 15-micron photons totally already. This means CO2 increases in the atmosphere cannot change climate.
Climate change articles in S.A. do not discuss the 15-micron facts at all, and so they are all wrong. Wake-up S.A. and print some facts instead of propaganda! Otherwise, taxpayers will continue to waste their money.