What scientists know for sure about global climate change [video]
Tags: Desmogger, Emily Murgatroyd, global climate change, global warming climate change, heidi cullen, Multimedia, Science
Heidi Cullen, climate expert and correspondent for The Weather Channel and formerly a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado explains why scientists are so sure that our burning of oil, coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels is causing a disruption in the earth's climate systems.
The video is part of recently launched climate change science communications project called Climate Central.
Charlesh
You are absolutely correct.
But you have missed one big point.
AGW is not about climate or fixing anything.
It is about changing society.
The Green left is not at all interested in technological solutions.
They have clearly and candidly stated exaclty that.
They want social change.
The want to control everything you think do and say.
Just read the thread above. It will become obvious.
The Catholic Church tried to gain such control in the dark ages.
They evne invented the Carbon offset scam. It was called Papal Indulgence. Look it up. The similarity is uncanny.
coal or ?
It seems to me that if one really believes co2 is harmful then more nuclear is the realistic alternative. Nations are not going to give up low cost 24/7 energy.
thorium is the green nuclear http://www.energyfromthorium.com/
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/forbes/2008/0811/094.html
"A number of influential people in Russia, China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam say the planet is now entering a 30-year cooling period, the second half of a normal cycle driven by cyclical changes in the sun's output and currents in the Pacific Ocean. Their theory leaves true believers in carbon catastrophe livid.
To judge by actions, not words, the carbon-warming view hasn't come close to persuading a political majority even in nations considered far more environmentally enlightened than China and India. Europe's coal consumption is rising, not falling, and the Continent won't come close to meeting the Kyoto targets for carbon reduction. Australia is selling coal to all comers."
Isn't it interesting
Desmog exists to discredit and defame honest scientists that disagree with the religions dogma of AGW.
They smear anyone and everyone that has an opposing point of view even though skepticism is the essence of the scientific method.
I believe I have adequately illustrated the brazen hypocrisy of the local cult with this thread.
The sorrowful complaint that I would have the nerve to question the credentials of Poor little Attractive Well educated Hiedi is I think telling enough.
For anyone that really values science and truth, look back over the above thread and judge for yourselves.
Does this not seem completely hypocritical?
Can you see the religious fervor?
I was called a lier, a fool, uneducated, and was ridiculed simply because I presented (quite clear and obvious) counter opinions.
Anyone find it interesting?
Read, learn and don't accept the word of people with somthing to protect.
Gary, who's paying you ...
.. to lurk around here spreading this rubbish?
I agree that the name-calling has got a little over-the-top and I'd appreciate it if the folks would scale it down a little. Think of the old rule for criticizing a judge: you can say that his judgment was idiotic, but you can't say that's he's an idiot. In the case at hand, you can say that Gary is peddling outrageous whoppers (better yet to point them out and provide supporting links), but unless you're going to do a big post capturing a whole host if inaccuracies cannot be explained by stupidity or incompetence alone, it's not appropriate to call him a "lier."
But back to my question: Gary, you spend more time on this site than the people who work here, which suggests to me that this is more than a hobby. Care to comment?
Hi Richard
Very sensible suggestion on the civility. Since my responses are generally equal in tone to the attacks I receive.
Although I almost never call names.
Why do I bother here?
I wish I were paid.....:)
Its fun.
I research what I post even if I don't link it.
I don't just assume that any scientist that disagrees is dishonest or inpompetent.
They all have valuable input and to simply dismiss them is more religeous fervor than Science. And we can always dig up dirt on anybody on either side... Don't get me started on Mann and Hansen.
I just think there should always be a skeptical voice on important topics.
I am honestly convinced by the good counter science that GW was (or perhaps is) natural.
I really object to Society being tricked into a Trillion dollar overhaul for a greenie agenda mistake.
The public deserves ALL the facts when deciding on policy not just the AGW approved ones.
Besides, a day is not complete without Ian or Frank or VJ calling me some name.
Cheers Richard. (I would never admit it but I do respect your posts)
"I research what I post ...
... even though I don't link it."
Live it up. Give us the links. If you can actually provide factual backup for even part of what you are saying, heck, the abuse could fall of dramatically.
Actually
It won't.
All links that don't support AGW are simply called False, a lie, written by a hack, the author drove a car once.....
No checking, no reading, no intelligent rebuttal, just trash talk in a feeble attempt to divert others from reading them.
Therefore, I have most often preferred that people look up their own source since they are so easy to find. That way they can't just claim that mine is heresy and declare it false without reading it.
And no I don’t accept RealClimate opinions as credible.
You're refusing to provide links?
Wow. You should hold that white flag up a little higher so more people can see it.
You really don't understand
You really don't understand how science is published, or any academic work for that matter, do you?
People cite their sources so that other people can evaluate those sources. If the source is no good, any argument based on information from that source is also no good. If you choose bad sources, you will have bad information and will not be able to understand what is really happening.
The problem is that Gary
The problem is that Gary spouts any old nonsense, expecting other people to do a lot of work to prove him wrong This is a waste of time for those of us who are not being paid to post here. By the time a cogent reply can be composed, the discussion has moved on.
I don't call people liars unless I believe they are deliberately telling lies. Gary and other trolls here display a consistent dishonesty and a complete lack of intellectual integrity. I won't waste my time on writing detailed explanations which they will ignore anyway.
You have the problem common to forums of how to deal with trolls. Basically you can let them rampage freely and destroy all chance of having a useful discussion; or you can moderate the posts, which is what you are doing now in a limited way; or you can establish and enforce rules for banning posters, such as any who commit smears, make substantive claims without backing them up, or attack other posters. For instance, Zog especially should be banned for his many gratuitous attacks on Ian Forrester; Gary, Rob, Zog et al should be banned for their smears, etc.
Atta Boy VJ
CENSORSHIP. Thats the answer to making sure the propoganda is never challenged.
You learn that in China?
If you were to open your mind for even a day, some real knowledge might seep in.
You would then realize that the world is unfolding as it should and the GW is completely natural.
And over BTW.
You were called a liar, a fool, uneducated because you are
A quick read of your posts on this and other threads and it is easily seen that you are "a lier (sic), a fool, uneducated, and was ridiculed" exactly because you are a liar, a fool and uneducated. You are ridiculed because you do not have a clue as to what AGW is all about. You do not read real science papers, you do not cite sources but just waste our time by having to point out your hypocrisy.
Ian Forrester
Ian
Have you actually been ordained in the cult now?
You seem to be just another brain washed completely faithful unquestioning zombie.
Where is the intellegent Ian that used to post here.
You are now so completely taken in by the scam you can't even see the incredibly ovbious any more.
Too much cool aid?
Read Ian. You to can be deprogrammed.
Although it will take longer for you and VJ.
Science is what it is about
Gary you know nothing about science, the scientific method or scientists. Why do you profess to know so much about climate science based on these observations?
You have got things completely backwards, the AGW deniers are the ones who have been taken in by the scam of AGW denying. Science is based on reproducibly obtained facts and data. You people can produce no data that supports your position at all and yet you call the scientists and those who understand the science of AGW "cultists."
Please consult a dictionary and find out what a cult is, you will find that it includes AGW deniers, intelligent design proponents, creationists, HIV/AIDS deniers etc.
The more you post your junk the more you expose those whom you support as cranks and idiots.
Ian Forrester
Funny that you would mention intelligent design
Since AGW and intelligent design are so very similar in nature.
Both begin with the conclusion and cherry pick the supporting facts.
Both defend the doctrine with religeous fervor.
Both consider any descent to be heracy and utterly idiodic.
Both are absolutely closed minded.
Freudian slip?
Fern
You are correct on one count. You won't change my mind with this load of cult agenda drivel.
However I am well able to distinguish Religious fanatical dogma when I see it and Hiedi is the absolute epitome of agenda driven eco nutbars.
She outdoes James Hansen and his 20 meter sea level rise fable.
Quite possibly
this is the most useless series of posts I have ever seen on DeSmog. Troll-baiting is never very productive, but this is ridiculous. Nobody is going to change Gary's mind, folks. He can't distinguish between credible sources and hacks, and doesn't recognize a dead horse when he sees it. He will continue to cling to the belief that somebody is trying to put one over on him. His recent "AGW is in its death throes" approach is based on the same old debunked claims that have been addressed over and over and over . . . Sad, isn't it?
Fern Mackenzie
So, Fern, now you're calling
So, Fern, now you're calling Spencer a hack? Holy s--t!
Or perhaps I've misunderstood your post. Please tell me that's the case.
Sorry, Zog,
but I can't take seriously anyone who believes that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. (Faith-Based Evolution, Roy Spencer, TCS Daily, 08 August 2005). In my opinion, that casts doubt on anything he says re: science of any kind.
Fern Mackenzie
Anyone that believes in the
Anyone that believes in the scientific method must allow for all possibilities that have not been proven false.
I don't subscribe to intelligent design either, or creation, but until there is proof one way or another, none can be absolutely denied.
That said, it is a pretty weak criteria for dismissing the credibility of a scientist on a completely disconnected area of study.
One is physical science and the other is theology.
Using that criteria I imaging we could eliminate most of the people involved in the climate debate.
I had thought you were above such shallow thought Fern.
I really respected you opinion.
Sorry.
I have done considerable
I have done considerable reading on the subject of so-called "Intelligent Design," and have drawn my own conclusions as to its status as a theory, ie: without basis in any plausible scientific evidence. Anyone who claims to be a scientist and doesn't dismiss it out of hand casts doubt on his/her adherence to the scientific method in any area of study. This is not shallow. It is a basic principle of vetting someone's credibility. In my own field of study, if I discover that someone has been sloppy in citing sources or overlooking significant evidence, a flag goes up & I double-check everything when consulting that person's research.
If you have trouble with that, that's your problem. I won't lose any sleep for having lost your respect on this. It's one of the reasons that I have a reputation for being thorough.
Fern Mackenzie
Fern
By your standards, anyone that believes in a God is incompetent.
The would include Einstein, Davinci, Tesla, .......
Pretty much all notable scientists. Physical science and theology are two separate issues.
Although AGW does closely resemble the Creation science movement, it is not the same.
I don’t think you can defend this one Fern.
No, not incompetent
But yes, certain beliefs are at odds with science and I consider that to be a valid filter when deciding who I will take seriously on empirical matters. It happens that I am an atheist. I don't classify faith in others as a mass delusion, as does Richard Dawkins, but it is something that affects one's approach in a broader sense. I don't really feel I need to "defend this one," Gary. It's pretty basic. As I said, I won't lose any sleep.
Fern Mackenzie
I'll repeat my advice for Gary
..."it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."
Too late.
Too late.
A Hat Trick
VJ has bestowed a Hat trick on me.
I am honored.
you are amusing.
Brian
Both of your statements are correct.
And irrelevant.
If you were to read any of the posted papers/articles you would know that CO2s ability to cause warming is maxed out.
Do a little homework on the logarithmic decrease in climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration.
It will no doubt astound you.
Gary's error
You seem to have confused "climate sensitivity" and "radiative forcing". The former is a constant, the latter varies logarithmically with CO2 concentration.
And just to make sure you've done your homework, what happens to the overall forcing (a logarithmic curve over concentration, as you noted) with exponentially increasing CO2 concentrations over time? Does it increase, decrease, stay the same?
Brian: You ask: what happens
Brian:
You ask:
what happens to the overall forcing with exponentially increasing CO2 concentrations over time?
Dumb question since CO2 concentration is increasing at a moderate linear pace.
However, lets play make believe anyway.
If the CO2 increased at an exponential pace, temperatures would increase at a decreasing pace to a maximum level when it forcing ability was saturated.
This point is not much above current values so the amount of increase would be neglegable.
There would come a point when the concentration would become toxic. At something over 5000ppm according to the international standard for air quality in mines.
All academic however since it isn’t and won’t.
Have you read the latest studies on CO2 out gassing in the Atlantic caused by PDO cyclic shifts?
Probably not since it would not fit you preconceived conclusion that all of our problems are caused by Cars and evil consumption.
a little correction
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration.
Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible.
OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (Source)
Exactly
I did say "somthing above 5000."
Good post though. It sheds some raality on the issue.
I have seen many posts over time that claimed that CO2 was a toxic polutant that was going to choke us all to death very soon if we don't get those taxes in place.
It will have to wait
I can only do this for a minute or two at a time while at work. No time to research or review.
I will try to get to it later however.
Stay tuned.
As the world turns and cools....
these are the days of our lives.
And yet...
He can only do this for a minute at a time, and can't find time to write out a simple yes/no answer to a high-school math problem, but has the time to write up a simple excuse several times as long.
For anyone making mathematical arguments and asking others to "Do a little homework" based on those, this should LITERALLY have been as quick to answer as "what happens when I multiply X by Y and then divide the result by Y?". (The analogy is more apt than you think; logarithms are defined* as the inverse of exponentials). Because, you know, such condescension implies that he's 'done a little homework'.
One has to wonder if his lack of basic math skills has bled into his claimed understanding of how radiative forcing (or was that climate sensitivity? What was the difference again, Gary?) responds to CO2 concentration.
The suspense is killing me!
The suspense is killing me!
Isotopes, anyone?
So, Gary, why change the subject? Do we know that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 (an understanding brought about by isotopic differences), or don't we? Is CO2 a greenhouse gas, or isn't it?
Just curious
Is the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction anywhere near never never land?
or OZ perhaps.
And finally the ever popular
NASA Discovers 70% Of Global Climate Due To Pacific Ocean Oscillations - Not CO2
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5693
Excerpt:
Congress learned something shattering today, which will have the Church of Al Gore/IPCC running in fear of their lost credibility. It has been scientifically demonstrated that 70% of the Global Warming in the last century (and cooling in the last decade) is due to the Pacific Ocean Oscillations, not CO2:
Of course I could go on but we all know that in reality, Scientists don't know anything for sure and many are simply trying to protect reputataions that will be in ruins shortly.
Fun
It's Roy Spencer!
i.e. The guy who can't get his atmospheric science straight.
greyfalcon.net/christycorrection.pdf
greyfalcon.net/christy
_________
As for the ENSO, it's important, however it's not "70%".
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso
And how could it be, since strong ENSO events last less than a year. 1998, and 2008 being obvious years.
greyfalcon.net/rsstemp.png
greyfalcon.net/elnino
greyfalcon.net/lanina
It couldn't possibly explain decades or centuries warming trends if it only lasts a few months at a time.
Perhaps....
You would like to take that up with Roy.
I did not write the paper, I merely linked to it.
It sure makes a lot more sense than the silly drivel coming from Cullin though.
Do you think she would be willing to debate Roy in public on the issues?
No probably not. it would be embarrassing for her and hard to watch.
It's not your fault, Spencer
It's not your fault, Spencer wrote it, you just bought into it wholesale and refuse to adjust your beliefs in accordance with the inconsistencies pointed out to you. After all, you didn't put those inconsistencies there in the first place, it was that nasty, rotten Spencer that you so gleefully cite. Please.
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/waah-they-wont-debate-us/
Self-explanatory, Gary. Science isn't settled in public debate any more than government policy is settled via cockfights.
Heidi Cullen
From Dr. Cullen's CV: http://tinyurl.com/6kz5oh
Before joining The Weather Channel, Dr. Cullen was a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO. She received a bachelor's degree in engineering/operations research from Columbia University in New York City and went on to receive a doctorate in climatology and ocean-atmosphere dynamics at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. Her dissertation focused on understanding the impacts and dynamics of the North Atlantic Oscillation, an important climate influence. As a post-doc, she received a NOAA Climate & Global Change Fellowship and spent two years working at the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction.
Here's the Google Scholar entry on Dr. Cullen: http://tinyurl.com/6dduhb
Dr. Cullen has a clearly demonstrated expertise and scientific background in the contemporary science of climate change.
Then how can such an Expert
Then how can such an Expert be so wrong? With all that education she should know by now that CO2 does not cause a rise in temperature.. What is the purpose for this Continuous Denial?
She's an expert and you are an idiot
Knowledge about complex things makes one an expert. Denying it makes one an idiot. You seem to belong to the latter class.
Ian Forrester
And This just in
ANOTHER TOP JAPANESE SCIENTIST DISSENTS
Dr. Kunihiko Takeda is vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080722jk.html
Excerpt:
Global warming has nothing to do with how much CO2 is produced or what we do here on Earth.
And They KNOW this as well
From Climate Expert Viscount Moncton
http://www.petergallagher.com.au/index.php/site/article/moncktons-litany/
Excerpt:
Even if CO2 levels had set a record, there has been no warming since 1998. For 7 years, temperatures have fallen. The Jan 2007-Jan 2008 fall was the steepest since 1880 (GISS; Hadley; NCDC; RSS; UAH: all 2008).
Not an expert
Gary's "Climate Expert Viscount Moncton" is not a climate expert, even if Gary had spelled his name correctly.
Edited to add: Deltoid has much information about Monckton:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/
...just search for "Monckton". Spell it correctly.
This is good...
Monckton rubs Schmidts in his own do do.
Very entertaining to see Schmidt som completely outclassed.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/chuck_it_again_schmidt.pdf
All smears
If Heidi is an Expert then so is Rush Limbah.
Curriculum Vitae
Heidi's had peer-reviewed research published. Rush is a pundit. I fail to see how smearing her record while accusing us of smearing back gets you any high ground, Gary. Please explain this rhetoric to me.
Desmog is a Smear site!
It is the stated purpose of this Blog.
I am just trying to fit in.
You guys smear enyone and everyone that disagrees with AGW weather it is justified or not, so.....
Besides, it is more than just a little fun to play a bit with silly topics like this one.
Come on. Heidi is an Eco nutbar. Admit it.