Climate Change you can't deny...

[Wild Cobra]

It's therefore relevant that the recent Lean and Rind GRL paper uses model-independent analysis of the variances of climate effectors to draw the same conclusions, finding that >90 percent of the warming has been due to human carbon emissions.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Lean_Rind.pdf

They have some interesting stuff, but completely ignore the effects of black carbon.

I missed where the 90% is. Help please.

Here are some interesting passages in the link I noted:

By differencing years of solar maxima and minima in NCEP temperatures since 1959, Camp and Tung [2007] determined a solar cycle amplitude in global surface temperature of 0.2 K, a factor of two larger than obtained from multiple regression analysis of satellite data since 1979.

In contrast, recent empirical analyses suggest that solar variability accounts for as much as 69% of twentieth century warming

Only by associating the surface warming with anthropogenic forcing is it possible to reconstruct the observed temperature anomalies.

[RandomGuy]

I liken this whole debate to three guys in a cave with a sleeping bear.

One of the guys starts poking the bear with a stick. After a minute or so, he starts poking the bear a bit harder than previously.

The other two then start arguing over how hard the guy is now poking the bear.

One says "he is poking he bear 30% harder" and the other says "he is poking the bear 90% harder".

The real issue is DON'T ING POKE SLEEPING BEARS WITH STICKS.

Sure, the bear could wake up naturally and rip the guy's faces off over time, but why take the risk of poking the bear in the first place and increasing the chance?

[RandomGuy]

They have some interesting stuff, but completely ignore the effects of black carbon.

I missed where the 90% is. Help please.

Here are some interesting passages in the link I noted:

The 90% is inferred from the remainder of warming not associated with solar forcing.

Re-read the last page or so.

[RandomGuy]

"the tipping point".

You say that as if you know what that tipping point is for any given combination of factors in the complex system of our global climate.

Do you know where that tipping point is for the current and near future set of factors?

The obvious answer to this question is:

"I don't really know any more than anyone else does." We can infer from past data that there are such tipping points, but we can't really know yet what they are.

We have a risk of potentially huge magnitude and a reasonable possibility of loss according to a broad consensus of scientists.

These are the TWO measures of risk.

Now the kinds of people who study risk for a living, namely insurance companies who sell insurance to other insurance companies, i.e. reinsurance, and who ultimately stand to lose hundreds of billions in real money have taken the stance here:

http://www.reinsurance.org/files/pub..._Statement.pdf

[The Reinsurance Association of America] encourages efforts to mitigate human induced greenhouse gases and to adapt to
climate change through risk reduction initiatives.

This isn't a wild-eyed bunch of envio-wackos.

This is a bunch of truly conservative people whose job it is to measure risk.

They aren't arguing about how hard we are poking the bear. They are telling us that we should stop poking the bear.

[Wild Cobra]

The 90% is inferred from the remainder of warming not associated with solar forcing.

Re-read the last page or so.

From the same area:

To properly quantify their amplitudes, the natural
and anthropogenic changes must be accounted for
simultaneously when analyzing the surface
temperature anomalies, since neglecting the
influence of one can overestimate the influence of
another. For this reason, we suggest that
estimated solar cycle changes of 0.2 K [Camp and
Tung, 2007] and Pinatubo cooling of 0.4 K
[Santer et al., 2001] are too large.

"We suggest?" What type of scientific mumbo jumbo is that? I tell you. No matter where you look at the alarmists theories, they change the results biased of their opinion.

I just deleted a long winded explanation from this reply, but I am saving it. Suffice it to say, my above paragraph is all that is needed.

“WE SUGGEST” is absolutely laughable. They don’t like what the facts provide, so they suggest differently?

OK. I understand.

[kwhitegocubs]

Yes, because if they inserted "We know for damn sure that those numbers are definitely too large", that would be scientific?

[Wild Cobra]

OK Random. Like I pointed out in a different posting, there are different aspects of global warming. I made another related post in the thread Solar Global Warming, post #13. Please read it.

[RandomGuy]

From the same area:


"We suggest?" What type of scientific mumbo jumbo is that? I tell you. No matter where you look at the alarmists theories, they change the results biased of their opinion.

I just deleted a long winded explanation from this reply, but I am saving it. Suffice it to say, my above paragraph is all that is needed.

“WE SUGGEST” is absolutely laughable. They don’t like what the facts provide, so they suggest differently?

OK. I understand.

How many scientific papers have you ever written and submitted for peer review?

[RandomGuy]

From the same area:


"We suggest?" What type of scientific mumbo jumbo is that? I tell you. No matter where you look at the alarmists theories, they change the results biased of their opinion.

I just deleted a long winded explanation from this reply, but I am saving it. Suffice it to say, my above paragraph is all that is needed.

“WE SUGGEST” is absolutely laughable. They don’t like what the facts provide, so they suggest differently?

OK. I understand.

Translation:

'We suggest not poking the sleeping bear with a stick?' What kind of mumbo jumbo is that. I tell you. No matter where you look at the idiots who say poking sleeping bears with sticks is a bad idea, they change their results on how hard you should poke them based on their opinion."



Do you ever include estimations based on your best judgement in your calculations?

[RandomGuy]

As for pandemics, it is a question of when, not if.

It is a bit like earthquakes, in that they are unavoidable. I say we do some prudent preparation for both...

As long as "good job" Brownie isn't in charge of the response...

From 2006.

Fun search for the word "Pandemic"