Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Brad Sallows]

>My point through all of this Mr. Sallows is that this isn't based on a gnat's eyelash of evidence - this is decades of research, hundreds, if not thousands of papers. I don't know why you continue to think otherwise.

There are large portions of the planet's surface, under the seas, and in the atmosphere in which measurements have rarely if ever been taken, if taken at all, and certainly not across long intervals of time.  Furthermore, some of it hasn't been taken particularly systematically.  To me, that's a gnat's eyelash.  We have access to lots of proxy data, but that's only as useful as our understanding and assumptions about all the factors that created it.

>I didn't claim C02 is not a greenhouse gas, although H20 is the dominant GHG.
>Really... now, I wouldn't have posted that... oh say like 7 posts ago:

My main point is that I didn't claim C02 is not a greenhouse gas, so perhaps you could give me a direct explanation why you wrote "Again, please post a few papers that show CO2 is not actually a greenhouse gas,".  Why are you trying to situate the estimate?

Since you accept the presence of other factors, do you or do you not think it prudent to explore other hypotheses and gather more data?  I'd like to know where you fit in between "We know almost nothing and must first learn more" and "We have the answers; spend as we dictate and divert no more funding in wasteful research that might prove us wrong"?

>In the end, please at least take the time to at least read the excerpts. It's been explored Mr. Sallows, by people a lot smarter than you and I.

Why do you assume they are smarter than you and I?  You're confusing intelligence with subject matter experience.

>So, let us just then be sure where we stand though... you admit that C02 is a greenhouse gas, but you question it's role in global warming despite the research to the contrary?

I don't question that it has a role - and I wish the people excited about C02 would stop trying to pretend the majority of doubters are in denial of that - but I do question the role attributed to it by its enthusiasts.  I would mistrust any assessment that attempted to persuade me that one factor of a complex system is responsible for what we observe or is the magic lever by which we can change the performance of the system.

>Not to mention, no one has yet to accept my challenge to provide research backing up the assertion that: "the projected rise in C02 would not in fact have a statistically significant impact on the temperature of the earth."

Why should anyone?  C02 likely does have a statistically significant impact on temperatures.  Two unanswered and more interesting questions are: what other factors have more statistically significant impacts on the temperature of the earth; and, what if anything can we do to mitigate the effects?  I'd like some sort of response other than the usual blank stare and regurgitation of the litany: "Do you deny C02 makes a contribution; do you deny C02 is contributed to by people; why won't you do something about C02?"

 

[couchcommander]

My main point is that I didn't claim C02 is not a greenhouse gas, so perhaps you could give me a direct explanation why you wrote "Again, please post a few papers that show CO2 is not actually a greenhouse gas,". 

I was under the impression you did not take the greenhouse effect, or more specifically, CO2's role in the greenhouse effect seriously. I was challenging what I saw as your assumptions in order to determine where exactly you stand.

Since you accept the presence of other factors, do you or do you not think it prudent to explore other hypotheses and gather more data?  I'd like to know where you fit in between "We know almost nothing and must first learn more" and "We have the answers; spend as we dictate and divert no more funding in wasteful research that might prove us wrong"?

I stand in the middle. To me, it seems that we are at the point where have a *fairly* good idea about certain processes on the macro scale. I think there is indeed a lot more research to be done as well. We have barely begun to scratch the surface of what is going on with this planet. However, like how one does not need to understand special relativity to predict the flight of a ball across a yard - it seems from the research and that we are at a "good enough" stage, especially given the potential implications of what is happening, and the present virtual absence of a large scale dissenting opinions.

Research should never stop. If future research shows us to be imbiciles, then great! To me though, the decision is pretty simple. We could a) ignore what we are being told by the people we pay to research such things and, as far as we can tell, seriously disrupt our way of life. or b) accept that we "may be wrong", but also accept that this is the best we've got, and go ahead and start transitioning to a cleaner method of energy production.

It has to happen at some point, oil reserves are finite. Not to mention all of the other bad things that come with burning impure hydrocarbons, ie nasty smog and the related illnesses, acid rain. As well, to me importantly, freeing ourselves from the world oil charade. From my viewpoint, it's almost worth it even if there is no global warming. Yes, wealth will change hands, putting a lot of people out, but it will also create a lot of new opportunities. It will make for cleaner, healthier cities and a more stable base for our economy.

Why do you assume they are smarter than you and I?  You're confusing intelligence with subject matter experience.

Habit, I suppose. I usually take that view of most people I meet until they prove otherwise (or, i should say, I strive to.. but my bigotry does get the better of me on occasion).

I don't question that it has a role - and I wish the people excited about C02 would stop trying to pretend the majority of doubters are in denial of that - but I do question the role attributed to it by its enthusiasts.  I would mistrust any assessment that attempted to persuade me that one factor of a complex system is responsible for what we observe or is the magic lever by which we can change the performance of the system.

Fair enough. You are absolutely right that there are many many many many influences on our climate, and no we have not accounted all of them.

However, once again these scienticest have managed to account for most of the ones we can think up.

An important fact, to me at least, is their ability to use the models they have generated to simulate past conditions. Yes, as you have pointed out, there are fudge factors and assumptions - but even with these taken into account and a range of error produced, even the low end will drastically change our world.

To me, it seems, that if they were missing a large, vital part of our climate, it would show when they try and simulate it. Once again, no, the simulations are not perfect, they are off slighty, but they are getting better all the time. Unfortunately, and something that is particularily damning, to me, is that as they get better, our outlook gets worse. It would seem, once again to me, that if we were actually looking in the wrong direction, as we got closer to being able to correctly simulate and predict historical changes, the opposite would be happening.

Why should anyone?  C02 likely does have a statistically significant impact on temperatures.  Two unanswered and more interesting questions are: what other factors have more statistically significant impacts on the temperature of the earth; and, what if anything can we do to mitigate the effects?  I'd like some sort of response other than the usual blank stare and regurgitation of the litany: "Do you deny C02 makes a contribution; do you deny C02 is contributed to by people; why won't you do something about C02?"

Well, re: the first.

Aerosoles, ocean currents, the sun, airborne dust, water, methane etc. all play a very important role. In fact, through history, they have played a greater role than CO2 in many instances.

Once again though, our researchers have been working on this, and once again, for everything they can think up, it does not account for the current warming. CO2, however, when put into the equations, does. As far as we can tell with regards to the current massive upsurge in warming, it's the culprit, and far as we can tell, our actions are what are causing it to be the culprit.

re: the second

The problem being that while the earth does warm and cool and warm and cool due to many reasons over time - these current changes are happening much faster than they should, and the speed at which they are happening threatens to undermine our ability to adapt to them. Further, it appears, as far as we can tell, that it's our own actions that are causing this trouble for us.

What is so frustrating for "us" is that we CAN affect change, but we are choosing not to.

 

[a_majoor]

A lighter note about effecting change:

 

[couchcommander]

Mr. Majoor - Don't worry, I share your contempt for the politicization of this issue.

 

[acclenticularis]

His client list includes real estate development companies, high tech firms, pharmaceutical, forest industry giants, resorts and academic institutions.

Quote
He is a Board Member of the David Suzuki Foundation.

Thanks, hardly a scoop, that information is readily available via the link I provided.  Regardless of whether he is associated with the Suzuki Foundation or not, there is a smear campaign against the science pointing to human effected climate change.  Hoggan got fed up and created the site so that the public could peruse for themselves the steps that have been taken to debunk with rhetoric and without scientific grounding. 

Please, if there is some scientific work done that has been peer reviewed and generally accepted in the scientific community that debunks global warming as human influenced, post the link.  I sincerely hope that this is all BS and that we are not influencing our climate.  If there was debate on the issue among those most knowledgable in the study of climate, then I would certainly reconsider 'following the herd'.  What would it take for the skeptics posting in this thread to reconsider following their particular herd? 

A gulf between how our climate operates and what we understand will never close fully.  How many hundreds of years of data is required to legitimize long term climate forecasts?  How much climate knowledge is necessary?  Can it be quantified?  What findings would make skeptics accept the consensus in the scientific community?  In general, I ask the following question, what evidence would suffice to convince the skeptics in this thread that humans are effecting climate (to the extent proposed by the scientiifc community)? 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Please, if there is some scientific work done that has been peer reviewed and generally accepted in the scientific community that debunks global warming as human influenced, post the link.

Whether global warming is human influenced isn't a useful question.  The question is, by how much?  It's very important to stop treating this as an either-or debate: the idea that either people are, or aren't responsible, is a false assumption.

It would help if the scientific community would police itself and sort out those who insist on publicizing the most extreme projections imaginable.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Chaos theory: check it out some time.*  The only thing we know for sure is that we don't understand weather or climate, let alone how we affect it (actually the point is that just as likely that our actions may be having the opposite effect (to what now seems "scientific")).  Mr. Suzuki, et.al., have an agenda and hard science isn't it!

*A very accessible (i.e., on a conceptual level, for non-quant jocks) introduction to the topic: http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0140092501/701-0900919-7599555?v=glance&n=916520&s=gateway&v=glance

 

[acclenticularis]

Whether global warming is human influenced isn't a useful question.  The question is, by how much?

In general, I ask the following question, what evidence would suffice to convince the skeptics in this thread that humans are effecting climate (to the extent proposed by the scientiifc community)?

Sorry if in my prior info. posted I indicated that I thought this was an either or debate. 

 

[couchcommander]

Chaos theory: check it out some time.*  The only thing we know for sure is that we don't understand weather or climate, let alone how we affect it (actually the point is that just as likely that our actions may be having the opposite effect (to what now seems "scientific")).  Mr. Suzuki, et.al., have an agenda and hard science isn't it!

*A very accessible (i.e., on a conceptual level, for non-quant jocks) introduction to the topic: http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0140092501/701-0900919-7599555?v=glance&n=916520&s=gateway&v=glance

You may also be sitting in a vat hooked up to a machine. Do you still get up in the morning?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

You may also be sitting in a vat hooked up to a machine. Do you still get up in the morning?

Huh?

 

[couchcommander]

Look up Decartes, Meditations on First Philosophy.

The point is you cannot be sure of anything. Decartes would say "Je pense, donc je suis", but even that has come under fire, especially when you look at the notion of "self" from the perspective of eastern philosophy. "self" could be yet another delusion in the mind. In the end, you actually know nothing.

Despite this, I'm sure you do still manage to get up in the morning and pick your cocopuffs over the count cocula.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Actually, the point is that no model exists to explain climate variation, except to show that it is (very) non-linear.  We know that it happens, but any supposition as to why (anthropogenic or not) is a guess ... we don't even know how good of a guess because we don't know how much we don't know.

/Merde, I think I'm channeling Rumsfeld/

 

[couchcommander]

Actually, the point is that no model exists to explain climate variation, except to show that it is (very) non-linear.  We know that it happens, but any supposition as to why (anthropogenic or not) is a guess ... we don't even know how good of a guess because we don't know how much we don't know.

/Merde, I think I'm channeling Rumsfeld/

No, not 100% of course... MY point was that we are effectively guessing about everything... that doesn't change the situation. "good enough" is "good enough" at some point when the error become insignificant in relation to the problem.

*edit again* Once again I'm not interested in debating opnions. If you want, please post a few papers outlining how what you are saying affects our ability to model global warming.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

*edit again* Once again I'm not interested in debating opnions. If you want, please post a few papers outlining how what you are saying affects our ability to model global warming.

It's not a question of opinions: climate is Chaotic ... no one debates that (in the mainstream, anyway).  Thus, any model of such is inherently flawed (the part that is generally left out).  We don't even know what all the variables are.  Trying to pretend that we should be destroying (many billions of dollars of) wealth on the basis of junk science is folly (at best).

It is not a case of saying that there is no anthropogenic warming (or cooling, according to the last consensus that wasn't really a consensus): we really do not know.  Consensus exists only in the absence of provable fact: how much are we willing to bet?

The point about local weather is a good one: the earth's climate could be described the sum total of all local climates ... it is at least as complex as any local weather system: we don't know, for example, if it will be warmer or cooler (or rainier or be sunnier) two weeks from now than it is today (not even a meterologist would make the bet).  It is the height of hubris to pretend that we can model climate over decades when we can't even reliably model local weather systems for a week.  Ask any Pilot what PIREPS are and why they are necessary ("weather forecasts are horoscopes with numbers ...").

 

[couchcommander]

It's not a question of opinions: climate is Chaotic ... no one debates that (in the mainstream, anyway).  Thus, any model of such is inherently flawed (the part that is generally left out).  We don't even know what all the variables are.  Trying to pretend that we should be destroying (many billions of dollars of) wealth on the basis of junk science is folly (at best).

The point of the Chaos theory is that even systems which seem chaotic are in fact following a deterministic nature.

No, we have no accounted for all of the variables. No we cannot precisely predict weather.

You seem to have this in your head that because the climate is complex, and not completely understood, then anything we do is completely useless.

I had hoped to avoid this, but for example do you need to know exactly how the air will flow over the surface of a tennis ball in order to catch it when it is thrown at you? Uncertainly in fact tells us that you will NEVER know everything, and there will always be an infinitely small chance that that ball will end up on the other side of the universe or just go straight through your hand. However, the 99% chance (assuming you can catch that is) is that you're going to be able to put your hand more or less where the ball will end up, despite the fact you really know basically nothing, in the grand scheme of things, about how it got there.

My point, you do not need to be able to predict or understand every micro level event when it becomes relatively insignificant to the macro scale system you are concerned about. We do not need to be able to predict whether it will rain on Tuesday, July 12, 2152 in Edmonton - all we need to know is whether or not the mean surface temperature will be higher.. or lower...due to a limited series of variables which we can *reasonably* assume, due to past occurrences, to have enough of an effect so that other variables influence will be insignificant.

Further, we can verify our assumptions by simulating past occurrences.

THIS WAS ON OF THE WAYS CHAOS THEORY WAS DEVELOPED. Computers would try and predict whether systems, and find their simulations or predictions were widely wrong. This was due to insufficiently precise measurements and not taking into account a sufficient number of variables, not to mention shoddy computing.

We HAVE advanced since the days of analog computers, and we can now make, as I have pointed out again and again, reasonable approximations of the climate on the grand scale that correspond enough to reality to be useful. We HAVE validated these models over tens of thousands of years of change - more than enough to try and "predict" a few hundred years into the future.

If we have a model that can, starting 21,000 years ago, reasonably predict what happens over those 21,000 years, why are you so skeptical of it's ability to start now, and go 200-300 years into the future?

We have accounted for enough of the variables whereby we can make a reasonable prediction of macro scale events, in which even the lower end of the probable bounds of error represent a severe risk.

Once again though, if you feel that the error is too large, or knowledge insufficient, please post a paper challenging the conclusions reached by some of the other papers I posted.

Right now the score is sitting at your opinion on how this affects global climate trend models vs. 30 years of research.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

The point of the Chaos theory is that even systems which seem chaotic are in fact following a deterministic nature.

No, we have no accounted for all of the variables. No we cannot precisely predict weather.

You seem to have this in your head that because the climate is complex, and not completely understood, then anything we do is completely useless.

Not at all ... but we do have to stop pretending that we know.

I had hoped to avoid this, but for example do you need to know exactly how the air will flow over the surface of a tennis ball in order to catch it when it is thrown at you? Uncertainly in fact tells us that you will NEVER know everything it, and there will always be an infinitely small chance that that ball will end up on the other side of the universe or just go straight through your hand. However, the 99% chance (assuming you can catch that is) is that you're going to be able to put your hand more or less where the ball will end up, despite the fact you really no basically nothing, in the grand scheme of things, about how it got there.

My point, you do not need to be able to predict or understand every micro level event when it becomes relatively insignificant to the macro scale system you are concerned about. We do not need to be able to predict whether it will rain on Tuesday, July 12, 2152 in Edmonton - all we need to know is whether or not the mean surface temperature will be higher.. or lower...due to a limited series of variables which we can *reasonably* assume, due to past occurrences, to have enough of an effect so that other variables influence will be insignificant.

"Reasonably assume"?!?  Maybe, maybe not ... the only fact is that we don't know ( and your example is an over-simplification: it would be more akin to determining how fast the ball's rotation was slowing due to drag or something).  Moreover, the existence of reports like PIREPS demonstrates that we do not (and cannot) assume (reasonably or otherwise) that we we have weather figured-out!

Further, we can verify our assumptions by simulating past occurrences.

THIS WAS ON OF THE WAYS CHAOS THEORY WAS DEVELOPED. Computers would try and predict whether systems, and find their simulations or predictions were widely wrong. This was due to insufficiently precise measurements and not taking into account a sufficient number of variables, not to mention shoddy computing.

We HAVE advanced since the days of analog computers, and we can now make, as I have pointed out again and again, reasonable approximations of the climate on the grand scale that correspond enough to reality to be useful. We HAVE validated these models over tens of thousands of years of change - more than enough to try and "predict" a few hundred years into the future.

If we have a model that can, starting 21,000 years ago, reasonably predict what happens over those 21,000 years, why are you so skeptical of it's ability to start now, and go 200-300 years into the future?

The age of the earth is (maybe) 4.5 billion years .. we do not know with any accuracy (bearing in mind that at least some of the studies you've linked-to talk about "unusual" variations of tenths of degrees) what happened during any 200-300 year period (let alone a 50 or 20 year period, depending on who is doing the shouting), except to a very limited degree, the last one.

However, we have accounted for enough of the variables whereby we can make a reasonable prediction of macro scale events, in which even the lower end of the probable bounds of error represent a severe risk.

No we haven't.

Once again though, if you feel that the error is too large, or knowledge insufficient, please post a paper challenging the conclusions reached by some of the other papers I posted.

Right now the score is sitting at your opinion on how this affects global climate trend models vs. 30 years of research.

30 years of conflicting research proves nothing except that we don't know enough to make definitive statements (or are we going to go back to believing in eugenics, the ether, and bodily humours).

 

[couchcommander]

30 years of conflicting research proves nothing except that we don't know enough to make definitive statements

Conflicting?

There is a widely held scientific viewpoint that has been backed by research. The reason many of us feel so strongly about this is because there is in fact relatively little conflicting evidence.

But please, do enlighten me and post some of this conflicting research.

Further, when you say simply "no we haven't" to a statement of mine that I have backed up by numerous high quality sources...... I'd suggest putting a reference behind it.

Where is the series of studies that demonstrates the models are not accurate enough to draw the conclusions they have?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Conflicting?

There is a widely held scientific viewpoint that has been backed by research. The reason many of us feel so strongly about this is because there is in fact relatively little conflicting evidence.

But please, do enlighten me and post some of this conflicting research.

Your own sources say that global warming as either been 0.6 degrees C in the last 100 years or 0.3-0.6 in the last 150: does this not strike you as a little inconsistent?  ... in any case, a range of 0.3-0.6 is, statistically speaking, "well, assuming our data is accurate, and we know it isn't, we think we can extrapolate an increase of 0.45, but we are equally likely to be out in either direction by a factor of 33%."

Further, when you say simply "no we haven't" to a statement of mine that I have backed up by numerous high quality sources...... I'd suggest putting a reference behind it.

You made an arbitrary and unsupported statement: I refuted it in kind.

Where is the series of studies that demonstrates the models are not accurate enough to draw the conclusions they have?

Why?  The data used for every long-range climate study ranges from inconsistent to 'derived by proxy', and the models don't even agree on the interpretation of that.

 

[a_majoor]

The conflicting evidence you believe is not there is simply swept under the rug. This is very easy to do in a very politicized subject like climate change, as demonstrated in this article. If opinion makers and politicians are bombarded with this sort of data (as opposed to Information or Knowledge), then they will be making choices based on a limited data set, including choices on who to fund, what policy options to persue and so on.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OWZkMDU5NmM4MzVmNDQ2NGNhYjcxNjY3NGJiZWU2Njc=

Public Disservice
Melting myths.

By Patrick J. Michaels

The last two weeks of July are normally the hottest of the year, so it’s no surprise that we’re being deluged with public-service announcements about the horrors of global warming. Radio and television stations are compelled to transmit these announcements at no charge because of a long-standing policy that they must provide “public good.” “Don’t Litter” and “Fasten Seat Belts” come to mind. Now the notion has been expanded to “Fight Global Warming.”

By defining it as something we all should fight, these announcements tell us warming must be bad — something no comprehensive treatise on the science and economics of climate change has ever demonstrated.

Ogilvy and Mather, a prestigious public-relations firm whose for-profit clients include IBM and Motorola, produced the global-warming ads for free on behalf of Environmental Defense, a major environmental nonprofit that clearly advocates certain types of global-warming legislation.

Like their ads for Motorola, Ogilvy and Mather’s global-warming announcements are clearly targeted towards sullen youth — a brilliant idea, considering the appallingly low level of scientific knowledge our children have in comparison to their counterparts around the world. But scientific exploration requires critical skepticism, and these ads are full of unquestioned certainties.

Perhaps the most egregious is a radio ad, called “The Gift.” It mentions dying coral reefs, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, devastating floods, and hurricanes, and accuses us of leaving them all to our children.

The ads ignore facts that are widely accepted in the scientific community. Take hurricanes. The frequency of category 4 and 5 storms — the really destructive ones — has increased as the planet warmed. Good sound bite, with only one problem: It’s back to where it was in the 1940s and 1950s, long before human beings started warming things up.

In fact, as late as the 1970s, scientists were more concerned with planetary cooling, as revealed in the 1974 CIA report, “Potential implications of trends in world population, food production, and climate,” that presented cooling-related food shortages as a major strategic threat. The report first appeared in public in the New York Times on May Day, 1976. Soon, global cooling abruptly reversed into global warming. Crop yields rose.

The public-service announcements are all similarly big on melting polar ice caps and consequent rises in sea level. The Arctic cap loses ice in the summer, but no one bothers to mention that we only began collecting data on it in 1979, at the end of the second-coldest period in the Arctic in a century. The ice had to be abnormally expanded then.

It’s also floating ice, and melting it and doesn’t change sea level at all. And, for all the headlines about loss of ice in Greenland, which does contribute to rising sea levels, the mean temperature there was much higher from 1910 through 1940. Between then and the late 1990s, temperatures in southern Greenland — the region where ice is melting — declined sharply. One has to presume that Environmental Defense knows this.

Around the world, in Antarctica, for the last few decades, average temperatures across the continent have been going down. Snowfall has increased, resulting in more continental ice. In fact, every modern computer simulation of 21st century climate has Antarctica continuing to accrete ice.

Ogilvy and Mather marketed their public-service announcements through the Ad Council, whose website says that “reversing the global warming trend is possible.”

This suggests that humans have the power to turn planetary warming into cooling — a scientific absurdity. We have neither the technology, the means, the money, nor the political will to do this.

Consider the Kyoto Protocol, a “baby step” in the fight against global warming. It “requires” the U.S. to reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide to seven percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Requirements vary by a percent or so for most other signatories such as Canada and the EU nations. Yet if every nation of the world met its Kyoto targets, the amount of warming that would be prevented is .07 degrees Celsius per half-century — an amount too small to even measure, as average surface temperatures fluctuate by about twice that much from year to year.

Neither the U.S. nor the EU nor virtually anyone else will be able to fulfill the Kyoto targets. EU emissions rose last year, while U.S. emissions remained unchanged. “Reversing” warming would require reducing carbon-dioxide emissions by 60-80 percent, which is simply impossible. The world economy would implode.

Ogilvy and Mather’s corporate website feature a quote from founder David Ogilvy: “We pursue knowledge the way a pig pursues truffles.” But what about knowledge on hurricanes, ice caps, and the real possibilities with respect to global warming?

The best course is one in which we continue to use our economic wherewithal to invest in successful companies, which are generally those that produce things efficiently or produce efficient things. Stating that would be a public service. The ads you’re seeing and hearing are not.

— Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of natural resources at Virginia Tech.

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWZkMDU5NmM4MzVmNDQ2NGNhYjcxNjY3NGJiZWU2Njc=

 

[couchcommander]

Mr. Majoor,

That is definitely an interesting article, and it does a good job of showing a particularly confusing aspect of global warming, which John has already pointed out for us, namely that it is non linear.

The effects of warming are not necessarily what one would associate with it, to the point of at times being counter intuitive. Take for example that study I posted for kirkhill - it suggests that global warming may in fact lead to a cooling and drying of Europe due to changes in ocean currents.

Though the article does do a good job of attacking those ads, which, I might add, I find unhelpful as all they do is further dramatize the issue and take it further away from a factual debate - it does little to discredit the research I have poted.

I_am_John_Galt:

We have accounted for enough of the variables whereby we can make a reasonable prediction of macro scale events, in which even the lower end of the probable bounds of error represent a severe risk.

No we haven't....

You made an arbitrary and unsupported statement: I refuted it in kind.

From some of the things I have ALREADY posted (because I am far too lazy to go finding new sources for things that I have ALREADY referenced... you will have to read the previous posts to get the link if you want it).

More than 80% of observed multidecadal-scale global mean temperature variations and more than 60% of 10- to 50-year land temperature variations are due to changes in external forcings.

Many mechanisms, including variations in solar radiation and atmospheric aerosol concentrations, compete with anthropogenic greenhouse gases as causes of global climate change. Comparisons of available data show that solar variability will not counteract greenhouse warming...

Anthropogenic sulfate aerosols contribute a globally averaged annual forcing of -0.3 watt per square meter as compared with +2.1 watts per square meter for greenhouse gases

The size of this trend is consistent with theoretical predictions, is accurately reproduced by climate model simulations and, within the climate models, is largely due to anthropogenic forcing

I assume you're questioning the accounting for other variables part, not the effect part (if you are, let me know, I'll be happy to oblige).

In the end, reference your statements, or I am done.