A History of Climate Science

Overcounting skeptic and neutral?

You need to bear in mind they're not using the Oreskes style classification. They're relating them to climate myths as listed at SkS and evaluating them on whether they support, rebut or are neutral on that particular topic.

I've uploaded a few that can only be classified as neutral give SkS's relatively narrow definition of pro-AGW (a term I find less to my taste the more I think about it - I am not pro-AGW, I am very anti. I am pro the science though). Many papers that look at ecological responses to warming do not even attempt to consider the relevance of the A in AGW and thus can only be considered neutral in that respect. In addition, many ecological papers will not consider the changes observed as detrimental (or positive) and certain aspects of agricultural science will even consider them beneficial, at least in the short term. Are these latter papers sceptical? Yes by SkS's definition but not by any other.

Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre (Ãngström, 1900)
1900-01-01

I've been looking for this one! I wonder if its paywalled . . ..

I only glanced at the "skeptic" papers but agree with Chris that many of them have nothing to do with challenging the fundamental theory.

Skip, yes it is paywalled (go to a university library to get free access).

Also note that many people don't know that this isn't the Ãngström that we know from the length-unit that is still commonly used. It's his much less famous son. Not trying to disparage Knud here, but I'm not sure Anders would have made the same mistake(s) his son made.

I notice that as late as 2000 the total number of neutral papers outnumbers the pro-AGW papers two to one. Then something strange happens (AL Gore?). Or, is the deluge of pro-AGW papers in the last ten years related to the amount of money and grants researchers are able to get if they list a pro-AGW leaning in their grant proposal? Just wondering.

Take a look at the skeptical 2011 paper on sea level gauges from the Coastal Research Lab. Quite interesting. (And, by two emeritus professors who have nothing to gain for their future 40 year careers).

Terry

Unsubstantiated claims are meaningless. Please provide evidence for your claim that "...as late as 2000 the total number of neutral papers outnumbers the pro-AGW papers two to one...", then we can discuss.

"....Take a look at the skeptical 2011 paper on sea level gauges from the Coastal Research Lab...".

Link please? And don't just say look at it, tell us what you think it says and what you think it means.

Terry C, that 2011 paper is indeed interesting:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/so-what/
Looks like your typical example of dodgy analysis.

Of course, the first part of your comment already shows what you are all about: an attempt to proclaim nefarious intent to handwave away the increasing evidence.

Mandas-

Go to the website, drag the bar to the year 2000, and add. Now, how hard was that?

@ Mandas-

"Link please? And don't just say look at it, tell us what you think it says and what you think it means".

Go to the website, drag the bar to 2011, click on the little circle for 2011 for skeptical papers, look at the articles, one is on sea level changes in coastal gauges. READ IT (it's in English). Now, how hard was that?

Go to what website?

Yes, clicking on a website you don't give a link to IS hard.

@ Marco-

"Of course, the first part of your comment already shows what you are all about: an attempt to proclaim nefarious intent to handwave away the increasing evidence".

What I'm all about is a geologist of 35 years who can read. Global warming? Of course, we are in an interglacial period. Little Ice Age ended about 1850. Anthropogenic global warming? What percentage of total? 1% ? 75% ? And, the part the pathological supporters of AGW either ignore or don't really seem to care about is if all the governments of the world spent even 10%-15% of global economic output to combat it, would it do any good? How long would it take? And, would the change truly be beneficial to civilization?

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

If you people can't do the simplest online research, how can you comment intelligently on AGW?

"Global warming? Of course, we are in an interglacial period."

Funny how a geologist doesn't know why we go in or out of an interglacial, nor at what stage we're at in the interglacial. Especially one who can read.

You see, you warm to get IN to the interglacial. You don't warm once it's established. You cool to get out of it (since it's all cycles, isn't it).

"Little Ice Age ended about 1850."

And when an ice age ends, it ends because it warmed.

Past tense. Therefore warming AFTER the end of the Little Ice Age is NOT because we're leaving it, because we've already left.

And, since we're above the temperature from before the LIA, we can't have had a return to the pre-LIA temperatures.

Along with that, the temperature trend is increasing, which means any theory of "We're leaving the LIA" would mean we've got vastly more warming in the pipeline.

Lastly, there's still no idea here of why the LIA ended. If you don't know the mechanism, all you have is correlation. And correlation, as any good skeptic knows, is not causation.

"Anthropogenic global warming? What percentage of total? 1% ? 75% ?"

Hmm, so a geologist who things you can measure temperature differences in percentages. I guess you think 10C is twice as hot as 5C too...

"the part the pathological supporters of AGW either ignore or don't really seem to care about"

Please tell us what the pathology is.

Mind you, given that you don't seem to know anything, this is unlikely to give any coherent answer.

"if all the governments of the world spent even 10%-15% of global economic output to combat it, would it do any good?"

Funny how the denialists forget that this has already been done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

It seems like we have someone else who considers that if THEY don't know about it, it hasn't been done.

"If you people can't do the simplest online research"

Googling for "Coastal Research Lab" gives as its first link:

http://crl.usf.edu/

If you don't even test what you complain about, what's the chances you have anything intelligent to say?

"pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1"

Links to a pdf, not a website.

Pray tell, how are you supposed to click on something, select 2011 and all that other guff that you say is so easy to do?

It's pretty difficult to do on a pdf.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Have you been told what to say and are having to respond to questions you never bothered asking because you believed them?

Wow, Wow, your lack of geological knowledge is shocking, considering how much you ramble on about it.

1. No one in geology knows why we go into or out of glacial or interglacial periods. There are many theories, none of which has been accepted by even a simple majority of geoscientists.

2. The interglacial period we are in is also called the Holocene, which began about 10,000-12,000 years ago. The little ice age was merely a small variance in it.

3. Warming continues in an interglacial, until it doesn't. Then it cools off. Lots of ice core data on it from Antarctica.

4. What percentage of global warming is natural, and what percentage is caused by human activity? A perfectly valid question to ask governments that want to steal my money to try to "reverse" AGW. Degrees Celsius (or Kelvin, or Fahrenheit) are irrelevant. Can a world government spend us into oblivion to reverse natural global warming? If not, then can they spend us into oblivion to reverse manmade warming? If so, how much money to they need to slow down, or even reverse this trend?

5. How many billions of the world's people are you willing to eliminate in order to reduce the standard of living of them, and the remaining people, to accomplish this cool, livable Earth?

Your arguments are specious. Global warming boils down to those that say Ok, we have some (most scientists), it's horrible and we have to gut civilization to save ourselves (a lot of people, apparently), and the pragmatist who says we will have to live with it, improve our energy sources as best we can,and allow our civilization, with scientific, engineering, and technical advancement, to deal with it. I'm in the third group, not the religious climate zealot group.

By the way, wow, do you live in a cave and live in harmony with nature? I doubt it, and neither do 7 billion other human beings.

"1. No one in geology knows why we go into or out of glacial or interglacial periods."

Well, that's certainly true for you.

However, that doesn't mean we don't know why we go into or out of interglacials. Just that YOU don't.

Here's a tip: Milankovitch cycles.

"3. Warming continues in an interglacial, until it doesn't."

So have a look at this temperature graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

And the maximal temperature in the past has been at the BEGINNING of the interglacial:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

Now, when would the maxima hit, Terry old chap? Have we already passed it? It looks like it.

So we're loooong past the "going into an interglacial".

"2. The interglacial period we are in is also called the Holocene, which began about 10,000-12,000 years ago. The little ice age was merely a small variance in it."

And so when the change happened, there was a CAUSE.

What was that cause, Terry?

"4. What percentage of global warming is natural, and what percentage is caused by human activity? A perfectly valid question to ask governments that want to steal my money to try to "reverse" AGW."

It's been answered:

http://www.ipcc.ch

But you don't read too good, do you.

"Can a world government spend us into oblivion to reverse natural global warming?"

You have to show that your alarmism about "spend[ing] us into oblivion" is the case.

"If so, how much money to they need to slow down, or even reverse this trend?"

You REALLY don't read too good do you. Have a look at post number 13 above.

"5. How many billions of the world's people are you willing to eliminate in order to reduce the standard of living of them, and the remaining people, to accomplish this cool, livable Earth?"

That's rather the question I have for you denialists, Terry.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If we don't know how bad it will be, why are we still producing billions of tons of it each year?

How many people are you willing to eliminate until you're satisfied you've ruined our cool livable earth?

"and the pragmatist who says we will have to live with it"

That's not a pragmatist. A pragmatist would do what's worthwhile, whereas you just go "Can't do it". You ask questions that have been answered but continue to dig your heels in and scream like a tyrannical two-year-old.

"I'm in the third group, not the religious climate zealot group."

No, you ARE in a religious climate zealot group: complete and utter denial of it.

PS still no link to a page where we can "drag the bar to 2011, click on the little circle for 2011 for skeptical papers".

"1. No one in geology knows why we go into or out of glacial or interglacial periods."

Well, that's certainly true for you.

However, that doesn't mean we don't know why we go into or out of interglacials. Just that YOU don't.

Here's a tip: Milankovitch cycles.

"3. Warming continues in an interglacial, until it doesn't."

And the maximal temperature in the past has been at the BEGINNING of the interglacial:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg

Now, when would the maxima hit, Terry old chap? Have we already passed it? It looks like it.

So we're loooong past the "going into an interglacial".

"2. The interglacial period we are in is also called the Holocene, which began about 10,000-12,000 years ago. The little ice age was merely a small variance in it."

And so when the change happened, there was a CAUSE.

What was that cause, Terry?

"4. What percentage of global warming is natural, and what percentage is caused by human activity? A perfectly valid question to ask governments that want to steal my money to try to "reverse" AGW."

It's been answered:

http://www.ipcc.ch

But you don't read too good, do you.

"Can a world government spend us into oblivion to reverse natural global warming?"

You have to show that your alarmism about "spend[ing] us into oblivion" is the case.

"If so, how much money to they need to slow down, or even reverse this trend?"

You REALLY don't read too good do you. Have a look at post number 13 above.

"5. How many billions of the world's people are you willing to eliminate in order to reduce the standard of living of them, and the remaining people, to accomplish this cool, livable Earth?"

That's rather the question I have for you denialists, Terry.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If we don't know how bad it will be, why are we still producing billions of tons of it each year?

How many people are you willing to eliminate until you're satisfied you've ruined our cool livable earth?

"and the pragmatist who says we will have to live with it"

That's not a pragmatist. A pragmatist would do what's worthwhile, whereas you just go "Can't do it". You ask questions that have been answered but continue to dig your heels in and scream like a tyrannical two-year-old.

"I'm in the third group, not the religious climate zealot group."

No, you ARE in a religious climate zealot group: complete and utter denial of it.

PS still no link to a page where we can "drag the bar to 2011, click on the little circle for 2011 for skeptical papers".

"4. What percentage of global warming is natural, and what percentage is caused by human activity? A perfectly valid question to ask governments that want to steal my money to try to "reverse" AGW."

It's been answered:

http://www.ipcc.ch

Well, wow, at least you just proved to me that you are no scientist, or even a critical reader, with the "It's been answered" line. Have a good day, and continue to enjoy your delusional life.

It's been answered.

That you don't like the answer isn't my problem.

That you don't know anything about the climate doesn't mean nobody knows anything.

That you can't work out why you've failed to convince anyone you're not a denialist nutcase is also not our problem.

Terry C, if you are a trained geologist, you should ask your money back from your university. Any trained geologist should understand the basic science of climate change, in particular glacial-interglacial cycles. Heck, even Wikipedia has an article that explains it in terminology that a trained geologist should be able to understand.

And while we're at the Houston & Dean paper:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_verme…
The response by Houston & Dean is quite telling: complaining about the time periods chosen, after they've been found out cherry picking time periods...

Terry C

So after you finish having an irrational rant at me for asking for a link to a website that you didn't provide, how about you take a couple of seconds and put that 'geologist of 35 years' mind to work and try and answer the first request I made. You know, the one where you claimed:

"...I notice that as late as 2000 the total number of neutral papers outnumbers the pro-AGW papers two to one..."

And I asked for evidence to support that claim. So go one, if you are supposedly 'someone who can read', why don't you put those reading skills to work and read what people write before going off on a rant. Especially when you rant to us about:

"....If you people can't do the simplest online research, how can you comment intelligently on AGW? ..."

So how about you do the 'simplest online research', and come up with some evidence to support your claim. Otherwise, 'how can you comment intelligently on AGW?'.

While you are at it, can you answer the other request I made to you re the original post. Don't just tell us that there is a paper out there, tell us what it says and what you think it means. You know, do some analysis. Put that 'geologist of 35 years' to work.

Also, what does 'geologist of 35 years' mean? Does that mean you are 35 years old and have a degree in geology? Or does it mean you have worked for a mining company for the past 35 years?

Terry reveals the true nature of who and what he is with a number of quite telling quotes. Letâs have a look at some of them shall we:

.... Or, is the deluge of pro-AGW papers in the last ten years related to the amount of money and grants researchers are able to get if they list a pro-AGW leaning in their grant proposal? Just wondering.....â

Stop lying. You arenât âjust wonderingâ. You are trying to make an ideological case for your hypothesis. But if you were a âtrained geologistâ, surely you would know the bit about needing evidence to support your hypothesis â not just an ability to make ideological assertions as if they were fact. So how about it â whereâs your evidence?

â....And the part the pathological supporters of AGW either ignore or don't really seem to care about is if all the governments of the world spent even 10%-15% of global economic output to combat it, would it do any good? How long would it take? And, would the change truly be beneficial to civilization?...â

There are two interesting parts to this quote. Firstly, Terry totally abandons any pretence of talking about science and whether or not the world is warming because of human activity. He reveals that he is just a standard tea-bagger who believes that this is all about taxes and big government. He has a complete failure of credibility right there. If you want to talk about mitigation strategies Terry, then fine â letâs talk. But interestingly, he is also suggesting that climate change is occurring, but that it would be too expensive or futile to do anything about it. So which is it Terry? Is your ideological objection to the science of climate change based on an understanding of science that no-one else has apparently grasped (certainly not working climate scientists anyway), or is it just because you are a tea-bagger?

â...No one in geology knows why we go into or out of glacial or interglacial periods. There are many theories, none of which has been accepted by even a simple majority of geoscientists....â

Really? No-one in geology huh? Well, as Wow has pointed out, certainly not you. But donât you think it would be a good idea to TRY and find out, rather than to wear your ignorance as a badge of honour and to ridicule people who ARE researching why the climate is changing. Just because YOU donât know why the earth moves into or out of interglacial periods does not mean that atmospheric scientists, oceanographic scientists, and physicists donât know what is causing changes to the climate right now.

â...A perfectly valid question to ask governments that want to steal my money to try to "reverse" AGW. Degrees Celsius (or Kelvin, or Fahrenheit) are irrelevant. Can a world government spend us into oblivion to reverse natural global warming? If not, then can they spend us into oblivion to reverse manmade warming? If so, how much money to they need to slow down, or even reverse this trend?...â

So it is all about money isnât it? Itâs nothing to do with science. But how come the complete contradiction in your position here? You seem to be making the claim that the current warming is natural â but of course you provide zero evidence for this hypothesis â which of course leads to the view that human activities are having no effect on the climate. But how come you then rant about spending money âto slow down or even reverse this (natural) trend?â If humans are not affecting the climate with our activities right now, how can we have an effect on a ânatural trendâ by spending money reduce emissions or by reducing the population? If pumping billions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere isnât causing the climate to change, how the fuck will it reverse a natural trend if we were to stop?

You see Terry, not only are you a liar, you are an ideologue and you make yourself look foolish by contradicting your own position within the space of two sentences. If you want to be a skeptic, how about you be a little skeptical of your own arguments first? Because sure as shit, if you donât, you will just make yourself look like an ideologically driven idiot.

"Also, what does 'geologist of 35 years' mean? Does that mean you are 35 years old and have a degree in geology?"

It means he's had his head stuck in the sand for 35 years.

That's geology, isn't it?