What scientists know for sure about global climate change [video]

Tue, 2008-07-29 10:05Emily Murgatroyd
Emily Murgatroyd's picture

What scientists know for sure about global climate change [video]





There was a similar but more general overview released several months ago by Penn State On Demand, available here (http://climate.ondemand.psu.edu/viewer.php?id=03052008081001) or on YouTube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=OycDcuT3Grc). The first speaker, Dr. Richard Alley, is a little... awkward, and the video will recieve some flak for showing Michael Mann, but it's still worth mentioning here.



The Missing Greenhouse Signature
Dr David Evans (david.evans@sciencespeak.com)
21 July 2008




Explanations of how David Evans is wrong:



Can you say "stratospheric cooling" Gary? I'll bet you can't spell it.

Deltoid has a different opinion?
Wow what a surprise.
Have you checked at RealClimate?
They probably have an opinion too.


Your so called Expert... Heidi?

Too lazy to check the links I posted above? Come on now, try it, Gary: "Strat - o - sphe - ric cool - ing". You can't explain why it is occuring without admitting that CO2 is acting as a greenhouse gas.

No, Gary's content to smear Dr. Cullen (with relevant expertise) as an expert while citing David Evans, with no relevant expertise (electrical engineering and being self-contradictory on model use isn't a climatology doctorate), of the coal-lobbying Lavoisier group, as an expert.

Gary, please explain why the stratosphere is cooling:



Back to you... Moncton and Ball leading climate Experts say just the opposite..


Gary's "leading climate Experts" can make no such claim. Tim Ball's mail-away doctorate was in geographical history and he did NO relevant research and published NO related papers during the extent of his uninspiring academic career. Monckton, bless the poor boy, did a diploma in journalism and sharpened his science "credentials" writing editorials for right-wingy UK tabloids.

I have nothing against editorial writers - there's a quite charming one in the mirror in the morning when I shave - but I'd hardly set any of us up as "experts" in a debate with Ms. Cullen.


From Climate Expert Viscount Moncton



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:


...just search for "Monckton". Spell it correctly.

If Heidi is an Expert then so is Rush Limbah.


Occam's razor suggests that Gary is a liar.

I'll let this speak for itself:


Actually it would claim that GW is perfectly natural.
Simplest explanation is usually the right one – remember?

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.....
Come on. Heidi is an Eco nutbar. Admit it.

Shame on you, liar.


Monckton rubs Schmidts in his own do do.
Very entertaining to see Schmidt som completely outclassed.






From Dr. Cullen's CV: http://tinyurl.com/6kz5oh


Here's the Google Scholar entry on Dr. Cullen: http://tinyurl.com/6dduhb




Ian Forrester




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.

It's Roy Spencer!
i.e. The guy who can't get his atmospheric science straight.


As for the ENSO, it's important, however it's not "70%".


It couldn't possibly explain decades or centuries warming trends if it only lasts a few months at a time.

You would like to take that up with Roy.



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.


Self-explanatory, Gary. Science isn't settled in public debate any more than government policy is settled via cockfights.

or OZ perhaps.

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?

Both of your statements are correct.
And irrelevant.
It will no doubt astound you.

You seem to have confused "climate sensitivity" and "radiative forcing". The former is a constant, the latter varies logarithmically with CO2 concentration.


I will try to get to it later however.

Stay tuned.
As the world turns and cools....
these are the days of our lives.

The suspense is killing me!

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'.


You ask:
However, lets play make believe anyway.

All academic however since it isn’t and won’t.


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 is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt."

Too late.

VJ has bestowed a Hat trick on me.
I am honored.

you are amusing.

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 Spencer a hack? Holy s--t!
Or perhaps I've misunderstood your post. Please tell me that's the case.


Fern Mackenzie

One is physical science and the other is theology.
I had thought you were above such shallow thought Fern.
I really respected you opinion.

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

The would include Einstein, Davinci, Tesla, .......
I don’t think you can defend this one Fern.