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]

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.

Previous Comments

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.

Directly referring to this video, since I KNOW the inactivists are going to dispute it, the original paper on isotope ratios is available at (http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdf). Feel free to publish a rebuttal.

I dont know how one can dispute isotopes. There is no doubt, CO2 is increasing, you can measure it with a simple IRGA. As fossil fuels have long since lost all their unstable isotopes, the changing ratio in the atmosphere is a clear give away that its from fossil origin. I cant imagine how anyone can dispute that.

The Missing Greenhouse Signature
Dr David Evans ([email protected])
21 July 2008


So an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of the recent global warming. So we
now know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming.


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.
A cult approved one that is in line with doctrine no doubt.

This is fun. And I got called a name by VJ today as well.
I think I am up to 15 or 16 now. Cool.

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: http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html


OK if you can use her as a credible source, and earlier George MoonBat, anyone goes.

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

It’s funny how threatened the trolls are by a diminutive and attractive woman with a relevant PhD and an impressive record of real academic research in the area of which she speaks.

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.

Which would go for you, too, Gary: I suggest that, intellectually at least, you pick on someone your own size. Heidi Cullen would clean your clock - on meteorology, climatology and, I suspect, on any other science issue you chose to bring up.  

From Climate Expert Viscount Moncton


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).

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.

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.

Occam’s razor suggests that Gary is a liar.

I’ll let this speak for itself:

Note that Gorgias is speaking about the Greek equivalent of Limbaugh (a pundit speaking outside his area of expertise).

Actually it would claim that GW is perfectly natural.
Caused by PDO cycles which are in turn caused by Solar cycles.
Read the razor again. It does not say anything about blaming cycles in a complex system on one insignificant component that is Loosely (very loosely) co-incident with temperature fluctuations.
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…..
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.

Shame on you, liar.


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


Dr. Kunihiko Takeda is vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.



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 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?

Knowledge about complex things makes one an expert. Denying it makes one an idiot. You seem to belong to the latter class.

Ian Forrester

NASA Discovers 70% Of Global Climate Due To Pacific Ocean Oscillations - Not CO2


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.

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%”.

And how could it be, since strong ENSO events last less than a year. 1998, and 2008 being obvious years.

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.
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 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.

Is the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction anywhere near never never land?
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.
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.

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?

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.

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’.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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 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 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

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.