What is Global Warming?

[Oberon]

What Is Global Warming: The theory, the evidence, the problems.
Caveat
In what I write here, I am often sacrificing technical detail for the sake of those who are not familiar with the issues. I am more than happy to respond in greater detail to those who question or desire more information on any point I make. I have also attempted (as much as is possible with such a short explanation of theory and evidence) to accurately represent the views of both the experts who are AGW proponents and the experts who are skeptics. It should be noted that “skeptics” actually fall into quite diverse camps: those who think we can’t know the earth is warming at all, such as Vincent Gray (these are in the extreme minority), those who acknowledge the earth is warming but don’t believe we are the cause, those who acknowledge the earth is warming but argue we don’t know the cause, and those who argue the earth is warming, we are (either marginally or significantly) contributing to this warming, but it isn’t really a big problem).


Before getting into the basic theory of global warming, I would like to state the reason I think this thread is necessary. The seeds were planted by a response I received in another thread. Before quoting this response, I think some context would be helpful. In that thread, I stated that there has been and continues to be peer-reviewed studies questioning (in whole or in part) virtually every aspect of mainstream AGW (anthropogenic global warming, i.e. man-made) theory. I was asked to provide source, and did so. The person I quote below did no read any of the studies I cited. Rather, he read the abstract of one, misunderstood it, and claimed that I had probably just copied and pasted a list off of some website. The study was:
McKitrick, R. R., & Michaels, P. J. (2007). Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data. Journal of Geophysical Research 112.
The study is one of many detailing problems with the surface temperature record. However, I received this response:

The study is concluding that global warming is occurring, and that mankind is definitively having an impact. Its point of contention is that the study does not allow Laat and Maurellis to support the idea that GHG (green house gases) are a contributing factor...Perhaps if you had actually read some of the studies that you linked ...

The study says nothing of the sort. The person quoted above simply jumped on the word “anthropogenic” and assumed that all anthropogenic temperature increases are part of AGW. I disagreed, stating that AGW is concerned with anthropogenic influences in the atmosphere, to which he responded:

Uh, no. Anthropogenic Global Warming is NOT limited to the single point that emissions cause the increase in atmospheric temperatures. You do not understand the very term that you are now trying to debate. Anthropogenic means "man made". It is NOT limited to emissions. It DOES include all impacts that man has had on the climate (including buildings, deforestation, etc.).

It occurred to me that there may be a much larger group (than this one individual) who are either supporting or denying global warming without an adequate understanding of what it is. So, the purpose of this thread is three-fold: 1) To give a fairly basic explanation of what the theory of global warming actually is. 2) To give some of the central points of evidence in favor of this theory. 3) To give some central points of evidence contrary to (at least parts of) this theory.

I will start by stating (again) my own position, putting my biases on the table. I am best described as a type of skeptic. I believe we can be pretty certain the climate HAS warmed over the last century. There are very, very, few experts who would deny this. I also believe that there is a good chance that anthropogenic emissions have caused and are causing an increase in the global temperature average, and that unless steps are taken this will continue.

However, I do NOT agree with the certainty level given by, say, the IPCC. I do NOT agree or find good evidence to support most of the doomsday scenarios given both in the mainstream media and in some scientific literature.
I am also not a climate scientist, nor am I a specialist in a related field. However, I have spent a long, long, long, time now reviewing books, monographs, journals, blogs, new, etc, concerning global warming, and I have a sufficient background in the math and science used (as well a familiarity with technical/expert publications) to understand a good deal of most of the technical arguments. This doesn’t make me an expert, but it does give me a pretty good understanding and the ability to cite scientific literature which supports the points I make.

 

[Oberon]

With the preamble out of the way, let’s get to the main points.

Part 1: The Theory of Global Warming. What it is?
Most people know that global warming (or climate change, as it is often called now) has to do with the warming of the earth from greenhouse gasses (GHGs) like carbon dioxide. That’s true, but it misses a lot of important aspects of the theory. First, as many also likely know, the “greenhouse” around our planet is our atmosphere, and if it wasn’t trapping heat we’d all be dead. The atmosphere is basically a “radiative blanket” of gasses. Pretty much everything absorbs and emits infrared radiation (heat). For us and for our planet, the greatest amount of infrared radiation by far comes (obviously) from the sun. Our atmosphere, which is full of GHGs, strongly absorbs and emits infrared radiation. This radiative blanked keeps the lower atmosphere (right down to the surface) warmer, and the upper atmosphere cooler.
So far, so good. However, what happens when humans start emitting lots of GHGs into the atmosphere? Obviously, the “thicker” the radiative blanket, the warmer the lower levels of the atmosphere, and therefore we start getting higher temperatures. So why would anyone argue that emitting known GHGs like carbon dioxide or methane isn’t causing global warming?
This is where things get interesting. First of all, carbon dioxide is a trace gas. There isn’t a lot of it, even now after lots and lots of emissions (and by the way, a good deal of what we emit doesn’t stay in the atmosphere but is reabsorbed). In fact, nobody thinks that the anthropogenic emissions alone are responsible for AGW. Enter weather, clouds, water vapor, and feedbacks.
Weather is pretty much the result of thermodynamic physics (remember the second law of thermodynamics?). It is caused by heat, and serves to move heat around. Without getting into the nitty gritty, various weather processes (rain, clouds, evaporation, wind) all are caused by and/or serve to deal with heat. For example, changing water into vapor means heat loss (latent heat loss, to be more precise). In other words, there is a constant, massive, cooling process (many, actually, as well as warming processes, but I am focusing on one here) going on all the time as heat energy is “taken up” and used to turn water into vapor, which cools the air around it as well as the earth.

The point is there are a lot of things going on in our atmosphere all the time which cool the earth and which heat it. So it isn’t as simple as “more GHGs= dire AGW.” And, not even the most alarmist global warming scientists think so.
What many people do not understand is that those scientists (who are, I should point out, in the majority) who believe that humans are causing a dangerous temperature increase via the emissions of GHGs DO NOT believe that the GHGs are directly responsible for the temperature increase. Barring any other atmospheric effects, the increase in temperatures caused by GHGs alone is very small. So why all the worry?
The basis of AGW theory is that anthropogenic emissions of GHGs (particularly carbon dioxide) will cause positive feedbacks in the atmospheric systems. Let me be clear: positive is NOT good. A positive feedback means that an initial process (in this case the increase in, say, carbon dioxide) will do other things in the atmosphere which will cause an even greater increase in temperatures. All the models and predictions of AGW DEPEND on this feedback system. And, while not undisputed, numerous studies have suggested that indeed increases in GHGs will result in positive feedbacks, making the global average temperature much higher than it otherwise would be.

That is, in a simplistic nutshell, what AGW theory is: the releasing of certain gasses (especially carbon dioxide) by humans into the atmosphere will result in a chain reaction which will end up causing the global temperature to rise, and rise, and rise. Even ignoring for the moment the predicted side effects of this warming (terrible storms, sea level rises, etc) it is fairly obvious that if the temperature continues to rise eventually we won’t be able to tolerate it.

 

[Oberon]

Part 2: The evidence
As most people I meet (including on this forum) are already convinced that AGW is real and dangerous, I won’t spend too much time on the evidence, though I encourage anybody to respond with whatever they think is important that I miss or gloss over.
First, it is undisputed that we are releasing gasses into the atmosphere which are greenhouse gasses. However, as I noted above, AGW theory depends upon positive feedback systems in the atmosphere. And there have and continue to be studies which cast doubt upon these theorized feedbacks. One big problem is that there are VERY important parts of the climate system which everyone acknowledges we just don’t know very much about. For example, clouds have an enormous role the thermodynamic processes in the atmosphere, and they are very poorly understood.
In the end, while theories on, say, the interactions of water vapor and increases in carbon dioxide are all well and good, AGW theory also depends on temperature records. The climate system is dynamic and enormously complex, and as I said everybody acknowledges there are very important parts of it we don’t fully understand or even that we barely understand.

So, one of the big pieces of evidence supporting AGW are the temperature records. For about the past 150 years, we have had a fair amount of surface measurements of temperature. Of course, for many of the early years there wasn’t great coverage, but for about a century or so we have had a pretty consistent and large record of surface recordings. There are all sorts of issues with these records (more on this later) but various groups of experts spend a great deal of time trying to remove biases in the records to obtain a fairly accurate global average of surface temperature. These records show a warming at the beginning of the 20th century (a little earlier, actually) followed by a cooling, followed by a warming in the later parts of the 20th century into the 21st (although there has been no warming trend[/] since about 1995, the temperatures in the first decade of this century are the warmest on record). The warming in the earlier part of the 20th century is NOT thought to be caused by anthropogenic emissions. It is the second warming trend which AGW proponents believe is caused primarily by human activity.
Although the surface temperature record is the longest direct recording of temperatures, it is not the only one. For the past 60 years or so, we have also sent various instruments (e.g. radiosondes) into the atmosphere to record temperatures far above the earth.

Perhaps most importantly, since the late 70s, various satellites have used Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) to measure atmospheric oxygen at several frequencies. This is very important. All the other instruments used to measure temperatures measure the temperature around the instrument. The satellites do not. The measure something which is dependent on temperature, and are therefore able to more accurately measure temperatures over a range far greater than around the instrument. Although (like all other instruments) they have their issues, they are the best instruments for measuring atmospheric temperatures (and remember the whole theory of AGW depends on changes in atmospheric temperatures which then affect the surface).

Unfortunately, even the longest running temperature records are comparatively short. In fact, the span of time they cover is REALLY tiny. The earth has, after all, been around for billions of years. Even if the surface temperature record were 100% accurate, it really wouldn’t mean much unless we had at least a GENERAL idea of what global temperatures have been over the past millennia.
So how is this possible? The solution is to use proxy data. For example, scientists will go out and look at the rings of really, really, old trees. Larger rings mean more growth. This could be caused, or at least contributed to, by warmer temperatures.

To get a rough idea of what temperatures have been over the past several thousand, or even millions, of years, scientists will find things which indirectly give us a rough idea of what the temperature was like back then. This one of the most vital pieces of evidence needed to support of AGW. After all, if it can be shown that past temperatures cycled from cool to warmer than today all the time, it would appear that AGW theory is getting some major things wrong.
In fact, many temperature reconstructions (most famously the hockey-stick graph by Mann et al., but that was mostly discredited and later work by Mann shows a different picture) show that the latest warming trend is very unusual, which goes a long way to suggest that “something else” other than what has been happening for thousands of years is pushing the average global temperature up.
In sum, looking at all these records, it would appear that powerful empirical evidence supports AGW. Not only do we see temperatures rising, but they appear to be rising in a way different than they have before, and it appears that AGW theory can account for this.

 

[Oberon]

3) Problems with AGW theory
I’m not going to spend too much time going over the contrary studies and citing them here. However, I would be more than happy to supply citations and more detailed explanations/proofs to those who doubt me.

First, the feedback system. I mentioned earlier, there are VERY important aspects of the climate system we still don’t understand. These are very important when it comes to “regulating” heat. It is possible, in fact, that rather than a positive feedback system, various elements in our atmosphere work to obtain thermodynamic equilibrium via negative feedbacks. Criticisms of the positive feedback theory are a part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature (see e.g. Lindzen, R. SA. (1991) Some Uncertainties with respect to water vapor’s role in climate sensitivity. Proceedings of NASA Workshop on the Role of Water Vapor in Climate Processes, or Lindzen, R.S, & Choi, Y-S. (2009). On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophysical Research Letters.). And, of course, when everybody is admitting that important aspects of the feedback system (e.g. clouds) are poorly understood, it makes the theory far more tentative.
Which brings us to the temperature records. First, the surface temperature records. Obviously, to obtain a global average, scientists do not simply add up all the temperature data for a data (actually, the max/min reading) and then divide by the number of instruments. The only way this even could be accurate is if we had a thermometer on every square foot of the globe, which we obviously don’t. So advanced statistical procedures are used to attempt to make the readings we do have apply for the entire globe.

However, the heat any given surface instrument measures is affected by numerous things. For example, it has been known for over a century that cities absorb and emit more heat than rural areas (this is known as the Urban Heat Island effect, or UHI). Even more worrisome, a great deal of the instruments used to measure surface temperatures are in cities. Steps are taken (although they may not be adequate enough) to correct for this urban bias. However, recent research not only suggests that many of these corrections are made based on an erroneous understanding of the UHI (e.g. how wind interacts with this process). More importantly, while great attention has been paid to cities, far less has been devoted to numerous other surface processes which affect surface temperature readings. In fact, there are lots and lots of human activities (deforestation, irrigation, even building cities and towns once thought too small to generate the UHI effect) which bias the surface temperature record. And numerous studies have come out and continue to come out which detail problem after problem with our surface temperature record. One of the most basic (and for me, the most shocking) was a widespread movement to photograph the sites used in the temperature record. Site after site was found in areas clearly influenced by surrounds, such as being located directly outside air conditioning vents which vent heat.
However, not all our instruments are subject to these kinds of biases (although there is some evidence that even weather balloons and radiosondes are). As I said above, satellites do not actually measure the heat around them. They measure things in the atmosphere which indicate heat. For this reason, they are not subject to biases from surface processes. However, for a long time, this was a big problem for AGW proponents. Because when the satellite data first began to be published, it showed NO warming over the period of time in which AGW proponents believed humans influenced the climate. Since the initial publications, many, many corrections have been done on the satellite record, and it now does show warming (on a side note, but a very important one, the “corrections” to the various temperature records, even if they are all valid, are decidedly one way. It is hard to believe that the only errors, or the vast majority of errors, made when compiling these records, all made the records cooler. One would expect at least a fair amount of errors to have done the opposite, yet for some reason nobody finds those).
Yet the satellite record, despite a great deal of effort since the NAS admitted in 2001 that they couldn’t explain the disagreement between the satellite record and other records, continues to disagree not only with other records but also with AGW theory in general. It shows, for example, a lack of warming in the tropics (where AGW theory says the most warming should occur) compared with surface temperature records. This is a big deal. Satellites are the only instrument capable of measuring more than just the temperature around them, and they simply don’t agree with either the models proposed by AGW proponents or with other records.

The biggest problem though is perhaps with paleoclimatology, or the construction of records of climates from hundreds or thousands or millions of years ago. Now, it is generally acknowledge (even by AGW proponents, although they claims these biases have been largely removed) that even direct temperature measurements are fraught with problems. The problems are multiplied in the EXTREME when it comes to attempting to reconstruct past climates. Our “instruments” are sparse and indirect. They are subject to even more biases. Maybe a tree ring is wider because of greater sunlight, but maybe there was just more rain. At the moment, all climate scientists acknowledge that the climate goes through long warm and cool trends. Some reconstructions show that as recently as about a thousand years ago, there was a warming trend equal or greater than the current one. Moreover, there was certainly a warming trend in the early part of the 20th century which was not the result of anthropogenic GHGs. In other words, it is very difficult to say that the current warming trend is at all unique. In fact, when the climate scientist M. Mann and his team created their famous hockey stick graph, which relied on proxy data to reconstruct temperatures over hundreds and hundreds of years, they found that when they got to the 20th century, the proxy data disagreed with the actual instrumental surface data, and so in their study they switched the proxy data with the instrumental surface data to get the warming they were looking for. The point is, every temperature record is subject to biases, and the scientific literature is continually reporting issues with our records. Additionally, the one record which is probably the most accurate (satellites) is the one which least agrees with AGW theory.

There is one more issue that must be discussed: the sun. Obviously, the sun is and has been the greatest influence on earth temperatures. However, many recent studies suggest that it may be responsible for all or most of the current warming trend. These studies are largely ignored by the media and even the IPCC, but they are part of the peer-reviewed literature, and they are hardly outdated. Although I am not aware of a published study on this from 2010 yet, as recently as 2009 (at least) there have been studies indicating that the various influences of solar activity on the current warming trend have been drastically underestimated.

 

[Oberon]

Ok, time to sum up:

1) The theory of global warming, despite the quotes of another member I gave at the beginning of this, is not simply a raise in global temperature. Rather, it is an increase in average global temperatures caused by an increase in emissions of GHGs (particularly carbon dioxide) by human activity which in turn initiate positive feedback systems in the atmosphere which significantly raise global temperatures.
2) The evidence in support of AGW theory, apart from the known radiative properties of various gasses, comes from theories concerning interactions within our atmosphere (i.e. the theories of positive feedbacks), as well as a number of temperature records obtained from a variety of instruments and proxies.
3) The evidence which questions aspects of AGW theory comes from studies detailing problems in the proposed feedback system, appeal to important aspects of this system we acknowledge we don’t understand, and problems with all the temperature records (either problems in a single record itself, problems with disagreement between records, or problems between records and models).

Now, for those interested, is the time for debate, questions, arguments, corrections, etc. As I said, one central purpose of these posts was because I have found supporters and deniers of global warming who don't really know what it is. The little I offered in explanation above is only the beginning, so for those who are actually interested in learning more, feel free to ask questions or to ask for sources (you can even specify you only want sources from those who are AGW proponents).

Additionally, I know there are some people on this forum who know quite a bit about AGW, and may perhaps want to add to the brief overview of the evidence in support of the theory I offered, as well as refutations of the counter-evidence. That too is welcome. Also, for those who are skeptical about all or part of AGW, and want to add to the contrary evidence, feel free to do so.

Finally, for those who simply want references for any of the points I have made, just post a reply asking and I will respond. Thanks.

 

[KatNotKathy]

Counterpoint: faaaaaaaarrrrrrt

 

[AzraelsTear]

oberon, what is your reason to deny scientific fact?
(clarification, most deniers of climate change claims to have scientific backing for their opinion)

 

[Oberon]

oberon, what is your reason to deny scientific fact?
(clarification, most deniers of climate change claims to have scientific backing for their opinion)

The numerous studies on the issues I highlighted above: problems with all the temperature records, the problems with the feedback systems in the models, and other factors which could be responsible for the warming.
To quote myself from an earlier discussion (all of the studies below are recent and come from academic, peer-reviewed sources):

The sun as the principal driver of the warming (through a variety of mechanisms, from SW to effects on clouds):

Camp, C. D., & Tunk, Kk. (2007). Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection. Geophysical research Letters 34.

Douglass, DH, Clader, DB, & Knox, RS. (2004). Climate sensitivity to Earth to solar irradiance: update. Paper presented at 2004 Solar Radiation and Climate (SORCE) meeting on Decade Variability in the Sun and the Climate, Meredith, New Hampshire, October 27-29, 2004

Harrison, R. G., & Sephenson, D. B. (2006). Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds. Proceedings of the Royal Society London, Ser. A, 462, 1221-1233.​

Kirkby, J. (2008). Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28 pp. 222-275.

Scafetta, N. (2009). Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.

Scarfetta, N., West B. (2007). Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the northern hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600. Journal of Geophysical Research 112.​

Shaviv, N J. (2005) On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget. Journal of Geophysical Research 110.​

Svensmark, H. (2007). Cosmoclimatology: A new theory emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics 48.​

Svensmark H. et al (2007). Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 463 385-396

Tinsley, B. A. & Yu, F. Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activityand Climate. American Geophysical Union monograph, 141, 321-340.

Usoskin, I. G. et al (2003). Millenium-scale sunspot number reconstruction: Evidence for an unusually active sun since the 1940s. Physical Review Letters 91.21

Usoskin, I. G., & Kovaltsov, G. A. (2008). Cosmic rays and climate of the earth: Possible connection. C. R. Geoscience 340, 441-450.

Viezer, Jan. (2005). Celestial Climate Driver: A perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle. Geoscience Canada 32.


On problems with the proposed feedback system, the ocean, etc, and models, see in particular

Compo, G. & Sardeshmukh, P.D. (2008). Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming. Climate Diagnostics Center, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, and Physical Sciences Division, Earth Sytem Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Co.

Douglass, DH., et al. (2007). A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology

Kininmonth, W. (2004). Climate Change: a natural hazard. Multi-Science Publishing, Brenwood.

Koutsoyiannis, D. et al. (2008). On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrological Sciences/Journal des Sciences Hydrologiques, 53 (4), 671-684.

Lindzen, et al. (2001). Does the earth have an adaptive infrared iris? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82, 417-432.

Lindzen, R. S., & Choi, Y-S. (2009). On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophysical Research Letters 36.

Spencer, R. W. & Braswell, W. D. (2008). Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A simple model demonstration. Journal of Climate 21

On the problems with surface records, see in particular:

Fall, S., et al. (2009). Impacts of land use cover on temperature trends over the continental United States: assessment using North American Regional Reanalysis. International Journal of Climatology.

De Laat, A.T.J., & Maurellis, A.N. (2006). Evidence for influence of anthropogenic surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface temperature trends. International Journal of Climatology 26

McKitrick, R.R., & Michaels, P. J. (2007). Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogenities on gridded global climate data. Journal of Geophysical Research 112.

Pielke, R. A. et al. (2007). Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends. Journal of Geophysical Research 112.​

On the problems with the satellite data, see, e.g.:

Christy, J. R., Norris, W.B., Spencer, R.W., & Hnilo, J. J. (2007). Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research 112.


and so on and so on.

There is no major aspect of AGW theory which isn't continually criticized in some way in the peer-reviewed literature, from our ability to detect and differentiate anthropogenic signals in the records from natural cycles (on such cycles, see e.g. Dima, M, & Lohmann, G (2008). Conceptual model for millenial climate variability: a possible solar-thermohaline circulation origin for the ~1,500-year cycle. Climate Dynamics. 32 (2-3)), to the temperature record itself, to the satellite data, to the models, to past climate reconstructions.

The science just isn't "settled" no matter how much you want it to be.

 

[AzraelsTear]

lindzen does not deny climate change, he is critical to some models (theories) that has been promoted.

kininmonth deny climate change whiles never provided ANY scientific evidence for such a claim/belief, he written books denying it which apparently some people equate to peer-review articles.

 

[Oberon]

lindzen does not deny climate change, he is critical to some models (theories) that has been promoted.

Nobody denies climate change. Climates change. That's what they do. Lindzen's research (among many others) concerns the level of certainty we have over our contribution, and whether it is any big deal. He was sharply critical of the IPCC, of which he was a part, because they were too dominated by politics. As he stated in the Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2006) "t isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wront. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Lindzen acknowledges the rise in temperature (which virtually every expert does; only Vincent Gray seems to doubt whether we know this), and Lindzen acknowledges that carbon dioxide is a possible cause. However, he is extremely skeptical of the models and the doomsday warnings.

kininmonth deny climate change whiles never provided ANY scientific evidence for such a claim/belief, he written books denying it which apparently some people equate to peer-review articles.

The book is not peer-reviewed the way journals are, but it was published by an academic press, which requires review.

You asked for studies, you got them.

 

[AzraelsTear]

Nobody denies climate change. Climates change. That's what they do. Lindzen's research (among many others) concerns the level of certainty we have over our contribution, and whether it is any big deal. He was sharply critical of the IPCC, of which he was a part, because they were too dominated by politics. As he stated in the Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2006) "t isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wront. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Lindzen acknowledges the rise in temperature (which virtually every expert does; only Vincent Gray seems to doubt whether we know this), and Lindzen acknowledges that carbon dioxide is a possible cause. However, he is extremely skeptical of the models and the doomsday warnings.



The book is not peer-reviewed the way journals are, but it was published by an academic press, which requires review.

You asked for studies, you got them.

1. expelled - no intelligence allowed also got reviews, so does this mean evolution is false and hitler is now atheist?

2 (the first that is). lindzen do not deny climate change, poor wording from my part, he denies certain models that has been proposed by climate scientist, which is normal, no big deal, we always got conflicts.


more importantly, the WORLDS SCIENTIST are clear about climate change and we humans are responsible for the current change in global temperatures. this is a fact, your opinion does not change this nor does a bunch of cranks saying the opposite, no difference from creationism or holocaust deniers, so please.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

1. expelled - no intelligence allowed also got reviews, so does this mean evolution is false and hitler is now atheist?

2 (the first that is). lindzen do not deny climate change, poor wording from my part, he denies certain models that has been proposed by climate scientist, which is normal, no big deal, we always got conflicts.


more importantly, the WORLDS SCIENTIST are clear about climate change and we humans are responsible for the current change in global temperatures. this is a fact, your opinion does not change this nor does a bunch of cranks saying the opposite, no difference from creationism or holocaust deniers, so please.

Did you actually read everything he wrote?

 

[Oberon]

1. expelled - no intelligence allowed also got reviews, so does this mean evolution is false and hitler is now atheist?

There is a difference between academic review and reviews. It is very difficult to get a scientific work published by MIT Press or any number of academic publishers. It is far easier to get a book on global warming published by, say, McGraw.

2 (the first that is). lindzen do not deny climate change, poor wording from my part, he denies certain models that has been proposed by climate scientist, which is normal, no big deal, we always got conflicts.

The models he criticizes are the ones saying global warming is a problem. For example, Lindzen criticizes the positive feedback systems proposed in the models, which are VITAL for the modelled temperatures. Without them, carbon dioxide isn't really a concern. The "conflict" you refer to as "no big deal" amounts to whether or not AGW is a problem.

more importantly, the WORLDS SCIENTIST are clear about climate change

They aren't. Hence all the current research I cited. How many scientists disagree that AGW is a problem or that it exists is hard to say. Recent surveys suggest a substantial minority who doubt AGW theory, and various groups, such a recent group of 700 scientists who wrote to congress, do not buy AGW theory.

this is a fact, your opinion does not change this nor does a bunch of cranks saying the opposite

I gave you study after study of peer-reviewed recent research by respected scientists. And your response is ad hominem attacks.

no difference from creationism or holocaust deniers, so please.

ad hominem again.

 

[AzraelsTear]

yes of course, it is all a lie, yo uare right for citing alot of none peer reviewed personal opinions.

 

[Oberon]

yes of course, it is all a lie, yo uare right for citing alot of none peer reviewed personal opinions.

non-peer reviewed? International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Geophysical Research, Journal of Climate, etc, are not peer-reviewed? Are you actually claiming that? How much do you really know about AGW theory? How many actual studies have you read?