I am deeply concerned over what passes for "debate" these days. I recently made a diary entry that quickly generated 123 (and counting) responses, most of which demonstrated a complete lack of reading comprehension, logical thought, civility or fair and honest thinking. Here, I respond to the few nuggets of consciousness exhibited.
123 comments. 123 comments to a diary entry pointing out that this winter does not fit into any of the models previously presented. But then again, all of the global warming models have been seriously flawed - massive, gaping holes of what was declared "absolutely would happen" and yet didn't. But dare point this out and you get 123 comments. Of these 123 comment I count 31 that did not demonstrate any conscious thought: these posts were either insults, barbs, horse spam or other posts that didn't indicate any awareness that there are unanswered questions. I lump these responders into the "I no thereiz global warming beecuz I watched a talking pikture show and Allen Gore sed there wuz". Beyond these 31 sources of drool there were an additional 10 posts related to food. Cute way of indicating disinterest, but of the 123 comments there were still 41 that should have been modded down as (-1) off topic.
Now let's look at the remaining 82.
One was a post telling me that I should check out the site realclimate.org - even though I explicitly mentioned it as a source that I do NOT trust. One referenced drowning polar bears, unquestionably a reference to that plagiarized photo from a few years ago. The photo was originally taken by one Amanda Byrd. Look it up.
That leaves me with 80 posts that require some thought. Still, that is 65% of the responses which isn't bad, but if we are attempting to find people who are actually willing to DISCUSS the issues it is fairly disheartening to know that at least 35% of the players on the field aren't willing to fire a single synapse to figure something out.
To you 35%, go away. You don't have anything to say so don't bother to say it. I ~want~ to be convinced. I want honest, sound, rational discussion on the matter, not the latest sound bite or spam from somebody who doesn't know the thermosphere from a thermocline from a thermometer.
And now, on to the science.
First, consider that there are different types of evidence:
anecdotal (it is really cold/warm today, therefore global warming is false/true). By themselves they are fairly meaningless - it is utterly and completely impossible to look at any single point of data or even, for that matter, any small section of data and reach any conclusion. What is truly important isn't avg:T for any given year, but avg:DELTA(T). You need to look at trends, and not individual data points. That said, if you have significant outliers in the data then they have to be either determined to be just one of those things or you have to rework your model.
A couple of the serious responses made the point that global warming models call for more snow - and yet a snowless future for Utah and Colorado is exactly what the global warming proponents are predicting. "For the high emission scenario, there's just no snow on Park City's mountains".
Then there is indirect evidence: evidence that is not gathered directly but can be reviewed only by the observed results of 'x'. Cloud and bubble tanks are a perfect example of this kind of thing: you cannot observe subatomic particles directly, but you can tell that they are there by the trails they leave behind. Likewise, you can't see the jet but you can see the contrail. In the science of climatology much of the evidence is in this form: you can't go back in time to take temperature readings but you can count tree rings. Just as the model predicts that a proton will arc in this direction, the model predicts that warmer, wetter years will make the tree rings look like this and colder, drier years will make the tree rings look like that.
Tree rings, ice cores and sediment cores are probably the most commonly used forms of indirect evidence. Again, I use the term "indirect evidence" because you are measuring something that the climate affected but not the climate itself. There is a lot that must be inferred in these studies and there are many models that have to be aligned in order to get the data to work, plus there can be a lot of noise and imperfections in the data as well. For example: let's pretend that you have two identical trees, one growing in the middle of New York and one growing in the middle of a forest. Do you predict the rings to demonstrate identical patterns? In every study of tree rings I have ever encountered they always assume that climate is the most significant factor influencing growth. No effort is ever made to identify other factors or correct for them (except for the obvious ones such as fire, avalanche or other physical damage).
*** I AM NOT SAYING THAT THESE STUDIES ARE WRONG, ONLY THAT THERE IS A QUESTION I HAVE NOT SEEN ASKED, LET ALONE ADDRESSED ***
Then there is the direct evidence. Data that is obtained through direct measurements. Every morning you go out and count the number of birds on your feeder. You take the temperature. You measure the depth of the snow. As long as your sample method is valid (you aren't taking the daily temperature in your oven or your daily rainfall measurements by placing your jar under the downspout) then this is the most accurate data there is.
The longest chain of direct measurements of which I am aware is the record of solar activity, as determined by the count of sunsets, dates back to just a hair under 400 years. This data is freely and widely available and anybody and everybody who wishes to engage in a little armchair analysis can play with the numbers to their heart's content.
The most famous correlation of sunspots to climate is the - possibly coincidental - Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715). An exceptionally low count of sunspots during that time happened to coincide nicely with the Little Ice Age (refer to the various painting of people skating in Holland, etc).
It is undeniable that the temperatures have been trending upwards over the past years. Direct evidence, absolute measurements (although apparently uncorrected for the heat island effects ) clearly demonstrate this. However, it was reported in 2004 that "the sun is in the thick of one of the longest and stormiest periods in 8,000 years". If you believe that global climate is tied more closely to solar activity than to man's production of carbon dioxide then this makes perfect sense.
I appreciate the comment from 'chapter1' - "The sun currently has few sunspots. That's because it is at the trough of an 11-year cycle." However, he is apparently unaware of the current predictions of solar activity:
The next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
If you believe that an active sun brings higher temperatures and a quiet sun brings colder temperatures then what you would expect to see is a colder winter (such as the one currently appearing in many parts of the globe) followed by a period of warming.
This could be followed up by a very long cold snap:
The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity."
According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity.;
This is the scientific, spam, pony and scone-free model to which I adhere: the global climate is affected to a much greater effect by solar activity than to any activity by man. I hold that this model is substantiated by past observations and that the predictions based on this model will be proven accurate as time progresses.
This opens up a world of questions (and the inevitable abuse by those who won't even bother to check out the links to NASA) that I am willing to discuss. And, of course, I could be wrong. If I am wrong, then prove me wrong. But do it by calm, dispassionate proof (with the expectation that your claims will be countered).