New ice age? Don't count on it

Ars article on the model evaluation process.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/06/climatologists-f...

I can use your help.

So in all my postings here, and when I talk with folks in person, and at conferences and the topic comes up. I start with "The climate changes, we know it changes because we have lots of evidence in the geologic record that it has been very different than today, both colder and hotter. This process is continuous."

And yet you, MaysonL ask "What evidence do you see that it isn't happening?"

When I had stated categorically that it was happening. The only solid difference between my position on global warming and the 'alarmists' that I can find is that I don't believe that humans can control the global climate. I agree we can change our contribution to its change, but I strongly disagree that if we eliminate our contribution that change will stop happening.

I'm a strong supporter of climate science, and I try to keep an open mind to avoid confirmational bias and I seek out conflicting data in an effort to 'keep myself honest' that I'm looking as all the data and not just data that supports my point of view.

And still in some groups if I ask "what is your opinion of this conflicting report?" or "what do you think of Boyd's iron hypothesis?" or any question which reveals that I don't think humans can control the climate, the cry 'Denier! Denier! Denier!' is raised with metaphorical pitch forks and clubs.

Its unsatisfying to just shrug my shoulders and leave but my experience is that anything said once the cry goes up is effectively white noise. So if you have any suggestions on how I might state my position without triggering the 'denier! denier!' mode I'm all ears.

Fair point, I do get emotional.

I get angry with people who hijack legitimate scientific enquiries to manipulate others into doing their bidding. And I get frustrated with people who argue conjecture and theory as fact.

There is great science in climatology. Its fascinating and we learn new things every day. None of it suggests that any actions humans take will change the fact that the earth's climate is changing. Just like you can't simulatenously both believe in the science of evolution and that it no longer is a factor in humans.

So its scientific to say that our models show that CO2, as a green house gas, has a significant influence on climate. Its not scientific to say if humans make less CO2 the climate will stop changing. It is perfectly reasonable to say that if humans reduce their CO2 generation it will change the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere.

A great web site which focuses on the science is Skeptical Science [1]. I like it because they are pretty aggressive at seeking out all the journal articles and papers and seem to be pretty good about even talking about papers they don't agree with.

A recent article they posted talked about the PETM extinction event [2]. In that event, where there were no humans present, CO2 levels on the planet shot up, the planet warmed and lots of things died off. The study is great, the science is sound, and I'm sure the paper is cited often. Unfortunately nobody has yet figured out why the CO2 shot up.

So when you read this, on the one hand you can say "Look it doesn't matter why, human activity is causing a similar jump in CO2 and it killed lots of stuff then we need to address this." I don't disagree with that statement at all.

I disagree with the non-scientific statement "if we address human CO2 generation this won't happen." Is that a subtle difference? I don't think so. What ever caused CO2 to spike without human help could happen again, and if it does we're in a world of hurt. So people who approach this issue less emotionally talk about both changing how much CO2 (or any other green house gases) we liberate into the atmosphere and ways to survive climate changes. When people try to tell me that if I do what they say it will "help stop climate change" I get irritated with them.

[1] http:://skepticalscience.com/

[2] http://skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than...

Well, empirically speaking, we're dumping an absurd amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, there's a pretty clear model that suggests it warms the planet, and the planet is in fact warming. You don't need to religiously care about change or warming perse in order to notice that said warming will be very inconvenient for coastal areas, where most major cities and population reside. If that's the case.. who cares if idiots agree with you? They're useful. Trust me, disbelieving in global warming lines you up with all kinds of useful idiots.