Improved measurements of sun to advance understanding of climate change

So another one bites the dust. Denier's need another tactic now to cause scientists to waste more money on researching possibilities rather than addressing the problems.

"Using this model, Lean estimates that solar variability produces about 0.1o Celsius (0.18o Fahrenheit) global warming during the 11-year solar cycle, but is likely not the main cause of global warming in the past three decades."
GIGO

"Scientists estimating Earth's climate sensitivities need accurate and stable solar irradiance records to know exactly how much warming to attribute to changes in the sun's output, versus anthropogenic or other natural forcings."

Really? I thought they already had perfectly "accurate and stable solar irradiance" records and knew precisely how much they affected global climate. After all, the debate is already over, consensus has been reached, and all intelligent, sentient beings agree 100% with the apocalyptics, while all skeptics are capitalist-roader shills and retards.

But even this new ability to measure irradiation will only be useful going forward. If it wasn't accurate before, then past estimates of their effects are useless. We have no idea whatsoever what the lag time is for "irradiation" and will not until we can get real time accurate measurements over decades and compare them to actual changes in climate, not to conveniently tweaked computer models.

Don't bother spammer, we're all doomed anyway and, hence, you pushing your wares is futile...

I tend to agree with geokstr. This new equipment wouldn't be needed if the present equipment were accurate. This tells me that years ago NASA knew their readings were not reliable, and as the old information is unreliable, only the new information will be viable. And, it will likely take decades before we have a data set that is in any way useful.

That said, there is a lot we can do to conserve our resources without over-reacting to sound bites from faulty science.

Why are we paying attention to the sun. We should be focusing on CO2 emissions!

That said, there is a lot we can do to conserve our resources without over-reacting to sound bites from faulty science.

Agreed. But we need to do it in a rational, reasonable way. Simply dumping fossil fuels for new technologies that are proving to be extremely expensive and much more ineffiecient, without any transition plan is a guarantee for disaster.

Though prior methods of measuring irradiation were inaccurate, they were, for the last several decades anyway, much more accurate than those we have for, say, 1,000 years ago.

That didn't stop another commenter here, who shall go unnamed, from making claims about said ancient irradiation. First, he grudgingly admitted, that, yes, Mann had deliberately falsified his "hockey stick" by airbrushing out the Medieval Warm Period, when climate worldwide was much warmer than today, and good for life to boot.

But then he claimed it was due to "solar forcing", i.e., irradiation, based on what, tree rings from specially selected trees?

Why are we paying attention to the sun. We should be focusing on CO2 emissions!

A bit backwards. We should be focusing on reducing CO2 levels because of their effect on human, not because of any contribution to global climate. So build those nuclear power plants now! (Yes, solar and wind power are nice, but they can't replace base load power plants which too often burn coal. We need about 10 new large nuclear plants per year to get CO2 levels under control.)

Then focus on measurements of solar irradiance so we know what we are doing when choosing how to change global temperatures makes sense. (Choosing the right greenhouse gasses should allow climate engineers to heat the poles and cool the tropics. How you get the world to decide what the appropriate settings are is a topic for another time.) Of course, you need a good historical record of SI, so putting instruments up now is needed.

Why are we paying attention to the sun? Well, because whether you want to admit it or not, virtually 100% of the energy that affects the earth COMES from the sun. Other sources (volcanos, manmade heat, etc.) don't amount to a tiny fraction of 1% of the energy that the sun supplies to this planet.

Since that is the case, it is reasonable to want to know just how much VARIATION there is in this incoming energy (and outgoing ... lots of it gets reflected back into space). If this amount varies a great deal, it could be a significant factor in changes in climate. It certainly HAS been in the past ... ice ages have been primarily due to such changes.

But what is the short-term variation? Right now, no one has FACTS about this. To state categorically that this is not important without facts to back it up is to attempt to convert "science" into a religious doctrine. We've seen quite enough of that, on both sides of this debate.

Oh, beautiful. Lengould, did you read the article at all? The lady said that she can't wait to see what the real models produce when the new data corrections are made. Nothing has bitten the dust yet. Let's do like the scientist said and wait to see what the other scientists say. Your knee-jerk reaction is premature. Wait till they re-run the models and then have your knee-jerk reactions please. Also, if you read it carefully, the lady from NASA just said that .1 degree of the recent warming was caused by variations in the sun, so that's part that wasn't caused by man made co2. That's the only thing she's saying may have bitten the dust at this point, based on her basic model.

Better measurements means we know the real values more accurately. It doesn't mean that no one knew what the TMI was before, and now we know.

Its important to read the article before criticizingly it. Otherwise when you comment you sound like an idiot.

It certainly HAS been in the past ... ice ages have been primarily due to such changes.

Not to mention I believe that it's about 10% hotter now (or perhaps even more?) than when the planets formed. It's my understanding that we have about 500-800 million years before its continual heating up renders the planet sterile

Long time, but there it is.

Well, the sun is getting hotter as it ages, but the earth is getting cooler at the same time. The following is a quote from a NASA news story:

"First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent"

That's something you don't hear climate scientists talk about very often. We're much more likely to freeze from an ice age on a much shorter scale than the time scale of planetary cooling or solar warming though. Heck, I wonder what the time frame is from the Yosimite Volcano to erupt again, or an asteroid impact of significant size. Certainly a shorter time than solar death or planetary cooling.

"First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent"

That's something you don't hear climate scientists talk about very often.

Well the reason for that is the fact it's complete humorous bullshit, granted via satire of denialists.

That particular quote comes from a conversation between John Christy of U of Alabama, and Roy Spencer of NASA. That is a fully anecdotal conversation, primarily making fun of denial based blogs and should not be entered in as fact.

I know you know this, and I got the intense amount of humor from it, but I think you and I in particular should hash out the factual aspect more than the humorous.

I'd recommend the rest of you gents put it in quotes and press, "I'm feelin' lucky" on google and get a good overview of what was known and unknown of climate overall a few years ago. It's refreshingly genuine and non-pa

Feeling Lucky gets me to a 1997 way-back NASA SCIENCE article discussing a paper published in Nature with a discussion between John Christy of U of Alabama and Roy Spencer of NASA. 1997 mind you.

we have yet to discover all the particles Earth is bombarded with from the sun. The Sun affects radioactive decay, how?

we have yet to discover all the particles Earth is bombarded with from the sun. The Sun affects radioactive decay, how?

Not at all.

We'll know for sure what the future holds when we get there. Until then, even the best predictions are just guesses. As of now, it is conceit to think we know all the questions, much less all the answers.

We're much more likely to freeze from an ice age on a much shorter scale than the time scale of planetary cooling or solar warming though.

There was an article published here in the last year about how ice ages can become full blown on very short time scales of less than a decade. Another Ice Age, for which we are about due based on past cycles, would be far more disastrous to polar bears and puppies and children than the mild warming predicted by the IPCC if we do nothing. That's why the apocalyptics are now screeching at full volume that Venus is coming to Gaia unless we let algore destroy our economies.

But, based on the scientific hubris that we know everything there is to know about "climate", we are about to do everything we can to make sure it gets colder. What could possibly go wrong?

But, based on the scientific hubris that we know everything there is to know about "climate", we are about to do everything we can to make sure it gets colder. What could possibly go wrong?

Well that'd be because you're entirely incorrect. There's no comming ice age just around the corner that we know about, not for at least another few thousand years.

I've noticed that in these comments, one must forget science and engage in cultural opinions, instead.

Feeling Lucky gets me to a 1997 way-back NASA SCIENCE article discussing a paper published in Nature with a discussion between John Christy of U of Alabama and Roy Spencer of NASA. 1997 mind you.

"I'm feeling lucky" gets me the same NASA page, with text stating "Last Updated: April 5, 2010."

Look's like it still might apply to the discussion and is not satire...

It is interesting that the page discusses the convection of heat to the upper atmosphere and its effect on cooling the planet. I said the same thing elsewhere. How it works is that convection takes the heat into the upper atmosphere, where CO2 actually has a known cooling effect.

CO2 has increased in the upper atmosphere as well. Of course, no one really knows the precise amount of cooling CO2 contributes to the upper atmosphere but it has been estimated to be somewhere around 10% of the cooling effect. That number could well be revised in the near future with new satellite data from GLORY and others.

So another one bites the dust. Denier's need another tactic now to cause scientists to waste more money on researching possibilities rather than addressing the problems.

See also /news194025410.html on the physorg.com website for the reason why they want to look further into the question of the Sun in relatio to climate change.

In the thick of things, if you think about it, this really is a way to improve data and remove this as an excuse, if it can be removed from the discussion as an excuse.

My preliminary prediction is that it will not give them the data they want and a news article will later appear detailing some one or other materials failure, like what happened with the ARGO network when it, like tree-ring proxies, displayed a decline in temperatures in contrast to land observations. :)

I am pleased that NASA is finally paying attention to
"Earth's heat source - the Sun"
Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144.

NASA's leaders learned from the climate scandal !

Congratulations,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

I'm suspicious when warmists claim 2010 was the warmest year in 130 years, conveniently ignoring the temperatures in the previous 10,000 years. Vast conclusions from half-vast data..

I'd love to see their faces in about 20 years when they realize the solar data tracks with terrestrial temperature variation.

The fact that we do not understand all the components of the sun's output, or its levels, and we have no direct records of its long term fluctuations, is but an inconvenient truth.

I'm suspicious when warmists claim 2010 was the warmest year in 130 years, conveniently ignoring the temperatures in the previous 10,000 years.

So when scientists say that it is the warmest year of the instrumental record, which is 130 years long, you tell us it was hotter 10,000 years ago.

That's great. We didn't have an instrumental record 10,000 years ago. You're not paying attention to the actual research.

I'd love to see their faces in about 20 years when they realize the solar data tracks with terrestrial temperature variation.

We know the temperature record tracks with solar output. Can you explain why it hasn't tracked with solar output for the past 5 decades? Or are oyu happy ot just spew stuff you heard on FOX?

The fact that we do not understand all the components of the sun's output, or its levels, and we have no direct records of its long term fluctuations, is but an inconvenient truth.

You are right. "Life evolved on a planet that is connected gravitationally, magnetically and electrically to a central star - obscured from view by waste products (H and He) in the photosphere that migrate out as the heliosphere to engulf the planet."

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

"You are right. "Life evolved on a planet that is connected gravitationally, magnetically and electrically to a central star - obscured from view by waste products (H and He) in the photosphere that migrate out as the heliosphere to engulf the planet."

He's taking the p**s....surely?

"Scientists studying climate, particularly paleoclimates, must always bear in mind the unknowns and uncertainties involved with the data, particularly when attempting to match up records from different types of proxies or different regions. The challenge is especially difficult when correlating millennial scale oscillations when the resolution of the data is low and uncertainty is high." //www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10k.html

More instrumental data is welcome - till that's in, I'll reserve judgment. In the meantime, running around like chicken little or praying at the altar of Saint Gore is just silly.

"Scientists studying climate, particularly paleoclimates, must always bear in mind the unknowns and uncertainties involved with the data, particularly when attempting to match up records from different types of proxies or different regions. The challenge is especially difficult when correlating millennial scale oscillations when the resolution of the data is low and uncertainty is high." //www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10k.html

More instrumental data is welcome - till that's in, I'll reserve judgment. In the meantime, running around like chicken little or praying at the altar of Saint Gore is just silly.

So what are your other objections to a theory that has been in existence for over 200 years?

live evolves continuously to cope with climate changes. if not, we wouldn't be here. it's incredible to me that people can take their "environmental consciousness" from the media and marginalize the heinous forms of pollution and environmental destruction that are happening all around us just so that they can gratify themselves with a delusional sense of environmental curatorship that informs them that "temperature" is somehow in the top 100 environmental concerns of our age. get over it - earth warm, earth cool, don't matter, life goes on.

ive evolves continuously to cope with climate changes. if not, we wouldn't be here.

Well duh, but are you somehow removed from 'the environment'? Are you a time traveler that can simply dial in any year and observe the environment for kicks and then move on to a different epoch?

Climate change won't eradicate all life on Earth of course, but it will make things a hell of a lot tougher on current life (including us) and succeeding generations, which you seem to be trivially discounting.

That particular quote comes from a conversation between John Christy of U of Alabama, and Roy Spencer of NASA. That is a fully anecdotal conversation, primarily making fun of denial based blogs and should not be entered in as fact

Oh really? Google the following for my source. It's a NASA news article authored by Horack and Spencer himself. I don't see anything indicating that he was joking. Google the following and pick the first link:

Accurate "Thermometers" in Space

It's a little old, but mostly still true. The improvements since that was written just reduce the uncertainty a little. Aeorsols and cloud formation are still huge questions. Ocean circulation and stratification are also big question marks, but they don't mention that.

Oh really? Google the following for my source. It's a NASA news article authored by Horack and Spencer himself. I don't see anything indicating that he was joking. Google the following and pick the first link:

Accurate "Thermometers" in Space

This is the original, a repro of the Nature article.
htt://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd12mar97_1/

In your source it points directly to the statements of how satellites aren't relibale. Trying to disprove satellite measurements, but what Christy and Spencer came upon is called fingerprinting. Each potential source of warming would warm differently. CO2 would produce a hotter surface and cooler tropopause.

Christy and Spencer came upon it by measuring the first 4 miles of the troposphere and finding a cooling at the top. CO2 induced warming would continue to increase the disparity between tropopause temperatures and surface temperatures by retarding the escape of IR. It is evidence for AGCC, not against.

It is all lies, Oliver is correct...otherwise how could Adam and Eve have eaten pineapples in Greenland?

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

"Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo "

I was always curious about this, given the crankish posts. On a quick investigation - i.e. googling a bit ;-) - it would seem that the only references to this claim appear on his posts to various forums and on his own website...

So.. Active imagination, or fraudster?

In regard to Dr. Manuel's credentials, google the following and select the second thing on the list. You'll see his name in the credits on page two:

case file copy NASA-NGR-26-003-057

Looks like I am more capable of doing a simple google search than you are. :P

That was a joke, btw. The problem is that if you try to google stuff from way back before the computer age, you're not going to get much of what you're looking for. Google just brings up the most commonly viewed stuff, and a 50 year old nasa file document probably isn't all that popular. lol. I had to dig quite a bit to find that, but I'm just good that way.

It is evidence for AGCC, not against

No, it is evidence for some AGCC, not evidence that all GCC is A. The magnitude isn't indicated by the data, and both Spencer and Christy continue to say that the satellite data do not support AGW alamism. They both agree, as I do, that climate is changing. They both clearly state that other factors are at work besides human influence.

Regarding science and prooving a theory:

Twice I have testified in congress that unbiased funding on the subject of the causes of warming would be much closer to a reality if 50% of that money was devoted to finding natural reasons for climate change. Currently, that kind of research is almost non-existent

That's from Spencer's latest blog entry, Jan 3. How is anyone going to notice the gorilla if all the research is counting the people throwing balls, or even worse, figuring out why the people are throwing the balls?

It is all lies, Oliver is correct...otherwise how could Adam and Eve have eaten pineapples in Greenland?

Yep, MikeyK is at it again...complete with his collection of rear-underscore trolls trotting about in exercises of futility in the form of vocal masturbation.

I, for one, am looking forward to the new satellite going up. It is likely to give us some interesting information--so long as another 'materials error' does not crop up.

Well duh, but are you somehow removed from 'the environment'? Are you a time traveler that can simply dial in any year and observe the environment for kicks and then move on to a different epoch?

What a crock! People change climates all the time! It's called "globetrotting." Heck, my grandparents were snowbirds (wintered in Florida and summered up north).

Climate change won't eradicate all life on Earth of course, but it will make things a hell of a lot tougher on current life (including us) and succeeding generations, which you seem to be trivially discounting.

Bull-oney. A warmer earth is historically much more hospitable to life, not less.

In regard to Dr. Manuel's credentials, google the following and select the second thing on the list. You'll see his name in the credits on page two:

case file copy NASA-NGR-26-003-057

Looks like I am more capable of doing a simple google search than you are. :P

That was a joke, btw. The problem is that if you try to google stuff from way back before the computer age, you're not going to get much of what you're looking for. Google just brings up the most commonly viewed stuff, and a 50 year old nasa file document probably isn't all that popular. lol. I had to dig quite a bit to find that, but I'm just good that way.

:) I bow to your google-supremacy!

And, of course, I retract my unfounded statements regarding Dr Manuel, with apologies

"You are right. "Life evolved on a planet that is connected gravitationally, magnetically and electrically to a central star - obscured from view by waste products (H and He) in the photosphere that migrate out as the heliosphere to engulf the planet."

He's taking the p**s....surely?

What is p**s?

Is a p**s dead nuclear embers, or highly energized material?

Was there a report on 15 October 2010 of a "Mysterious p**s with hidden powers discovered" [ScienceDaily]?

That's from Spencer's latest blog entry, Jan 3. How is anyone going to notice the gorilla if all the research is counting the people throwing balls, or even worse, figuring out why the people are throwing the balls?

Ok, here's some of ROy Spencer's other thoughts on, let's say, evolution...

"Does not classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith, violate the same clause? More importantly, what about the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?"

I'm sorry, I'm not going to consider him an expert in anything pertaining to the natural world if he's going to state that "belief in evolution is religion". Beyond that, his funding has come purely from the oil research labs, primarily Exxon Mobil.

Christy has a strong history of lack of bias. Spencer, not so much.

his funding has come purely from the oil research labs

Really? So NASA and UAH are just oil company pupets, and Exxon is the real source of funding for our climate satellite network. No wonder climate science is so bad; the ebil oil companies are running the show!!! Read the first paragraph of his wiki page. That's not oil funding.

In fact, his January blog entry talks about funding quite a bit. You're on the losing side of that battle. Big oil isn't the one causing the bias in climate research, it's government funding at fault there.

As for his religious beliefs, if believing in religion makes people a bad scientist, then you better toss out a lot more science than just Spencer's. Need I make a list of great thinkers with strange beliefs? I think you know you're out of your mind trying to discount him on that basis. Stick to the science and stop the stupid mud flinging please.

Really? So NASA and UAH are just oil company pupets, and Exxon is the real source of funding for our climate satellite network. No wonder climate science is so bad; the ebil oil companies are running the show!!! Read the first paragraph of his wiki page. That's not oil funding.

That isn't what I said, and you know it.

In fact, his January blog entry talks about funding quite a bit. You're on the losing side of that battle. Big oil isn't the one causing the bias in climate research, it's government funding at fault there.

And there is absolutely zero evidence of this outside fo the claims of those who receive funding directly from the oil industry. What is the last peer reviewed paper that Spencer published?

As for his religious beliefs, if believing in religion makes people a bad scientist, then you better toss out a lot more science than just Spencer's.

When a scientist says evolution is false he's no longer a scientist regardless of faith.

Now Christy himself agrees with the Theory of Anthropocentric Climate change.

Christy was brought in as an expert witness for the opponents to the Vermont emissions regulations case and said directly that he agreed with the premises of the IPCC and the current AGCC research statements.

This is available here: htt://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/VermontDecision_20070912.pdf

It's very clear that even the last of the climate skeptics are no longer skeptical unless there is an economic incentive to be so.

What is the last peer reviewed paper that Spencer published?

"On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing"

That one came out in August, in the Journal of Geophysical Reasearch. Funded by the DOE and NOAA.

That looks like government funding to me. He also maintains the UAH satellite record, which is entirely government funded.

Once again, you attack the people rather than the facts when a reputable scientist speaks out. Most people on the left and right extremes do that, so you aren't alone. I have come to expect it, like I have come to expect the personal attacks from howhot and others here. It doesn't make me wrong when they call me names and it doesn't make Spencer wrong when you question his religious beliefs. Newton believed in some really strange stuff. I guess we shouldn't trust calculus.

Evolution:

Life evolved on one side of the photosphere.
Subatomic particles evolved on the other side.
But the photosphere is not the Sun.

Life evolved here, in the heliosphere,
Driven by energy from the photosphere.
But the photosphere is not the Sun.

We see the photosphere,
As a fish sees an iceberg.
Not the water that engulfs it.

And if you're going to attack skeptics, what about Lindzen? I think he is a reputable scientist and a formidable expert in the field. I suppose he's bought and paid for by the oil companies too.

Ever notice how there's a sourcewatch page for all the skeptics, but no sourcewatch page for michael mann or gavin schmidt? Hmmm, isn't that curious? I guess that's oil company conspiracy too.

No wait. I take that back. There's no conspiracy, those guys are just THAT squeaky clean.

And if you're going to attack skeptics, what about Lindzen? I think he is a reputable scientist and a formidable expert in the field. I suppose he's bought and paid for by the oil companies too.

No, Lindzen is just pounding on old science. His hypothesis of radiative forcings involving clouds was great work, unfortunately it had the opposite effect of what he predicted when tested in the days after Sept 11th when noise from contrails was eliminated with the grounding of all air activity.

And I'm not saying anyone is squeaky clean. If you want to say someone has been dishonest or disingenuous I simply ask for an example tied to the individual or the scientific statement.

Newton believed in some really strange stuff. I guess we shouldn't trust calculus

lol, I was doing some reading on Gavin Schmidt, and just saw that he used that same argument to defend the CRU people involved in the email thing. Well, he said something slightly different, but close enough.

His comment:

Gravity isn't a useful theory because Newton was a nice man

If you want to say someone has been dishonest or disingenuous I simply ask for an example tied to the individual or the scientific statement

Well, that's a little hard when all the supposedly neutral sites have been scrubbed of any criticism of the AGW proponents. For example, compare the profile pages of the skeptics and the alarmists on wiki. All the skeptic pages include detractor statements, but none of the alarmist pages do. Schmidt's page doesn't even mention that he's an outspoken proponent of AGW, or that even fellow AGW believers have called him too extreme. There's quotes from people on his side who call him "the best thing to happen to AGW deniers" because his comments are so far fetched that they spur public backlash.

Schmidt's page doesn't even mention that he's an outspoken proponent of AGW, or that even fellow AGW believers have called him too extreme. There's quotes from people on his side who call him "the best thing to happen to AGW deniers" because his comments are so far fetched that they spur public backlash.

I thought you said no one ever spoke out against the alarmists. It appears you have direct quotations of people doing so.

It appears you have direct quotations of people doing so

lol. That's only because he is tipping the boat so far that they are afraid he will sink them all. Their statements are the equivelant of saying "Shshsh, you're going to mess it up for the rest of us, you dolt"

He's the equivalant of nut cases like Seitz and Limbaugh who frequently make easily refuted statements. It just encourages polarization.

Well, that's a little hard when all the supposedly neutral sites have been scrubbed of any criticism of the AGW proponents

I already explained that.

Wikipedia allowed a rabid AGW fanatic, with connections to East Anglia, one William Connolley, to have complete control over anything on their site concerning Global Whatever for many years. He personally scrubbed, edited, wrote, rewrote and deleted every one of over 5,000 relevant pages. He removed anything even remotely critical of the AGW religion or uncritical of skeptics.

It took a long time, but there was such a stink over it that last year (IIRC), wikipedia ownership, not exactly rightwingers themselves, had to remove him from their site.

But ALL the science is on their side, dontcha know?

lol. That's only because he is tipping the boat so far that they are afraid he will sink them all. Their statements are the equivelant of saying "Shshsh, you're going to mess it up for the rest of us, you dolt"

He's the equivalant of nut cases like Seitz and Limbaugh who frequently make easily refuted statements. It just encourages polarization.

Yes so ignore Schmidt, how much more of the science can you refute once you remove him? None of it. The whole field is saying the same thing. This is now becomming like questioning genetic mutation with biologists.

There are some whacky ideas here:
htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_But_Cannot_Prove

People's work should stand on its own merit.

There are some whacky ideas here:
htp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_But_Cannot_Prove

People's work should stand on its own merit.

The Edge Foundation are a group purposefully dedicated to bringing science together with the humanities. ie: semi new age garbage.

Science is skepticism quantified and formalized. It's *never* settled because there's always more to learn about anything. We should all keep that in mind when we make grand claims about any subject that's under heavy research.

Theorize, prove, disprove - lather, rinse, repeat..

how much more of the science can you refute once you remove him? None of it

I would not use the word refute, but I appreciate your attempt to frame the question in a way that makes it impossible to answer.

In stead I think I would say the following:

"it's reasonable to question the degree of certainty on various specific issues, especially where opinions differ amongst even the experts".

For example, I can question the parameterizations in CGCM's (don't you think it's less than ideal to use parameterizations for some of the big parts of the models?). I can question assumptions about solar variation. I wonder about the effects of aerosols, clouds and the terrestrial carbon cycle. I wonder about decadal scale oceanic cycles like Nino and NAO.

All of those things are open questions in the science, and could have profound implications. In regard to Schmidt, I think it's troubling that he is the head of a major NASA climate group and runs a major model.

ow much more of the science can you refute once you remove him

Continued:

To illustrate my point about that being an impossible proposition, let me turn it around and ask you:

How much of the science can you prove?

The whole field is saying the same thing

That's an absurd claim. Shall I start quoting differences of opinion amongst experts? I've never seen any two people who totally agree about all the different aspects of climate theory. The only sense in which you can say there is agreement is on the most broad and preliminary concepts. A 2009 survey by the American Meteorological Society resulted in about 50% of those who responded disagreeing with AGW theory in general, and only about 25% agreeing. The whole field is saying the same thing? Hardly.

That's an absurd claim. Shall I start quoting differences of opinion amongst experts? I've never seen any two people who totally agree about all the different aspects of climate theory. The only sense in which you can say there is agreement is on the most broad and preliminary concepts. A 2009 survey by the American Meteorological Society resulted in about 50% of those who responded disagreeing with AGW theory in general, and only about 25% agreeing. The whole field is saying the same thing? Hardly.

Go ahead and link that survey.

In the meantime, is the theory of antropocentic climate change universally acknowledged within the field of climatology?

The answer is yes. Even Lindzen and Christy agree that AGCC is occuring, their only disagreement is the mechanism.

Okay, google the following and pick the first link:

AMS Survey of Weathercasters on Climate Change

their only disagreement is the mechanism

That's a clever way of phrasing it, but I think a more complete way of describing variations of opinion would be more like this: While everyone does acknowledge that human co2 must have some effect, the magnitude of that effect relative to other factors and the results of the effect are disputed.

AMS Survey of Weathercasters on Climate Change

Most weathercasters are not scientists. The most common degree they have is in Joournalism. I'm sorry, but that's explicitly dubious.`

In the meantime, is the theory of antropocentic climate change universally acknowledged within the field of climatology?

The answer is yes. Even Lindzen and Christy agree that AGCC is occuring, their only disagreement is the mechanism.

Is the theory of Horoscopes universally acknowledged in the field of Astrology?

Most weathercasters are not scientists

94% of the respondents have at least one of three AMS certifications. I looked up the AMS certifications. You can find them by googling American Meterological Society Certification.

If you don't like that study, then try this one. It's another AMS survey related to GCC, but in relation to the CRU emails.

Google the following:

Climategate undermined belief in global warming among many American TV meteorologists

You'll notice that they found that education/certification doesn't seem to be a factor in people's opinion about climate change. Rather, it's a function of political affiliation for the most part. That seems to me to indicate that your concensus is the only thing here that's dubious.

from your source:

We conclude that, at least temporarily, Climategate has likely impeded efforts to encourage some weathercasters to embrace the role of climate change educator. These results also suggest that many TV weathercasters responded to Climategate more through the lens of political ideology than through the lens of meteorology.

So they suspended their scientific understanding (if they had one) and followed political ideology...

Great, don't care how they feel about who should be their senator, and what tlaking points they enjoy, it's about the facts. For example, the fact that Weathercasters, for the most part, are not educated in science.

As for your prior post, also from the AMS, if you follow the link, that paper was retracted.
Beyond that a seal of approval from the AMS does not certify one as a scientist. To gain AMS certification you need merely to complete a single 3 hour college course in one of a very narrow field of subjects. ie: hydrology.

Even Lindzen and Christy agree that AGCC is occuring, their only disagreement is the mechanism.

If I recall correctly, they also disagree with the IPCC's use of so-called 'exaggeration factors' and do not hold as high a regard for CO2 being the so-called 'primary driver' as many in the field are wont to do.

If I recall correctly, they also disagree with the IPCC's use of so-called 'exaggeration factors' and do not hold as high a regard for CO2 being the so-called 'primary driver' as many in the field are wont to do.

CO2 is not "the primary driver" of the system. It is the "primary driver" of the current change we're seeing.

Lindzen thinks it's a matter of cosmic rays seeding cloud nuclei. Which has been refuted everytime he's published a paper on the topic.

Christy doesn't doubt AGCC theory. He doubts the potential rammifications of AGCC.

"it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

The above is John Christy from the SF Chronical Dec 18, 03. "Article: Earth warming at a faster pace, say top science group's leader

Cristy also decries the kinds of claims for increases of temperatures that some have posited.

In a recent interview he stated that many of the claims are exaggerated and that the level of quantification often expressed is unwarranted. His interview in 2009 is here:

htp://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051412

He does hold that there may be some influence. I agree with you there. But, he does not agree with the rest as to how much. I actually lean more toward his position in that I still do not see mankind as having all that high of an influence at the moment. I agree that there may be some. But, I at this point do not see eye to eye with those who give so much influence to mankind over that which is warranted (which does not seem to me to be very much at the moment).

Linzen's views as of November 30, 2009:

htp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

He also holds a view that is far less alarmist than the view of the IPCC and others who agree with them.