Deltoid

Those must be stray adult Atlantic salmon, because we had no funding to observe them emerging as juveniles from the stream gravel three years ago.

-- State of Maine fisheries biologists.

Posted by: Douglas Watts | April 1, 2008 2:19 AM

I'd already noted z's comment and posted about it over at HB's to disseminate this comic masterpiece more widely.

It's fully deserving of the elevation to an actual blog post.

May the maxim "Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them" be used wisely forthwith.

Posted by: P. Lewis | April 1, 2008 6:30 AM

Thank You Tim! Thank you Z! that is the best thing I have read all week :)

Posted by: terence | April 1, 2008 8:26 PM

I am not worthy to follow in the illustrious footsteps of... well, you know who they are.

Posted by: z | April 2, 2008 12:29 AM

As for many other bad arguments, John Cook's Skeptical Science" is a useful resource.

In this case, the argument is:

[co2lag] 8 CO2 lags temperature

RC has more depth, but SS is nice because there's one page with a whole list, and one page per argument describing it briefly, with pointers to real papers.

I've occasionally found newspaper articles or posts that managed to use 10-12 of these bad arguments.

Posted by: John Mashey | April 2, 2008 1:36 AM

Thanks to John Mashey for the "skeptical scientist" link. I thought it may be interesting for everybody to see here what people usually mention as sceptical arguments against a rock solid CO2 causality. Although I am not paid for this, I took a few minutes to cast my own vote as to the relevance of these arguments / adding some links and comments. I put a Y for YES or a N for NO depending whether I think that

a) the arguments have any relevance related to the topic above and b) the argument has not yet been refuted by rock solid empirical science.

So is there any relevance on a global scale? Y/N?

1 It's the sun 8.5% Y

2 Climate's changed beforeand Y 7.4% Y

3 There is no consensus 6.3% Y - at least there shouldn't be unless proven by rock solid empirical science

4 Surface temp is unreliable 5.3% N

5 Models are unreliable 4.6% model Y

6 Ice age predicted in the 70's 4.0% N

7 Al Gore got it wrong 4.0% N

8 CO2 lags temperature 3.7% Y The cause-effect dynamics of the gross carbon cycle is not yet entirely understood. Thus a spurious correlation does not confirm nor debunk CAGW in the IPCC magnitude

9 Antarctica is cooling/gaining ice 3.4% Y This goes both for sea ice and continental ice

10 Global warming is good 3.2% Y At least it is not possible to asses the winners and losers of a warming world beyond reasonable doubt.

11 Mars is warming 3.1% mars Y

12 1934 - hottest year on record 3.0% 1934 N

13 Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming Y They are somehow linked to ANY warming with both increasing and decreasing patterns.

14 It's cosmic rays 2.8% Y with low scientific understanding

15 It's cooling 2.8% Y

16 We're heading into an ice age 2.7% Y can not be totally excluded and any possibilities should be taken seriously given the devastating effects for the world's food and energy needs in the event of a major cooling.

17 It hasn't warmed since 1998 2.6% 1998 Y

18 It's Urban Heat Island effect 2.5% uhi Y Let's call it land use and other (non greenhouse) AGW

19 It's freaking cold! 2.2% cold N

20 Other planets are warming 2.1% planet W

21 Greenland was green 1.9% N

22 Hockey stick was debunked 1.8% hockey Y

23 It's water vapor 1.7% vapor N

24 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss due to land use 1.5% Y and thus evaporation. 25 We're coming out of an ice age 1.4% Y

26 It cooled mid-century 1.3% Y

27 It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low 1.3% N

28 Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions 1.3% Y ...in the sense that ocean cooling could cause a decrease in CO2 concentration (Roy Spencer)

29 Satellites show no warming in d troposph. 1.0% Y

30 Glaciers are growing 1.0% glacier Y This is an important one because is important if the trend towards more snow in Antarctica may soon offset thermal expansion and the melting of small glaciers.

31 Neptune is warming 1.0% neptun Y

32 Greenland is cooler/gaining ice 1.0% N

33 Climate sensitivity is low 1.0% Y

34 There is no empirical evidence 0.9% Y

35 Scientists can't even predict the weather 0.8% N

36 Jupiter is warming 0.8% jupiter Y

37 Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming 0.5% schulte N

38 It's aerosols 0.5% N

39 It's the ocean 0.5% ocean Y

40 It's volcanoes (or lack thereof) 0.4% Y

Posted by: climatepatrol | April 2, 2008 11:38 AM

climatepatrol:

I thought it may be interesting for everybody to see here what people usually mention as sceptical arguments against a rock solid CO2 causality.

Eh, what?

Posted by: bi | April 2, 2008 12:22 PM

The only important issue is whether heating from anthropogenic CO2 will cause enough damage to warrant mitigative actions that have there own associated costs.

Models that do not correlate well with reality are currently the basis for the claim that we face such damages. The fact that CO2 has IR absorbtion properties that will theoretically lead to some, as yet poorly quantified, heating is not in and of itself reason to abandon fossil fuel use.

The arguments presented by RealClimate and others to dismiss the CO2 "lag" issue are fatuous. To protest that increasing CO2 levels lagging temperature increases by hundreds of years presents no problem for AGW theory is ludicrous.

Their argument goes like this.

1. Some mysterious process leads to increasing temperatures.

2. This releases CO2 from the oceans.

3. This keeps the temperatures increasing.

4. Eventually some mysterious process leads to cooling in spite of the fact that CO2 levels are still high.

5. CO2 levels remain high for hundreds of years even though temperatures remain low. This is because the mysterious other forces are stronger than the CO2 forcing.

If the illegitimacy of this argument isn't immediately apparent you aren't paying attention or you REALLY want to believe that CO2 is a magical gas.

Imagine that I go to the local hospital and check the charts for people who are healing and then give them an "amulet" that I claim "causes" healing.

If I then monitor those people and they continue to heal can I claim that the amulet is now the "main" cause of the healing?

Now imagine that they begin to get sick again while still wearing the amulet. In fact they deteriorate for years while wearing the amulet. Would you believe me if I told you that the amulet did indeed have healing powers but was being overpowered by stronger forces?

Anyone willing to buy an amulet from me?

Posted by: Lance | April 2, 2008 12:40 PM

You say the science is settled long,
Yet I don't agree, so it's wrong;
For I do have a PhD
from an unnamed famous varsity;

And Oreskes is communist,
'Cause she's reticent on th' Islamist;
From 'conomists to physicians
They're all part of the plot --

There's no warming
There's no warming
It's just a Terrist Worldwide
Conspiracy

There's no warming
There's no warming
For polar bears adapt
and so will we

Posted by: bi | April 2, 2008 1:18 PM

The "mysterious forces" are called Milankovitch cycles.

Posted by: cce | April 2, 2008 1:31 PM

You're quote-mining, Lance. Simon D pointed to a different RealClimate blog entry, but you chose to ignore it. Why?

Posted by: bi | April 2, 2008 2:24 PM

Here is the corrected version that I meant to post, so no thoughtful poster need place "(sic)" in their reply.

bi,

I am not "quote mining". I simply Googled "RealClimate Co2 lag" and went to the very first article listed. The link that Simon provided does not differ substantially from the one I quoted.

There is no proven correlation between the individual warming and cooling periods in the ice core data and Milankovitch cycles. Milankovitch cycles are theorized to be one of a possible many causes that RelaClimate correctly lists as "currently unknown".

If you think otherwise then go present your argument to RealClimate.

Posted by: Lance | April 2, 2008 3:07 PM

And, we don't need to know WHAT causes the warming to begin, in order to explain why CO2 increases lag that warming. The lag tells us it's not CO2 in this case, but some other cause. We do know that, whatever the cause, warming the ocean's going to cause CO2 to be outgassed, and that the CO2 thus released will add its own warming input into the system.

Lance has picked an article by searching for "CO2 lag", so not surprisingly he found a short piece that discusses why CO2 lags warming. The article does NOT address the question "what, then, causes the warming". Yes, it says "currently unknown", but does not say, as Lance does, that there's no correlation between Milankovich cycles and the end of ice ages.

Posted by: dhogaza | April 2, 2008 4:18 PM

Lance,

Read AR4 WGI Chapter 6, box 6.1 and 6.2, page 445 and 446. The fact that glaciation and deglaciation are controlled by orbital forcing is not in dispute. What remains in dispute is whether the warming starts in the NH or SH, and what the exact mechanism is that changes the CO2 concentrations, although the bulk of the change certainly has to do with the oceans.

Posted by: cce | April 2, 2008 4:48 PM

Lance said: "They hope that this little bit of sophistry will divert attention from what is an obvious problem for the theory that atmospheric CO2 concentration is a primary climate forcing".

That is a complete fabrication. No-one except people like you have ever claimed that CO2 is "a primary forcing" in the past few hundred thousand years. As you have been told above it is orbital variation which has been the "primary forcing" during that time.

CO2 has only become a "primary forcing" over the past 150 years because carbon which has for eons been locked in the earth's lithosphere has now been released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide by burning it.

If you are so stupid as not to realize that what you are saying is a complete distortion of the truth you have no right to claim that you are a "scientist" particularly a wannabe physicist.

Either start telling the truth, learn the truth or shut up. You are a disgrace to science with the nonsense you spout on this and other blogs.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | April 2, 2008 6:11 PM

Al Gore's actual claim in the film, "The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside," is completely consistent with RC's explanantion that CO2 played a significant factor in the interglacial warming cyles.

Try not to get disemvoweled when you write your usual tortured response :)

Posted by: Winnebago | April 2, 2008 8:46 PM

Sorry Winnebago if my disemvoweled post in the other thread was interpreted as mean spirited. It was meant in total jest.

So let me see, Al gore puts up a graph that shows that temperature and CO2 are correlated and says "But there is one relationship that is more powerful than the others and it is this. When there is more CO2 the temperature gets warmer." Now it turns out that if you actually examine the relationship of the two factors it is clear that CO2 always lags temperature and this is an honest presentation of the evidence?

RealClimate comes to the defense and says that while this lag proves that CO2 didn't "cause" the warming it might have kept the warming going. This is not what Al said is it?

Ian Forrester claims I am being dishonest when I say about RealClimate "They hope that this little bit of sophistry will divert attention from what is an obvious problem for the theory that atmospheric CO2 concentration is a primary climate forcing".

Before calling me "stupid" and a "disgrace to science" he says angrily, "No-one except people like you have ever claimed that CO2 is 'a primary forcing' in the past few hundred thousand years." Really, no one?

Again I quote Al's words from that section of the film, generously provided by Winnebago, "The relationship is very complicated. But there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside,"

Lets' see now "...one relationship that is more powerful than all the others..." Which one is Al talking about? Why carbon dioxide! So it would seem that unless you consider Al to be "people like" me there are others saying just what I claimed they had said. Unless you want to argue that a forcing that is "more powerful than all the others" doesn't mean a "primary" forcing? Do you really need to sink that low?

Really Ian, try to limit your insulting hyperbole to things that can't be shown to be false immediately (and by folks on your side of the argument no less). Last time you quoted a paper that flatly said the opposite of what you claimed it said and you continue to lie about it even now. All I would have to do is go back through those posts to prove you are lying.

Why not save me the trouble and show everyone that you are willing to admit when you are wrong. It's a strength not a weakness.

Posted by: Lance | April 2, 2008 10:12 PM

Ah, well this brings me to my other forthcoming paper; "What's going on now is the same as what has always gone on, as proved by the fact that it's happening in reverse order".

Posted by: z | April 2, 2008 10:31 PM

Ian Forrester,

I assumed you wouldn't stoop so low as to parse the words "primary" and "more powerful than all the others". I was wrong; your desperation is truly pathetic.

So by your definitions of the word "primary" if a person catches a cold and then is shot it would be correct to say that their primary health problem would be the cold?

Christ is that the best you can do? Just admit you were wrong. I'll be merciful. This is almost making me squeamish.

Posted by: Lance | April 2, 2008 10:47 PM

"So by your definitions of the word "primary" if a person catches a cold and then is shot it would be correct to say that their primary health problem would be the cold?"

What if he's shot by meth fiends for the Sudafed he bought to fight his cold? What then Mr. Smartypants?

Posted by: Another PS | April 2, 2008 11:18 PM

Lance:

The only important issue is whether heating from anthropogenic CO2 will cause enough damage to warrant mitigative actions that have there own associated costs.

Models that do not correlate well with reality are currently the basis for the claim that we face such damages.

This is blatantly untrue. Empirically derived estimates for climate sensitivity are presented in papers on this page which also has a list of papers giving sensitivity derived from GCMs. Note that the paper by Annan also has an empirically derived estimate.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | April 3, 2008 12:33 AM

We know that Milankovitch cycles drive the ice ages because they coincide with ice ages. We believe that the CO2 changes, whatever the exact mechanism, amplifies the orbital forcing because the change in albedo and aerosol levels are not adequate to change the global temperatures the required amount. The GHG increases (which include Methane and N2O) fill in this gap, and are consistent with everything we know about them. In fact, the ice cores are among the best empirical evidence of climate sensitivity. That's how science works.

Scientists proposed this very relationship before any lag was even measured or quantified. And it's a bit hard for this to have "started" with AIT, given RealClimate was explaining years before the movie was released.

If is, however, inaccurate for Gore to say that the CO2 relationship is the most powerful, since all of the greenhouse gas changes combined are roughly equivalent to the albedo and aerosol changes (although those are less well defined), each making up about a third of the process.

Posted by: cce | April 3, 2008 2:42 AM

And Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
hates Stalinists and Führeren,
If lots of folks agree it's junk,
then they are wrong, it's treasure sunk;

So next time when you take a pee,
and folks say it's not English tea,
Just tell them in their face that you're
a freedom-loving dude --

There 's no warming,
There 's no warming,
It's just a Terrist Worldwide
Conspiracy;

There 's no warming,
There 's no warming,
For polar bears adapt
and so will we...

Posted by: bi | April 3, 2008 5:59 AM

climatepatrol said

There's no warming, ... [then lots of other inanities]

Well, the people who probably know about these things better than you (and me), when they look at the data, say something different. As scientists at the UKMO recently reported:

Research published this month in the Journal of Geophysical Research explored how observed extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures, across different world regions, have changed since 1950.

Minimum temperatures have seen the biggest increases, most notably over Russia and Canada, where the coldest days are now up to 4 °C warmer than they were in the middle of the 20th Century.

The largest changes in maximum temperature were found across Canada and Eurasia where they have typically warmed by 1-3 °C. Warming across the UK was found to be between 0.5 and 2 °C.

Simon Brown, Met Office Climate Scientist said: "This latest research shows that some extreme events are already increasing. The trend is set to continue with our changing climate having a significant impact, with warmer nights and hotter days in the future".

Posted by: P. Lewis | April 3, 2008 7:45 AM

climatepatrol posts (I'm only taking the ones he agreed with):

[[1 It's the sun 8.5% Y]]

No, it isn't. Solar luminosity hasn't shown any trend since 1950. Global warming is up sharply since 1970.

[[2 Climate's changed beforeand Y 7.4% Y]]

Of course it has. So what? The present change is artificial and dangerous. If it were natural it would still be dangerous. Volcanoes have erupted before, too. That doesn't make them pleasant to be near when they go off.

[[3 There is no consensus 6.3% Y - at least there shouldn't be unless proven by rock solid empirical science]]

There is a consensus among climatologists, and it's based on evidence.

[[5 Models are unreliable 4.6% model Y]]

What models, and unreliable in what way?

[[8 CO2 lags temperature 3.7% Y The cause-effect dynamics of the gross carbon cycle is not yet entirely understood. Thus a spurious correlation does not confirm nor debunk CAGW in the IPCC magnitude]]

It's not entirely understood, but the broad outlines have been clear for a long time -- try Googling Berner and Lasaga for the very-long-term carbon cycle, or the IPCC reports for the short-term.

Yes, in a natural deglaciation, temperature leads CO2. That's not what it's doing now, so the observation is kind of irrelevant.

[[9 Antarctica is cooling/gaining ice 3.4% Y This goes both for sea ice and continental ice]]

The GRACE satellite says Antarctica is losing ice mass:

BBC Article

[[10 Global warming is good 3.2% Y At least it is not possible to asses the winners and losers of a warming world beyond reasonable doubt.]]

We know it will cause more droughts in continental interiors (ask the Australians), more violent weather along coastlines and sea level rise. The bad outweighs the good in any serious estimate.

[[11 Mars is warming 3.1% mars Y]]

And Uranus is cooling, and probably Venus is cooling, and Mercury and Luna are stable. Different worlds have different climate factors varying at different times. Global warming on Mars is due to its changing albedo, because Mars has worldwide dust storms, and where the dust falls determines how much light it reflects afterward:

Hvidberg, C.S. 2006. "The North Polar Layered Deposits, Mars: Topography, Flow and Implications for Timescales." Lunar and Planetary Institute: Fourth International Conference on Mars Polar Science and Exploration, Davos, Switzerland, Oct. 2-6, 2006.

See also:

Young, Leslie A., Bosh, Amanda S., Buie, Marc, Elliott, J.L., and Wasserman, Lawrence H. 2001. "Uranus After Solstice: Results from the 1998 November 6 Occultation." Icarus 153, 236-247.

[[13 Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming Y They are somehow linked to ANY warming with both increasing and decreasing patterns. ]]

The present warming is artificial.

[[14 It's cosmic rays 2.8% Y with low scientific understanding]]

Cosmic rays haven't shown a trend in 50 years, either.

[[15 It's cooling 2.8% Y ]]

Don't be stupid.

[[16 We're heading into an ice age 2.7% Y can not be totally excluded and any possibilities should be taken seriously given the devastating effects for the world's food and energy needs in the event of a major cooling. ]]

Yes, absent global warming, we'd be in for another ice age in 20,000 to 50,000 years. You'll forgive me if I don't panic.

[[17 It hasn't warmed since 1998 2.6% 1998 Y]]

Why Tim Ball is Wrong

[[18 It's Urban Heat Island effect 2.5% uhi Y Let's call it land use and other (non greenhouse) AGW]]

People who have actually studied the problem say the urban heat island effect is negligible:

Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Imhoff, M., Lawrence, W., Easterling, D., Peterson, T., and Karl, T. 2001. "A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change." J. Geophys. Res. 106, 23947-23963.

Mann, M. E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S. Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J.T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., and Wigley, T.M.L. 2003. "On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth." EOS 84, 256-258.

Peterson, Thomas C. 2003. "Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found." J. Clim. 16(18), 2941-2959.

Peterson T., Gallo K., Lawrimore J., Owen T., Huang A., McKittrick D. 1999. "Global rural temperature trends." Geophys. Res. Lett. 26(3), 329.

[[20 Other planets are warming 2.1% planet W]]

And some are cooling, and some are stable. See above under Mars.

[[22 Hockey stick was debunked 1.8% hockey Y]]

Go read the many threads about this on Tamino's "Open Mind" blog:

Open Mind

[[24 Mt. Kilimanjaro's ice loss due to land use 1.5% Y and thus evaporation.]]

No comment. I don't know what the situation is with Kilimanjaro. I do know that most glaciers are retreating.

[[25 We're coming out of an ice age 1.4% Y]]

From the Milankovic cycles which govern ice ages, we passed the peak of the interglacial 6,000 years ago and would now be cooling if it were not for all the greenhouse gases we're pumping into the atmosphere.

[[26 It cooled mid-century 1.3% Y]]

Heavy industry with little or no pollution controls.

[[28 Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions 1.3% Y ...in the sense that ocean cooling could cause a decrease in CO2 concentration (Roy Spencer)]]

The ocean isn't cooling.

[[29 Satellites show no warming in d troposph. 1.0% Y ]]

Yes they do:

Mears, Carl A. and Wentz, Frank J. 2005. "The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature." Science 309:1548-1551.

Santer, Benjamin D., Wigley, T. M. L., Meehl, G. A., Wehner, M. F., Mears, C., Schabel, M., Wentz, F. J., Ammann, C., Arblaster, J., Bettge, T., Washington, W. M., Taylor, K. E., Boyle, J. S., Brüggemann, W. and Doutriaux, C. 2003. "Influence of Satellite Data Uncertainties on the Detection of Externally Forced Climate Change." Science 300:1280-1284.

Santer, Benjamin D., Wigley, T. M. L., Mears, C., Wentz, F. J., Klein, S. A., Seidel, D. J., Taylor, K. E., Thorne, P. W., Wehner, M. F., Glecker, P. J., Boyle, J. S., Collins, W. D., Dixon, K. W., Doutriaux, C., Free, M., Fu, Q., Hansen, J. E., Jones, G. S., Ruedy, R., Karl, T. R., Lanzante, J. R., Meehl, G. A., Ramaswamy, V., Russell, G. and Schmidt, G. A. 2005. "Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere." Science 309:1551-1556.

Sherwood, Steven C., Lanzante, John R. and Meyer, Cathryn L. 2005. "Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming." Science 309:1556-1559.

[[30 Glaciers are growing 1.0% glacier Y This is an important one because is important if the trend towards more snow in Antarctica may soon offset thermal expansion and the melting of small glaciers.]]

Most glaciers are retreating, not growing:

Glaciers

[[31 Neptune is warming 1.0% neptun Y]]

See above under Mars.

[[33 Climate sensitivity is low 1.0% Y ]]

Most estimates say it's about 3 K per doubling of CO2:

Climate Sensitivity

[[34 There is no empirical evidence 0.9% Y]]

You've got to be kidding.

[[36 Jupiter is warming 0.8% jupiter Y]]

No, it isn't. They discovered hot spots on Jupiter. That's not the same as warming. See here:

Kunde, V.G., Flasar, F.M., Jennings, D.E., Bézard, B., Strobel, D.F., Conrath, B.J., Nixon, C.A., Bjoraker, G.L., Romani, P.N., Achterberg, R.K., Simon-Miller, A.A., Irwin, P., Brasunas, J.C., Pearl, J.C., Smith, M.D., Orton, G.S., Gierasch, P.J., Spilker, L.J., Carlson, R.C., Mamoutkine, A.A., Calcutt, S.B., Read, P.L., Taylor, F.W., Fouchet, T., Parrish, P., Barucci, A., Courtin, R., Coustenis, A., Gautier, D., Lellouch, E., Marten, A., Prangé, R., Biraud, Y., Ferrari, C., Owen, T.C., Abbas, M.M., Samuelson, R.E., Raulin, F., Ade, P., Césarsky, C.J., Grossman, K.U. and Coradini, A. 2004. "Jupiter's Atmospheric Composition from the Cassini Thermal Infrared Spectroscopy Experiment." Sci. 305, 1582-1586.

Showman, A.P. and Dowling, T.E. 2000. "Nonlinear Simulations of Jupiter's 5-Micron Hot Spots." Sci. 289, 1737-1740.

[[39 It's the ocean 0.5% ocean Y]]

The ocean is a net sink for carbon dioxide, not a net source. The Earth's oceans release about 90 gigatons of carbon a year and absorb 92.

[[40 It's volcanoes (or lack thereof) 0.4% Y]]

Human technology puts out more than 100 times as much CO2 as all the volcanoes in the world:

Man versus the Volcanoes

[[44 It's Solar Cycle Length 0.2% Y warming lags 10 years behind sunspot maximum and drives other cycles ( ENSO,PDO, AMO). ]]

Pseudoscience. How could the length of the cycle warm the Earth, precisely? What's the mechanism?

[[46 The sun is getting hotter 0.1% hotsun Y]]

The Sun's output has shown no trend for 50 years:

TSI

[[47 Solar cycles cause global warming 0.1% Y]]

What solar cycles? It can't be TSI or cosmic ray modulation due to the sun's magnetic fields, because those have both been flat for 50 years.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | April 3, 2008 9:06 AM

Lance continues:

[[ The best you can do, as RealClimate attempts, is to claim that while CO2 did not start the warming it might have perpetuated it. Of course there is no evidence that this is the case other than naked assertion, nothing in the data proves or even suggests this is so. ]]

The things in the data that suggest it are as follows.

1) the variations in sunlight distribution are not enough to cause the magnitude of the temperature changes. Something amplifies them. The likely amplifier is CO2.

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Which of those do you dispute?

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | April 3, 2008 9:15 AM

@ P. Lewis

Gess What? It is just the U.S., not global correlation? I have no problem with that:

1) U.S. cooling 1905-1920

2) U.S. warming 1920-1940

3) U.S. cooling 1940-1975

4) U.S. warming 1975-2003

Posted by: climatepatrol | April 3, 2008 9:39 AM