I should have been more clear on the "people" I was talking about. Not William, who is simply presenting data and arguments, but rather Michael Asher, from the OP link, who has shown a pattern of endorsing more or less any result that casts doubt on global warming, from overselling a "tale of two Januaries" in this blog, to claiming that there is a weakening scientific consensus on the importance of a human role in global warming, by citing some "bean counting" of abstracts in climate journals in the last 3 years that expressly remark on human involvement. I submit that the reason you are finding less explicit references in the last 3 years is that the concept is so widely endorsed that it has become redundant to even mention it in an abstract, but that's not Michael Asher's take. I do see a grinding axe, yes I do. Now, I can see why someone who is skeptical of the scientific consensus might be frustrated enough to resort to almost anything to raise the dissenting voice, and dissenters have no need to make apologies, but an axe is an axe.

edit:
Incidentally, in the spirit of equal time, let us consider Asher's tale of two Januaries in the context of this temperature plot from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png
Note the different view one obtains when looking at the red 5-year rolling mean curve, compared to seeing signal in every monthly blip.

The claim on the table now is that the 20th century was indeed warm, but it was because of a lack of cosmic rays seeding clouds, or some such thing. If global cooling actually started in the 70's, someone will need to get their story straight.I agree that future data will be very helpful in deciding the matter. We just don't want to wait so long that we can only close the barn door after the horses are out. Still, there's no need for hysterical extrapolations-- I hardly think it is plausible that in 5 years the North pole will be so different. We need more like a 100 year solution to this problem.
But the rescue of the ozone layer must be viewed as a triumph of science over corporate ambivalence. Fossil fuels will be a far tougher challenge to solve (think: way stronger lobby.)

The problem is that scaremongering stories have been around since we started talking.Previous estimates were that the North Pole would be gone in 100 years. They've been steadily moving the estimates downwards. Currently, the US and Canada are in a dispute over who has control over the Northwest Passage that's started to open up. I think that the estimates of global warming becoming a serious problem in 50+ years are wildly optimistic.
The US stance on this is rapidly becoming irrelevant. Currently, the Chinese are adding more powerplants (many of them illegal, and dumping huge amounts of pollution into the atmosphere) than exist in the whole of Britain. The automarket in the US is basically stagnant, while that in China is exploding. India is fast approaching the Chinese in all areas and aims to overtake them.

__________________
We want our children to go to the planets. Burt Rutan 6/21/04
Tuckers! Science! Automotive Oddities! Boycott Trek XI! Building my hot rod with the help of the intarwebs Those who would delay scientific progress for a little temporary prosperity shall have neither.

Three questions about the 20 year graph came to mind.

Is the graph valid?

Is interpretation that I offered in my previous post (#26) logical and probable?
(I concluded that the graph indicated there was no apparent significant change for about a quarter century.)

Do the climate models allude to (or allow for) that period of stability?

If the answers to the questions are yes, yes, and no, then a 4th question arises. Do the models offer a reliable method to predict what temperature change will occur as well as indicate the reason(s) why?

That is certainly true, when I was growing up it was the population explosion. Nevertheless, just because a story can be exaggerated does not mean that population growth is not still the most significant problem facing humanity-- it just isn't the exponential bugbear it was touted as.
Yes, they may have gone a bit too far with the 5-year estimate, that doesn't sound plausible. But what if it's really 20? The problem is still there.Yes, the exact timeframe is hard to pin down, but something does seem to be happening on timescales we need to worry about.
I think it is relevant only in terms of setting an example that can then be used to generate pressure on others. One certainly cannot complain about someone else if one has not taken steps internally.

That would not seem to be the conclusion from the other graph I linked to just above-- I do not know the source of the interpretational discrepancy.My sense of this is, ten years ago no, but lately the models are improving to a level of predictability if not reliability. It's somewhere between weather forecasting, with all its inherent uncertainties, and leaf reading, and its make-believe component. But the climate modelers do think they are making progress, and I can't say they are wrong. They usually feel the role of carbon driving is understandable and predictable.

They seem the same to me (flat at .15 in the early 1990's and flat again at .45 in the early 2000's)... just the scale and cropping that bypasses the longer trend from 1950. The graph you linked to doesn't show the most recent points that show the drop from .4 to .05. It is the introduction of those points that give substance to the speculation that the warming trend may indeed be stagnant (or reversed if Feb goes counter intuitive and fails to rebound).

If one feels that only 5-year running means are useful ways to get past random jitter, one does not see that in the red curve I linked to-- one sees a pretty continuous trend absent of plateaus since 1950.[/quote]
The graph you linked to doesn't show the most recent points that show the drop from .4 to .05. [/quote]That's because it is a yearly average, further averaged to five years. One month does not show up, thankfully.
Only if one accepts a single month of data as predictive of anything. I am skeptical that it is, and even the yearly data seems problematic.

It is hard to tell from the graph, but it appears the final drop incorporates 3 or 4 months. Yes, it is hard to draw a conclusion from that short of a trend, but there are many expensive decisions that are being rushed into on the assumption that GW needs immediate attention. It seems that this new trend should give pause to jumping into hasty commitments.

That's one interpretation. Another is that if global warming mitigation activity is to be curtailed every time there is a cold month, we'll just have to accept a great deal of human suffering and environmental damage. Furthermore, "expensive decisions" are being made on far less evidence-- one particularly notable one in 2003 comes to mind. Why is it suddenly so important that we obtain zero uncertainty when it comes to global warming? Policy makers must play what they see as the percentages, which are 100% that someone will try to influence them to benefit themselves.

Well that's a fine example of a refereed science journal!

There is no insistence on zero uncertainty. I still seek something like 5% certainity that meaningful measurements of global temperature have ever been made with meaningful accuracy.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

I frankly don't know if they have or not, it would take a climatologist to comment on that.

Without getting into the politics of the issue (why something like GW is political is beyond me anyway... it should stand on its merits, not some party affiliation), it is safe to say that many of the solutions proposed are based on politics and economics. Without due consideration, these solutions are often implemented without regard for the cost of unintended consequences as well as the program itself.

To answer your question, for the most part, programs proposed (and implemented) to respond to the threat of GW, are 100% certain to be costly. That is why GW should have a high probability of happening, why human influence on GW should have a high probability of being significant, and why any program considered should have a high probability of being effective. These probabilities are cumulative, so yes, we need a very high probability on all three of those variables, not just the one you mentioned. Those probabilities then have to be weighed against the cost of a program vs. the benefits that program can provide.

Well, let's see here, if GW's not related to human activity, and we enact sensible (not necessarily likely, I'll admit) programs to combat it anyway, we'll end up with cars that are more economical to drive (a good thing), less money flooding unstable parts of the world (potentially a good thing), houses which are independant of the power grid to a degree (a good thing, especially in places like where I used to live when you could be certain that the power was going to go out at least once a day, not to mention it makes power plants less attractive targets to terrorists), lower air pollution (a good thing, since air pollution of even moderate amounts has been linked to resperatory and cardiovascular problems), and better constructed houses (since more heavily insulated ones tend to be stronger than those with less insulation). Some good upsides there, even though I'm certain that there'll be some downsides (many things like houses will cost more).

Aside from global warming, the US is going to have to wean itself from oil, due to the simple fact that within a decade or so, the economies of China and India are going to each require the current total global oil prodution simply to keep their economies from collapsing, much less growing at the double digit levels they're presently doing. While it's certain that there's more oil to be found, doubling production in a short period of time is probably not very practical. Just ditching coal fired plants in the US for alternative forms of power generation would take us 74 years, ignoring paperwork issues and siting issues, because of how long it takes us to build new powerplants (only so many companies are skilled in doing it). I can't imagine that it would take much less time to double global oil production.

__________________
We want our children to go to the planets. Burt Rutan 6/21/04
Tuckers! Science! Automotive Oddities! Boycott Trek XI! Building my hot rod with the help of the intarwebs Those who would delay scientific progress for a little temporary prosperity shall have neither.

... remedy many problems.

I took the liberty of finishing one of the thoughts you expressed. Many if not all of the issues you expressed should be addressed. They should be addressed on their own merits and not promoted as methods of combating global warming. If we extend our resources with the idea that CO2 is the problem, our attention will be diverted from the problems that you addressed. As you indicated, they are "aside from global warming."

Can you give an example of an environmentally-motivated solution that has been implemented without such regard and had negative unintended consequences? I keep hearing about that danger, but I don't know what is being referred to-- I think they just made it up as counter-scaremongering. For example, a "carbon tax" does not make money vanish into thin air, it simply redistributes it from the hands of those who don't care about the environment into the hands of those who do. My guess is, most unanticipated consequences of doing that would actually be positive. Far more positive than putting the money into hands that would make weapons to assure access to fossil fuels. So I agree with you that all aspects of the scientific situation must be taken into account (regardless of party affiliation)-- including the net effect of all potential solutions.
Again, money does not disappear. One person's "cost" is another's "economic stimulus". All an economy does is decide what tasks people will spend their time on-- that's it. Will they spend their time on harmful polluting and building weapons to sustain the status quo, or will they spend their time on forward-looking solutions that bring in issues like sustainable energy policy? That sounds political, but I mean this purely scientifically-- what does science tell us we should spend our time and energy doing, for the greatest good for all?

Again you are focused on cost. What happens if the "cost" of energy increases? First of all, "cost" of energy is not measured in raw materials. We are not talking about chopping down forests to fix carbon, or strip-mining for metals to do it, or burning more fossil fuels. None of those would be environmentally responsible solutions to an environmental problem. We are just talking about money-- how much money does the energy cost. But money spent does not vanish, it goes into an economy, and all it ever does is reapportion wealth from the hands of people doing one thing into the hands of the people doing something else. That serves to discourage the one thing and encourage the something else. Now, where is the terrible harm in all this "cost" of reapportioning wealth into the hands of those who take into account the environment when they plan energy usage? Even if there was not one shred of truth to man-forced GW, I would still be willing to bet that efforts to limit wasteful fossil-fuel usage (via higher energy costs) and efforts to find alternative technologies would still have a hugely beneficial effect on the future of humanity. At least, I have seen no plausible argument that it would not-- just people taking for granted that "cost"="bad". Look at what we spend money on now-- it isn't cost that is bad, it's what costs. Internalize the externalities.