Another attempt to educate a non-scientist climate science disbeliever

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

A friend's friend posted the above article on facebook. His intent, I expect, was to use the article as evidence that climate change is not occurring as the mountainous body of climate scientists' research and analyses shows. The following is the discussion that ensued.

--- Me ---
That article is quite comical. Every reference to climate computer models is preceded by "alarmist." Then I scrolled to the end, recognized the author, and it made sense. James Taylor is a lawyer, not a scientist (http://bit.ly/oA2KW2). He's the editor of Environment & Climate News at the Heartland Institute, a libertarian organization well-known in climate science circles for pushing a denialist agenda using pseudo-science, no science whatsoever, or misinterpretations of actual data. They've got Taylor, who admits to having no scientific background or training, listed as an "expert." (http://bit.ly/nNSjbo). As a lawyer with multiple degrees in environmental science and whose practice used to focus exclusively on issues of medical causation and expert testimony in toxic tort cases, I found that rather amusing. Here's what Nature, among the most reputable journals of real peer-reviewed science, has to say about the Heartland Institute (http://bit.ly/qzyLWX). As for the article Taylor cites as "proof" that global warming isn't occurring as the multiple lines of peer-reviewed data "peddled" by thousands of "alarmist" scientists around the world show, his lack of scientific training and credentials damns him to read it incorrectly. Here's the article's conclusion:

"While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."

Beware learning science, or offering an article that purports to interpret science, from individuals not trained in science and organizations staffed by such individuals.

--- Response of Bill Talley, my friend's friend ---
"Other data that NASA has collected comes from the research being done on the sun and it's effect on our planet. The correlations do not conclude that our earth's temp is rising due to man's effect. Basically the sun is far more powerful a device than our carbon output. (see bullshit tax)

I can respect the credentials and run down on the article writer but it's still a topic that most climatologists and astronomers will continue to disagree on. The data being gathered from the sun has conflicting data when compared to climate models.

I'm all for clean fuels but IMHO, we are not warming because of us and we don't have enough data to conclude that we are. The new solar data trends trump our climate data. Period. "

--- My response to Mr. Talley ---
Respectfully, Bill, each of your points is refuted by the data.

1) A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. (http://bit.ly/ffhAdL)

Look at the charts in the "Natural Cycle Departure" section here: http://bit.ly/jWonoK. "The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle." Observed decadal increases in mean surface and ocean temperatures are the result of anthropogenic causes, not natural variability. Natural variability is understood, factored into climate analyses, and statistically controlled for.

2) Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and STILL THE CONTRIBUTION OF DIRECT SOLAR IRRADIANCE FORCING IS SMALL COMPARED TO THE GREENHOUSE GAS COMPONENT. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters. However, for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. (http://1.usa.gov/lSSw3y)

With satellite measurements, scientists have been able to confirm that the total solar energy varies 0.1% over one 11-year sunspot cycle. This variation of 0.1% means a global tropospheric temperature difference of 0.5oC to 1.0oC. So there does seem to be a connection between the solar cycle and climate - the very small change in solar energy that changes over the solar cycle seems to have a very small impact on Earth's climate (see IPCC report). MODERN CLIMATE MODELS TAKE THESE RELATIONSHIPS INTO ACCOUNT. The changes in solar energy are not big enough, however, to cause the large global temperature changes we've seen in the last 100 years. Indeed, the only way that climate models can match the recent observed warming of the atmosphere is with the addition of greenhouse gases. (http://bit.ly/mt87VL)

I know skeptics and outright deniers want not to believe that climate change is occurring and that humans are causing it. But you know who wishes it weren't true even more than the skeptics and deniers? We in the community of climate and other scientists who understand the human health and ecological consequences of raising average global temperatures over such a short geologic time scale.