Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 05/19/2008 2:37:47 PM PDT by cogitator
A vast array of physical and biological systems across the earth are being affected by warming temperatures caused by humans, says a new analysis of information not previously assembled all in one spot.
The effects on living things include earlier leafing of trees and plants over many regions; movements of species to higher latitudes and altitudes in the northern hemisphere; changes in bird migrations in Europe, North America and Australia; and shifting of the oceans' plankton and fish from cold- to warm-adapted communities.
"Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions, and the warming world is causing impacts on physical and biological systems attributable at the global scale," said lead author Cynthia Rosenzweig, a scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Columbia Center for Climate Systems Research. Both are affiliates of The Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Rosenzweig and researchers from 10 other institutions across the world analyzed data from published papers on 829 physical systems and some 28,800 plant and animal systems, stretching back to 1970. Their analysis of revealed a picture of changes on continental scales; previous studies had looked mainly at single phenomena, or smaller areas. In physical systems, 95% of observed changes are consistent with warming trends.
These include wastage of glaciers on all continents; melting permafrost; earlier spring river runoff; and warming of water bodies. Among living creatures inhabiting such systems, 90% of changes are consistent with warming.
The researchers say it is unlikely that any force but human-influenced climate change could be driving all this; factors like deforestation or natural climate variations could not explain it. Their work builds upon the consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in 2007 declared manmade climate warming "likely" to have discernible effects on biological and physical systems.
"It was a real challenge to separate the influence of human-caused temperature increases from natural climate variations or other confounding factors, such as land-use changes or pollution," said coauthor David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne in Victoria, Australia.
"This was possible only through the combined efforts of our multi-disciplinary team, which examined observed changes in many different systems around the globe, as well as global climate model simulations of temperature changes."
The data showing the patterns of change are strongest in North America, Asia and Europe--mainly because far more studies have been done there, said Rosenzweig. On the other continents, including South America, Australia and Africa, documentation of changes in physical and biological systems is sparse, even though there is good evidence there of human-influenced warming itself.
The authors say that there is an urgent need to study these environmental systems, especially in tropical and subtropical areas.
Significant changes in physical and biological systems are occurring on all continents and in most oceans, with a concentration of available data in Europe and North America. Most of these changes are in the direction expected with warming temperature. Here we show that these changes in natural systems since at least 1970 are occurring in regions of observed temperature increases, and that these temperature increases at continental scales cannot be explained by natural climate variations alone. Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, and furthermore that it is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica, we conclude that anthropogenic climate change is having a significant impact on physical and biological systems globally and in some continents.
This one.
“The data showing the patterns of change are strongest in North America, Asia and Europe—mainly because far more studies have been done there, said Rosenzweig. On the other continents, including South America, Australia and Africa, documentation of changes in physical and biological systems is sparse, even though there is good evidence there of human-influenced warming itself.”
The real reason for this is there is no indication of increased temps in the southern hemisphere. The temps in the north seemed to have been rising between 1991-2000. This just happens to correspond to the timing when 100s of measuring stations were shut down in Siberia and northern Russia with the fall of the USSR. The fact of the matter is, neither hemisphere is warming. Don’t let people fool you into accepting there is even such a thing as “global warming” at this time. Does the globe warm...? Of course it does. Does it cool? Of course it does.
Is man the cause of any of this? It has not been proven.
‘’Every time a cow farts, another polar bear drowns.’’ - John McCain
No, the main reason is that the NH is 30% ocean, 70% land, and the SH is 70% ocean and 30% land, and the oceans are warming considerably more slowly than land surfaces. And recently there has been an oceanic shift favoring slightly cooler surface ocean conditions in some regions.
And how is that different from the first 4 billion years of this planets existence???? This is so dumb. A mere 15K years ago the great lakes were nothing but a frozen glacier, and we are suppose to be in panic because we have 20 years of warming (which has been followed by 10 years of flat temperatures and expected to be followed by 10 years of cooling)?
A claim which has zero basis by any reasonable scientific method.
That and $3.99 will get you a gallon of gas.
We'll really just have to wait and see if that happens. You're basing the latter on the expectations of the skeptical community; I don't share their optimism, though it'd be pretty darned great if it actually happens.
Believe it or not, though, there are actually people that think there isn't any warming occurring globally because a few weather stations are located near parking lots and air conditioners. Explain that to the birds who show up a week late for their food source during annual migration.
“and the oceans are warming considerably more slowly than land surfaces. And recently there has been an oceanic shift favoring slightly cooler surface ocean conditions in some regions.”
Just create some epicycles in your models to account for the inconvenient facts. That will make everything seem semi-rational.
Seriously, are you one of the people who make a handsome living off the global warming hoax, or do you actually believe in it? Is it your religion? It does seem to be a very popular modern faith.
ping
I think the real reason of this is that there is no such thing as “global temperature”. From a scientific standpoint, can you really get an average temperature from the earth? You run into an infinite boundary when you logically dissect this notion.
The devil is in the details. Climate is not something that can be measured by a thermometer. Think about it. The earth’s atmosphere is better understood today than it has been in our history. But the the fact remains, that we understand more about the interplay between our celestial neighbors in our own solar system than we do about deep ocean currents,the interaction of GHGs in our atmosphere, and know almost nothing about the five bazillion other data sets that make up “climate”.
We may be able to understand what will probably happen in a very precise geographic location in a very restricted time frame and very restricted set of conditions. And even then, we are wrong more than 20% of the time.
You can go on and on for days trying to dissect this absurdity talking about solar winds, recurring weather cycles, non anthropogenic contributors, occean currents and blah de blah de blah. The fact is we know very very little. To think we can draw any reasonable and reliable conclusion about long term climatic trends is just absurd and quite pompous in my own educated opinion. To make policy and restrict modern convenience is mostly suicidal.
The day when they can reverse-test their models, i will listen to them. Until then, its all nonesense being pushed by grant hungry science whores. Albeit sometimes it is dangerous nonesense.
Would it be possible for you to tell us the ideal date and time for birds to arrive at their destinations? And has this always been the time and date on Earth or has it varied perhaps just a tiny bit here and there?
See my profile.
No. But there's a whole lot of studies out there that can explain how migration timing works. Try Google.
“Would it be possible for you to tell us the ideal date and time for birds to arrive at their destinations? And has this always been the time and date on Earth or has it varied perhaps just a tiny bit here and there?”
The purveyors of the global warming insanity love their anecdotes about melting glaciers, polar bears in distress, and migratory birds who are supposedly late. On the other hand, temperatures haven’t risen since 1998, there is an alternative sunspot-cosmic-ray based theory that has been successfully lab-tested, and the physics of the greenhouse gas theory has been refuted by geophysicists. Not to worry; the global warming crowd has the votes, and in a political-religious dispute votes count more than facts.
These GW chicken-little panic mongerers are a hoot! In 1974 these same people were obsessing over global cooling. In any case, their data is faulty at best and more idiotic than "junk science" at worst.
Depending on the source, temperatures have been stable or decreasing over the last three to 9 years. Whateverthecase, the Arctic ice cap is larger this year than any other in recorded history (ice cap measurements go back approximately 200 years), snow levels in the Rocky mountains are WAY above normal, there are 35 egregious errors (or lies) in Gore's movie, current temperatures are significantly below those of the midieval times (a period of unparalleled growth and prosperity), and the litany of data showing the "concern" of the chicken-little panic mongerers is totally and uterly unfounded goes on and on (like this sentence).
Note that as temperatures were rising here on earth in the 80's and 90's, the caps on Mars were also shrinking, proving unequivocally that temperature increases are the result of activity on the sun, something on which mankind has no impact. My SUV makes no difference to temperatures on earth; neither does cow flatus!! The fact is that carbon dioxide DOES increase with temperature, but lags the temperature curve by about 300 years. Temperature causes carbon dioxide, not the opposite. Idiots!
The whole premise of GW requires the suspension of logical thought, or ANY thought, for that matter. It's the same lack of thought required to accept current, ongoing lies, for example, darwinism is more than a badly flawed theory, islamics are open to negotiation, increasing taxes makes more money for the gov't, making everyone defenseless (taking guns away from law-abiding citizens) decreases violent crime, and any number of other easily disproven hypotheses!
There, THAT ought to liven things up a bit!
The oceans are not warming.
Not to mention identifying actual temperature increases in the past decade. 'March of the Pine Forest' by Walt Disney.
Let's take that at face value (which I don't). How do we know things are getting warmer because my wife drives an SUV and we cherish a carbon rich lifestyle? Rosenzweig tells us so.
Science by anecdote is not science. It's public relations. It's Algore's computer animations (the obvious ones and the faked). It's using government money to get a bunch of people to cherry pick events and claim the abundance of incidents is overwhelming evidence.
If AGW skeptics had similar resources, I suspect we could assemble a similar report showing overwhelming evidence of global cooling or anything else we wanted. This is not neutral science. This is advocacy from a person with a definite point of view and bias.
What kind of bias? How about the fact that Cynthia Rosenzweig gave $2,300.00 to Hillary Clinton. Her husband split $2,000.00 between Hillary and Obama. Sure, that's her personal business. Lot's of New Yorkers give thousands of dollars to Democrats. It doesn't affect her "science."
Hey, if you buy that last one, I've got an AGW theory to sell you. Okay, she's got an ideology. Is she qualified?
When Oregon state climatologist, George Taylor was fired for skepticism about the theory of anthropogenic global warming, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski said, "He's not a climatologist." Uh, he does hold the job title. Well, he did.
Similarly, Canada's Dr Tim Ball is criticized by AGW crusaders as not being a climatologist. He responds, "That's absolute rubbish. I have a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from the University of London (England), Queen Mary College."
It's a favorite tactic of the left to challenge the credentials of anyone who counters the AGW orthodoxy. Yet, the new heroine, Dr Rosenzweig, is not a climatologist." She is an agronomist.
When she strays out of her field, she's been known to get herself in trouble. She's one of the proponents of the spread of malaria and other diseases because of global warming. This has been soundly refuted. However, I bet she continues to promote it.
This may be a nice person, but she is an AGW radical who protested that the most dire IPCC Report wasn't dire enough (Click here and scroll down the yellow text box). BTW, the most recent reports dropped or softened many of the most dire projections.
At best, her work should be greeted suspiciously. She's got a clear point of view, is operating outside her field, has strongly promoted the most radical AGW views, and has been proven wrong before (of course, that's true for all of us - but most of us don't claim infallability).
Someday we need to elect a real conservative who will shut down GISS.
This would all be harmless if the politicials weren't using it as a means to control industrial production, tax us into poverty, enrich themselves, pick and choose winning companies and industries, and generally create a form of totalitarian enviromarxism. Unfortunately, all three candidates standing are proponents and there's not a dime's bit of difference between them.
If we're going to get this stuff shoved down out throats (and we are), I'd rather a Democrat did it so we can rally the troops and oppose it, rather than split the party.
Europe's biggest glacier shrinks
"It really is not a human-induced situation," he said. "This glacier is receding from the coast because it advanced to the coast during what is known as the Little Ice Age.
A couple of points for you.
1. The climatic models used by the IPCC and the severity of their outcomes range wildly. These estimates range anywhere from .15 deg. cel to 10 deg. cel. Gore and Hansen and others looking for money like the higher end because it causes more fear.
2. The IPCC’s lowest model of .17 deg. cel. is just about in line with actual measured increase over the last 3 decades and no where near the modeled projections they toss around in the media and in their abstracts.
3. The IPCCs models use insane predictors to drive many of their models. For example, using the IPCC’s numbers to determine future GHG output, South Africans should have a per capita income four times greater than Americans by the end of this century. Oh yeah, that also includes North Korea, Libya, Algeria and Argentina. They use grossly distorted projections of global population and world GDP. In addition, there are many noted inconsistencies in their modeled data and known data. For example, in their proxy samples of tree rings, they estimate that 1cm of growth is equal to a certain avg. temp. When known data sets (trees that we can observe) are measured, their proxy sample standards do not even line up with their real world measurements.
4. Just for kicks, here is a direct quote from Hockey Stick co-creator Phil Jones; “We have a 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should i make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”. He was responding to an inquiring Warwick Hughes. I think this shows the NEW Scientific Method.
5.The simple problem with general circulation models is the same general problem with all models. They are simply a function of the hypothesis programmed into them. When ALL of the IPCC’s models are backwards tested, they fail miserably.
I could go on and on with problems in this pseudo-scientific approach, but it seems that once your drinking the KOOL-aid, its too late.
The evidence is not "anecdotal". The compilation is of peer-reviewed research studies published in scientific journals.
"Rosenzweig, based in New York, and colleagues around the world analyzed some 80 studies that document changing aspects of natural processes: when gingko trees bloom in Japan, how much glaciers melt in the Alps, when frogs start their springtime calls in New York and so on. Each study offered at least 20 years of data collected between 1970 and 2004. In all, the mountain of data comprised around 29,500 data series that each revealed a significant change. (Twenty years of melt measurements from two separate glaciers counted as two data series.)"
Is there a difference between “human-induced” and “human-augmented”? I’d think so.
Here's a point in return.
2. The IPCC’s lowest model of .17 deg. cel. is just about in line with actual measured increase over the last 3 decades and no where near the modeled projections they toss around in the media and in their abstracts.
I assume you mean 0.17 deg C per decade. If this minimum trend continues for the rest of the century, that would be 3x the warming of the 20th century, for a total warming of 2.4 C over 200 years.
Do tell.
Am I missing something? They talk about all the studies and showing it to be warmer, and Ginko trees blooming earlier. Great, its warmer. But then in mid-paragraph they say something to the effect of “proof that it is caused by man.”
I can grant them “proof that it is warmer in that area”. But where is the proof that it is manmade?
The actual statement from the article: “The researchers say it is unlikely that any force but human-influenced climate change could be driving all this; factors like deforestation or natural climate variations could not explain it.”
The author of this paper resigned from NASA in order to publish it:
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
Here’s a commentary by another physicist:
” I have read
http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
a couple of times. The conclusions are bombshells. This thread
discusses the impossibility of CO2 induced global warming.
“This figure [figure 13] shows that the Earth has a controlled
greenhouse effect with a
stable [global average flux optical depth tau] = 1.87,
[normalized greenhouse factor] = 0.33,
and the [first derivative of the atmospheric greenhouse function] =
0.185
As long as F0 [the total absorbed shortwave radiation (from the sun)]
+ P0 [total thermal energy from the planetary interior to the surface-
atmosphere system] flux term is constant and the system is in
radiative balance with a global average radiative equilibrium source
function profile, GLOBAL WARMING LOOKS IMPOSSIBLE [emphasis mine].
Long term changes in the planetary radiative balance is governed by
the F0+P0=SU(3/5+2TA/5) , OLR = SU f and F0+P0=OLR equations. The
system is locked to the [equilibrium flux optical depth] because of
the energy minimum principle prefers the radiative equilibrium
configuration ([hemispheric spectral flux optical depth] <[equilibrium
flux optical depth] ) but the energy conservation principle constrains
the available thermal energy ([equilibrium flux optical depth]>
[hemispheric spectral flux optical depth]). The problem for example
with the highly publicized simple ‘bucket analogy’ of greenhouse
effect is the ignorance of the energy minimum principle (Committee on
Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, et al., 2005).” Page 29.
By “global warming looks impossible” in the above quote, it is clear
by the context that Dr. Miskolczi means CO2 induced global warming.
The earth’s surface can get hotter if either
(1) the energy received by the earth from the sun or
(2) the total thermal energy from the earth’s interior
increase.
“For example, a hypothetical CO2 doubling will increase the optical
depth (of the global average profile) by 0.0241, and the related
increase in the surface temperature will be 0.24 K. The related change
in the OLR [Outgoing Long wave Radiation leaving the earth]
corresponds to -0.3 K cooling. This may be compared to the 0.3 K and
-1.2 K observed temperature changes of the surface and lower
stratosphere between 1979 and 2004 in Karl et al., (2006).
From the extrapolation of the ‘Keeling Curve’ the estimated increase
in the average CO2 concentration during this time period is about 22%,
(National Research Council of the National Academies, 2004). Comparing
the magnitude of the expected change in the surface temperature we
conclude, that the observed increase in the CO2 concentration must not
be the primary reason of the global warming.” Page 22.
This is physics, not opinion.
—Mike Jr”
There are other papers of a similar nature which show the physical impossibility of runaway global warming. If I find the time I will post more.
Absolutely. It's easier for people to fall for some dumb fad as long as they see others doing it. Most of these clowns have no understanding of science whatever, particularly true of the various Global Warming Movement leaders.
Al Gore wearing the tallest dunce cap.
Thank you for the acurate quote. Do they go on to say WHY it is unlikely that it is any force but human-influenced?
Argo System ocean temperature probes
Argo System web site
Here’s another one for you:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 11 Sep 2007 (this version, v3))
Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”
The equations shown in (80) are clearly wrong as the author points out. But they are not done in any literature I have ever seen. The paper is full of red herrings like that, basically trying to prove that since some red herring is wrong, the whole approach is wrong. That isn’t the case, the earth blackbody calculation is valid although only approximate.
“The paper is full of red herrings like that”
Oh really? what are the other ones?
In the whole document, "greenhouse effect" is misused. They are correct that it is not a "glass house" effect, but they measure a greenhouse (car) regardless. The primary difference is that the glass is one thin sheet whereas the GH gasses are the whole atmosphere. If the interior of the car glass were 71C and the exterior of the glass were 31C, then it would be a useful analogy, but it's obviously not.
page 38: "Furthermore it is implied that the spectral transmissivity of a medium determines its thermal conductivity straightforwardly" That is not implied by the previous quotation, which, although poorly worded, implies that the entire thickness of the atmosphere is the glass. There is no air trapped inside of glass that has specified thermal conductivity. There is only air with conductivity, convection, etc. The quoted author (Moller) does not imply otherwise.
This is followed on pp 39 and 40 by a bunch of poorly worded descriptions of the GH effect. For a better description see here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/langswitch_lang/sw
page 59: the diagram shows top and bottom of atmosphere radiation budgets. The numbers are approximate but not inaccurate or physically impossible to determine. For point 1, they are not intensities, they are fluxes. For point 2, the sidewards fluxes are irrelevant. Points 3 and 4 on the next page are irrelevant, the arrows are approximately representations of steady state fluxes, no more, no less.
Thanks for commenting. I think we can move on to more cogent skeptical points than this one.
page 66: nonexistence of global mean temperature. I guess this is supposed to be a metaphysical argument, since there is no such thing as average temperature, there is no such thing as an equilibrium temperature. But working backwards, there is a theoretical equilibrium temperature from the incoming radiation, earth physical shape without the atmosphere. The average temperature can also be measured, not like table 13, but with equally distributed satellite readings. The theory and the reality can be compared and have been successfully. There are obviously uncertainties and approximations, but the 33C difference (GH effect) is not off by more than a degree or two.
Yep.
The main way this has been done is to model the global climate over the past 100-150 years, and to use only natural (volcanic and solar) forcings in some model runs, and to then include the anthropogenic factors (greenhouse gases and land use change) in other model runs. The only runs that successfully reproduce the general pattern of observed changes are those which include the anthropogenic effects. Natural forcings are too limited in their effect. This is briefly alluded to in the text but not described in the text.
There may be comments that the solar influence has been underestimated due to potential effects on cloud cover. The mechanism for this has not been adequately established and experimentation is ongoing. The current state of knowledge does not indicate that the solar influence is responsible for most of the currently observed warming, but 30-50% of the warming early in the 20th century is attributed to increased solar activity. Note that the study period did not include the early part of the 20th century.
Apparently this study was published in Nature magazine which I can't seem to find; have you read the study itself or just this copy and paste article drawn from the Press Room at Columbia University?
For reasons best known to the loudest of the GW crowd all charts now seem to start with 1970, a well-known year of low temperatures having dropped steadily from 1940, just as the above graph.
And what of Dr. Miskolczi, who gave up his NASA job to publish? Also “not cogent”?
I have observed that certain people have a deep emotional need to believe in this global-warming nonsense. Perhaps for some it fills the void left by absence of belief in older more traditional religions. Of course Dr. Michael Crichton stated the case better than I ever could:
http://michaelcrichton.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
Sure, and there are some that work backwards based on their political choices. I am conservative and I don't want any government involvement in climate whatsoever. But I am also basing my decisions on sound science and the greenhouse effect is sound. Man's growth of CO2 is sound. That increase in CO2 causing warming, debatable. Catastrophic? No chance, at least a lot less than other catastrophes. Not worth worrying about at all.
My suggestion is getting some good material from the skeptical side. Crichton is a good start. Find climate scientists. Avoid physicists like the guy you posted above. They tend to oversimplify or just not comprehend.
He can do whatever he thinks he needs to do. His level of commitment to his ideas doesn't change the intellectual quality of his ideas.
You provided three separate points in the post to which I responded. The first is the stuff of much debate and depends significantly on how the data is interpreted. The second has yet to demonstrate a real-world effect. The third, which is this supposed disproof, is not scientifically credible.
I'm probably guilty of this too, but: not everything that can be found which apparently supports a particular position is of the same quality. When discussing a subject like this, the lesser-quality stuff needs to be filtered out. And lesser-quality stuff exists on both sides.
I didn't read the actual article. I read the article I posted from TerraDaily. It's in the May 15 issue of Nature; I can see it but I can't access it (have to pay).
As for the starting date, it seems generally agreed that climate variability combined with sulfur emissions to lower temperatures a bit in the 60s and 70s. There also seems to be general agreement that the warming beginning in the 1970s is mostly attributable to anthropogenic cause. For example of why I say that:
“That and $3.99 will get you a gallon of gas. “
________________________________________________________________
But only until next week. Then, that and 4.59 will get you a gallon of gas
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.