Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/04/2009 7:43:30 AM PDT by reaganaut1
A valuable short paper that has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters (subscription required) makes a strong case against presenting any argument about human-driven global warming that’s based on short-term trends (a decade or so). I’ve noted here before that climate campaigners who seek to use real-time events to engage the public can only retain credibility if they account for natural variability in framing their case and explain that the odds of such events are shifting. (Realclimate explored natural variability and warming last year, too.)
The same requirement applies to the community of climate skeptics/contrarians/deniers/realists (depending on who’s doing the labeling) who have made a mantra out of the “global cooling” since the 1998 peak in global temperature.
The paper shows, both in recent records and projections using computer simulations, how utterly normal it is to have decade-long vagaries in temperature, up and down, on the way to a warmer world. The paper is titled simply, “Is the climate warming or cooling?” It is written by David R. Easterling of the National Climatic Data Center and Michael F. Wehner of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The bottom line? “We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming,” the paper says, adding that, “It is easy to ‘cherry pick’ a period to reinforce a point of view.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com ...
“Study: Rationalization needed to maintain politically-driven pseudo-science in the face of increasing contrary evidence”
Cool spells are normal in an non-trending cycle too!
That is WHY THEY ARE CYCLES!!!!!!
someone on the right needs to track all the quotes over the past 10 years, show how they are 100% wrong in everyone of their predictions, and dismiss them for false science.
The area Where i live (southern British columbia) was 2.6 degrees celsius cooler than normal and what do we have...a solar minimum.
Warm spells normal in a cooling world!
They can shove that computer where the sun does not shine. GW is the biggest crock of chit there is. I wish to hell they had to spend a winter where I am. I am still wearing heavy winter gear and a blizzard is on the way again.
The current interglacial has lasted 15,000 years, so we are about 5,000 years OVERDUE, but it's getting colder and dryer all over the world all at once and solar UV radiation is down 6% from the measured norm.
The odds are we are facing a major glaciation, the deaths of billions of humans, and the total destruction of the current environment.
No, but it does falsify the Climate Model projections, which is the basis for the AGW scenario.
I know I am getting thinner because I am gaining weight. My weight gain is just part of the natural thinning cycle and is to be expected - according to my models....
How can you be sure which is which?
As are warming spells in a cooling world. Ebb and tide. Six of one, half a dozen of another. Back when I was in high school, we were all concerned with the coming new ice age.
These predictions now have the accuracy of the January 1 "Psychics Predict" tabloid stories.
It’s amazing but people will read this article and actually buy it hook line and sinker without questioning a single word of it. It’s absolutely incredible how dumb some people are. And if you try to educate them, they’d rather just stay dumb.
Then there are some libs i know who are very intelligent people normally. Very knowledgeable on numerous subjects, but when it comes to politics they do not question a word they read. They do not analyze it the way they would analyze a non-political situation. It’s a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma.
[The paper shows, both in recent records and projections using computer simulations, how utterly normal it is to have decade-long vagaries in temperature, up and down, on the way to a warmer world.]
Doesn’t that strongly imply that the opposite is also true? That on our way to the next ice age we could have short term warming trends? My, my, my how they do struggle in the face of reality.
15 years of data which showed a spike in Global warming was enough to conclusively probe global warming was accerating out of control. 10 years of data showing it is now stopped proves nothing......This is not science, it is propagandical spin.
They will just say global warming is a fluid theory that is subject to changes when additional information is discovered. In other words, no matter what happens, our theory is still good.
Yep, in 1998 they were all predicting we were at a tipping point and global warming was accelerating out of control. oh well, so much for that theory.
maunder minimum?
how many years before they reach this conclusion?
They know a lot of information that just ain't true. That is not intelligent.
The theory is evolving? Sounds familiar, for some odd reason.
Oui.
Rationalization for an unproven, and unprovable hypothesis belongs not in the Science section of the NYT, it belongs in Religion, under "Cults".
In a scary way, this entire assertion of "settled science" is the global climactic inquisition, to which no scientist may demur.
.
O.K. Greenies-STFU!
I thought they had bailed on using “global warming” and are now using “climate change.” That way, no matter which way the wind blows, they need tax money.
D’accord.
What a bunch of hogwash. The ONLY reason this "paper" is accepted is because it supports global the warming alarmists, who computer models and other "research" isn't worth the paper it's written on.
REAL scientists have stated that this below normal temperature cooling period could last for 20-50 more years, and is NORMAL, just as rising temperatures are NORMAL cycles of the earths climate. They aren't human caused, and certainly aren't caused by atmospheric CO2, a natural and VITAL element necessary for all plant life on earth.
The global warming boodogle is nothing but a HOAX, a scam in which the UN's Global governance Marxists re using to sieze control (and of course massive revenues) of global energy supplies.
Looong and technical but fascinating article on the missing signature of CO2-caused warming.
http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
The standard IPCC model of global warming is utterly dependent on the theory that CO2 will absorb massive amounts of heat at a certain altitude over the tropics and this will induce a runaway increase of water vapor in the atmosphere below. This is the basic mechanism behind the theory. Using baloon-based thermometers, they have been searching for this "signature" of CO2 heat absorption for several decades.
It has not been found, even during the peak temperature years of the late 90s, indicating pretty clearly that the basic theory on which all the models are based is wrong.
The article goes into considerable detail about how the warmists have refused to recognize that the lack of a detected signature requires they modify their theory. Instead, they have done everything possible to hide the fact that the signature is missing and the significance of this fact, and then to come up with far-fetched explanations of how it is theoretically possible for the signature to be there but be undetected.
IOW, they're trying desparately to make the evidence fit the theory rather than the other way round.
The author also comes up with some figures showing the total budget of anti-warmists worldwide to be about $2M, while the warmists have $3000M, not to mention the massive free publicity and support from media and academia.
True, it is, and it's easy to pick a period of warming in another wise stable or cooling trend.
It's also easy to blame mankind for something that has happened many times in the past, just because we happen to be living in the warming part of the natural cycle.
As well you should have been, based on the long term historical record, from well before people were even around, as modern humans.
Cap and trade is a scheme for a new tax. That's all it is. Obama and others like him could care less if it helps the environment.
That chart always gave me a giggle, showing CO2 concentration to be a lagging indicator as it does.
It would cost tens of TRILLIONS globaly, and do absolutely NOTHING to reduce "global warming", because:
A). The amount of human caused CO2, -which is only a tiny FRACTION of the 600 or so parts per BILLION of CO2 present in the atmosphere, 99.99% of which is naturally occuring- does not cause global warming.
B). Taxation will not reduce at all the tiny insignificant portion of atmospheric CO2 that humans produce.
In fact, the entire taxation model, which is also a massive revenue generating plan NEEDS CO2 production to continue at it's present rate, and to INCREASE over the years in order for governments implementing this SCAM to pay for all the social spending and expanded government bureaucracy they are/planning to introduce along with cap and trade/carbon taxation schemes.
It's CLEAR to anyone with half a brain (which seems to exclude 99% of the population) that the "Global warming" Carbon tax scam will not, can not, reduce carbon dioxide emmisions, if it did, it would also reduce government revenues, which we all know is not the plan at all.
Let's keep our numbers straight. Present global average concentration of CO2 is about 387 parts per MILLION. The number you give is less than 1 part per million.
We just had a blizzard a couple of days ago- again for the second time in two weeks. It's supposed to be spring, and normally, the snow is supposed to be gone, but for the past ten years "spring" has been coming progressively later. The river ice is still solid, which is causing water from the south to back up. Normally the ice is long gone by this time of the year. They have hundreds of people in the USA and on the Canadian side of the river cutting up and dynamiting the river ice to try make it flow. The problem is they would have to cut and blast all the way up to Lake Winnipeg, then all of lake Winnipeg to the Nelson river, then all they way up the Nelson river to Hudson Bay in order to make the ice move.
But all you hear is "global warming", not the flooding and problems being caused by GLOBAL COOLING right now.
Except that in recent decades it has become a leading indicator.
This has never happened before, is due primarily to burning of fossil fuels, and should keep us from becoming overly dogmatic ourselves about possible effects.
Warmists are positive they know what the effects of adding carbon to the atmosphere will be. Since this hasn’t happened before, no true scientifically-oriented person would be overly positive about its effects one way or the other.
... tracking amazingly well with the politicization of weather. There is good reason to distrust the data.
The entire amount of Human caused CO2, plus that produced naturally by Gaea is absorbed into the worlds largest carbon sink, the oceans, every 4 years. The oceans are capable of absorbing many times more that amount, which isn't even as high as it has been in the earths history according to ice core samples (over 680 PPM) when Humans were still cave men apparently.
Strangely, along with other "global warming "gases" like water vapor, the 'global warming" computer model does not include the ocean's carbon absorption rate in their data.
Quite possible.
Except that once one starts distrusting the data, there is nothing left to discuss.
I have a good friend who refuses to believe that blacks actually commit more crimes than whites. He believe the difference in incarceration rates is due solely to differential prosecution.
He therefore has to reject the FBI data as to race of perpetrators, which is based on interviews with victims. Once someone rejects the data, there is no way left to convince them to change their mind.
Rejecting the data is another way of saying your belief is more important than the facts and will be held to regardless of what the data shows.
No it hasn't. It still TRAILS warming trends, it doesn't LEAD them. If we want CO2 levels to be the LEAD indicator, then we can say that CO2 is causing global cooling over the past ten years.
One thing to note on the CO2/Temp graph is that CO2 levels lag behind temperatures, so temps rise first, followed by CO2 levels. This is well known btw. It’s usually on the order of a 400 to 800 year lag. GW advocates, having no way around this, explain that some trigger event causes a temp increase, which triggers a CO2 increase, then the CO2 increase spurs further temp increases, and the cycle continues, the dreaded positive feedback that is the basis for GW theory.
What GW advocates never explain, and can’t explain, is why temperature declines while CO2 levels are still high. This would be impossible of course if CO2 were actually driving temp increases.
You’re mixing up your numbers again.
Humans have contributed somewhere probably between 40 and 70 ppm of the present CO2 in the atmosphere, or somewhere around 12 to 20%.
The 1/8 of 1% number you use is for the contribution of the man-caused CO2 to the total greenhouse effect. The vast majority (99% plus) of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, methane and many other gases.
The entire scientific argument is, or should be, over whether the cumulative effect of adding a relatively small amount of carbon to the atmosphere each year will over time be sufficient to induce a runaway positive feedback loop.
Warmists are positively convinced they fully understand ths system.
I believe feeding a bunch of approximations and estimates of natural processes, most of them poorly if at all understood, into a sophisticated computer program is more likely to end up in a scientific wild ass guess than a logical prediction.
Since coming to conclusion A (CO2 increase is no big deal) results in ostracism and loss of funding, while coming to conclusion B (the sky is falling) results in fame, fortune and the attentions of hot young female groupies, we should not be surprised if many scientists reach conclusion B.
No, my numbers are correct. It seems yours are from a different source.
If you look closely at the graph in post 30, you see that the CO2 line crosses the temperature line right at the end, becoming a leading rather than trailing indicator.
Now this is a very large-scale chart, so it’s hard to see. But more detailed charts show exactly the same thing.
This is a new thing in the history of the earth. Nobody really knows what its effects may be. Personally, I suspect there are presently undiscovered negative feedbacks that will prevent a runaway temperature increase, but it isn’t scientific for me to present my beliefs as fact in the absence of data. Wjhich doesn’t stop warmists from doing so.
This is a sign of a serious crack in the facade of global warming. If a decade or two of cooling doesn’t disprove global warming, the opposite case can also be made. Since the forties, the earth’s temperature has been cooling, except for a brief period from ‘78 to ‘98. Therefore, the earth is cooling, not warming.
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
CO2 provides only a very small proportion of the total greenhouse effect. Of the .28% total contribution of man-added gases, it provides roughly half, or about the 1/8% I originally mentioned.
If water vapor is left out, as warmists prefer, man-added CO2 is presently providing roughly 2.5% of the greenhouse effect of the other gases.
To be fair, warmist predictions are based on the predicted effects of a long-term cumulative effect, not on present contribution.
The computer would still "predict" global warming...
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.