Posted on 03/23/2008 12:20:39 PM PDT by Delacon
The Australian reports a few inconvenient truths regarding global climate change that have yet to receive much attention from a media sold on global warming. Not only has the Earth cooled since its peak year in 1998, not only are oceans cooler than predicted, but new NASA data shows that the computer models that predicted runaway global warming were based on a fundamental error. Rather than having clouds and water vapor amplifying the warming effect of carbon in the atmosphere, it turns out that they compensate for it (via Memeorandum):
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth stillwarming?”
She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.”
Duffy: “Is this a matter of any controversy?”
Marohasy: “Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued … This is not what you’d expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you’d expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up … So (it’s) very unexpected, not something that’s being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it’s very significant.” …
Duffy: “Can you tell us about NASA’s Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we’re now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?”
Marohasy: “That’s right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite … (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”
Duffy: “The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?”
Marohasy: “That’s right … These findings actually aren’t being disputed by the meteorological community. They’re having trouble digesting the findings, they’re acknowledging the findings, they’re acknowledging that the data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they’re about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.”
Hmm. How many have actually heard that the NASA Aqua satellite returned this kind of data? I searched the New York Times and found nothing since 2006 on Aqua — and that was just an announcement that NASA would launch more satellites to study weather. The Washington Post reported on ice loss in the Arctic just this week, but noted that Aqua shows an ice increase in the Acrtic this winter, but never reported on the other data that throws cold water on global warming.
So far, no one asserts that we have produced less carbon in the atmosphere. Global-warming activists continue to make Chicken Little predictions of catastrophe based on increases in carbon releases, especially from China and India as they modernize and industrialize. If carbon releases resulted in global warming, then the rate of increase should be constant; there definitely should be no decrease, especially given the theoretical amplification of water vapor.
Apparently, though, both assumptions have either proven incorrect or far too simplified to explain the actual impact of carbon on global temperatures. That’s not surprising, especially given the previous global-cooling scare of the 1970s and how baseless that theory turned out to be. What’s surprising is the utter lack of coverage that the new data has received. Why haven’t the same media outlets that relentlessly cover global-warming advocacy reported on the appearance of contradictory data?
Perhaps because global warming is more advocacy than science.
ping
Well, knock me over with a feather. Such a shock!
Has someone told McCain about this?
Sadly, there is a 100 year upward trend in global temperatures. Even during the plateau from 1945 to 1976 the seas continued rising and the glaciers continued retreating.
The Australian is not the definitive science source to overturn all that.
If someone does McCain will be the first to apologize.
“Sadly, there is a 100 year upward trend in global temperatures. Even during the plateau from 1945 to 1976 the seas continued rising and the glaciers continued retreating.”
Who said it was definitive? Only global warming alarmists say their findings are definitive. What we skeptics say is that NOTHING is definitive. No consensus. And that this is just one more piece of news that throws the “CO2 causes global warming” theory into doubt. This NASA news bolsters further proof that rising CO2 levels do not drive climate change.
The city of Alexandria - or the port, anyway, has been underwater for some time.
Rising sea levels are not a new idea.
On the other hand - the Dead Sea is almost completely gone.
(Put in a pipe!)
You say “to overturn all that” like “all that” was some kind of proof supporting this global warming hooey. In the 1970’s the “consensus” was that we were headed for a new ice age. It was the same brand of so-called scientists predicting doom then as it is now. People better wake up and recognize what this is really all about — the destruction of what are left of free markets and capitalism.
I believe it was about 500 years ago that Spanish explorer Juan Cabrillo sailed up the California Big Sur coast, which today is scenic, verdant, and one of the most photographed places in the world, and called it horrible and bleak because when he saw it, it was covered with snow, miserable, windy, and treacherous. Something that, if it happened today, would create a climate panic because it would be so extraordinary.
100 years is about half a gnat's eye-blink in time. Ice core drillings showing glimpses of the weather 10,000 years ago are maybe a few gnat's blinks. This planet is ancient and has experienced hugely dynamic weather for thousands of millions of years. This is the reality: every coastal area will be under water again some day. The reverse is guaranteed, too: every protected coastal wetland will someday be high and dry, whether it's 100 years from now, 24,000 years from now, five million, or twenty million -- some day, guaran-damn-teed. Welcome to planet earth.
“Sadly”??? Just why is this a sad thing? More temperate climates mean less energy expended on heating — that’s a good thing. Fewer people die in cold — that’s a good thing. Growing seasons are extended and there’s more arable land — that’s a good thing. If you compare the MWP and the little ice age, the former was a time of abundance and wealth, the latter a time of misery, starvation and death.
For me, warm is good, cold is bad.
Why is warming always believed to be bad or, in your words, a “sad” thing?
Ain’t she a beaut?
That view always takes my breath away.
And we’re all still here, eh?
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Doesn't look like it from this graph from NASA:
Compared to the admittedly less accurate graphs of older temperature variation, there doesn't seem to be much difference in the ups and downs in amplitude or frequency... I'd say we are in a normal climate upswing, now turning to a downswing. The one thing that does seem to parallel the global temperature mean is solar activity... and we are now in an almost six month long solar sun spot activity minimum... and temperatures are falling.
Even during the plateau from 1945 to 1976 the seas continued rising and the glaciers continued retreating.
The glaciers that are retreating are a minority... on the Indian sub-continent, only 10 out of over 400 glaciers are retreating. Which ones get the media attention? The ten.
In fact, every measurable piece of data on weather and the environment proves there's Global Warming. By definition.
That leaves all you deniers with no leg to stand on. Literally.
It is too bad real Earth Science is not taught in our schools.
Well said, and there's more to it —
Even AlGore’s book shows most temperate regions (including the US) receiving higher average rainfalls.
And what is CO2, if not plant food?
Sounds to me like milder weather and more food. What's not to like?
Isuspect the Earth will be here until the sun consumes it 5 or 10 billion years hence.
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.