Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Earth a little more resilient than computer models
Hot Air ^ | March 23, 2008 | Ed Morrissey

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.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: algore; cizik; climatechange; co2; globalwarming; greenhouse; houghton; liarsforjesus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last
To: gondramB
Yeah I probably should have paid more attention to that global warming conference week before last at MIT...

No, you should have visited, and tried to understand the content, at the link I provided for you.

But to protect our country we need to deal with reality.

To have a meaningful discussion about "reality", you need to first have to have some sort of a clue as to what constitutes reality.

41 posted on 03/23/2008 2:35:58 PM PDT by 3niner (War is one game where the home team always loses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: geo40xyz

Did you respond to the wrong post - that looks like long term CO2 data without error bars whereas post 5 was about the last 100 years.


42 posted on 03/23/2008 2:36:42 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
No problem. You’ll go on the list there is no point in talking to about this.

I hope you are not under the illusion that help America or conservatism this way.

Your command of written English is impressive.

43 posted on 03/23/2008 2:37:34 PM PDT by 3niner (War is one game where the home team always loses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
But what all you Global Warming Deniers fail to understand is the fact that there is no Global Warming is actually caused by Global Warming!

That has got to be the all-time champion for a non-sensical statement; at least in the English language.

As for the actual controversy, it is useful for the alarmists to mix everything together to confuse and confound (just like they doctor the data); the "controversy", for lack of a better word is two-fold.

1. That global warming is real (no rational person denies it, and it's happened dozens of times in the past independent of man, by definition. Primitive man could not possibly have had a role in that until the last 4000 years). Only an idiot would continue flogging that dead horse.

2. The anthropogenic nature of the current trend. Here there is unlimited room for honest differences of opinion, based on the data, the incompetent "massaging" of the data by questionable "scientists", and the very primitive nature of the data that underlies their opinions. Some of the most loud and hysterical proponents of anthropogenic global warming still insist on using unreliable observed data (the documentation is extensive), or the primitive satellite data of 50 years ago (!).

Keep pretending that you don't understand the nature of #2, and keep screaming about #1, since that is the only leg that the one-legged doomsday artists can get traction with.

44 posted on 03/23/2008 2:43:23 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Just trying to shown the long term trend since you ‘Global Warning’ whinnies think ANY short term period proves your (Al gore) points.

Take it as another indicator that warm & cool periods in history are MOST likely cause by the SUN.......

45 posted on 03/23/2008 2:45:13 PM PDT by geo40xyz ((McCain, Obama or Hillarybeast possibility of 4 Supreme Court Justices, Gore @UN. The WINNER is?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Because the scientific analysis so far have been pretty uniformly negative.

Negative?
Doesn't that depend on what your definition of "is" is...?

46 posted on 03/23/2008 2:46:26 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
You live on a planet that is around 4.5 BILLION years old. A planet with a molten outer core, spinning on its axis at around 1,000+ MPH, in an elliptical orbit around our star traveling at around 65,000 MPH, on the outer portion of a spiral galaxy that takes how many millions of years to complete an orbit of our galactic core; all the while interacting with electro-magnetic and other solar radiation from our star, not to mention the bombardment of cosmic radiation from our galaxy and beyond.

And you want to take a climate model based upon our rather limited, infinitesimal recorded history, and even smaller data set with more granular measuring and recording instruments, not to mention still limited understanding of all the variables, and make predictions as to our future?

Good luck with that.

Personally speaking; whatever is going to happen, is going to happen, and there ain't a whole hell of a lot we can do about it.

47 posted on 03/23/2008 2:49:48 PM PDT by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: geo40xyz

>Just trying to shown the long term trend since you ‘Global Warning’ whinnies think ANY short term period proves your (Al gore) points.<<

My point was that there is a 100 year warming trend with a flat spot between 1945 and 1976. I doubt Al would it that way because the flat spot proves something other than CO2 is a major influence.

>>Take it as another indicator that warm & cool periods in history are MOST likely cause by the SUN.......<<

That’s problematic because the sun (and the measure you want is probably total solar irradiance -tsi) has been in a period of decline and does not correlate well with recent warming.


48 posted on 03/23/2008 2:53:02 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

>Negative?
Doesn’t that depend on what your definition of “is” is...?<<

One of my heroes - Hank Hill put it this way “Dale, we live in Texas and its 105 in the summer already”


49 posted on 03/23/2008 2:54:36 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird

>> And you want to take a climate model based upon our rather limited, infinitesimal recorded history, and even smaller data set with more granular measuring and recording instruments, not to mention still limited understanding of all the variables, and make predictions as to our future?

Good luck with that.

Personally speaking; whatever is going to happen, is going to happen, and there ain’t a whole hell of a lot we can do about it.<<

Actually physicists talk quietly about possible cooling methods - but the PC folks already freak out over a nice safe reactor... they might explode if we talk about picking an island and creating a mild nuclear winter by blowing it to Kingdom Come.


50 posted on 03/23/2008 2:57:04 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
That is a fascinating graphics, but probably not in the way you intended it. I would dearly love to learn the source. Clearly, it was not done by a physicist, a statistician or a climate-weather expert.

No true scientist would label such a temperature variation ordinate as an "anomally", since variation is the norm in both climate and weather, and has been forever. The only documented state within the topic of world temperature is constant change.

51 posted on 03/23/2008 2:57:43 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
No, they are reaching an unsubstantiated conclusion about the data and thus attacking the messenger is appropriate.

Here is the crux of the article. Doesn't sound like an conclusion to me; just the reporting of fact "a" followed by fact "b". But that's just me.

"What all the climate models suggest [actually this should read "assume", since model programs do not think, they simple are programmed to follow orders] 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."

52 posted on 03/23/2008 3:09:13 PM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

First, I apologize for not citing the source.

I tend to re-host graphics so they cannot disappear after I link them.

Here is the original link
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

Here is the report its from
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/


53 posted on 03/23/2008 3:24:16 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
the sun (and the measure you want is probably total solar irradiance -tsi) has been in a period of decline and does not correlate well with recent warming

So maybe your assertion that the effects of purported AWG are universally bad is questionable. If the sun's in decline for the long haul, maybe A little thicker CO2 blanket isn't a bad thing going forward. Disclaimer: I'm not asserting AWG is real (it almost certainly isn't), but just making a rhetorical point.

54 posted on 03/23/2008 3:24:16 PM PDT by Minn (Here is a realistic picture of the prophet: ----> ([: {()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: geo40xyz
The chart shows a correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration, but does CO2 concentration lead or lag temperature? Is there a cause and effect relationship between them or is/are there some other factor(s) that drive them?

They both seem to peak together and then fall together, why is that? If CO2 leads and is causing the temperature to go up, then it would seem that if we want the temperature to go down, then we need to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we can until we hit that critical peak point and they both fall. But what about at the low end? We have such a low concentration of CO2 that the temperature starts to increase? Why would that be?

55 posted on 03/23/2008 3:26:46 PM PDT by GBA ( God Bless America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Minn

>>So maybe your assertion that the effects of purported AWG are universally bad is questionable. If the sun’s in decline for the long haul, maybe A little thicker CO2 blanket isn’t a bad thing going forward. Disclaimer: I’m not asserting AWG is real (it almost certainly isn’t), but just making a rhetorical point.<<

If I said the effects are universally wrong then I misspoke (or mis-typed) I should have more carefully said that the studies universally conclude that the net effects will be negative. It may be helpful in cold areas but that’s not largely where the population is.


56 posted on 03/23/2008 3:27:28 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: GBA

>>The chart shows a correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration, but does CO2 concentration lead or lag temperature? Is there a cause and effect relationship between them or is/are there some other factor(s) that drive them?

They both seem to peak together and then fall together, why is that? If CO2 leads and is causing the temperature to go up, then it would seem that if we want the temperature to go down, then we need to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we can until we hit that critical peak point and they both fall. But what about at the low end? We have such a low concentration of CO2 that the temperature starts to increase? Why would that be?<<

It is not widely accepted yet but when all the data is out and circulated and double checked I suspect that CO2 increase following some other warming event. The most common such warming even may well be tectonic movement effecting ocean currents.

None of what I just said is consensus whereas the rest of what I’ve been discussing has been consensus.


57 posted on 03/23/2008 3:30:47 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Please tell me that you realize I was sarcastically imitating the GW crowd and that your post is directed at them and not me.


58 posted on 03/23/2008 3:31:00 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Sadly; what about one degree in the past 200 years makes you sad?

The +-2F error in the instruments used over 200 years are a greater cause of concern.

The “crisis” is supposed to be based on runaway warming, not the recovery from an ice-age; the runaway effect was going to be the direct result of the linear increase in CO2 - the CO2 continues apace while the temperature has gone on “hiatus.”

None of the models accounts for this.


59 posted on 03/23/2008 3:33:42 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

Intuitively, one degree Celsius doesn’t bother me at all.

Its only projecting forward that becomes a concern.

And its slow enough that even if I thought the one degree was human caused I still would oppose radical solutions because we would have decades to be sure.

Given the flat spot for 21 years in the middle there is clearly at least one other large factor so I don’t think it has been shown how much is CO2 at all.

And even if the whole thing turned out to be human caused I still would object to to hurting the U.S while Russia, India and China grow their CO2 unchecked.

Nonetheless, there is warming and it is worth studying and watching.


60 posted on 03/23/2008 3:39:54 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson