From the moment I first became aware of global-warming alarmism many years ago, I asked myself, “Wait a minute — how are they disaggregating the human impact from what the planet would otherwise be doing?” Having studied a lot of biology, evolutionary theory, zoology, etc. at the University of Wisconsin, I knew that we’d been coming out of an ice age for most of the last 100,000 years, that the seas had risen hundreds of feet in that time, and that the lake outside my window was the melted remnant of massive glaciers. It was the 1990s, and the climate was always tossed around as the classic example of “chaos theory.” (Remember that little trend in pop science? It apparently disappeared after coming in contact with Al Gore).
Well it turned out that scientists had little clue what the planet would be doing in the absence of human activity. Their measures of the human impact on the climate were always highly conjectural — based mostly on a measurable warming trend over the last 150 years, compared with models going back several thousand years, and models predicting future trends. “Climategate” revealed that some of those models were intentionally manipulated to flatten previous short-term variations and exaggerate predictions of future warming. In recent years, more and more scientists have come out to question the alarmists’ claims: One great example was this fascinating essay by Dr. William Happer, a noted physics professor of Princeton University.
Still, I assumed that at least the climate scientists had some firm idea of how much heat a certain amount of carbon dioxide would trap directly and indirectly through increased humidity and cloud cover. Well now it turns out that even on this most essential assumption of all their claims, they didn’t know what they were talking about.
An explosive study based on NASA satellite data collected over the past decade shows that the planet’s atmosphere traps far less heat than any of the most frequently cited models presumed. The study, by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. William Braswell of the University of Alabama, was published in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing. This is from the press release:
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks.
Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.
“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.
This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.
Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.
Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.
“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said.
Skeptics have long been able to point to inconvenient facts that cast doubt on the climate alarmists’ consensus — for example, the fact that temperatures have apparently risen much less slowly in the last 20 years than in the 20 before that, although everyone agrees there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now then there was then. But this is virtually the first time that central assumptions and predictions of the models used by the International Panel on Climate Change — the basis of climate policy and treaty negotiations around the world — has been flatly refuted by hard evidence. To repair to Karl Popper, the precise theory of the climate alarmists has been falsified by factual data — and must now be modified or abandoned, which is what happens to most theories. The “chaos theory” trend of 20 years ago was right after all — we don’t know everything, in particular where the climate is concerned. The planet may be warming — but there are far too many potential causes for us to really understand what is happening, or to predict what will happen in coming decades. Much more will doubtless be written about this — and heard, in congressional testimony — as folks start to realize just how deeply these new data undermine the claims of the climate alarmists. But this is hopefully the beginning of the end of the Democrats’ demented fascination with imposing devastating burdens on the American economy in the service of a “scientific” consensus that is now facing death by a thousand inconvenient truths.
The paper does not provide a clear method to reproduce the data set that was used to argue his point. This is a basic tenet of the scientific method that has not been followed here. I'm open to listening to arguments against the consensus view (that AGW is real), but the results need to be reproducible by the researcher's peers - this is not, at least not with the information provided in the paper.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMario - your post is an infuriating example of the intellectual dishonesty that cripples any attempt to develop a sane debate on climate.
Let me ask you one question: if the scientific consensus were to evolve to the conclusion that humanity's effect on the climate is more limited than currently thought, what do you think the reaction would be of people - like me - who accept the consensus and think that a cost-benefit analysis leads to the conclusion that we should limit carbon emissions?
Your post seems to be written on the assumption that people like me would be DISAPPOINTED, which I think not only wildly incorrect, but deeply offensive. You seem to deny the very possibility that there are honest, intelligent, well-meaning people who look at the evidence and conclude that climate change demands a response from humanity - and who would much rather be able to reach the opposite conclusion.
At the end of the day, the fact that you can't conceive of honesty in others says a lot more about your intellectual approach than it does about people who accept that climate change is happening.
What's more, your post takes the classic charlatan's approach to scientific evidence, which is to say that any study you disagree with is flawed or dishonest, while any study you agree with is beyond question. The NASA study is just one study. The scientists who undertook it are no more brilliant or honest than the thousands of other scientists who have performed studies that contribute to our current understanding of climate. Yes, this is a very interesting study. If it turns out that it shows a missing piece of the puzzle that leads to a revision of climate models, than that is fantastic. But only a fool or a liar would say that this study is the smoking gun that shows that all previous climate models are wrong. Let's wait and see until the climate science community have time to digest it and incorporate its findings ... as - if the study is correct - they surely will.
In the meantime, can we please try for a basic level of honesty and open-mindedness?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGbh: Your comment is rather silly. You don't provide any evidence at all that the so called consensus view is correct nor do you provide any evidence that the study mentioned is wrong or that Mario's article is wrong. All you say is a lot of smart people believe the alarmist view.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is typical of the alarmists. I have almost never seen an alarmist who argues about real world facts. That is what this study is it is based on the real world. The article is correct almost all the alarmist paper are based on models. More and more models have been shown not to match real world measurements.
Tomtre there is simply masses of evidence that the consensus view is correct. An entire canon of science stretching back over a hundred and sixty years no less.
In 1859, physicist John Tyndall ran an experiment demonstrating the greenhouse effect. Visible sunlight easily passes through our atmosphere to warm the Earth. However, invisible heat rays rising from the Earth’s surface, otherwise known as infrared radiation, don’t easily escape back to space. What Tyndall showed by shining heat rays through tubes filled with different gases is that certain gases like water vapour and carbon dioxide block the heat rays. These became known as greenhouse gases.
Tyndall also made several predictions of what we should expect to see if greenhouse gases were causing warming (Tyndall 1861). In fact, we expect to see a number of distinctive greenhouse patterns in global warming. Observing these patterns strengthens the evidence that humans are causing global warming, as well as eliminates other possible natural causes. Let's have a look at the many human fingerprints on climate change:
The first point to establish is that humans are the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. This fact is common sense. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going up by around 15 billion tonnes per year. Humans are emitting around twice that much! On top of this, there are a number of lines of evidence to confirm that we're the cause of rising CO2 levels.
When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006). As you burn fossil fuels, you take oxygen out of the atmosphere. Measured oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising (Manning 2006). There's been a sharp rise in "fossil fuel carbon" in corals (Pelejero 2005) and sea sponges (Swart 2010). Anthropogenic CO2 is penetrating even to the ocean depths (Murata 2010). Measurements of radiocarbon in tree-rings confirms human activity is the cause of rising CO2 (Levin 2000). Even the pages of ancient books trace the rising effects of fossil fuel pollution going back to beginnings of the industrial revolution (Yakir 2011).
So many independent lines of evidence (and common sense) confirm that yes, we are responsible for the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.
Our understanding of the greenhouse effect provides a number of verifiable predictions. If carbon dioxide is trapping more heat, we should see less heat escaping to space. Satellites measuring infrared radiation coming from Earth find less heat escaping to space over the last few decades, at those exact wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorbs energy (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). The researchers who analysed this data described this as:
"...direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".
Harries 2001
If less heat is escaping to space, there's only one place it can go - back to the Earth's surface. Scientists check this by measuring infrared heat coming down from the atmosphere. These measurements confirmed the satellite data - more heat is returning to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004, Evans 2006, Wang 2009). This extra piece of evidence upon the existing body of evidence led scientists to conclude that:
"This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
Evans 2006
Unfortunately the scientists underestimated the human capacity to ignore evidence staring us in the face.
Global warming has a distinct greenhouse signature
As far back as the mid 1800s, Tyndall predicted that greenhouse warming should cause nights to warm faster than days. This is because at night, the Earth's surface cools by radiating heat out to space. Greenhouse gases trap some of this heat, slowing the night-time cooling. It took over 130 years before Tyndall's prediction was confirmed. Over the last few decades, surface measurements have observed nights warming faster than days (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006, Zhou 2009).
Tyndall made another prediction of what greenhouse warming should look like. Just as greenhouse gases slow down nighttime cooling, they also slow down winter cooling. So Tyndall anticipated winters warming faster than summers. Again, recent analysis of temperature trends over the last few decades bear this out (Braganza et al 2003, Braganza et al 2004). Both thermometers and satellites find winters warming faster than summers.
And the evidence continues to build. Another distinctive greenhouse pattern can be found in the atmosphere. With heat being trapped, we expect to see the lower atmosphere to warm. But with less heat escaping to space and more carbon dioxide in the stratosphere, we also expect to see the upper atmosphere cool. Satellites and weather balloons both observe this curious contrast between upper cooling and lower warming (Jones 2003).
With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003). An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. Satellites measure this effect (Laštovika 2006). We are changing the very structure of our atmosphere.
What's fascinating about all these greenhouse signatures is they also rule out a number of other potential causes of global warming. If the sun was causing global warming, it would cause summers to warm faster than winter, days to warm faster than nights and the upper atmosphere to warm. Observations rule out the sun.
Similarly, the pattern of ocean warming rules out ocean cycles as the driver of global warming. The world’s oceans have been building up heat over the past half century. This isn't a case of heat shifting around due to ocean cycles but the entire global ocean system building up heat. The specific pattern of ocean warming, with heat penetrating from the surface, can only be explained by greenhouse warming (Barnett 2005).
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Current global warming shows all the distinctive signatures of greenhouse warming. To be skeptical that humans are causing global warming, you must believe two things. Something unknown is causing warming that happens to mirror the greenhouse effect. And something unknown is somehow suppressing the well understood (and well observed) greenhouse effect. So we can accept what we know to be true (greenhouse warming) or we accept two unknowns.
The saying goes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. But climate skeptics are trying to convince us it's some other, undefined animal impersonating a duck that's also mysteriously hiding the real duck.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice attempt at diversion.
CO2 alone would only raise the earth's temperature by about 0.6C, assuming no feedbacks of either type.
The IPCC assumes that H2O is a huge positive feedback, and they put that assumption into their models.
The problem is that there was never a shred of evidence to support such an assumption. Now, 30 years later there is evidence. And all of the evidence says that H20 is a strong negative feedback. Which means that the total warming caused by CO2 will be signifantly less than 0.6C. Which is in line with the evidence that we see in the real world.
There is not a scintilla of evidence that the scare scenarios put out by those who demand the destruction of our economies.
The reality is that almost all of the warming that was seen over the last 100 years has the same origin as the warming seen over the last 400 years. That is, it's almost entirely natural. The few tenths of a degree that can be atributed to CO2 is lost in the noise.
As to your claims that the sun would warm summers more than winters? Utter nonsense.
As to your claim that ocean cycles can't be the cause. Once again, utter nonsense.
Even the IPCC nutcases admit that the 1998 peak in global temperataures was caused by the huge el nino of that year.
Sorry, your duck is nothing more than a dead goose.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour reply is simply a list of long debunked unsubstatiated assertions that have already been dealt with many times.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo say that ocean cycles are responsible for GW merely illustrates your total lack of understanding of how they work.
Cycles are NEUTRAL. That's why they are called cycles. They wax from El Nino to La Nina as they have done for thousands of years. They cancel each other out over the long term. This is such basic common knowledge and even common sense tht it's simply embarrassing to have to explain it on a forum at this level.
It's true that 1998 was a super El Nino year which caused a temporary 'spike' in temperatures but this can be clearly seen to be 'noise' on a steadily rising trend. Even Spencers data shows this.
And 2005 and 2010 equalled or surpassed 1998 on all data sets with a much less strong El Nino.
Again, Spencer's own data set shows this.
As for being 'natural' - what particular 'natural' forcings are you refering to and where is your evidence? That's right - you don't have any. If you did you would publish and be on for the Noble Prize at least as you would be the only 'scientist' to discover a hithertoo unknown forcing despite 30 years of searching for it.
Do some basic research.
Cycles are neutral. Overdecades that is true. Is there any fact that you aren't willing to betray your ignorance over?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you have anything to add to the debate other than this level of nonsense?
If you agre that the PDO is nuetral why are you claiming that they cause a global warming trend.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow does this happen?
Explain the mechanism.
Show your evidence.
Otherwise you are just making silly noises.
I'm sorry you get confused easily. I'll try to explain it in 3rd grade terms for you.
I agree thatPDO is neutral given enough time. However, we haven't had enough time. The PDO has been in a positive phase since the late 70's. Because of that, the earth has been warming over and above what may or may not have been caused by CO2.
The problem is that none of the models recognize this contribution of PDO, so they have all been tuned with the assumption that the warming caused by the PDO was actually caused by CO2, and hence their future projections are much larger than average.
So to answer your rather ignorant question. Yes, over time cycles such as PDO are neutral, the problem comes when tuning models without accounting for all of the known cycles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Nice attempt at diversion."
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I have posted a great deal of perfectly relevant and pertinent information, backed up by a large number of the latest published peer-reviewed science papers.
How is this an attempt at diversion?
"CO2 alone would only raise the earth's temperature by about 0.6C, assuming no feedbacks of either type."
It's up 0.8C already and shows no sign of stopping - despite endless "skeptic" claims to the contrary.
"The IPCC assumes that H2O is a huge positive feedback, and they put that assumption into their models".
The IPCC doesn't do anything of the sort. It doesn't have any control over the work of modelers. The IPCC merely collates the latest scientific research from thousands of scientists many of whom study cloud feedback as a speciality - people like Stowasser, Lauer, Clement and Dessler for example.
"Now, 30 years later there is evidence. And all of the evidence says that H20 is a strong negative feedback."
Now you are just being silly. The only people claiming cloud feedback "might be" negative are the likes of Monckton, Lindzen and Spencer.
Whilst there is still some uncertainty over the level of forcing from clouds - science is never 'settled' and no genuine scientist claims it is - but to say "all of the evidence says that H20 is a strong negative feedback" merely illustrates you have either failed to read a huge volume of recent research papers that state otherwise or have an anti-science agenda. Let's try to remain sceptical rather than indulge in outright denialism shall we.
Most of the cloud feedback uncertainty is due to cloud changes near the equator, in the tropics and subtropics (Stowasser et al. 2006). Studies by Lauer et al. (2010) and Clement et al. (2009) both looked at cloud changes in these regions in the east Pacific, and both concluded that based on a combination of ship-based cloud observations, satellite observations, and climate models, the cloud feedback in this region appears to be positive, meaning more warming.
Dessler (2010) used cloud measurements over the entire planet by the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) satellite instruments from March 2000 to February 2010 to attempt to determine the cloud feedback. Dessler concluded that although a very small negative feedback (cooling) could not be ruled out, the overall short-term global cloud feedback is probably positive (warming), and may be strongly positive. His measurements showed that it is very unlikely that the cloud feedback will cause enough cooling to offset a significant amount of human-caused global warming.
So while clouds remain a significant uncertainty and more research is needed on this subject, the evidence is building that clouds will probably cause the planet to warm even further, and are very unlikely to offset a significant amount of human-caused global warming. It's also important to remember that there many other feedbacks besides clouds, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is positive and will amplify global warming.
"Which means that the total warming caused by CO2 will be signifantly less real world' than 0.6C. Which is in line with the evidence that we see in the real world".
Simply laughable nonsense. This is yet another unsubstantiated assertion that bears no relation to reality and is not born out by any evidence whatsoever.
Here is the graph of the IPCC AR4 ensemble and 95% range of global temperature projections alongside 'real world' measurements from GISTEMP, NCDC and HadCRU3 from 1980 to 2010.
External Link
As you can clearly see all three projections are accurate within a tenth of one degree.
"There is not a scintilla of evidence that the scare scenarios put out by those who demand the destruction of our economies."
What an absurd statement. Especialy following the recent extreme weather events that have been occuring on an almost monthly basis. The 2003 European heatwave killed 37,000 people just for one example. The record 11 year drought in Australia was followed by record levels of flooding and the strongest Cyclone in recorded history. I stood on the banks of the Brisbane River and watched whole villages floating by. The rainfall in the catchment was DOUBLE the previous 1974 record which was cyclone related in any case. There was an area the size of France and Germany combined under water for weeks. I'm still paying inflated prices for fruit and veg here as a result. And this was just one isolated corner of the world and one flood. This is just a taste of things to come. I won't bother to list the dozens of other record breaking weather events - it would run to several pages.
And please - don't give me the old "No case of lung cancer can ever be directly attributed to cigarette smoking" line of argument. They can't ALL be just a coincidence.
As I've already mentioned there is a massive canon of scientific research dating back well over a century supported by thousands of scientists, tens of thousands of research papers and every single Acadamy of Science on the planet. That you refuse to accept the mountains of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I mean really "There is not a scintilla of evidence" Have you no shame at all. You do genuine sceptics no favours with nonsense such as this.
I might also point out that there really is 'not a scintilla of evidence' that the current and accelerating sea-change from carbon based fuels to replacement renewable fuels will "destroy the economy". And you call climate scientists "alarmists". This is a fantastic opportunity to develop a whole new raft of hi-tec industries and the US is letting China run away with it. They already employ a million people in the solar PV industry alone and export half of the world's production of same. Renewables is THE fastest growing sector of the global economy bar none, even including in the laggard US where it already employs more people than the steel industry and is expanding globaly at a compound rate of over 58%. To neglect this new industrial revolution would mean the US would effectively be committing economic suicide while China and now Europe leap ahead - laughing up their sleeves at what was once an innovative nation held back by ignorant Luddites.
".The reality is that almost all of the warming that was seen over the last 100 years has the same origin as the warming seen over the last 400 years."
Every single paleoclimate reconstruction of the last meillenium shows that the Earth was cooling very very slowly until the onset of the Industrial Revolution
Every single one. It's not just Hanson's hockey stick any longer - there are now at least ten graphs by 6 different teams using a dozen different proxies and over 40,000 data points and ALL of them show recent unprecedented global warming. Every single one.
If you have any evidence to the contrary then lets see it. Unsubstantiated assertions do not an argument make.
"That is, it's almost entirely natural. The few tenths of a degree that can be atributed to CO2 is lost in the noise."
Utter nonsense. What new unknown 'natural cycles'have you discovered and why don't you tell us and the world about them? You'd be a global hero. But the truth is you don't have any evidence for some previously undiscovered forcing do you? You've been reading denier-blogs not science papers.
Firstly, your mysterious unknown-to-science hypothetical 'natural' cycle would have to explain away the observed 'fingerprints' of greenhouse gas-induced warming. Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to discount the direct measurements showing and increased greenhouse effect many other lines of evidence point to anthropogenic causes. For example, the troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere) is warming, but the levels above are cooling as less radiation is escaping out to space. This rules out cycles related to the Sun, as solar influences would warm the entire atmosphere in a uniform fashion.
Maybe you think you've dicovered volcanies that release massive amounts of greenhouse gases? This wouldn't make sense either, not only because scientists keep track of volcanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are tiny compared to anthropogenic emissions, (yes - I know Monckton says otherwise but he's lieing) but also because CO2 from fossil fuels has its own fingerprints. Its isotopic signature is depleted in the carbon-13 isotope, which explains why the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 has been going up as anthropogenic carbon dioxide goes up. Additionally, atmospheric oxygen (O2) is decreasing at the same rate that CO2 is increasing, because oxygen is consumed when fossil fuels combust.
A natural cycle that fits all these fingerprints is nearly unfathomable. However, that's not all the cycle would have to explain. It would also have to tell us why anthropogenic greenhouse gases are NOT having the predicted and observed effect. Either a century of basic physics and chemistry studying the radiative properties of greenhouse gases would have to be proven wrong, or the natural cycle would have to be unbelievably complex to prevent such dramatic anthropogenic emissions from warming the planet.
"As to your claim that ocean cycles can't be the cause. Once again, utter nonsense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven the IPCC nutcases admit that the 1998 peak in global temperataures was caused by the huge el nino of that year."
outlier
Dear oh dear. I had hoped for a reasonable level of debate in this forum but evidently I'm going to be sadly disapointed if this is the level of general ignorance that abounds.
Natural oscillations like PDO simply move heat around from oceans to air and vice-versa. They don't have the ability to either create or retain heat, therefore they're not capable of causing a long-term warming trend, just short-term temperature variations. Basically they're an example of internal variability, not an external radiative forcing. If PDO were responsible for warming the surface, the oceans would be cooling, which is not the case.
And yes - the 1998 super El Nino was off the charts and of course it certainly helped produce the outlier temperatures that all good little deniers love to start their temperature graphs from. You must have heard "No warming since 1998" on those blogs you read. However, both 2005 and 2010 equalled or passed 1998 on all major data sets with a FAR less active El Nino and the 12 month period from June 2009 to May 2010 was the hottest in recorded history. If you redraw the temperature graphs and remove the fluctuations caused by the PDO cycle then you see a much steadier rise. All this is, again, simple, observable, measurable facts. The data is all publicaly available as is the software. You can plot it for yourself.
These results are, of course, expected. The long term trend is a result of an observable and measurable energy imbalance caused pimarily by CO2. No serious climate scientist disputes this. In contrast, the PDO or any other ocean cycle is an internal process and does not increase or decrease the total energy in the climate system. The cycle is NUETRAL - La Ninas and El Ninos cancel each other out in the long term the way they have been doing for hundreds if not thousands of years. Your needing to have this high school stuff explained to you in public actualy makes me feel a little embarrassed for you.
That you lack this basic knowledge and yet presume to pontificate about climate change when you so clearly have no clue as to what you are talking about speaks volumes about standards of science education in your cult.
You haven't posted a single fact, you have posted your opinion. The sad fact is that those facts that do exist contradict your pathetic opinion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You haven't posted a single fact, you have posted your opinion. The sad fact is that those facts that do exist contradict your pathetic opinion."
Heh heh. That's a classic. I've posted reams of scientific references and graphs and that's all you've got.
Translation: I have no answer to factual information.
Let's see 'those facts that do exist' then. Where are they? Why are you not posting them? I think we all know why don't we. I think you know too.
Admit it. You didn't even read the research papers I posted did you.
And the graphs? Are those 'my opinion'? Laughable.
I didn't write any of those research papers or produce any of those graphs. Highly qualified scientists who have been studying the climate for decades did. I just pointed you in the right direction so you could educate yoursef.
Do you actualy have anything worthwhile to add to the debate or are you just going to write sad little abusive one-liners that you don't even realise graphicaly illustrate you have no education in climate science whatsoever.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou throw a lot of facts at us as if they add up to catastrophic man-made global warming. They don't and you don't address any of the central claims of the anti-AGW crowd. You act like people dispute that taken in isolation C02 stores more heat than nitrogen or that we aren't increasing the C02 concentrations in our atmosphere. No one is arguing those points but thanks for throwing up those strawmen.
If you want to truly argue against us commenters, address these points:
1) The AGW models aren't predicting reality. This is the most devastating charge. Everything is premised on the accuracy of the models, and yet there is no evidence of accuracy.
2) Limitations of knowledge. AGW models suffer from information bias. By that I mean that they overplay effects that are understood (heat transfer coefficients for C02) and downplay effects that are not well understood (ocean circulation, jet streams change, ocean algae, etc.) There are millions of factors affecting the climate, but the climate models assume only a few factors are dominant and thus worth studying.
3) The devastation of a warming climate is at odds with historical fact. The warmest periods in our history (when we at times were warmer than today) actually show a positive correlation between economic prosperity and rising temperatures. The exact opposite of what is being claimed by the AGW doomsayers.
There are more but I think those are the main arguments.
In general, the science of global warming is sound enough to show that all other factors being held equal, an increase in C02 concentrations would raise the earth's temperature. The problem is that all other factors are not equal and are not well understood, so destroying the nation's leading economies and increasing global poverty is not justified.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You act like people dispute that taken in isolation C02 stores more heat than nitrogen or that we aren't increasing the C02 concentrations in our atmosphere. No one is arguing those points but thanks for throwing up those strawmen."
What strawman? This is a greenhouse effect.
"1) The AGW models aren't predicting reality."
Um, what reality are you in? The glaciers are retreating, the arctic ice is disappearing, there are droughts and famines and flooding -- as predicted -- what the hell are you smoking?
"2) Limitations of knowledge."
Yeah, that's a two-edged sword. It could turn out much worse than the models predict. Observations tend toward that likelihood.
"3) The devastation of a warming climate is at odds with historical fact."
Really? Tell that to the dust-bowl survivors. I'm sure they would love to hear from you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Really? Tell that to the dust-bowl survivors. I'm sure they would love to hear from you."
The dust bowl was not caused by AGW, it was caused by poor farming practices.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe dust bowl occurred before the rise of CO2, so CO2 could not have been the causeof it.
Glaciers stopped retreating years ago and sea ice is doing very well thank you. The antarctic continues to set records for the extent of it's ice sheets.
Try saying something that is true for once.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo what happened previously on Earth when this stuff happened? Because it was a lot warmer previously. Will plants become more prolific w/ increased CO2 in the atmosphere?
Regardless, what is amazing to me is that the whole point of the post and scientific study was that it appears that the Earth releases more energy through it's atmosphere than has been thought...and because of this the climate models used to derive all those wonderful theories you expounded upon...have bad data embedded in them.
Worst case scenario if the Earth heats up...we'll have to move north.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What happened to the Earth when this 'stuff' happented before"?
It was called mass extinction. Over 90% of all marine species went extinct and 75% of land animals went extinct.
Life barely managed to survive and took millions of years to recover.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's what happened
Most scientists agree that the previous rapid rise in CO2 levels and thus tempertures was probably caused by a massive and sustained volcanic event in what is now Siberia.
Human emissions of C02 are now at 30 billion tons per year - over 100 times that of all active volcanoes combined.
Then I guess we are already extinct and dreaming this life. Or maybe less heat is trapped than previously thought. Where were we?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmazing, another set of lies wrapped in ignorance.
In reality, CO2 levels have been 20 times higher than they are today for the vast majority of the earth's history and we didn't get mass extinction, instead life flourished and temperatures were not much warmer than they are today, in fact they were often colder than today's temperatures.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse