New NASA data shows that predicted runaway Global Warming was based on “a fundamental error”
There’s fervor, almost to the point of religious faith, amongst the proponents of Global Warmalism. Look no further than the comments to Number 9’s post yesterday, and you’ll see vitriol directed at ‘non-believers’. Anyone who challenges the accepted dogma is immediately subjected to attack. We who remain skeptical (somehow, we remember the 1970’s promise of an impending ice age that didn’t materialize, not to mention those silly pet rocks!) in the face of the warmologist’s cacophony are deniers, we have our heads stuck up our posteriors, and we don’t care about the future or little brown people or the joooooooooos….
Well, how about some nice Science that challenges your “the debate is OVER!” wide stance?
From The Austrailian, a reporter from ABC Radio National, Michael Duffy, interviews Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow at the Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Duffy asks Marohasy the question:
“Is the Earth still warming?”
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 recognizes 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: “It’s not only that it’s not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there’s any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it’s put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary.”
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn’t support their case. “People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?”
Marohasy: “Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that’s what skeptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
“There’s been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we’re going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling.”
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 recognize 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.”
Duffy: “From what you’re saying, it sounds like the implications of this could be considerable …”
Marohasy: “That’s right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer’s interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point.”
So. There are a “…lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.” But, but, that flies in the face of the Goreacle! How can anyone who has proclaimed ‘the debate is OVER‘ be denied, again, His legitimateness and correctness (without even a recount?)
Again…there is room for debate. This planet has changed so much over the 4.5 billion years it’s circled the sun; there is nothing we puny humans can do that won’t be wiped away in the next billion years or so. We are transient!
If there is warming due to human activity, the only solution would be to de-industrialize and de-modernize; stop our forward societal evolution and become much like our betters, the Amish and the Mennonites. Let’s tell India and China to stop their modernization programs, go back to the easy days of the past. I’ll bet they will jump on board with that.
We, here, in the USA and other ‘hypermodern’ societies have the responsibility to find out exactly what should be done to both maintain and continue our advancement, and to make our world agreeable for our successors. We should start that by following China’s lead and maintaining some sensible population stability. Not overreact and throw our economy under the bus to satisfy great Al’s wounded ego.
(That’s not my pshop, btw; I do admire the thing, though!)h/t Ed Morrissey
The zealots ask “why won’t you believe in the possibility of man made Global Warming”? But if you ask them to believe in the possibility that man made Global Warming isn’t true they lose their minds.
It isn’t the possibility that is the issue, it is the probability. So far, there is a fictional hockey stick and some other religious artifacts. Why haven’t the oceans warmed? How about some real facts rather than the religious dogma?
ditto…
To be a conservative, it is well known that you must suffer from a lack of knowledge, biased information and ignorance… but do you also have to be a liar too? I guess so.
The link is about Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based CONSERVATIVE think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Can’t you give us one fucking “scientist” that isn’t on the take from a CONSERVATIVE thinktank? Is your argument so weak and are you so dumb that you have you find these assholes in “Limbaugh land” and believe their LIES. Dumbfuck.
So what? A graph with such a small scale proves how small the change is. Do we know if that change is within normal tolerance? Who decides what normal tolerance is? Your new church? You judged people by their bio rather than what they say.
It is simple, why are the oceans not warmer as predicted? Does your church have an answer?
Even NPR covered the story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Which is the heat sink of this planet, the atmosphere or the oceans? Did Exxon find a way to compromise the robots reading ocean temperatures? Next will you tell us Exxon has compromised NPR?
There would be no problem if you only adjusted your life to your new beliefs. That would be fine. But when you tell other people how to live, what to believe, and what to think, in between insulting them, you may find it difficult to recruit new converts to your new religion.
This will be like the cults who believe the aliens will take them to a new world. When your new religion dies, and it will, what will you say then? I guess Al Goracle will have to buy a castle next to Madonna. England will be a safe refuge.
Are you too stupid to understand that anything that has happened in the last 5 or 10 years is not a meaningful trend? Nevermind, I already know that answer. Get a clue, read the last paragraph of the NPR article, idiot… It must be tough to go through life being led by the nose by Limbaugh land blogs and pundits, imbecile science deniers, “intelligent designers”, etc….
Are you too stupid to understand that anything that has happened in the last 5 or 10 years is not a meaningful trend?
So since when is ten years a trend in the study of climate? The average duration of the sunspot cycle is 11.1 years.
Ten years is nothing. To suggest a trend in climate in only ten years demonstrates your lack of understanding of scientific method and the timeline of climate.
You have no idea about what you are talking about do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum#Little_Ice_Age
We get a few blowhards here, but none have embarrassed themselves to the extend you have.
Okay class, Jim says ten years makes a climate trend. There, you have the recognition you needed.
Number 9:
hahahaha, I love the way Jim quickly reverts to calling you names. It’s his only way out. I agree with you, he knows little about his so called “Man made Global Warming”. Libs, you guys crack me up.
Come on and humor me again….
Still on that canard? I can’t believe nobody has pointed this out yet, but 1998 was an unusually warm El Niño year. That’s the reason AGW deniers pick that year as their starting point. If they started from 1997 or 1999, they’d be in a world of hurt. It’s always 1998.
What matters isn’t the year-over-year temperature, but the five year rolling averages, which are still trending upward, despite a very modest cooling trend that started in 2006 and is expected to last through 2008.
And, of course, your ability to produce a small handful of experts (most of them on the hydrocarbon industry’s payroll) who tell you what you want to hear doesn’t mean that there’s a substantial scientific debate. Scientists argue more about gravitation than they do about global warming, but you don’t deny gravity (although I suspect you would, if you thought liberals supported gravity…).
Fine, use 2002 as the starting point. Make your case from 2002.
This works equally well whether you start from 1998 or 2002.
See also here:
By the way, are you even capable of refraining from cherry-picking?
More graphs within 1 degree Celsius. If you really want to impress people show them the graphs within .25 degrees Celsius. That will look very dramatic. That will scare everyone, even skeptics.
You bring up El Niño but really don’t want to explain why the oceans do not show the predicted increase in temperature. Your canard is wobbling. If Bush does not create some hurricanes this summer the Goracle will have an uphill battle.
You bring up El Niño but really don’t want to explain why the oceans do not show the predicted increase in temperature.
I don’t explain that because I can’t. But then, I don’t need to, because as the rest of the story states, there’s uncertainty as to whether the temperature readings are accurate, and because the rest of their observations are absolutely consistent with the overarching theory.
The problem with AGW deniers such as yourself is that they invariably take a short-term view to a long-term problem. They cherry-pick anomalies as if the occasional peak or valley disproves everything, and they latch onto every piece of seemingly-contradictory evidence as if it’s gospel truth, irrespective of how well vetted it is. And I’m the one with the canard? Hardly.
You have proven time and time and time again that you really don’t have any interest in having a serious, adult discussion about this based on the merits. When that changes — when you’re willing to acknowledge what you don’t know, and what you’ve been wrong about — then maybe it will be worth engaging you on this issue.
The problem with AGW deniers such as yourself is that they invariably take a short-term view to a long-term problem.
Foul. That isn’t right and you know it. I admit the possibility, not the probability of AGW. So denier is not correct. You may correctly say AGW skeptic.
Stay on track.
As far as simply dismissing the problem with the ocean temperature measurements, you do yourself a disservice. If anything which questions AGW is dismissed as inaccurate then you should look in the mirror and ask yourself if you “want to believe”.
I am sure you are familiar with “experimenter bias”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimenter’s_bias
If you want to read a scenario based on a maverick scientist’s extrapolations of Global Warming, then read “We’re all doomed! 40 years from global catastrophe - and there’s NOTHING we can do about it, says climate change expert” James Lovelock.
If his provocative thoughts are correct, then we can do nothing at all about our future, because it’s beyond our control. Because, just as I posted above, it’s not about us in America or Britain driving around in evil SUV’s and burning coal and such, it’s all about the numbers. Of People.
Lovelock believes we will be thinned by geological changes, starting as soon as 2040…
Whether you believe Lovelock (an inevitable geological catastrophe) or Dr. Pianka (an inevitable biological catastrophe), the fact is that something is going to thin the herd.
So, short-term, what can we expect? Food in short supply, fuel unobtainable, people from the hottest regions of the world encroaching on the cooler, northernmost areas (Canada)?
In Great Britain. At least they are an island for the most part.
Maybe we should stop worrying about Global Warming and start preparing for Global Shrinking. Numbers, that is.
Number 9:
I admit the possibility, not the probability of AGW.
You only even admit the possibility in the hypothetical. You’ve set an impossibly high standard for what could ever “convince” you, such that there’s no danger of that ever happening, no matter how strong the case may become. That’s the problem.
As far as simply dismissing the problem with the ocean temperature measurements, you do yourself a disservice.
I don’t dismiss the problem. I simply contend that it is not, in and of itself, sufficient to invalidate the reams of other scientific evidence that supports the theory. It’s an important distinction, but one that involves nuance, which is probably why you’re incapable of discerning it.
And while we’re reciting scientific fallacies, let’s point out one that you’re incredibly guilty of: a single study proves nothing, and means nothing. It has to be replicated before we can draw conclusions from it. The study that you’re citing is evidence that we need to research this further, but it’s far from conclusive. If subsequent studies or other independently-run studies also show no increase in ocean temperatures, then you can start to think about this being a serious problem. But not until then. You cite this as if it’s evidence of a serious problem, when even the experimenters themselves concede that their results are internally inconsistent and that there may be problems with their method of measuring.
If the article had been written in exactly the same fashion, but did show an increase in ocean temperatures, would you then concede that warming is a problem? Hell no, you wouldn’t. In all likelihood, you would have simply ignored it, and for once, you wouldn’t be completely unjustified in doing so.
Serr8d:
Yours is a perfect example of the sort of goal-post moving that you so-called AGW skeptics seem to love. Global warming isn’t real, but even if it is real, it’s not caused by humans, and even if it is caused by humans, there’s nothing we can do about it anyway. Hedge your bets often?
Maybe we should stop worrying about Global Warming and start preparing for Global Shrinking. Numbers, that is.
There’s a good possibility that one will lead to the other.
If the article had been written in exactly the same fashion, but did show an increase in ocean temperatures, would you then concede that warming is a problem?
If the ocean was warming, wouldn’t that be some proof of AGW? You accuse others of cherry picking, then you take your basket and fill it with cherries.
You do realize you are guilty of what you accuse others of doing?
tgirsh, exactly what do you have in mind?
As far off as Loveshack might be, he did hit on the cause of GW, that being we are a species overpopulated. Al Gore is afraid to say that. I’m trained in biology; I know that every species has a population ceiling. No matter how much technology we have, no matter how we use our swollen cerebral cortexes to extend our reach and expand our playpen beyond that for which we’ve evolved, that certain limit can’t be pushed aside.
You, and your group of chicken littles would start America on a course that would enable our end sooner, by enabling an economic meltdown. An economic catastrophe is a spark, and a spark in a volatile atmosphere (such as we have, politically, culturally, and ethnically) is something we should avoid.
Number 9:
If the ocean was warming, wouldn’t that be some proof of AGW? You accuse others of cherry picking, then you take your basket and fill it with cherries.
You realize, of course, that you’ve not only taken my question out of context, you’ve then dodged it, right? If the oceans are warming, yes, that would indeed be evidence in support of global warming, and by extension, anthropogenic global warming. However, before we can say that the oceans are warming, cooling, or staying the same, we need independent confirmation from several sources that this is indeed the case. That’s not “cherry picking.” Cherry picking would be doing what you’ve done — grabbing this one study, in isolation, and pretending that it’s a lot more important than it actually is. Does it have the potential to be important? Sure. But as it currently stands, it cannot, in and of itself, be used to draw conclusions, whether those conclusions would support or harm my position.
My point, which you seem to have missed completely, is that it would have been equally wrong for me to point to that study if it supported my point as if this was anything other than an interesting development worthy of further research, as it was for you to do so. If such basic concepts are beyond your understanding, I’m not entirely sure what the point of engaging you is.
Serr8d:
Huh? You’re not even making any sense. You claim that something needs to happen, but then decry actions that would make what needs to happen actually happen? I don’t get it.
And in any case, the idea that “we” are overpopulated depends on which “we” you’re talking about. The whole world? Sure. But most of that overpopulation is concentrated in Southeast Asia, not here in North America.
If you want to argue that we should be encouraging people to have fewer children, I’m right there with you. In fact, if I were emperor for a day, I’d make birth control absolutely free for everyone who wants it.
But to try to tie these two issues together in this way is supremely disingenuous. Hell, you could use the same logic to argue against doing disease research! By fighting disease, you’re just letting more people live longer, and feeding the overpopulation problem! Pretty much anything that improves the human lifespan and/or reduces mortality rates would be “bad” by your logic. Are you willing to go on record with that?
Okay, I’ll play.
Do you have any study that says the oceans are warming?
Is the concept of a hypothetical truly so far beyond your ken? Whether or not I have such a study handy is irrelevant to the hypothetical question I was asking. (But if you’re really interested, google up “oceans warming” and have a look around.
Here’s evidence of the “fundamental error”
Tgirsh, what Lovenest is doing is presenting causality; the root cause of this climate change (given that it may be catastrophic) is industrialization by our advanced species which happens to have thoughtlessly overpopulated the planet.
Stop looking at our species as politically and geologically separated subgroups for a moment. See us as 6.7 billion individuals working and living where 1 billion is plenty, and sustainable. Then, add these newly-industrializing nations of India and China (#1 and #2, respectively, in population; the U.S. is #3) and the great quantities of oil that’s burned to run those economic engines. There’s your cause of Global Warming.
From Lovelock…
As a result, the arctic was 73 degrees warm, with crocodiles. That ‘natural’ Global Warming lasted 200,000 years, before the next stabilization.
If you are going to believe in Global Warmalism, you might as well view it from a perspective that’s a bit larger than your current “half-degree temperature variations” in the gulf stream. Me, I look at this in grander scale, and hope that in a couple hundred thousand years, our species is still around. I just hope that those successors listen to their Malthus’ before they run up their numbers.
Here is a snip of something interesting:
and
My links did not work
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7523/print#SlideFrame_1
http://www.jbs.org/node/7544
Serr8d:
So which is it, then? Are humans responsible for global warming, or aren’t they? It seems that you’re trying to argue it both ways.
Mickey:
Peel back the spin, and see what actually happened:
Wow, 19 whole scientists. They might not fit in a phone booth, but hardly the hundreds your article describes. And I’m willing to bet a good number of them weren’t climate scientists.
And, of course, the scientists who did show up were paid to do so, to the tune of $1,000 each.
And looking at your list of “prestigious” scientists, we have Dr. Roy Spencer, who in addition to being “skeptical” of gloabal warming, also denies evolution and advocates for intelligent design (he’s among the cdesign proponentsists); the oft-discredited William Gray; and John Coleman, a weatherman! Color me impressed!
stupid spam filter. (reposting with links deleted)
Serr8d:
So which is it, then? Are humans responsible for global warming, or aren’t they? It seems that you’re trying to argue it both ways.
Mickey:
Peel back the spin, and see what actually happened:
Wow, 19 whole scientists. They might not fit in a phone booth, but hardly the hundreds your article describes. And I’m willing to bet a good number of them weren’t climate scientists.
And, of course, the scientists who did show up were paid to do so, to the tune of $1,000 each.
And looking at your list of “prestigious” scientists, we have Dr. Roy Spencer, who in addition to being “skeptical” of gloabal warming, also denies evolution and advocates for intelligent design (he’s among the cdesign proponentsists); the oft-discredited William Gray; and John Coleman, a weatherman! Color me impressed!
stupid spam filter. (third attempt, with all links deleted)
Serr8d:
So which is it, then? Are humans responsible for global warming, or aren’t they? It seems that you’re trying to argue it both ways.
Mickey:
Peel back the spin, and see what actually happened:
Wow, 19 whole scientists. They might not fit in a phone booth, but hardly the hundreds your article describes. And I’m willing to bet a good number of them weren’t climate scientists.
And, of course, the scientists who did show up were paid to do so, to the tune of $1,000 each.
And looking at your list of “prestigious” scientists, we have Dr. Roy Spencer, who in addition to being “skeptical” of gloabal warming, also denies evolution and advocates for intelligent design (he’s among the cdesign proponentsists); the oft-discredited William Gray; and John Coleman, a weatherman! Color me impressed!
seems to me it said 100 scientist were there.
the theory of evolution as the origin of life is just that, a theory, and a highly unprobable one at that. like your global warming, it too does not fit the data, the facts.
Is the concept of a hypothetical truly so far beyond your ken?
So we are now in the hypothetical? Since there is no proof, I thought hypothetical was all there was for AGW.
Mickey:
the theory of evolution as the origin of life is just that, a theory
Perhaps you should re-educate yourself on just exactly what constitutes a scientific theory. In science, being a “theory” is a really big deal. Misuse of the term “theory” in the vernacular leads to this confusion, e.g. “I have a theory.” No you don’t; you have a hypothesis. To be a theory, it has to be internally consistent, and verified by observation and experimentation.
Number 9:
Either you’re being intentionally obtuse, or you’re a moron. I hope for your sake that it’s the former.
tgirsch, carefully read what I’ve posted. I agree with many honest scientists and thinkers who say there are far too many people on this here mudball. You say (and hope, for political reasons) that our people caused ‘global warming’.
If Global Warming is correct (I’m not yet fully convinced) then, yes, we can blame people.
Because there are so many, many, people.
And, we are facing a correction, either a biological (more likely) or a geological (if Global Warming is correct, the earth will find a way to stabilize, as has happened repeatedly). But, either way, an overpopulation ‘correction’ will be…unpleasant.
In the end, I hope our surviving successors learn something. But, probably not, given we haven’t increased our average brain size (therefore, intelligence) that much in the last 120,000 years since Homo sapiens came along, and any further brain evolution will have to wait for some nice…selection.
Back to that ‘correction’. The selection will happen because of the ‘correction’. So, there it goes.
I do not “hope” for global warming to be caused by people. If I could choose any one thing about my beliefs that I’d love to be wrong about, that’s it. Shit, I’d love to fly all over the world consequence-free, drive a Corvette across the country just for fun, etc.
Because there are so many, many, people.
In part, yes. But we 300 million Americans use over five times as much energy, per person, as the worldwide average. So you can’t just blame it on the number of people.
I’ll give you credit for this, however: it’s a brilliant attempt to change the subject.
And, of course, when your best proposed solution is “wait for a whole shitload of people to die off,” then you’re probably not worth taking all that seriously on the issue.
Again, Tiger, you’ve missed the point.
I’m not proposing ‘waiting for a dire consequence’, I have no proposals at all for Global Warming, except to say ‘don’t precipitate an economic collapse lead by Team Gore on ideas that are still on shaky ground that, even if true, it’s something we.can’t. fix.’ I would like to see the entire population of our planet adopt China’s one-child-per-family law; as I’ve said many times, that’s the most important, gutsy and wise political move any Government has ever enacted since Governments came to pass. Thinking people, such as myself and my wife, have adopted the one-child option as just basic common sense, we didn’t need Government to tell us how to be responsible. Sadly, there are those who aren’t as erudite.
If there’s Global Warming, then the Earth will fix itself. Eventually. It’s all a matter of time and scale.
What’s 200,000 years to a planet that’s 4.5 billion years old?