New Study debunks global warming models

[Flatland]

Is it just me or didn't that article just reaffirm global warming is real and exists?

Just not at such a rapid pace "computers" thought, NASA (other people trying to predict) have a says global warming is still "real".

The fact that the world has warmed isn't in dispute. What is in question is how much of the warming is attributable to human-based emissions. The study indicates that the globe is giving off heat at a rate greater than what they are currently using in their models. This would indicate that their models would then be overstating the projected temperature increase over the next century. Additionally, this would lesson the multipliers for "warming feedback" and so on and would force them to revisit climate models entirely.

[Hayduke]

Hi Pal...Don't know where I said ALL Sioux and Bison fans see this issue the same way. In response to BisonDan I said "I think Bison & Sioux fans think Global Warming is a farce. Hard to believe Al Gore made a cool 100 Million on something so far fetched. I wonder if his wife Tipper gets half?"

The stock market lost 266 Points on the news of the debt deal today...time to wake up America before he gets it all.

No, you didn't use the word, "all". But, you implied the same. If you didn't mean to, that's fine. Be more careful with blanket statements.

Or, I'll think you went to school at NDSU!

[tnt]

The fact that some of the "experts" have had email uncovered that showed that they were trying to manipulate information and people, makes you wonder what is the truth. I was also under the opinion that there was information that the temperature has actually gone down a bit over the last decade. Whether that is factual or not, the fact that the "experts" have now changed their terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" makes you wonder if they are setting themselves up to argue either way for their agenda. If the temperature goes up it is because of man, if it goes down, it is because of man as well. It does make me wonder if this whole thing is a way for some do-gooders to redistribute the wealth with the U.S. having to pay other less fortunate countries carbon credits for their emissions. If in fact, the U.S. and other countries agree to this accord, I will find myself firmly in the camp of this being an agenda with some truth behind it.

[wxman91]

wxman... You had a decent post, but as a "skeptic" I have a bit of a problem with people who hold the warming position. It primarily has to do with the poor rhetoric and catastrophic scenarios that the "warming" side put forward which has so many on this board upset. The fact is that solutions that have been put forward (carbon tax, cap-and-trade, etc.) provide a nearly negligible impact while enacting a serious economic burden. The fact is that I haven't been sold on the fact that a warmer world is worse than a cooler one. Clearly, we want to have clean energy technology, but CO2 is far from a pollutant; especially compared to most industrial gasses which for the most part have been tremendously reduced over the past several decades.

I was happy to see that you are at least willing to talk about ocean cycles and solar irradiance, but you're totally downplaying solar irradiance's effect. Recorded data over the last 400 years has had solar irradiance at it's highest until this last decade. Actually, this cycle has been surprisingly inactive compared to the previous cycles. Also, do you have a source for the 40%+ number? One problem that I always have with this argument is that increased temperatures will cause CO2 to be released from oceans/streams/lakes. How much of the increase in CO2 is simply due to an increased temperature? I know that this is one of the proposed feedback loops, but if solar irradiance, ocean cycles, or something else is primarily responsible this greatly would downplay the anthropogenic argument.

To the first part of your post, that is political, not scientific. I think the scientists should stay out of policy and just present the facts.

The 40% number is simply the pre-industrial 280ppm to the current near 400ppm. Oceans could not have contributed to the rising atmospheric levels because the oceans are now a net sink for CO2. Hence the discussion you may sometimes hear about ocean acidification.

The fact that some of the "experts" have had email uncovered that showed that they were trying to manipulate information and people, makes you wonder what is the truth. I was also under the opinion that there was information that the temperature has actually gone down a bit over the last decade. Whether that is factual or not, the fact that the "experts" have now changed their terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" makes you wonder if they are setting themselves up to argue either way for their agenda. If the temperature goes up it is because of man, if it goes down, it is because of man as well. It does make me wonder if this whole thing is a way for some do-gooders to redistribute the wealth with the U.S. having to pay other less fortunate countries carbon credits for their emissions. If in fact, the U.S. and other countries agree to this accord, I will find myself firmly in the camp of this being an agenda with some truth behind it.

The "name change" is a bad argument. The first IPCC report came out in 1990. So, even back several decades ago they were officially calling it "climate change". The scientific community moved away from global warming because the public was interpreting that as it should be warming at every place every year, when it really refers to a long-term (multi-decadal and longer) warming averaged over the earth. Try to tell people in ND this year, or Seattle this summer that this is one of the warmest years on record. It is, but they aren't seeing it in their backyards. Climate change is also preferred because temperature isn't the only variable to be concerned about. People and infrastructure can handle more heat waves and higher temps, but really I think the key is changing precipitation patterns.

[Bison Dan]

Maybe we should boil this down to this:

The world's climate is changing - (it has been changing since year 1)

Here's the questions:

Does the minuscule amount of greenhouse gases that are man made (as a % of all greenhouse gases) causing climate change? (I highly doubt it)

Does man have a way to stop climate change? (No way - nothing I've seen by any climate scientist has shown we can)

We do need to be good stewards of our planet but let's do what's right and skip the pseudoscience.

[GeauxSioux]

Maybe we should boil this down to this:

The world's climate is changing - (it has been changing since year 1)

Here's the questions:

Does the minuscule amount of greenhouse gases that are man made (as a % of all greenhouse gases) causing climate change? (I highly doubt it)

Does man have a way to stop climate change? (No way - nothing I've seen by any climate scientist has shown we can)

We do need to be good stewards of our planet but let's do what's right and skip the pseudoscience.

Amen.

[LB#11]

No, you didn't use the word, "all". But, you implied the same. If you didn't mean to, that's fine. Be more careful with blanket statements.

Or, I'll think you went to school at NDSU!

Fair enough

[LB#11]

Maybe we should boil this down to this:

The world's climate is changing - (it has been changing since year 1)

Here's the questions:

Does the minuscule amount of greenhouse gases that are man made (as a % of all greenhouse gases) causing climate change? (I highly doubt it)

Does man have a way to stop climate change? (No way - nothing I've seen by any climate scientist has shown we can)

We do need to be good stewards of our planet but let's do what's right and skip the pseudoscience.

Very well put Bison Dan

[Hayduke]

Fair enough

Notice how I made that blanket statement about NDSU folks!

[tnt]

Maybe we should boil this down to this:

The world's climate is changing - (it has been changing since year 1)

Here's the questions:

Does the minuscule amount of greenhouse gases that are man made (as a % of all greenhouse gases) causing climate change? (I highly doubt it)

Does man have a way to stop climate change? (No way - nothing I've seen by any climate scientist has shown we can)

We do need to be good stewards of our planet but let's do what's right and skip the pseudoscience.

Agree with this 100%. I just got back from Glacier National Park, and learned that the Glaciers in the park have diminished from 150 to 50 now, but the retreat of the glaciers started in 1860. They actually grew in the 1960's and 1970's. That would make no sense if automobiles and other industrialized societal inventions were the cause. Nevertheless, I agree that being good stewards no matter how miniscule the impact is indeed a good thing.

[SoonersNSioux]

Sadly, I'm late to the game (just graduated with my doctorate from UND in atmospheric science so I haven't been checking the board as often). I happened to work with a climate model for my dissertation so I am well versed in this "debate". Overall, I think wxman summed the topic up well. A couple of comments:

Media/politicians love the extreme viewpoints (i.e. Al Gore). Usually when you hear about some doomsday scenario it's because the media cherry picked one model run out of an ensemble that does something bad... say for example melting all of the ice caps in 40 years or what not. I wonder where we would be if a left-winger wouldn't have made this his pet project.

In the actual climate community, most of the debate surrounds the climate sensitivity,... in other words, how much does temperature change given a doubling in CO2. If you debate whether increased GHG causes warming, then you're a hopeless cause... this is one of the most basic concepts in atmospheric science. What the skeptics need to "root" for are feedbacks that balance out the warming. For example, if CO2 goes up, so does temperature. If T rises, then so does water vapor.... increased water vapor= more clouds and then those clouds reflect more incoming solar radiation = cooling. Of course some clouds actually cause warming and that's what makes the problem so difficult to solve.

The other thing I'll point out is everyone focuses on our influence on the climate via GHG emissions. The fact of the matter is we also influence the climate in a variety of other ways. For example, our pollution tends to have a cooling effect and this actually offsets some of the warming via GHG emissions. Second of all, land-use change (agriculture, urbanization), influences the climate.

Nevertheless, I agree that being good stewards no matter how miniscule the impact is indeed a good thing.

That's what is all boils down to. I'm all for using local resources, but I'm not sure they are doing a good enough job in W. ND...

[star2city]

Sadly, I'm late to the game (just graduated with my doctorate from UND in atmospheric science so I haven't been checking the board as often). I happened to work with a climate model for my dissertation so I am well versed in this "debate". Overall, I think wxman summed the topic up well. A couple of comments:

Media/politicians love the extreme viewpoints (i.e. Al Gore). Usually when you hear about some doomsday scenario it's because the media cherry picked one model run out of an ensemble that does something bad... say for example melting all of the ice caps in 40 years or what not. I wonder where we would be if a left-winger wouldn't have made this his pet project.

...

The other thing I'll point out is everyone focuses on our influence on the climate via GHG emissions. The fact of the matter is we also influence the climate in a variety of other ways. For example, our pollution tends to have a cooling effect and this actually offsets some of the warming via GHG emissions. Second of all, land-use change (agriculture, urbanization), influences the climate.

That's what is all boils down to. I'm all for using local resources, but I'm not sure they are doing a good enough job in W. ND...

SoonerSioux:

Thanks for the response! Has any model ever been able to successfully replicate history - going back a thousand or more years through warming spells and the little ice age? Isn't that the true test of a model, to correctly model the known past? Are sunspot activity - which has been linked to the little ice age - included in models?

[SoonersNSioux]

SoonerSioux:

Thanks for the response! Has any model ever been able to successfully replicate history - going back a thousand or more years through warming spells and the little ice age? Isn't that the true test of a model, to correctly model the known past? Are sunspot activity - which has been linked to the little ice age - included in models?

They run some model simulations back to the year 1000 and generally, they fall within the uncertainty of the paleo-climate record. The largest difficulties with these simulations is providing the proper solar/volcanic forcing which has larger uncertainties as you go farther back in time. I know once you go back a few hundred years, we don't have the details of year-to-year sunspot activity (the forcing is smoothed out to longer periods). These runs provide the link between recent warming and the increase greenhouse gasses. If we assume greenhouse gasses have not changed in concentration and leave that forcing out, the models miss the recent warming. Of course this says nothing about what caused the increase in greenhouse gasses.

In terms of the model, the impact of the sun is simply a number... the watts per meter square of energy incident on the Earth. This varies naturally due to variations in the Earth's orbit, and also by the sunspots as you mentioned. Volcanoes are treated the same way... additional aerosols are added into the stratosphere when we believe their was volcanic activity. As a result, the model should get the right year-to-year answer since we are constraining it to the observations for historical simulations.

To my knowledge, sunspot cycles are only incorporated in the future by assuming a profile See: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/ Orbital fluctuations are taken care of. Future volcanic eruptions are added randomly in time dependent on their historical frequency.

The sunspot issue brings up an interesting point considering solar physicists are now debating whether we're about to go into another minimum. The good news is we can change the solar forcing in the model to account for a minimum. One study has already done this... they put in a future solar minimum and investigated how temperature would change. As you would expect, temperatures decreased, but the magnitude was much less than that due to the change in greenhouse gasses. This is only one model simulation, so I look forward to seeing what else comes out in the near future.

[star2city]

New Study just released in the prestigioius journal Nature debunks CO2-based warming - attributes warming to Sun's cosmic rays

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from

[MplsBison]

New Study just released in the prestigioius journal Nature debunks CO2-based warming - attributes warming to Sun's cosmic rays

Clouds?

[petey23]

No, you didn't use the word, "all". But, you implied the same. If you didn't mean to, that's fine. Be more careful with blanket statements.

Or, I'll think you went to school at NDSU!

don't worry about it Hayduke....wouldn't be the first time you were wrong......just in this thread.

[Aloha]

Editor who published controversial climate paper resigns, blasts media.

Last month, we described how a paper that compared climate models to satellite readings had been blown out of proportion by a hype machine that was soon claiming the paper would "blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism." However, even a cursory glance at the paper revealed that its claims were far more modest; other scientists who discussed the work indicated that problems with its analysis were already widely recognized. Now, the editor-in-chief of the journal that published the paper has considered these criticisms

[SoonersNSioux]

This blog posts sums up the CLOUD effort pretty well:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/

The main issue is the time-series of cosmic rays doesn't match our time-series of temperature.

[Big A HG]

ANOTHER misleading Global Warming piece:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/20/times-atlas-apologizes-for-misleading-greenland-ice-melting-claim/

[star2city]

Things that make you go hmmmm .....

Significant Drop in Ocean Levels in past year:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/weather-cycles-cause-a-drop-in-global-sea-level-scientists-find/2011/08/25/gIQA6IeaeJ_story.html?hpid=z4

[buckysieve]

You people are aware that for every scientist or study you can find to debunk the global warming theory, there are 1000 other scientists and studies that support it right?

Personally I dont know about global warming. Its way too complicated for this dummy. But finding a study here or there that supports your argument does not mean the theory of global warming has been debunked.

[xI Hammer Ix]

Things that make you go hmmmm .....

Significant Drop in Ocean Levels in past year:

http://www.washingto...ry.html?hpid=z4

A strong La Nina year does not prove or disprove global warming. Anyway you slice it, is cutting back on carbon emissions and going to renewable energy a bad thing?

Edit: Relevant

Edited October 7, 2011 by xI Hammer Ix

[SoonersNSioux]

If you can look at any one measure that should make you go hmmm.... it's the Arctic sea ice extent which is in a rapid decline. Depending on what observational database you use, 2011 will go down as either the lowest or second lowest extent of Arctic sea ice extent in our record.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20111004_Figure3.png (I'm not a big fan of of the blue line, but no matter how you slice it, sea ice extent is much lower now). The ramifications of this are pretty straight forward... less ice, and there is less area to reflect solar radiation = more warming at the pole.

Of course the good news is shipping companies know this and are saving wads of cash by directing traffic through the Arctic ocean during the summer instead of down to the canals near the Equator.