It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devil’s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of manmade global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.
Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
Originally posted by budski
The following is an excert from an article by Roy W. Spencer (anyone know him?)
Originally posted by budski
But doesn't he mention more than that?
And who says he's wrong?
Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.
According to Beate Liepert, "We lived in a global warming plus a global dimming world and now we are taking out global dimming. So we end up with the global warming world, which will be much worse than we thought it will be, much hotter."[
Originally posted by melatonin
What he says is pretty stupid anyway. There will never be enough data for the likes of Spencer, or yourself. When a scientist claims that ID is as scientific as evolutionary theory, we know he's sort of out there --------------->
Originally posted by budski
Amd yet you happily accept data you know to be flawed when it supports your view - like the NASA data, and like data flawed by the urban heat island effect.
I'd happily accept reasonable data instead of all the doom stuff we have constantly rammed down our throats by gore and his ilk - most of which is wrong anyway, but that's not going to happen, because the idea of blaming man for anything and everything is currently very fashionable.
I predict a few very red faces in the years to come, when whatever the latest fad is supercedes unproven scare stories.
melatonin: When a scientist claims that ID is as scientific as evolutionary theory, we know he's sort of out there
Whether its Warming Or Cooling Or Sidewayzing its doing something.....
Originally posted by Rren
That's one heck of a sciency litmus test you got yourself there, Mel. I believe the psych guys call that confirmation bias. Reduce the urge to project that back, Mel. The psych guys got a name for that one too.
- there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper.
- the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness/'el nino-la nina/Pacific Decadal Oscillation
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/2003GL018765, 2004
Radiative forcing - measured at Earth's surface - corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
Abstract
The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and radiative forcing to increase as a result of human activities. Nevertheless, changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth's surface so far. Here we show that atmospheric longwave downward radiation significantly increased (+5.2(2.2) Wm−2) partly due to increased cloud amount (+1.0(2.8) Wm−2) over eight years of measurements at eight radiation stations distributed over the central Alps. Model calculations show the cloud-free longwave flux increase (+4.2(1.9) Wm−2) to be in due proportion with temperature (+0.82(0.41) °C) and absolute humidity (+0.21(0.10) g m−3) increases, but three times larger than expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm−2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.
Letters to Nature
Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001
Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo and Richard J. Bantges
The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
- the warming of Alaska coincides with when we starting measuring it with satellites
- "2007 opening of the Northwest Passage as summertime sea ice in the Arctic Ocean gradually receded, yet the very warm 1930s in the Arctic also led to the Passage opening in the 1940s. Of course, we had no satellites to measure the sea ice back then."
- It was just as warm during the Medieval Period as it is now
- The "Infrared Iris” effect is a natural cooling mechanism and "it will reduce man-made global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree"
- The actual observed current climate data is "exactly opposite to how computerized climate models that predict substantial global warming have been programmed to behave"
- Low clouds could be a cause rather than an effect (negative feedback instead of the hypothesized positive feedback)
- We've had six consecutive years with no warming
How much of that list is BS, and how much is reasonable, Mel?
Also, what do you think it means that the oceans are cooling(colder) rather than what was expected or predicted based on the theory of AGW. Further, in your opinion, what would a reasonable falsification of AGW look like?
Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev, 2005: Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, 308, 1431-1435, doi:10.1126/science.1110252.
Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85±0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include: (i) expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) confirmation of the climate system's lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.
Where's the research and funding to figure that out? Honest question: does anybody know if anybody is working on that end of things?
Originally posted by melatonin
Well, not really. ID isn't science. And any scientist who claims it is, is wacky. That's not even contemplating the other wacky stuff he has said.
Anyway, seeing it's you R., I'll make the effort...
- there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth – not one peer-reviewed paper.
Heh, so we would expect to find a single article that rules out every single natural variable we could think of? Bit much too expect I feel. What we do is assess the contribution of the natural variables, and see where we stand. If you're interested, the recent IPCC contains the current estimates of forcings.
And we see that human impacts are playing a significant role.
Changes in radiative forcings between 1750 and 2005 as estimated by the IPCC.
- Total radiative forcing from the sum of all human activities is a warming force of about +1.6 watts/m²
- Radiative forcing from an increase of solar intensity since 1750 is about +0.12 watts/m²
- Radiative forcing from carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide combined is very likely (>90%) increasing more quickly during the current era (1750-present) than at any other time in the last 10,000 years.
- the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness/'el nino-la nina/Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Could have been caused by fairies as well (sorry, can't help myself sometimes). Until they bring evidence to support such claims as direct causes of long-term trends, they mean little.
The problem with such natural effects (ENSO/PDO) is that they just shift energy around the planet. Energy comes in from the sun, it escapes from the earth - so we just ignore the elephant in the room? We can already observe the impacts of our emissions on the radiative balance of the atmosphere.
However, after subtracting for two thirds of temperature and humidity rises, the increase of cloud-free longwave downward radiation (+1.8(0.8) Wm−2) remains statistically significant and demonstrates radiative forcing due to an enhanced greenhouse effect.
www.agu.org...
Letters to Nature
Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001
[...snip*]
Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
- the warming of Alaska coincides with when we starting measuring it with satellites
Could be caused by satellites as well then?
- "2007 opening of the Northwest Passage as summertime sea ice in the Arctic Ocean gradually receded, yet the very warm 1930s in the Arctic also led to the Passage opening in the 1940s. Of course, we had no satellites to measure the sea ice back then."
And?
- It was just as warm during the Medieval Period as it is now
The evidence suggests this is unlikely to be the case.
- The "Infrared Iris” effect is a natural cooling mechanism and "it will reduce man-made global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree"
Except that Lindzen's Iris effect is questionable theoretically, and also observationally.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...
Guess we have another coulda woulda shoulda. There are a number of studies showing why it is probably not so relevant, and a single recent paper by the Spencer crew which might provide 'nominal' support by assessing short-term seasonal effects. Guess it's Spencer's version of the resurrection.
In short, if water vapor is the 800-pound gorilla of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, then carbon dioxide is the steroid pill that helps water vapor lift temperatures even higher.
[...snip*]
the Earth has an adaptive infrared iris—a built in “check-and-balance” mechanism that effectively counters global warming (Lindzen et al. 2001). Much like the iris in a human eye contracts to allow less light to pass through the pupil in a brightly lit environment, Lindzen suggests that the area covered by high cirrus clouds contracts to allow more heat to escape into outer space from a very warm environment.
whereas Lindzen’s experiment predicts that cirrus clouds change in extent to reduce warming at the surface by anywhere from 0.45 to 1.1 degrees, Lin’s experiment predicts that changes in the tropical clouds will help warm the surface by anywhere from 0.05 to 0.1 degree (Lin et al. 2001).
Currently, both Lindzen and Lin stand by their findings and there is ongoing debate between the two teams. At present, the Iris Hypothesis remains an intriguing hypothesis—neither proven nor disproven.
Originally posted by Kinesis
reply to post by Rren
Compartmentalizing global warming, and singling out carbon dioxide as the single contributory factor oversimplifies the root of the problem,
no matter how many graphs and statements you try to back your arguments with.
Originally posted by Rren
Originally posted by Kinesis
reply to post by Rren
In, um... shorter: CO2 exasperates the problem.
Do you disagree with that... or are you saying the effect is negligible... or neither?
Proxies, statistics, meta-analysis, climate science in general, etc...; how do you discuss this - in any meaningful sense - without the graphs, statements and arguments? I'm in no position to evaluate such things, but my ignorance of the how-to's, or your desire to not have them included in the discussion, doesn't change how such things are done.
Or did I miss your point?
Visual aids and independant reports don't evaluate the whole extent of the damage that's being done. Figuratively speaking, you need to take the hot iron out of the coals and brand the delinquent corporations responsible for this mess. Significant cutbacks in production, and shortages of supply will be inevitable when companies such and DOW, ESSO, Exxon and subsidiary companies are held to the fire. Environmental assessments of their carbon footprint over the decades should all be analyzed collectively. Whether it been soil and water contamination, or air pollution, the reality is most of the truth never sees the light of day.
Smaller governments should resist large cash payoffs, and seek collaboration with other larger governments to hold these companies responsible. By forcing them to release information that would be self-condemning, at least the public would have a better idea of the scope of the problem, and how and where to begin to deal with it.
Originally posted by Rren
Appreciate that, short bus. I know it ain't easy for ya.
I believe the way he worded that he meant to say, 'even now with all of the data we have, we can't, via peer-reviewed science, rule out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth. Not every possible variable but, the most significant cause. Does that change your answer at all?
That report is a bit much for me, but I guess I asked for it, so I'm giving it a go. Slowly.
But this is what you're talking about here, right:
Changes in radiative forcings between 1750 and 2005 as estimated by the IPCC.
So wouldn't that qualify as a peer-reviewed study showing man/GHB's as the main cause for most of our current warming? No? I was surprised by his statement because I assumed that there were numerous papers out there pointing towards man as the major cause/force. I thought that was the whole point. What am I missing?
Isn't the PDO already in evidence? What do you mean by "long-term" trend and why wouldn't the PDO be considered evidence wrt climate forcing (would that be the proper term here?)...Are you saying that it's insignificant, or most likely is, or we just don't understand it well enough, or we understand it fine and it's already factored in,... none of the above. Sorry for all the questions, mel. I'm tryin'.
I'll have to take your/their word on "statistically significant" and how they got there. Could you maybe break that down into layman's terms? Especially the last part I quoted and the "three times larger than expected from anthropogenic... " part. That may be unreasonable to do on a discussion board, mel. That's cool. I'll keep chugging in my free time but, it's hard to know where to start and what to focus on.
Only based on the part you provided, wouldn't this also be, "solid published evidence" of an unnatural cause for climate change? The language in these papers is hard for someone like me to parse. Seems solid but, then "consistent with concerns" seems odd language.
I understood him to be saying that it's just a coincidence and we have no reliable way of knowing if the warming is anything out of the ordinary. No? Is there an issue here that you're aware of wrt Alaskan measurements or do you not have any clue what he was talking about in the article?
How much of a difference are we talking? Doesn't seem all that much, or did I read that graph wrong?
Reading that page - from 2002 - it seems that the tests to resolve the contradictions by better modeling cloud cover were to be in the works. Do you know if that's still the case, or have the findings been released already? If so, whom did they support?