Has global warming stopped?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sourcewatch - Bob Carter

And din't you just say that global warming stopped in 2002. Now it stopped in 1998? Which is it, Gary?

And NASA is, of course, just incompetent in gathering data? How did this incompetent bunch ever put that man on the moon?

Edited December 20, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

Sourcewatch - Bob Carter

And din't you just say that global warming stopped in 2002. Now it stopped in 1998? Which is it, Gary?

And NASA is, of course, just incompetent in gathering data? How did this incompetent bunch ever put that man on the moon?

I know this is old but it's from NASA so it must be right, so I thought I would share it with you.

Accurate "Thermometers" in Space

The State of Climate Measurement Science

October 2, 1997

Just how accurate are space-based measurements of the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere? In a recent edition of Nature, scientists Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA/Marshall describe in detail just how reliable these measurements are.

Why is it important?

The question is very important, as these temperature measurements from satellites in space are one of our most important windows into measuring and understanding the phenomenon of Global Warming.

Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made "Greenhouse Effect". Furthermore, these computer models also predict that the Earth's lower atmosphere should behave in lock-step with the surface, but with temperature increases that are even more pronounced.

What is the "Controversy"?

Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.

How do we know the Satellite Data are Correct?

In theory, one could argue that the computer models are accurate, and that the real measurements have some problem. However this is not the case. An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the contrary by Hurrell and Trenberth have been shown to be false for a number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of Nature (page 342). The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.

So What is Going On?

The atmosphere is extremely complex in its behavior. Because of this, finding the correct explanation for the behavior we observe is complex as well. Virtually all scientists will agree that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should have some effect on the temperature of the Earth. But it is much less certain how or if we will recognize the effects of this increase. There are several reasons:

* First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.

* Second, there is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, namely water vapor. Water vapor over the Earth is extremely variable, both in space and in time.

* Third, the ways in which clouds and water vapor feed back and ultimately influence the temperature of the Earth are, at best, poorly understood.

* Fourth, while the whole Earth is indeed in a state that scientists describe as "radiative equilibrium," where the incoming sunlight equals the outgoing infrared radiation to provide a roughly constant overall temperature, the surface is far from this radiative balance condition. Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor. So in short, it is this convective overturning of the atmosphere - poorly represented in computer models of global warming - that primarily determines the temperature distribution of the surface and upper troposphere, not radiation balance.

The Answer Lies Partly in a Better Understanding of Water's Role

A computer model is only as reliable as the physics that are built into the program. The physics that are currently in these computer programs are still insufficient to have much confidence in the predicted magnitude of global warming, because we currently don't understand the detailed physical processes of clouds that will determine the extent and nature of water vapor's feedback into the Earth's temperature.

And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees:

``Feedback from the redistribution of water vapour remains a substantial uncertainty in climate models...Much of the current debate has been addressing feedback from the tropical upper troposphere, where the feedback appears likely to be positive. However, this is not yet convincingly established; much further evaluation of climate models with regard to observed processes is needed."

- Climate Change 1995, IPCC Second Assessment

Images of the Earth, such as this one in the infrared, tell us much about the distribution of water vapor. Areas within the Earth's atmosphere that are extremely dry, especially in the tropics, can act as large "chimneys" that allow energy to freely radiate into space, enhancing the cooling of the Earth. The effects of the tropical dry troposphere are poorly understood, and currently are not well-incorporated into computer models of global warming.

More Complex Than We Had Thought

Improving our understanding of the potential magnitude and extent of any man-made global warming will require a significant amount of critical scientific investigation, both in space and on Earth, using both observational and computational analysis techniques. It is clear that if we've learned anything in the past two decades, it's that the response and dynamics of the Earth as a complex, interconnected machine are far more detailed, intricate, and complicated than we first envisioned. Through NASA's Earth Observing System, researchers will continue to improve our ability to monitor the Earth system so that we may understand the subtleties of variations in the global atmosphere. NASA's continued direct observations of the Earth will help enable us to sort out the complicated issues of climate variability and change that affect the planet.

http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

[GaryC 7]

Since you think NASA is a good resourse then I invite you to read a story by Dr. Roy Spencer.

Roy W. Spencer is principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala. He is also U.S. team leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA's Terra satellite.

NOT THAT SIMPLE

GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW

By ROY W. SPENCER

February 26, 2007 -- REPORTS on the global-warming debate have now become part of our daily diet of news. Actors, musicians, politicians, columnists and even the occasional climate scientist all weigh in on how soon planetary disaster will strike, who's to blame and what we should do about it. With claims that manmade warming is anywhere from an undeniable fact to a hoax, anyone can be excused for feeling a little bit confused.

The media is, almost by definition, most interested in extreme views on the issue, so reporting seldom reveals that broad scientific uncertainty still exists. In fact, a silent majority of scientists still think that global warming could end up falling anywhere between a real problem and a minor nuisance: They can see reasons for it going either way. Call them the global-warming moderates.

How can different scientists look at the same atmosphere and yet come to such a wide variety of conclusions? It all depends on their level of faith in our understanding of the atmosphere. We put equations into a computer that describe the basics of how we think the atmosphere works, and then we expect the computer to predict how much warming we will get when we turn up the greenhouse gas "knob."

The Earth's natural "greenhouse effect" traps infrared (heat) radiation because of water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide and methane. You have probably heard that the greenhouse effect keeps the Earth "habitably warm." So if burning of fossil fuels keeps adding more of a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2), the Earth should keep on warming up, right?

Well . . . it's not that simple.

CO2 concentrations - now running at 380 parts per million (ppm), up about 40 percent in the last century - are indeed one possible explanation for our current warmth. But we also know that our climate is a nonlinear, dynamic system - which can go through sizeable gyrations all by itself.

Contrary to popular accounts, very few scientists in the world - possibly none - have a sufficiently thorough, "big picture" understanding of the climate system to be relied upon for a prediction of the magnitude of global warming. To the public, we all might seem like experts, but the vast majority of us work on only a small portion of the problem.

Here, for example, is an insight that even many climate scientists are unaware of: The one atmospheric process that has the greatest control on the Earth's climate is the one we understand the least - precipitation.

Over most of the planet, water is continuously evaporating, humidifying the air to form the Earth's dominant greenhouse gas: water vapor. Climate scientists will tell you that the extra CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere causes a "warming tendency" at the surface, which will evaporate even more water, which will amplify the warming. This positive water vapor feedback, so the theory goes, ends up turning the relative benign direct warming effect of CO2 - only 1 degree of warming late in this century - into a much more serious problem.

But surface evaporation is not what determines how much water vapor, on average, resides in the atmosphere - precipitation systems do. These not only control the water-vapor portion of the greenhouse effect, they directly or indirectly control most of the next most important greenhouse ingredient: clouds.

These systems continuously recycle the Earth's air, and so exert strong controls over the entire climate system. For instance, the rising air in precipitation systems is what causes the sinking, cloudless air over desert areas. Vast oceanic areas of stratus clouds form below a temperature inversion that is also caused by air being forced to sink by precipitation systems, usually thousands of miles away.

So, what does all this have to do with global warming? Unless we know how the greenhouse-limiting properties of precipitation systems change with warming, we don't know how much of our current warmth is due to mankind, and we can't estimate how much future warming there will be, either. To solve the global-warming puzzle, we first need to learn much more about the precipitation-system puzzle.

What little evidence we now have suggests that precipitation systems act as a natural thermostat to reduce warming. For instance, warm, tropical systems are more efficient at converting water vapor to precipitation than their cool high-latitude cousins. Hurricanes are believed to be the most efficient of all.

I believe that negative feedbacks such as this are the only way to explain the relative stability of our climate. Computerized models of our climate have had a habit of "drifting" too warm or too cold. This because they still don't contain all of the temperature-stabilizing processes that exist in nature. In fact, for the amount of solar energy available to it, our climate seems to have a "preferred" average temperature, damping out swings beyond 1 degree or so.

I believe that, through various negative feedback mechanisms, the atmosphere "decides" how much of the available sunlight will be allowed in, how much greenhouse effect it will generate in response, and what the average temperature will be.

Finally, remember that phrase, "the Earth's greenhouse effect keeps the Earth habitably warm?" I'll bet you never heard the phrase that is, quantitatively, more accurate: "Weather processes keep the Earth habitably cool."

Were it not for weather, the natural greenhouse effect would cause the surface of the Earth to average 140 degrees. Wonder why we never hear that fact stated?

I believe that when the stabilizing effects of precipitation systems are better understood and included into the models, predictions of global warming will be scaled back.

Despite current inadequacies, climate models are still our best tools for forecasting global warming. Those tools just aren't sharp enough yet.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262007/posto...ncer.htm?page=0

Edited December 20, 2007 by GaryC

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here's an interesting counterpoint.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/18/9875

More specifically:

Warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting.... This does not alter the desirability of limiting CO2 emissions, because the future balance of forcings is likely to shift toward dominance of CO2 over aerosols

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Since you think NASA is a good resourse then I invite you to read a story by Dr. Roy Spencer.

Roy W. Spencer is principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala. He is also U.S. team leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA's Terra satellite.

NOT THAT SIMPLE

GLOBAL WARMING: WHAT WE DON'T KNOW

By ROY W. SPENCER

February 26, 2007 -- REPORTS on the global-warming debate have now become part of our daily diet of news. Actors, musicians, politicians, columnists and even the occasional climate scientist all weigh in on how soon planetary disaster will strike, who's to blame and what we should do about it. With claims that manmade warming is anywhere from an undeniable fact to a hoax, anyone can be excused for feeling a little bit confused.

The media is, almost by definition, most interested in extreme views on the issue, so reporting seldom reveals that broad scientific uncertainty still exists. In fact, a silent majority of scientists still think that global warming could end up falling anywhere between a real problem and a minor nuisance: They can see reasons for it going either way. Call them the global-warming moderates.

How can different scientists look at the same atmosphere and yet come to such a wide variety of conclusions? It all depends on their level of faith in our understanding of the atmosphere. We put equations into a computer that describe the basics of how we think the atmosphere works, and then we expect the computer to predict how much warming we will get when we turn up the greenhouse gas "knob."

The Earth's natural "greenhouse effect" traps infrared (heat) radiation because of water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide and methane. You have probably heard that the greenhouse effect keeps the Earth "habitably warm." So if burning of fossil fuels keeps adding more of a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2), the Earth should keep on warming up, right?

Well . . . it's not that simple.

CO2 concentrations - now running at 380 parts per million (ppm), up about 40 percent in the last century - are indeed one possible explanation for our current warmth. But we also know that our climate is a nonlinear, dynamic system - which can go through sizeable gyrations all by itself.

Contrary to popular accounts, very few scientists in the world - possibly none - have a sufficiently thorough, "big picture" understanding of the climate system to be relied upon for a prediction of the magnitude of global warming. To the public, we all might seem like experts, but the vast majority of us work on only a small portion of the problem.

Here, for example, is an insight that even many climate scientists are unaware of: The one atmospheric process that has the greatest control on the Earth's climate is the one we understand the least - precipitation.

Over most of the planet, water is continuously evaporating, humidifying the air to form the Earth's dominant greenhouse gas: water vapor. Climate scientists will tell you that the extra CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere causes a "warming tendency" at the surface, which will evaporate even more water, which will amplify the warming. This positive water vapor feedback, so the theory goes, ends up turning the relative benign direct warming effect of CO2 - only 1 degree of warming late in this century - into a much more serious problem.

But surface evaporation is not what determines how much water vapor, on average, resides in the atmosphere - precipitation systems do. These not only control the water-vapor portion of the greenhouse effect, they directly or indirectly control most of the next most important greenhouse ingredient: clouds.

These systems continuously recycle the Earth's air, and so exert strong controls over the entire climate system. For instance, the rising air in precipitation systems is what causes the sinking, cloudless air over desert areas. Vast oceanic areas of stratus clouds form below a temperature inversion that is also caused by air being forced to sink by precipitation systems, usually thousands of miles away.

So, what does all this have to do with global warming? Unless we know how the greenhouse-limiting properties of precipitation systems change with warming, we don't know how much of our current warmth is due to mankind, and we can't estimate how much future warming there will be, either. To solve the global-warming puzzle, we first need to learn much more about the precipitation-system puzzle.

What little evidence we now have suggests that precipitation systems act as a natural thermostat to reduce warming. For instance, warm, tropical systems are more efficient at converting water vapor to precipitation than their cool high-latitude cousins. Hurricanes are believed to be the most efficient of all.

I believe that negative feedbacks such as this are the only way to explain the relative stability of our climate. Computerized models of our climate have had a habit of "drifting" too warm or too cold. This because they still don't contain all of the temperature-stabilizing processes that exist in nature. In fact, for the amount of solar energy available to it, our climate seems to have a "preferred" average temperature, damping out swings beyond 1 degree or so.

I believe that, through various negative feedback mechanisms, the atmosphere "decides" how much of the available sunlight will be allowed in, how much greenhouse effect it will generate in response, and what the average temperature will be.

Finally, remember that phrase, "the Earth's greenhouse effect keeps the Earth habitably warm?" I'll bet you never heard the phrase that is, quantitatively, more accurate: "Weather processes keep the Earth habitably cool."

Were it not for weather, the natural greenhouse effect would cause the surface of the Earth to average 140 degrees. Wonder why we never hear that fact stated?

I believe that when the stabilizing effects of precipitation systems are better understood and included into the models, predictions of global warming will be scaled back.

Despite current inadequacies, climate models are still our best tools for forecasting global warming. Those tools just aren't sharp enough yet.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262007/posto...ncer.htm?page=0

Now that is an interesting read. Something to consider and think about. Of course, living in FL, I don't like the idea of them hurricanes being mother nature's most effective answer to global warming trends.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I love how people here become enviromental experts via someone elses comments.

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

"Nobody is talking about destroying the economy. Europe is making good headway with the transition to cleaner and renewable energy and is leading the next industrial transition. Environmentally friendly economies are the economies of the future. We'll eventually depend on foreign technologies rather than taking the lead we could and should take on this inevitable transition. This "destroying economy" talk is nonsense." you say?

Europe is on the way to becoming a third world countries on their own. They agree to these unreachable Co2 emission limits that they never meet only to pay fines and fees to the European union. Ripping off the taxpayers of these countries. We should sign up for such things? what a joke! Meanwhile, China and India, who by the way are NEVER going to agree to limit anything are going to bury them one by one. They are doomed.

Kyoto is a total joke!

Bali conference was full of a bunch of hypocrites who fly their private jets down there, While spewing tons of the very thing they are trying to limit. Meanwhile there is not enough room at the airport that they had to land at so the dead head to another islands airport spewing even more gases into the atmosphere. Only to dead head back to pick up these elitist socialist global warming freaks who could care less about the environment. And are really out to control others lives while not sacrificing anything of their living standard.

I hope that was a typo and not a Kelly Pickler...

no typo, you will see.

Kelly who? I don't pollute my mind with such trash maybe you should try it.

November 24, 2007

The Green Follies

Rosslyn Smith

It has been suggested that radical environmentalism is a religion because its believers act more on an unshakable set of beliefs than on skeptical scientific analysis. If this story out of the UK is part of a larger trend, some followers of that religion are adopting a position similar to that of the celibate Shakers, but perhaps without all of that vanished sect's appreciation for genuine simplicity as opposed to pseudo-intellectual fashion. It seems that young women in the UK who are deeply concerned about the future of the planet are seeking to have themselves sterilized. One of the women interviewed for this story talks about how she and her like minded husband often go away for the weekend and how they just returned from a vacation in South Africa.

"We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population."

Along those same lines comes this release out of Bali that the airport there is expecting so many private jets for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference that local officials will be making most attendees ferry their planes to four other airports in the region for parking as the local airport can only accommodate 15 planes. The closest airport to provide parking space for such jets is about 60 miles away, the furthest about 600.

I wonder how the projected future carbon footprint of the infant one of the women in the Daily Mail article aborted in order to "protect the planet" compares to that of deadheading a fleet of jets from Bali to Jakarta and back again? While the young women in the article seem to be sincere in their beliefs that they can save the world by refusing to procreate, I think they have been ill served by their teachers and the media.

The environmentalist movement has been given an aura of glamour that is not supported by the record. It is a movement where political posturing counts more than accomplishment and where horror stories about environmental cataclysm has replaced genuine analysis of the problems facing the West because of its dependence on oil from a politically unstable region with a burgeoning population.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes - I saw that story a while ago. No surprise that the UK has its fair share of nutters, just as we do here. More than that I very much doubt the people described in the article are in any-ways 'typical', so I'm not sure what purpose is served by drawing attention to it.

That said, its not the UK that leads the field on cults and pseudo-religions. Not by a long chalk.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Number 6

[Don_Joy's Prince 0]

Yes - I saw that story a while ago. No surprise that the UK has its fair share of nutters, just as we do here. More than that I very much doubt the people described in the article are in any-ways 'typical', so I'm not sure what purpose is served by drawing attention to it.

That said, its not the UK that leads the field on cults and pseudo-religions. Not by a long chalk.

It just means that they are hypocrites.

Al Gore - elitist socialist hypocrite.

Bali conference attendees- elitist socialist hypocrite.

European countries (not all)- elitist socialist hypocrites.

See the pattern?

Oh, by the way, answer these questions:

What is the total amount of Co2 in the atmosphere right now?

What was it before we started the industrial revolution?

What is the percentage of change in Co2 concentration in atmosphere?

Has the surface of the earth been warmer then it is now?

Has it ever been colder with the surface of the earth covered mostly in ice?

Was this before or after the appearance of man?

What role does the sun play in the computer models that the so called experts are using to forecast the doom and gloom?

Why when you run these models backwards the do not forecast the weather of the past?

Why can they not forecast what the weather will be in 5 days?

What are the factors in cloud formation?

How do the effects of water vapor in the atmosphere effect their computer models?

Why do they not include the effects of the sun and the effects of water vapor in their computer models?

This goes back to the biggest tragedy of the socialist public school system is that they don't teach children to critically think with their heads. But to critically feel with their hearts. We all know hearts are nice, but your head will fool you less.

So until they answer these questions, which they cannot answer most of these, you want me to ravage the economy and our standard of living for what is barely plausible.

The poor third world countries will be hardest hit with the measures proposed to curb global warming. Do you think the developed countries will suffer first, we will pay the higher cost that the poorer countries can not afford to pay.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Don_Joy's Prince

[Peikko 1,575]

You really do post some drivel Mr Prince, social public school system blah blah blah, hilarious...except you believe it. I guess that's the biggest joke

Whether or not there is global warming, whether or not it's influenced by man, there is more at stake than that as regards where man should be headed with his industrial crusade.

There is widespread pollution and destruction from the ice caps to the rain forests. These things may all be survivable...or they may not in terms of man's presence, but it's certainly stupid to continue with the blind consumption that is going on currently.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

You really do post some drivel Mr Prince, social public school system blah blah blah, hilarious...except you believe it. I guess that's the biggest joke

Whether or not there is global warming, whether or not it's influenced by man, there is more at stake than that as regards where man should be headed with his industrial crusade.

There is widespread pollution and destruction from the ice caps to the rain forests. These things may all be survivable...or they may not in terms of man's presence, but it's certainly stupid to continue with the blind consumption that is going on currently.

Industrial crusade= You enjoy the fruits of it everyday!

Pollution and destruction= You participate in it everyday eg:driving your car,flushing your toilet,breathing.

blind consumption=Your guilty too!

[no name 1]

You really do post some drivel Mr Prince, social public school system blah blah blah, hilarious...except you believe it. I guess that's the biggest joke

Next time we want to go to Europe/Australia - we should take rowboats across the Atlantic/Pacific!

[Peikko 1,575]

It's not a question of whether I participate in what is happening currently or not, although you can drive down that blind alley any time you like, it's a question of governments globally taking a look at what we, as humanity, are doing with our planet and making collective decisions as to how best proceed into the future.

We are having an effect on the planet, that is inescapable and some would argue that the effect we are having is less and less sustainable. Yes, there are options currently because we haven't completely changed the planet's surface but if globally we don't do anything different to what is happening now the options are likely to be more and more reduced. Of course if there is an event that wipes out a significant portion of the human race. That would buy us a bit more time.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It just means that they are hypocrites.

Al Gore - elitist socialist hypocrite.

Bali conference attendees- elitist socialist hypocrite.

European countries (not all)- elitist socialist hypocrites.

See the pattern?

Actually it means nothing, at least nothing to a mainstream debate that I can see. I gotta say I can't see myself turning vegan, agonising over flatulence or not having children because I'm concerned about my personal CO2 emissions.

So why post this article about fringe loonies? - it has nothing to do with me, or I suspect most people (including everyone here) who subscribe to the idea of human-influenced climate change.

IMO - its distortive and rather dishonest.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

It's not a question of whether I participate in what is happening currently or not, although you can drive down that blind alley any time you like, it's a question of governments globally taking a look at what we, as humanity, are doing with our planet and making collective decisions as to how best proceed into the future.

We are having an effect on the planet, that is inescapable and some would argue that the effect we are having is less and less sustainable. Yes, there are options currently because we haven't completely changed the planet's surface but if globally we don't do anything different to what is happening now the options are likely to be more and more reduced. Of course if there is an event that wipes out a significant portion of the human race. That would buy us a bit more time.

Vacant condemnation