Globe may be cooling on Global Warming

[GaryC 7]

Globe may be cooling on Global Warming

Submitted by SHNS on Thu, 05/01/2008 - 13:33.

By DEROY MURDOCK

Australia, the land where sinks drain the other way, has alerted Americans that we see Earth's climate upside down: We're not warming. We're cooling.

"Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously." Dr. Phil Chapman wrote in The Australian on April 23. "All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead."

Chapman neither can be caricatured as a greedy oil-company lobbyist nor dismissed as a flat-Earther. He was a Massachusetts Institute of Technology staff physicist, NASA's first Australian-born astronaut, and Apollo 14's Mission Scientist.

Chapman believes reduced sunspot activity is curbing temperatures. As he elaborates, "there is a close correlation between variations on the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate." Anecdotally, last winter brought record cold to Florida, Mexico, and Greece, and rare snow to Jerusalem, Damascus, and Baghdad. China endured brutal ice and snow.

NASA satellites found that last winter's Arctic Sea ice covered 2 million square kilometers (772,000 square miles) more than the last three years' average. It also was 10 to 20 centimeters (about 4-8 inches) thicker than in 2007. The ice between Canada and southwest Greenland also spread dramatically. "We have to go back 15 years to find ice expansion so far south," Denmark's Meteorological Institute stated.

"Snows Return to Mount Kilimanjaro," cheered a January 21 International Herald Tribune headline, as Africa also defies the "warming" narrative.

While neither anecdotes nor one year's statistics confirm global cooling, a decade of data contradicts the "melting planet" rhetoric that heats Capitol Hill and America's newsrooms.

"The University of Alabama-Huntsville's analysis of data from satellites launched in 1979 showed a warming trend of 0.14 degrees Centigrade (0.25 Fahrenheit) per decade," Joseph D'Aleo, the Weather Channel's first Director of Meteorology, told me. "This warmth peaked in 1998, and the temperature trend the last decade has been flat, even as CO2 has increased 5.5 percent. Cooling began in 2002. Over the last six years, global temperatures from satellite and land-temperature gauges have cooled (-0.14 F and -0.22 F, respectively). Ocean buoys have echoed that slight cooling since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deployed them in 2003."

These researchers are not alone. They are among a rising tide of scientists who question the so-called "global warming" theory. Some further argue that global cooling merits urgent concern.

"In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," 100 prestigious geologists, physicists, meteorologists, and other scientists wrote United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon last December. They also noted "today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998."

In a December 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority-staff report, some 400 scientists -- from such respected institutions as Princeton, the National Academy of Sciences, the University of London, and Paris' Pasteur Institute -- declared their independence from the pro-warming "conventional wisdom."

"Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas," asserted climatologist Luc Debontridder of Belgium's Royal Meteorological Institute. "It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

AccuWeather's Expert Senior Forecaster Joe Bastardi has stated: "People are concerned that 50 years from now, it will be warm beyond a point of no return. My concern is almost opposite, that it's cold and getting colder."

And on Wednesday, the respected journal, Nature, indicated that Earth's climactic cycles have stopped global warming through 2015.

If nothing else, all this obliterates the rampant lie that "the scientific debate on global warming is over." That debate rages on.

Assuming that the very serious scientists cited here are correct, the "inconvenient truth" about global-warming is inconveniently false. If so, mankind should chill out and turn our thinking right side up.

(Deroy Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. E-mail him at deroy.Murdock(at)gmail.com)

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/32821

[HAL 9000 96]

Once again, Gary,

These observations are weather-causative, not climate change-causative. Its the same flaw in the "false" argument you're trying to propel.

God how I wish CO2 really wasn't a factor. And yes, I do completely agree with the notion that the debate is far from over. Science is never over.

Edited May 2, 2008 by maviwaro

[GaryC 7]

Once again, Gary,

These observations are weather-causative, not climate change-causative. Its the same flaw in the "false" argument you're trying to propel.

God how I wish CO2 really wasn't a factor. And yes, I do completely agree with the notion that the debate is far from over. Science is never over.

First of all, I am bored with the political discussions on this board so I thought I would change the subject. However, as you know I don't hold with the idea of man made global warming so when I find a like-minded story I feel bound to share it. This guy isn't a commentator or someone that is just cherry picking data. He is a real scientist that happens to have an opposing viewpoint. But I ask you, if man made CO2 is such a strong driver of temperature change - so strong in fact that it can overcome the natural balance of our climate then how is it that we now are seeing a decades long drop in temperatures? It's been my contention all along that our biosphere cannot be easily changed and certainly not in a matter of 100 years. That is just a tick on the earth’s clock. Our climate is a buffered system. It’s one that we do not understand at all yet. Who knows what reactions the planet will have 10, 20 or even 100 years down the road? When the CO2 link to GW started it was taken as gospel. They looked at the tempuratures and the CO2 levels and said "wow! CO2 is causing the earth to heat up!" This was without any real data to back it up. Now that the data is coming in that disputes it we start seeing revised theories that try to explain it. It seems that the preconceived conclusions of scientists are driving the theories rather than the data.

Edited May 2, 2008 by GaryC

[HAL 9000 96]

Once again, Gary,

These observations are weather-causative, not climate change-causative. Its the same flaw in the "false" argument you're trying to propel.

God how I wish CO2 really wasn't a factor. And yes, I do completely agree with the notion that the debate is far from over. Science is never over.

First of all, I am bored with the political discussions on this board so I thought I would change the subject. However, as you know I don't hold with the idea of man made global warming so when I find a like-minded story I feel bound to share it. This guy isn't a commentator or someone that is just cherry picking data. He is a real scientist that happens to have an opposing viewpoint. But I ask you, if man made CO2 is such a strong driver of temperature change - so strong in fact that it can overcome the natural balance of our climate then how is it that we now are seeing a decades long drop in temperatures? It's been my contention all along that our biosphere cannot be easily changed and certainly not in a matter of 100 years. That is just a tick on the earth’s clock. Our climate is a buffered system. It’s one that we do not understand at all yet. Who knows what reactions the planet will have 10, 20 or even 100 years down the road? When the CO2 link to GW started it was taken as gospel. They looked at the tempuratures and the CO2 levels and said "wow! CO2 is causing the earth to heat up!" This was without any real data to back it up. Now that the data is coming in that disputes it we start seeing revised theories that try to explain it. It seems that the preconceived conclusions of scientists are driving the theories rather than the data.

Much better points, Gary. So lets address them.

We are starting to discover that CO2 is one causal factor, not the only one. Natural balances, including [natural] exaggerated weather responses to GW phenomena (stronger hurricanes in shallower, warmer waters, misaligned weather patters- vis a vis seasons, etc), are directly (CO2 concentration) and indirectly (CO2 energy fluctuation and the feedback, both positive and negative, mechanisms that effect widespread observatory paradigms.

Yes, the planet is buffered. Hence whenever there are fluctuations (that do not always align to yearly levels in atmospheric gas concentrations) that display time-patterned events we can sometimes rush to conclude that CO2 is not such a large contributor to climactic events. Far from it as truth, we need to more accurately model the time variables that lead one set of scientists to argue X while the other argues Y. It goes with the territory of being in science.

As for the gospel part. That really is a silly and oversimplistic way of paraphrasing scientific consensus... but I guess we can drama it up a bit if you want. Of course, some scientists drive their research by assumptions that are based on consensus- something very different from having preconceived notions and conclusions. Those are what drives in many cases public opinion (like yours) and is something to shy away from in order to achieve better fidelity in the research itself that allows for conclusions that can stand the attack that the conclusion fits the manipulation of the data.

What you label as no real data is known as preliminary findings. Each and every subsequent study is fine-tuning to discover more factors that are involved beyond what I could even try to explain in one post. Hence the call on several occasions to get a little more involved in climate studies from a didactic experience.

[GaryC 7]

Once again, Gary,

These observations are weather-causative, not climate change-causative. Its the same flaw in the "false" argument you're trying to propel.

God how I wish CO2 really wasn't a factor. And yes, I do completely agree with the notion that the debate is far from over. Science is never over.

First of all, I am bored with the political discussions on this board so I thought I would change the subject. However, as you know I don't hold with the idea of man made global warming so when I find a like-minded story I feel bound to share it. This guy isn't a commentator or someone that is just cherry picking data. He is a real scientist that happens to have an opposing viewpoint. But I ask you, if man made CO2 is such a strong driver of temperature change - so strong in fact that it can overcome the natural balance of our climate then how is it that we now are seeing a decades long drop in temperatures? It's been my contention all along that our biosphere cannot be easily changed and certainly not in a matter of 100 years. That is just a tick on the earth’s clock. Our climate is a buffered system. It’s one that we do not understand at all yet. Who knows what reactions the planet will have 10, 20 or even 100 years down the road? When the CO2 link to GW started it was taken as gospel. They looked at the tempuratures and the CO2 levels and said "wow! CO2 is causing the earth to heat up!" This was without any real data to back it up. Now that the data is coming in that disputes it we start seeing revised theories that try to explain it. It seems that the preconceived conclusions of scientists are driving the theories rather than the data.

Much better points, Gary. So lets address them.

We are starting to discover that CO2 is one causal factor, not the only one. Natural balances, including [natural] exaggerated weather responses to GW phenomena (stronger hurricanes in shallower, warmer waters, misaligned weather patters- vis a vis seasons, etc), are directly (CO2 concentration) and indirectly (CO2 energy fluctuation and the feedback, both positive and negative, mechanisms that effect widespread observatory paradigms.

Yes, the planet is buffered. Hence whenever there are fluctuations (that do not always align to yearly levels in atmospheric gas concentrations) that display time-patterned events we can sometimes rush to conclude that CO2 is not such a large contributor to climactic events. Far from it as truth, we need to more accurately model the time variables that lead one set of scientists to argue X while the other argues Y. It goes with the territory of being in science.

As for the gospel part. That really is a silly and oversimplistic way of paraphrasing scientific consensus... but I guess we can drama it up a bit if you want. Of course, some scientists drive their research by assumptions that are based on consensus- something very different from having preconceived notions and conclusions. Those are what drives in many cases public opinion (like yours) and is something to shy away from in order to achieve better fidelity in the research itself that allows for conclusions that can stand the attack that the conclusion fits the manipulation of the data.

What you label as no real data is known as preliminary findings. Each and every subsequent study is fine-tuning to discover more factors that are involved beyond what I could even try to explain in one post. Hence the call on several occasions to get a little more involved in climate studies from a didactic experience.

As I have stated before, I am not a climate scientist so all I have are opinions based on my meager understanding from what I have read. That said I do have some strongly held opinions and from what I have seen I believe them to be correct. You can accuse me of cherry picking and I will not argue with you but I can get away with that because I am not a scientist and the only person my opinion matters to is myself.

However, it seems to me that the scientific consensus has also been cherry picking data. The studies that I see seem to focus on just a few factors in each study while not mentioning other factors that could change the results. For instance- while CO2 is a green house gas there are other gasses that have a much stronger green house effect. Water vapor and methane come to mind. But in study after study that supports the idea of man made GW they hardly mention it. Just as that other story I posted mentioned they also leave out other things that could cause the conclusions to be wrong. The UN study didn't take into account the heat sink effects of the ocean or the changes that occur when the ocean currents change. Hence the stories that I have posted. It just seems to me that we are getting tilted conclusions based on only a few factors rather than the whole picture.

Now normally I wouldn't care about the incomplete science because I know that eventually they will get it right. I have a great faith in the ability of our scientists to finally reach the correct conclusion. But then comes the politics. That is where I get steamed. When science and politics mix, politics almost always wins. Then there is the media hysteria factor. I was watching a show the other day called A Global Warning. My God it was awful the way they presented that. Everything they talked about was put forth as the absolute truth and we are all doomed unless we go back to the stone age RIGHT NOW!

I wish science could just be left to the scientists and leave politics and mass media out of it. I would then be content to wait for the eventual truth.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's hot here today. Does that count somehow?

[GaryC 7]

It's hot here today. Does that count somehow?

Only if your AC is broken.

[HAL 9000 96]

Good, Gary...

The thing with the heat sink effect is that it buffers temperature for a certain amount of time and depth. On top of that you have salinity to worry about and its downstream effect on the actual air temperature (and water temperature) that makes for some very large variables in observing. TO add a little chemistry-

CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3 (carbonic acid)

CH4 + H2O -> CO2 + 3H2 (gas) - even balanced, under reducing conditions

Which means that there will always be even indirect causation for CO2 action (and vice versa- those can be reversible reactions depending on the conditions) depending on the substrate.

No need to feel feeble about it. Yes, science is best left in the realm of science, but that does not mean that laypeople should stay out of it. I still am encouraged to have these discussions with you but I need to warn you that although you feel steamed by the prostitution of science lingo and fact to very nasty agendas, you should also consider what it is you are pandering to by concluding based on limited research exposure...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's hot here today. Does that count somehow?

Only if your AC is broken.

It isn't. So I fight man made warming with man made cooling. At least in my house.

[GaryC 7]

It's hot here today. Does that count somehow?

Only if your AC is broken.

It isn't. So I fight man made warming with man made cooling. At least in my house.

Good, keep up the good work.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Good, Gary...

The thing with the heat sink effect is that it buffers temperature for a certain amount of time and depth. On top of that you have salinity to worry about and its downstream effect on the actual air temperature (and water temperature) that makes for some very large variables in observing. TO add a little chemistry-

CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3 (carbonic acid)

CH4 + H2O -> CO2 + 3H2 (gas) - even balanced, under reducing conditions

Which means that there will always be even indirect causation for CO2 action (and vice versa- those can be reversible reactions depending on the conditions) depending on the substrate.

No need to feel feeble about it. Yes, science is best left in the realm of science, but that does not mean that laypeople should stay out of it. I still am encouraged to have these discussions with you but I need to warn you that although you feel steamed by the prostitution of science lingo and fact to very nasty agendas, you should also consider what it is you are pandering to by concluding based on limited research exposure...

Don't forget many other natural events that causes CO2 as well. I think the Global Warming people neglect these things.

Then, the CO2 gets feed into a biological process turning into a repeat cycle again.

Edited May 2, 2008 by consolemaster

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

CO2 is plant food.

[HAL 9000 96]

CO2 is plant food.

Too much food makes you fat. Fat like that is a leading cause of death. Same idea with the whole CO2 shebang.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

CO2 is plant food.

Too much food makes you fat. Fat like that is a leading cause of death. Same idea with the whole CO2 shebang.

worst analogy ever

[GaryC 7]

CO2 is plant food.

Too much food makes you fat. Fat like that is a leading cause of death. Same idea with the whole CO2 shebang.

worst analogy ever

More CO2= more plant growth. More plant growth= greater uptake in CO2. The problem really isn't a problem.