“The new findings… should dramatically alter the global warming debate”

Al Gore… call your office:

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

You wonder what James Hansen’s gonna say now.

H/T AJStrata who adds with wisdom:

Common sense and a scientific background would have made this obvious. The rantings of a has-been VP are no match for the forces of nature.

"He's not bringing us together. He's willfully dividing us. He's petulant."
Is Barack Obama creating more child hunger?
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • Anonymous

    That’s one thing about science.

    Even if you fudge your data, get lots of cover from the press and the political establishment, and have billions of dollars thrown into the pot to help you “prove” your hypothesis, sooner or later someone in a related field is going to point out that you royally screwed up your computer models so they can get a good paper out of it.

  • Anonymous

    Does this mean that Al Gore has to give the money back?

  • Anonymous

    This same author James Taylor wrote on June 8 for publication in Forbes. ´Ten years and Counting´

    The Scientific Method requires testing a proposed scientific hypothesis before accepting it as the truth. When real-world observations contradict the hypothesis, you go back to the drawing board. For more than a century now, real-world climate conditions have defied the alarmist global warming hypothesis. This is especially so during the past decade, when temperatures should be rising dramatically if the alarmist hypothesis is correct. Temperatures are not rising dramatically. They are not even rising at all.
    Oh well, back to the old drawing board…
    James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate

    except they are risng .. maybe not by  his alalarmist bells but fairly quickly The other two extended  gobal warming periods in the planet occurred over thousands and thousands of years, this one, though not as severe yet, is driven by human carbon emissions is happening at a far faster rate and giving species much less time to adapt. 

     It may not strike alarm bells for him,, but  every state in this union, including Alaska has experieced record heat wave tempertures this summer. Who coud have predicted these? Certainly not the global warming deniers and Taylor given his statement in June, and if nothing else, the scientific method is about prediction.

    • Anonymous

      …..warmest summer since recorded temperatures. Who could have predicted this?

      Oh I dunno. How about no one.

      I’m reminded of a 2000 article in the British paper The Independent stating that Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.  Key excerpt;

      According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
      “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

      Then ironically enough, I saw an article in another British paper today, The Telegraph stating that Britian is bracing for the coldest winter in 100 years. Key excerpt from this article:

      “The cold weather comes despite the Met Office’s long range forecast, published, in October, of a mild winter. That followed its earlier inaccurate prediction of a “barbecue summer”, which then saw heavy rainfall and the wettest July for almost 100 years. ”

      You and the Global warming alarmists are under the delusion that not only can weather be accurately forecast, but that we can do something about it. And idiots like Gore continue to push that bullshit all the while laughing all the way to the bank.

    • Anonymous

      You are joking right? This is not the hottest recorded temperatures and only a couple of days tied the record. Keep up the alarmist propaganda. It scares old people and the uninformed. ww

      • What?  You’re lying!  (I kid)  I remember 1988 being blistering hot, I was young.  Driving across the US in the middle of the summer with my parents.  Most of what’s reported is based on “recorded” number which can be as short as 30 years.

    • Anonymous

      “this one, though not as severe yet, is driven by human carbon emissions
      is happening at a far faster rate and giving species much less time to
      adapt”

      …except that isn’t quite true.  Previous warming trends have jumped up just as dramatically – the onset of the Medieval Warm Period was just as fast, for example, and there are ice core examples of extremely dramatic temp increases (and decreases) that dwarf our recent trends.

      The really interesting thing is when you look at non-urban temperature changes – the trend seen in rural monitoring stations is much, MUCH lower than the overall trend used in most AGW papers, even for the known “warming” years.  In other words, they haven’t been measuring global warming – they’ve been measuring how fast rural and suburban weather stations have been overrun by urban growth (and the adoption of jet engines used at airports with weather stations).  There’s also been a trend in the AGW field towards discarding rural stations in favor of urban ones (the reverse of what should actually happen) – that was why the last ten years of flat to cooling temperatures showed as warming in a couple of reports.  When people went back and looked at the previous full list of stations, the “warming” went away.

      For an example of how a bad station site can affect large parts of the global “measurement,” there’s the case of one Canadian station.  It was at an airport.  Simple enough, and you can correct for the large amount of asphalt around the system.  However, this station is one of a small number that are used to derive the temperature measurement for the entire Arctic region.  Okay, they can interpolate a bit, and it causes that small number of stations to be heavily overrepresented in the data, but… they put the thermometer next to the aircraft parking area.  Right behind where they park the planes.  Turboprop planes, blowing hot turbine exhaust directly at the equipment for hours a day.  This one station is most of the reason “the north pole” has been shown to be increasing in temperatures so rapidly.

      The whole “carbon dioxide is making temperatures rise at a high rate” story is falling apart.  The actual, physical, science-driven greenhouse effect as predicted by radiative physics is less than 1/3 the predicted rate in AGW papers – they got their much higher rate by predicting that the increase in temperatures from CO2 would also trigger a much bigger, positive feedback only, increase in H2O-driven greenhouse effects.  They completely discarded any and all possible negative feedback (cloud cover, diminishing returns in CO2’s heat trapping effect), and got their predictions.  The technical term for this is “bad science.”

      • Anonymous

        cirby, I  read a few  weeks ago the July issue of Scientific American and a an article  ‘The Last Great Global ´Warming´ quote surprisng new evidence suggest the pace of the most abrupt prehistoric warm-up paled in comparison to what we face today. The lesson has episodes for the future.

        Share on
        Facebook

        Share on
        Twitter
        Share viaemail

        Subscribe & getSelections on
        Evolution FREE! Subscribe »Buy This Issue »Subscribe to Digital »Give a Gift »SubscribeNews & FeaturesNewsFeaturesAsk the ExpertsEdit ThisExtreme TechFact or FictionIn-Depth ReportsMind MattersBlogsScientific American ObservationsBering in MindCross-checkExtinction CountdownSolar at HomeExpeditionsGuest BlogAnecdotes from the ArchiveFrom Our NetworkMultimediaInteractive FeaturesVideoSlide Shows60-Second Science Podcast60-Second Mind Podcast60-Second Earth Podcast60-Second Space Podcast60-Second Health Podcast60-Second Tech PodcastScience Talk PodcastScience ImagesEducationBring Science Home1,000 Scientists in 1,000 DaysEducation ResourcesCitizen ScienceTopicsEnergy & SustainabilityEvolutionHealthMind & BrainSpaceTechnologyMore ScienceAll topicsMagazines Subscribe Browse Archive
        Scientific AmericanInside this IssueSubscribeFeaturesAdvances50, 100, 150 Years AgoAntigravityForumGraphic ScienceThe Science AgendaThe Science of HealthSkepticTechnoFilesArchiveSpecial EditionsSubscribeBrowse ArchiveScientific American MINDInside this IssueSubscribeFeaturesHead linesAsk the BrainsConsciousness ReduxFacts & Fictions in Mental HealthIllusionsMind in PicturesMIND PerspectivesWe’re Only HumanArchiveSpecial ReportsFollow SA
        Email
        RSS
        Facebook
        Twitter
        YouTube
        iTunesLog In or Register
        Home »Scientific American Magazine »July 2011
        Feature Articles | Energy & SustainabilitySee InsideThe Last Great Global Warming
        Surprising new evidence suggests the pace of Earth’s most abrupt prehistoric warm-up paled in comparison with what we face today. The episode has lessons for our future
        By Lee R. Kump | June 29, 2011 |29Share
        Email
        Print Image: Illustration by Ron Miller
        In BriefGlobal temperature rose five degrees Celsius 56 million years ago in response to a massive injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.That intense gas release was only 10 percent of the rate at which heat-trapping greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere today.The speed of today’s rise is more troubling than the absolute magnitude, because adjusting to rapid climate change is very difficult.
        Supplemental MaterialPhoto Album View the images from Kump’s Arctic quest Polar bears draw most visitors to Spitsbergen, the largest island in Norway’s Svalbard archipelago. For me, rocks were the allure. My colleagues and I, all geologists and climate scientists, flew to this remote Arctic island in the summer of 2007 to find definitive evidence of what was then considered the most abrupt global warming episode of all time. Getting to the rocky outcrops that might entomb these clues meant a rugged, two-hour hike from our old bunkhouse in the former coal-mining village of Longyearbyen, so we set out early after a night’s rest. As we trudged over slippery pockets of snow and stunted plants, I imagined a time when palm trees, ferns and alligators probably inhabited this area.Back then, around 56 million years ago, I would have been drenched with sweat rather than fighting off a chill. Research had indicated that in the course of a few thousand years—a mere instant in geologic time—global temperatures rose five degrees Celsius, marking a planetary fever known to scientists as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum​, or PETM. Climate zones shifted toward the poles, on land and at sea, forcing plants and animals to migrate, adapt or die. Some of the deepest realms of the ocean became acidified and oxygen-starved, killing off many of the organisms living there. It took nearly 200,000 years for the earth’s natural buffers to bring the fever down.you will have to buy the mafazine to finish.

      • Anonymous

        cirby, pardon me, my first comment collapsed but  I was  recently reading the last issue of Scientific American, July 2011 in which there was an article that might help us out here. on the latest research on the¨?Last Great Global warming 56 million years ago, I will quote the synopsis,  and then the first part…you will have to buy the issue to finish it but you get the thrust.

        Global temperature rose five degrees Celsius 56 million years ago in response to a massive injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
        That intense gas release was only 10 percent of the rate at which heat-trapping greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere today.
        The speed of today’s rise is more troubling than the absolute magnitude, because adjusting to rapid climate change is very difficult.

        Back then, around 56 million years ago, I would have been drenched with sweat rather than fighting off a chill. Research had indicated that in the course of a few thousand years—a mere instant in geologic time—global temperatures rose five degrees Celsius, marking a planetary fever known to scientists as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum​, or PETM. Climate zones shifted toward the poles, on land and at sea, forcing plants and animals to migrate, adapt or die. Some of the deepest realms of the ocean became acidified and oxygen-starved, killing off many of the organisms living there. It took nearly 200,000 years for the earth’s natural buffers to bring the fever down.

        • Anonymous

          One big problem, though – the PETM has almost nothing to do with anything like modern warming.  For one, the magnitude: the six degree PETM (not 5C) was twelve times larger than modern warming (we’ve seen 0.5 C warming over the last 150 years or so).

          Something else you need to remember is that, while the PETM happened “within” 20,000 years or so, that does not mean it happened slowly over the course of 20,000 years.  Due to the type of sediment dating used, it merely means that they can only narrow the dates down to within a single 20,000 year time frame.  In some reports, it looks like two sub-thousand-year warming cases – and some scientists have suggested that the actual triggering events happened over the course of days, not thousands of years.  If the “clathrate gun” hypothesis is correct, it could literally have happened within hours…

          The biggest support for the “fast warming” scenario is that some deep water life forms seem to have died off over the course of less than 1000 years.  If it was a case of slow warming and the sort of temperature sensitivity you suggest, they would have taken several times that long to die – or, more likely, adapt.  You might note that there was no corresponding die-off among creatures on land, and in the shallower waters of the ocean surface, there was a large increase in speciation there.  It appears that the (mostly localized) die-off among the benthic creatures came from a slowing of worldwide ocean currents, along with a severe drop in O2 in really deep water.

          • That’s an invalid data point to bring up.

            If the best-estimate shows a 20,000 year time frame, you can’t decide on your own that it might have been a liberal estimate, if it serves your purposes.

            Right now the first-derivative change is well beyond anything we have seen in the historical record, with a two-sigma level of confidence or better.

            You also don’t seem to fully appreciate evolution.  Creatures do not “adapt” to their environment on any predetermined time schedule, either they mutate in the right direction, or they don’t.  If anything the preponderance of the extinction record suggests you are clearly not correct.

          • Anonymous

            The “best estimate” doesn’t show a 20,000 year time frame.  It show an (approximately) 20,000 year period in which they think that warming happened.  If you read a bit more (outside of the truncated summary of the paywalled SciAm article), you get a different story than you and Steve suggest.

            The PETM started with CO2 in the 590-600 PPM range (much higher than current levels, and higher than we could reach in the next hundred years at current rates).  Then a HUGE spike in carbon was introduced into the atmosphere – doubling or tripling the CO2 levels to the 1000 to 1800 ppm range –  and the time frame for that was somewhere between 500 and 20,000 years (this massive range should give you a bit of an idea of just how much wiggle room there is in that “over 20,000 years” range).

            Another problem is that a big chunk of the pre-PETM warming happened BEFORE CO2 increased – and some studies have suggested that almost all of the CO2 increase was due to the warming, not vice versa.  Which shoots down AGW all by itself.

            Sal: “You also don’t seem to fully appreciate evolution.  Creatures do not ‘adapt’ to their environment on any predetermined time schedule”

            Actually, they mostly just adapt individually – not on an evolutionary basis.  No, increasing the world’s temperatures by 1 degree C (by 2100) will not kill off any appreciable percentage of sea life – they handle, as individuals, larger changes than that on an HOURLY basis.  Anyone who’s ever kept tropical fish knows that you can get amazing adaptation by just being gradual.  And yes, 1 degree C (or even five degrees C) over 100 years is a walk in the park for pretty much every animal on the planet.

            Note, for example, polar bears.  According to your suggestion on “evolution,” they should have died off long ago.  As a “polar” life form, the Medieval Warm Period should have erased them from the planet.  And the transition out of the last real ice age should have done so before that.  Yet, somehow, they managed to survive.  Here’s the kicker: during the last 60 years or so, with the “huge” increase (0.5 C) in temperatures, we had… a polar bear population surge.  Hell, since the 1980s, they’ve gone from 800 to 2100 bears… one biologist said: “There
            aren’t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears.”

          • I don’t read paywalled Scientific Americans, I’ve been a subscriber since my junior year in high school, some 32 years ago.

            “Actually, they mostly just adapt individually – not on an evolutionary basis.”

            IMPOSSIBLE.  To “adapt” in biological terms means a species (individual members of a species)  mutate as they constantly do, and those rare mutations that are beneficial will be able to out-compete other members of the species.  When the difference is great enough, this is where “speciation” begins.

            As for the polar bears, you should be made aware that the massive advances in telemetry and data collection have made it far easier for us to find and track them.  Their numbers worldwide are not increasing, they are in decline.  According to the the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), they think there is a strong chance they might see a very significant decline.  I happen to be friends with one of the world’s foremost experts on bears.

          • Anonymous

            “IMPOSSIBLE.  To “adapt” in biological terms means a species (individual members of a species)  mutate as they constantly do”

            No, it means they adapt to current conditions.  Pretty much every animal on the planet adapts to daily changes far broader than even the worst predicted change in temperatures, much less the ones that have been seen.  You don’t have to adapt on an evolutionary basis (as a species) to deal with temperature changes that are a fraction of what you get from (for example) 6 AM to 12 noon.

            “As for the polar bears, you should be made aware that the massive
            advances in telemetry and data collection have made it far easier for us
            to find and track them.  Their numbers worldwide are not increasing,
            they are in decline.”

            No, they aren’t.  They’ve seen a dramatic INCREASE since the advent of improved tracking, not due to the tracking itself, but due to the fact that there’s more polar bears.   A lot of polar bear estimates have been criticized because they undercount the bears, too (limited helicopter range, and zero coverage of many areas).  The people who actually live near their habitats have seen a dramatic increase in some populations – increased litter size (three versus two) is part of it.  You don’t get increased litter sizes with poor feeding conditions.  You have to remember that polar bears do NOT like large, thick ice packs – they like thinner, sporadic ones so they can get to their prey.  They’re “edge condition” predators – they feed at the edge of the ice and on coastlines

            Even the PBSG admits that polar bear population has gone from as low as 5,000 in the 1950s to as many as 25,000 now, mostly due to restrictions on hunting – and a lot of people are talking about increasing hunting permits because there are too many polar bears.

          • You aren’t using the word “adapt” the way it is used in evolutionary biology.  If you want to create your own vocabulary, please feel free to do so, but this isn’t correct science.

            As for polar bear population increases, you are aware that they were nearly hunted to extinction, and are now protected, right?  When they stop the wholesale slaughter of a species, its numbers generally tend to go up until they reach the carrying capacity of their environment, then they do the normal near-sinusoidal population swing.  Unless their environment changes, in which case they can nosedive.  In this case they are losing pack ice, which will make it harder for them to find food.  So in much of their current range, they will become extirpated.

            And speaking of ice, I’m sure you are aware that we are seeing just startling amounts of degradation in seasonal ice, to the point where even “permanent” ice is at risk of being depleted.  This more than anything else, is the absolute proof that this planet’s surface is warming.  The old Northwest Passage that was only dreamed of by the Renaissance explorers is now open for months every year.  From never open, to open for months.

            Nope, no warming at all…

          • Anonymous

            “You aren’t using the word “adapt” the way it is used in evolutionary biology.”

            No, I;m not.  Because evolutionary biology, overall DOES NOT APPLY for such small environmental changes. 

            And as far as sea ice goes, you’re just plain wrong.  Try reading some actual science instead of Greenpeace press releases.

    • The difference between climate and weather, according to the AGW cultists like Crickhead: If it’s hotter, it’s climate and proves AGW; if it’s cooler, it’s only weather and doesn’t prove anything.

    • Anonymous

      Steve… 

      except they are rising .. maybe not by  his alarmist bells but fairly quickly. The other two extended  gobal warming periods in the planet occurred over thousands and thousands of years, this one, though not as severe yet, is driven by human carbon emissions is happening at a far faster rate in a much shorter time period, and giving species much less time to adapt.

      Where is the evidence that human carbon emissions are driving anything other that Al Gore’s investment portfolio?

      • Anonymous

        SCSIwuzzy, I don´ thave time to go into this now, completely now, but it is contained in July scientific  American  at your bookstand, on ´the last global warming . Carbon emissions, they can measure these things, were very high ¨56 million years ago, and temperatures became 5degreess Celsius warmer because   the earths crust was ripping apart , the northern  eastern Atlantic was being formed and Europe, and high degrees of carbon dioxide and methane, from the vastf methane hydrate deposits were being released since hot sediments were thrown to the surface (methane traps heat even more heat than co2 but it quickly converts to co2, plus increased volcanic activity, This went on for a period of  thoususnds of years, unlike human carbon emissions which not of the same scale 56 milion years ago but  is at a faster pace. Co2 traps heat…the greenhouse effect.

        It seems to be that if geo-scientists have pretty good idea what went on for a few thousnd years, 56 million years ago, they must have a good idea what is happening  to our climate  in 2011?

        • Do you seriously think any of these people read Scientific American?  Or are even capable of understanding the simplest articles on it?

          They’ve toned down in the last two years: I think the editors are trying to broaden out the readership, and it still would be over most people’s heads.

          • Anonymous

            Sal,
            Some of “these people”, my self included, have SA delivered to their door.
            Since you are such a blinding intellect, please, explain to us what it is we do no understand.

          • Yo do no understand?

            Nice typo.

          • Anonymous

            That was really dumb, Sal….

          • Anonymous

            Ah, the “scientist” comes out.  Here’s a hint: yes, we do.  And yes, we understand – to the point where we can intelligently critique said articles.  Some of us even have enough background in science to point out that Scientific American went from being a “science magazine” to being a “socially-adapted science magazine” at least 20 years ago.

            SciAm is a good place to go to get articles that are halfway between real science and popular writing – but they have some huge editorial blind spots which have damaged their quality.

            The problem is that such moves have created a large population of people who think they understand science – but who really are just parroting the first few paragraphs of stories written for their demographic.

            Like you.

        • Anonymous

          Steve, nobody is sure if the high levels of carbon are the cause or a symptom of the cause of higher temperatures in that period.  The article teaser itself states

          Surprising new evidence suggests …

          Suggests != proves.
          The entire article is an opinion piece, not a scientific paper.  It is littered with words like could, suggests, possibly, might etc.  The author, Kump, co-authored “Dire Predictions” with Micheal Mann.  Mann of the dishonest Hockey Stick graph fame.
          There is interesting data to be found in the cores he discusses in the latter half of his piece, but it doesn’t prove what you think it does.  It only proves that there was alot of carbon at the time.
          The Earth and it’s bioshpere are stagering complex, IMO it is the height of arrogance to think it can be easily understood by bald monkeys that only came on to the scene so recently.  We will someday, but I don’t think we’re close.

  • Hide the Decline?

  • Anonymous

    Just reading about James Taylor who is not  climate scientist  or even a scientist, but rather a lawyer.at Heartland Institute. There are no scientists there  not even junk scientists. Wonder who Wames Taylor works for ?It is your typical right wing, free market, think tank, heavily funded by Exxon and  Philip Morris. The institute doesn´t  believe in second hand smoking effects as well as global warming. Great!

    • Anonymous

      Good Grief!

      So you found out about the Op/Ed writer. The horror.

      What about the scientist who co-authored the study? You know, the one who “was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
      Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.”

      And yet you somehow believe Al Gore.

      • Why are lawyers writing about science?

        This is like the Pope writing the Joy of Sex.  You wouldn’t expect that book to have any relationship to reality, would you?

        On second thought, you might.

        • Anonymous

          Kind of like Dreams of My Father or Audacity of Hope?

        • Barry MacInnis

          You shouldn’t talk about Al Gore like that.

    • Anonymous

      So, does this mean that you and Al Gore should also STFU on the topic?

    • Anonymous

      Al Gore likes free market too:)

  • Appeal to Authority.

  • Anonymous

    Im in Britain now ,it is having a cool wet summer, unlike the continent. But that is just it, the traditionally hotter parts of the globe are going to get hotter,  traditionally drier parts drier, and so forth, monsoons wetter  and more intense and  yes some  colder parts of the hemisphere colder, but it is climate change accentuation and incremental warming that is undeniably occuring. A climatologist can explain  this, not a lawyer probably fronting for Philip Morris or Exxon. Get some first class climate  scientists arguing your side( if you can find them) and then we can have a real debate.

    • Anonymous

      Mein Gott.  Brittain has cool wet summers now?!?

      As for the need of a first class scientist… how about your side opens up their raw data, methods and models first?

    • Anonymous

      “unlike the continent”

      Which is also, overall, having a cool summer.  As is Russia.

  • Repeated appeal to authority.

  • PBunyan

    Those religious fanatics are so cute when their challenged by reality.

    (“Anthopogenic Global Warming Climate Change” is a religion, not science.)

    • Anonymous

      You mean “climate instability” right?  Haha…

      I beginning to think the real definition of lunacy is man believing he has any control over climate.  It is also the epitome of arrogance, egotism, omnipotence and such gargantuan selfishness that it never ceases to fascinate me.  

      I wonder how many alarmists bother to pick up trash they see on the street.  I collect it regularly in my neighborhood while walking the dog just to keep things clean.  I ride my bike to work everyday, grow veggies, don’t use pesticides, and I’m sure I leave a damn smaller carbon footprint than that idiot Al Gore.

  • Anonymous

    What is telling in the various threads on this post is that ALL the challenges contain statements that link warming (now or in past Epochs) directly to “greenhouse gasses” with no mention of sun cycles or other phenomena that also affect our climate’s average temperatures.  Yet the post and the article show a FAILURE of linkage to increased “carbon” (CO2) to increased heat trapping.  This is not addressed directly in the opposing comments.  In addition, in is interesting to note that the heat produced in the “carbon release” (urban activity and jets) is being measured erroneously as part of the “heat trapping.”

  • I am finding one serious problem here- why is it that the actual article, the peer-reviewed study isn’t available.

    When I go to the NASA website, I get data that conflicts significantly with this article- CERES is showing continued and significant warming.

    Even if the warming isn’t as bad as the worst case scenario, it is still warming.

    I anxiously await an actual paper that I can read on my own, without having political spin placed on it.

    • Anonymous

      Sal,
      Like I said to Steve, get the AGW crowd to open up their data, models and methods.  Then you can bitch about the data on an equal footing,

      • All science should be open.

        Unfortunately most people wouldn’t know what is “good” or “bad” science if it landed on them, and sadly most of them wouldn’t be able to interpret data at all.

        I think the data actually IS very much open- we’ve had newspapers and journals print local temperatures for more than a century- ask them if the preponderance of days where new temperatures are broken leans to hotter or colder records?  It should be exactly 1:1, but it isn’t even close!  The average year sees four or more times more heat records broken worldwide than cold.

        • Anonymous

          “The data” might be open – but the data that they based their predictions on is NOT open, by any stretch.  You see, when you do actual science, and publish, you have to show what you based your work ON.  You can’t wave your hand and say “it’s proprietary.”  You have to show the records, then show what you did to the records, then show how you interpreted that data.

          This is not – repeat NOT – happening in AGW science.  When you have to file a FOI to get the data from a publicly-employed scientist, he’s almost certainly trying to hide something bad.

          As for the “record breaking’ high temps?  Not so much.  Overall, the current trend for “record breaking” is flat for the globe as a whole – and a good portion of the stations showing record temps are smack in the middle of airports or in places with huge urban growth surrounding them.  Sure, the US has seen a few due to the heat wave, but mostly it hasn’t been any hotter than some of the previous heat waves of the last 50 years.  They even tried to inflate the issue by using heat indexes instead of actual temperatures, but there just aren’t that many records being broken overall.

          For that matter, parts of Australia have been seeing record COLD temperatures this year.  As have parts of South America and South Africa.

          Something else to consider: the temperature records for almost the whole globe only extend back to the mid 19th century – and when you only have 150 years to work on, you’re going to get “new records” continually as a matter of random chance – especially since the world is still coming out of the Little Ice Age…

          • Models are very hard to create, and require constant tweeking.  The interaction of multiple independent variables is almost impossible to get right, you hope you get close enough and hope that you can find out where the errors are and can correct them.  Modelling isn’t a strong science, it is a very “educated” guess. 

            But the data is available, you can find it in common records going back centuries.  I’m particularly fond of the dates of first flowering and migrant bird arrivals (which the English have kept religiously for over 400 years- never EVER get into a conversation with an English ornithologist or botanist, they are extreme.)

            We also have proxy records for going on a half million years in some regions.  Isotopic ratios can tell you the rough average temperature of a region over an extended period of time.  But you’ve hit upon something critical; if as you say new records are a matter of random chance, then why have they been overwhelmingly shifted to the high side worldwide over the last generation of recording?

          • Anonymous

            Modeling is only a somewhat educated guess in the climate field.  Until they release their full dataset, PLUS the actual computer model code, they’re not actually doing “science” they’re just making claims.

            I’m glad that you like the extremely limited record on birds and flowers – which only date back to the latter part of the Little Ice Age, and are terrible proxies for what happened before.  All they show is that it’s warmer now than it was then, and we knew that already.  Isotope proxies are also very suspect – sure, you can find people who swear by them – but they’re also very hard to date accurately.  A number of them have fallen into the “here’s warming – but the warming came BEFORE the proxy went up” problem.

            “But you’ve hit upon something critical; if as you say new records are a
            matter of random chance, then why have they been overwhelmingly shifted
            to the high side worldwide over the last generation of recording?”

            Because of the Urban Heat Island effect, which I did mention.  Most of the temperature “increase” seen in the instrumental record is from UHI – and recent (false) increases have come from using those stations, while excluding the rural stations without siting problems.  If the increase was truly worldwide, then why do so many rural stations show zero increase for the last decade or so?

        • Anonymous

          Sal, then why are people like EA’s CRU and Michael Mann so resistant to sharing their data?

          A century is a blink of the eye in geologic terms.  Why would you even think it should be 1:1?  If it was so, they why was it so much warmer when the Vikings were pilaging their way arcoss Europe?  Why was it so much colder when the megafuana stubled into the tar pits in California?
          Why should it only be stable, 1:1, now of all times?

          • We aren’t dealing in geological time frames, we are seeing a trend that is orders of magnitude faster.  The human race in a century, has liberated the sequestered carbon captured in millions of years.  That is a change in CO2 concentration beyond anything that has ever been seen, outside of a massive methane event.

            To put it bluntly, every year we are increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentrations by a half of one percent.  That means in less than 200 years, we will DOUBLE atmospheric CO2.

            That isn’t a geological event.

          • Anonymous

            One who is quick to pounce upon typos should be more careful with his grammar. 😉
            I will ask again: why now should temperatures be stable, 1:1 as you put it, when they never have been in the past? What is the definition and the proof of a stable norm?

            For your carbon claims, care to back them up with a citation? Your pal Steve will attest that I have a bit of a thing for not taking bullshit at the bullshitter’s word. Mankind has put more CO2 in the air than if there were no men at all, but your claim is “over-generous” (it doesn’t take the carbon cycle into account, for starters).

  • Anonymous

    From  a study released in January 2009,  conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments

     

    The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
    Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
    “The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists’ is very interesting,” said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey’s authors.
    “Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon.”
    However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
    They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.
    “The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes,
    ” said Doran.

    If you are so convinced it is a religion not a science, why don´t some of you neanderthals or doubting Thomases go into climatology,  maybe you could make a differenc?

    • Anonymous

      Science doesn’t have consensus.  It has science.  If AGW was scientifically defensible, they’d be able to defend it that way, instead of whining about “you’re only trying to prove it’s WRONG” when someone asks to see the original data.  Real scientists show their work, they don’t hide it or try to obscure it.

      “Go into climatology” and disprove this?

      How?  The problem is (and has been, since I studied climate science at university – didn’t know that, did you?) that you don’t get grants in climate science if you set out to DISPROVE the big assumptions in the field.  Period.  That’s part of the reason I got out.  If you don’t get grants, you stay poor – and the only way to get grants is to do “approved” climate research.

      If a young climate science doctoral student went to his adviser and said he’d like to study carbon exchange, with the angle that some of the major assumptions in the field were wrong, he’d likely be asked to leave the department… because he wouldn’t get any grants for it, and would likely threaten other grants for the same department.  In most fields, you can get grants for such things, because they have a much higher toleration for testing of the major hypotheses. 

      Not in climate science.

      You might note that ALL of the hits climate science has been taking have come from other fields – which are pointing out that the huge assumptions that have been made about AGW were incorrect.  Some of them have been saying that for decades.  Insolation, for example.  Astronomers and astrophysicists have been talking about solar cycles disagreeing with AGW since the inception of the theory.  I brought the subject up to an AGW supporter (yes, an actual climate science “expert”), and he got mad.  “Insolation is a CONSTANT!”  Um… no, it’s not, and the AGW fans are just now starting to understand that bit.

      “They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science.”  So they have a lot more on the line, financially, and know that their entire career relies on getting the ‘right’ results…

  • Anonymous

    Can’t believe there is anyone who still believes in this global warming nonsense.

    There is no valid mechanism for CO2 creating global warming:

    http://nov47.com/ntyg.html

    Global Warming–The Other Side:

  • The original post did not identify Roy Spencer as co-author of the “study” in question, and I’m not surprised. Roy Spencer is an infamous Creationist crackpot with no credibility on this topic. Google his name before you give any credence to his latest data manipulation. Sorry folks, AGW is still real.

    • I hate to be this blunt, but I have one and only one criteria that I use to determine if someone is really intelligent.

      If they don’t understand and agree with the basic concepts of Evolution, they are not intelligent.  If dogma clouds your intellect, then it isn’t worth a fig.

      Spencer believes in Intelligent Design, which is proof that he isn’t intelligent.

      • Anonymous

        And yet evolution does not cover the creation of life, only the change over time. 
        By your definition, there were no truly intelligent people before Darwin?  What a truly close minded an bigoted point of view.  To be blunt.

        • Yes, my viewpoint is bigoted.  If you don’t understand evolution, you’re an idiot.

          If you think that is closed minded, well you should have an open mind, but not open enough for your brains to fall out. 

          As we learn, we grow.  Until Darwin we had a very incomplete view of the universe, and it gets stronger and stronger all the time.  Those who wish to believe the theocratic nonsense are holding us back.  To be blunt, they are the biggest problem America has today.

          • Anonymous

            There are more in heaven and Earth, Salzman, than are dreamt of in your philosophy
            It must be nice to clutch your Holy Writ to your breast and know that all who disagree are fools and blasphemers. Would you ask Galileo to make room in his tower chambers for them?

  • I just don’t get people who think that one scientific report should be treated as the truth because it supports their point of view. All you sycophants who spend time yammering about who all scientists are corrupt and publish conclusions based on the flow of grant money…then along come the latest report FROM THE SAME PEOPLE..and you’re all suddenly licking the ground they walk on.
    Doesn’t your own hypocrisy make you sick?

    Yep!! Trust these people.

    The Heartland Institute is a libertarian American public policy think tank based in Chicago, Illinois which advocates free market policies. In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms.[5][6][7] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, and has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics.[8]

  • Pingback: US Scientists Pour Cold Water On Rapid Global Warming Theory – Irish Weather Online | CARBON CREDITS()

  • Earth’s Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow

    By James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato — July 2011

    The past is the key to the future. Contrary to popular belief, climate
    models are not the principal basis for assessing human-made climate
    effects. Our most precise knowledge comes from Earth’s paleoclimate, its
    ancient climate, and how it responded to past changes of climate
    forcings, including atmospheric composition. Our second essential source
    of information is provided by global observations today, especially
    satellite observations. which reveal how the climate system is
    responding to rapid human-made changes of atmospheric composition,
    especially atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Models help us
    interpret past and present climate changes, and, in so far as they
    succeed in simulating past changes, they provide a tool to help evaluate
    the impacts of alternative policies that affect climate.

    Paleoclimate data yield our best assessment of climate sensitivity,
    which is the eventual global temperature change in response to a
    specified climate forcing. A climate forcing is an imposed change of
    Earth’s energy balance, as may be caused, for example, by a change of
    the sun’s brightness or a human-made change of atmospheric CO2. For convenience scientists often consider a standard forcing, doubled atmospheric CO2, because that is a level of forcing that humans will impose this century if fossil fuel use continues unabated.

    We show from paleoclimate data that the eventual global warming due to doubled CO2
    will be about 3°C (5.4°F) when only so-called fast feedbacks have
    responded to the forcing. Fast feedbacks are changes of quantities such
    as atmospheric water vapor and clouds, which change as climate changes,
    thus amplifying or diminishing climate change. Fast feedbacks come into
    play as global temperature changes, so their full effect is delayed
    several centuries by the thermal inertia of the ocean, which slows full
    climate response. However, about half of the fast-feedback climate
    response is expected to occur within a few decades. Climate response
    time is one of the important ‘details’ that climate models help to
    elucidate.

    We also show that slow feedbacks amplify the global response to a
    climate forcing. The principal slow feedback is the area of Earth
    covered by ice sheets. It is easy to see why this feedback amplifies the

    climate change, because reduction of ice sheet size due to warming
    exposes a darker surface, which absorbs more sunlight, thus causing more
    warming. However, it is difficult for us to say how long it will take
    ice sheets to respond to human-made climate forcing because there are no
    documented past changes of atmospheric CO2 nearly as rapid as the current human-made change.

    Ice sheet response to climate change is a problem where satellite
    observations may help. Also ice sheets models, as they become more
    realistic and are tested against observed ice sheet changes, may aid our
    understanding. But first let us obtain broad guidance from climate
    changes in the ‘recent’ past: the Pliocene and Pleistocene, the past 5.3
    million years.

    Figure 1 shows global surface temperature for the past 5.3 million years
    as inferred from cores of ocean sediments taken all around the global
    ocean. The last 800,000 years are expanded in the lower half of the
    figure. Assumptions are required to estimate global surface temperature
    change from deep ocean changes, but we argue and present evidence that
    the ocean core record yields a better measure of global mean change than
    that provided by polar ice cores.

    Civilization developed during the Holocene, the interglacial period of
    the past 10,000 years during which global temperature and sea level have
    been unusually stable. Figure 1 shows two prior interglacial periods
    that were warmer than the Holocene: the Eemian (about 130,000 years ago)
    and the Holsteinian (about 400,000 years ago). In both periods sea
    level reached heights at least 4-6 meters (13-20 feet) greater than
    today. In the early Pliocene global temperature was no more than 1-2°C
    warmer than today, yet sea level was 15-25 meters (50-80 feet) higher.

    The paleoclimate record makes it clear that a target to keep human made
    global warming less than 2°C, as proposed in some international
    discussions, is not sufficient — it is a prescription for disaster.
    Assessment of the dangerous level of CO2, and the dangerous
    level of warming, is made difficult by the inertia of the climate
    system. The inertia, especially of the ocean and ice sheets, allows us
    to introduce powerful climate forcings such as atmospheric CO2
    with only moderate initial response. But that inertia is not our friend
    — it means that we are building in changes for future generations that
    will be difficult, if not impossible, to avoid.

    • I call copyright violation. A complete article cut-and-pasted into a comment section does not constitute Fair Use.

      • Anonymous

        Our trolls cannot master the simple HTML code for links…
        It isn’t in their SCIENCE backgrounds, I suppose.