Trees invading warming Arctic will cause warming over entire region, study shows

January 12, 2010 By Robert Sanders
Denali National Park is one area where once-treeless tundra will be invaded by trees as a result of global warming. A new study indicates that as trees move northward with increasing temperatures, they will enhance warming over the entire Arctic north of about 60 degrees north latitude, accelerating the melting of sea ice. (Abigail Swann/UC Berkeley)

(PhysOrg.com) -- Contrary to scientists' predictions that, as the Earth warms, the movement of trees into the Arctic will have only a local warming effect, University of California, Berkeley, scientists modeling this scenario have found that replacing tundra with trees will melt sea ice and greatly enhance warming over the entire Arctic region.

Because are darker than the bare tundra, scientists previously have suggested that the northward expansion of trees might result in more absorption of sunlight and a consequent local warming.

But UC Berkeley graduate student Abigail L. Swann, along with Inez Fung, professor of earth and and of environmental science, policy and management, doubted this local scenario because, while broad-leaved trees are dark, they also transpire a lot of water, and water vapor is a that is well-mixed throughout the Arctic.

Taking account of this in a standard model of , the researchers discovered that, while broad-leaved trees do absorb some additional sunlight, the water vapor they pump into the atmosphere causes a more widespread warming.

"Broad-leaved deciduous trees are not as dark as evergreen trees and so are generally assumed to be less important. But broad-leaved trees transpire a lot more water through their leaves and are actually able to change the water vapor content and increase the greenhouse effect. As the air warms, it can hold more water vapor, and the greenhouse effect increases further," Swann said. "So, broad-leaved trees end up warming the entire Arctic."

More importantly, the researchers' model predicts that the increased water vapor would melt more , resulting in more absorption of sunlight by the open ocean and dumping more into the atmosphere. This positive feedback will warm the land even more and encourage faster, more efficient tree growth and perhaps a faster expansion of trees into the Arctic.

All told, the model predicts an additional 1 degree Celsius increase in temperature over the Arctic as a result of this effect. Global warming already is predicted to increase temperatures in the Arctic between 5 and 7 degrees Celsius within the next 100 years.

The analysis was reported Jan. 7 in the online Early Edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Trees are darker than tundra, absorbing more light, but they also transpire more water, increasing water vapor, a potent greenhouse gas. As a result, when trees overrun Artic tundra, they will enhance warming, not merely over the land, but in a feedback loop, increase temperatures up to 3 degrees Celsius over parts of the north. (Abigail Swann and Inez Fung/UC Berkeley)

In judging the impact of vegetation on global warming, most scientists have focused on the albedo, or reflectivity, of vegetation, Swann said. The new study shows that water transpiration can have a large effect as well, especially in "closed" environments like the Arctic, where there is greater confinement of atmospheric gases. Swann suggests that the greenhouse consequences of transpiration will be much less in the mid-latitudes and tropics, or at least harder to pin down.

"We are trying to identify the physical processes that are going to be important with these changes, and this is an interaction that wasn't really looked at before," Swann said. "Counter to assumptions, it's not just a change in the color of the surface vegetation that affects warming."

Previous studies have shown that needle-leaved trees, because they are much darker than bare tundra, will absorb more light and increase warming. But needle-leaved trees transpire much less water than broad-leaved deciduous trees, so the UC Berkeley researchers expect transpiration to only slightly increase this warming effect.

If past episodes of warming are any indication, however, broad-leaved deciduous trees will expand their range more quickly into northern regions than will needle-leaved trees.

“Alaska is already getting shrubbier," Fung said. "We hypothesize that there are 'pioneers,' like shrubs and deciduous trees, that modify the climate until it is comfortable, and then the whole clan moves in."

Co-authors with Swann and Fung are Samuel Levis and Gordon B. Bonan of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Col., and Scott C. Doney of the Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

Explore further: Surface-level ozone pollution set to reduce tree growth 10 percent by 2100

Related Stories

Water vapor confirmed as major player in climate change

November 17, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely ...

Recommended for you

Climate change will drive stronger, smaller storms in US

December 5, 2016

The effects of climate change will likely cause smaller but stronger storms in the United States, according to a new framework for modeling storm behavior developed at the University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory. ...

Extreme downpours could increase fivefold across parts of the US

December 5, 2016

At century's end, the number of summertime storms that produce extreme downpours could increase by more than 400 percent across parts of the United States—including sections of the Gulf Coast, Atlantic Coast, and the Southwest—according ...

47 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Birger
3.6 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2010
See also the Physorg.com story "Lands surface change on Alaska tundra creating longer, warmer summers in Arctic" from 2005. Since no one has managed to poke holes in the underlying science since then, the current findings seem more solid than if the study had made its findings "in isolation".
NotAsleep
3.3 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2010
In one article they've said trees and water both contribute to global warming. This is a perfect example of a lack of "big picture" understanding. There was a similarly themed article a while back on the netherlands painting the rocks underneath receding glaciers white. The theory was that the dark rocks would heat up too much, continuing to melt the glacier. It sounded like it was straight out of an old Monty Python skit.

One can't troubleshoot a car by just looking at the engine. This would be particularly disasterous if you're troubleshooting a car that isn't broken
freethinking
2.1 / 5 (22) Jan 12, 2010
Ok, everyone with a brain now realizes that Global warming is a myth, the world has been getting colder now. But then I read where this study came from, it came from the leftist town of Berkeley.

Leftists are not known for their science or reasoning or logic skills. They are known for their agenda and cool-aid drinking.

So I ask where are the facts that Global warming is actually happening. Where are the facts that IF it is happening that man is the cause. Where is the source data? Anyone who is upto date with Climategate knows that the facts have been played with, and that the source data has been deleted.
wsbriggs
3.8 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2010
So it would seem that building up the runway in the Antarctic at Rothera Station with basalt would be counter productive if we want to keep sunlight from being absorbed, not to mention keeping the runway plowed down to the basalt fill at all times. Trees in the Arctic, basalt in the Antarctic - there's trouble brewing. Of course, this is based on it never having been this warm before, which is not exactly true, wheat did grow in Greenland once apon a time.
LariAnn
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 12, 2010
So, since when has the scientific method and the validity of scientific research been determined by the political affiliation of the researchers? Please provide the documentation proving that this is a legitimate criterion for judging the work of scientists.
El_Nose
3.6 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2010
Isn't the issue hear not if global warming is real.. cause the earth is getting a little warmer...

but whether or not our time sapn is long enough... Are we just in a cycle that we have not had enough data to realize? We have been recording temps for only 120 years... if the earth was in a 1500 year cycle then this is a non event. But yes it is clear that man/humans are contributing more than nature would have over the last 200 years. --But thats just it, this last 200 years has been calm for nature that is... the next 200 could have 100x more volcanic eruptions and blow what man did out of the water.

Just a thought.
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (21) Jan 12, 2010
LariAnn,

Research Climategate. You can even google it. Leftists have a political agenda and they manipulate facts, delete source data, persecute those that dont agree with their forgone conclusions. AGW is a leftist cause.
antialias
2.8 / 5 (17) Jan 12, 2010
You might want to consider that the US does not constitute 'the world'. Global warming is pretty much accepted (and being acted upon) by governments throughout the world - conservative an progressive alike. Claiming that thisis a 'leftist' cause is very US-centric. This is a global issue and therefore seeing it as a local, ploitical issue is a bit short sighted.
Parsec
2.9 / 5 (16) Jan 12, 2010
I just do not understand why all of the climate scientists are so suspect of tilting their findings so that they can get more funding, yet the 99% of the rest do not seem to come under the same cloud. I have never read an astronomy article for example, where people accuse the scientists involved of just feathering their own nest when they say that something is unknown and needs more investigation. Or of corrupting the results because of political reasons.

The climate scientists that I have talked to personally are really quite alarmed. They would love to be proven wrong. But you cannot prove data wrong by raising the decimal level of the arguments.

For an AGW denier to talk about leftists manipulating the facts or deleting source data is mind boggling. The only way one could question climate warming is to manipulate the facts and ignore the data.
defunctdiety
2.9 / 5 (15) Jan 12, 2010
There is nothing in this article that is related to man's activities. The globe is warming, so what? It does that. Often. It also cools like it has been doing for the past couple years (this is not weather, this is climate).
This is a global issue

Yes, this is a global issue where the Nations bearing the burden of 90% of the population of the Earth see an easy way to get money from the "rich" countries.

Never mind that the US has never been in greater debt, which increases every day, has never faced such high inflation, and is still shipping it's jobs and industry over seas. You morons think we should be treating symptoms instead of ensuring our ability to adapt. You know, the thing that has allowed man to exist to this very day.
freethinking
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 12, 2010
Astronomy is not political. Hard to raise taxes, control peoples lives based on how far a star is away or because of a black hole.
Phsycology is very political. Leftist like to feel superior. (Never saw a study that doesnt show conservatives, or christians as ignorant or stupid)
AGW science, very political and corrupt.
Pure Medicine, generally not political (how to stop heart attacks generally is not political.)
Enviromental science, very political.

Only ignorant people who believe everything in the media (which is heavly biased towards leftist theology, but thats another story)are not aware of the biases and why there is bias in science today.
jonnyboy
3 / 5 (14) Jan 12, 2010
So, since when has the scientific method and the validity of scientific research been determined by the political affiliation of the researchers? Please provide the documentation proving that this is a legitimate criterion for judging the work of scientists.


I am sure that this has happened before now but in my long, inquisitive lifetime, I have never seen it so obvious as it is now with the money being funded to "researchers" based on what their findings will be. I am not sure that Al Gore started this phenomenon but he certainly has helped drive the expansion of this philosophy to the point where I no longer trust what ANY of the researchers are publishing in this field. Where's the BEEF?
otto1923
5 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2010
the northward expansion of trees might result in more absorption of sunlight and a consequent local warming.
This might just be good news to logging concerns. Tree growth in some areas might be considered non-renewable and still need to be harvested. Above certain elevations and certain latitudes. Hardwoods from SE Asia and South America could be replaced by this unwanted growth.
Ronan
4.6 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2010
Hrm. While this is certainly worrisome, I wonder whether or not the possible effects of increased snowfall have been taken into account? I mean, if you have more water vapor in the air (particularly in a cold, arid-ish place like the Arctic), then at least for a while, one would expect more snowfall and hence a higher surface albedo. Might be significant, might not be.
wsbriggs
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 12, 2010
I'm astonished at how many of the warmists believe that a model is data, or fact. A model is a model, not reality. If there really were a tipping point or any of the other scare stories based on the models, then given that we know as a fact from hard, measured data, that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been 40x what it is today, explain 1. how we had an ice age when the CO2 level was that high, 2. how we got this cold after the climate warmed up after that ice age, 3. how did we get cold again after the medieval warm period?
rproulx45
3.3 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2010
RE:Ok, everyone with a brain now realizes that Global warming is a myth,...

Spooky Ghosts, Elvis's two headed alien baby and the Gumm-a-mint conspiracy to secretly increase everyone's thermometer...is coming to get you!!!
JayK
3.8 / 5 (12) Jan 12, 2010
I realize that "Climategate" has resulted in all discussions of evidence of warming being answered with the debate ending "CRU Wharrblgharble", especially here on Physorg, but for those few warmers left, can the rest of you just go away and high-five yourselves somewhere else?

This article is actually very interesting, in that it really outlines another facet of invasive species and how they are changing the world that we live in, and count on to survive.
PinkElephant
3.6 / 5 (13) Jan 12, 2010
@wsbriggs,

you don't seriously expect someone to answer those questions (no less than 3 of them) within a space of 1000 characters, in a manner that you'll find satisfactory ... do you?

Though, without getting into details, I think all 3 of your questions have an underlying misunderstanding at heart. The climate is not determined by any single factor. It is a sum total of many influences. The anthropogenic forcing is one of those influences, but not the only one (and until recently, it didn't even exist to any significant degree.) Any notion that climate change is EITHER anthropogenic OR natural (but cannot be BOTH), is a false dichotomy.

Anthropogenic forcing overlays, and modulates, natural fluctuations. The former is geologically instantaneous, while the latter tend to unfold on much longer timescales. Both take place; and while we have no control over the latter, we have full control over the former.
deatopmg
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2010
This is a great piece of work. The invasive trees are doing so not out of malice but because the environment is better for them than the "native" (for this slice of time) species.
It IS likely that the higher humidity will lead to greater snow cover. Then what? Those previously invasive species, now native species, will likely be replaced by something else. And so it goes.
@PinkE Yes, there is a mix of causes to the warming but our contribution can be no more than a tiny 5 - 8% of the total from the absorption spectrum of CO2. It's just physically impossible to be more than that. The universally predicted (models!) greenhouse warming 10 km up between +30 and -30 deg latitude shows absolutely no measured, i.e. real un-massaged data, temp. change over the past 30 yrs so, the 5 - 8% may be over generous.
superhuman
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 12, 2010
One can model anything one wants. Until there is experimental validation of predictions a model is next to worthless, especially when it is simulating something as complex as climate.
GrayMouser
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 12, 2010
I am sure that this has happened before now but in my long, inquisitive lifetime, I have never seen it so obvious as it is now with the money being funded to "researchers" based on what their findings will be. I am not sure that Al Gore started this phenomenon but he certainly has helped drive the expansion of this philosophy to the point where I no longer trust what ANY of the researchers are publishing in this field. Where's the BEEF?

I can think of two 'studies' that share the same traits, dietary salt and smoking. The levels of data manipulation in both were astounding. Both show the same resistance to releasing the raw data and to the use of meta-analysis of other researchers studies. Both also had legal and political involvement, large amounts of research money, and reputations made by out shouting everyone else.
RJB26
3 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2010
"I just do not understand why all of the climate scientists are so suspect of tilting their findings so that they can get more funding, yet the 99% of the rest do not seem to come under the same cloud. I have never read an astronomy article for example, where people accuse the scientists involved of just feathering their own nest"

because when an astronomer finds a planet all they want to do is have it named after themselves, however when a watermelon, climate "scientist" claims the world is going to end in 10 years he/she usually wants a couple trillion dollars. not a good analogy parsec, as usual you reiterate what a true believer you are. on a side note astronomy is actually a branch of science, while "climate science" is a political philosophy and tool of big government.
antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2010
on a side note astronomy is actually a branch of science, while "climate science" is a political philosophy and tool of big government.

Then you should maybe read the studies by other nations where science isn't funded on the 'he-who.screams-loudest-doom'-principle
(funnily they come to the same conclusions that those you accuse of being doom-sayers do...must be a world-wide conspiracy. Here's your tin-foil hat)
looseyarn
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2010
yet another study that states that change is bad when the change is inevitable with current projections.
Objectivist
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2010
Never mind that the US has never been in greater debt, which increases every day, has never faced such high inflation, and is still shipping it's jobs and industry over seas.

You morons think we should be treating symptoms instead of ensuring our ability to adapt. You know, the thing that has allowed man to exist to this very day.

You're contradicting yourself. I divided the quote just in case you wouldn't see it. I agree with the latter quote, yet in the former you're desperately trying to treat the symptoms.
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2010
@deatopmg,

our contribution can be no more than a tiny 5 - 8% of the total from the absorption spectrum of CO2.


So... what 'model' did you base that assertion on -- which, one has to assume, is better than the models everyone else is using? (One might also consider that CO2 isn't the only factor in anthropogenic forcing, even though it certainly is the biggest political football of the lot...)

The universally predicted (models!) greenhouse warming 10 km up between +30 and -30 deg latitude...


Odd. It was my impression that greenhouse models predict warming in the troposphere, with concomitant cooling in the stratosphere. That is warming well *below* 10 km, not "10 km up". Also, models predict much greater warming near the poles, and much less toward the equator.

So if you're going to posit assertions that diametrically oppose model predictions, then find those assertions wrong -- then you're in effect confirming the models... ???
defunctdiety
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 13, 2010
You're contradicting yourself.

Uhh, no.

Out of control government spending and the deindustrialization of America are in fact tangible and targetable ailments, as well as symptoms, of our failing society.

These however are much easier to address as a populace than our People's conditioned apathy, which of course is the real problem - i.e. people not wanting to take responsibility for their lives.
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2010
@defunctdiety,

I take issue with your characterizations. Deindustrialization of America (a.k.a. "free trade") is good for us, because so states the Gospel of Wall Street and the Free Market. And our government spending is definitely not out of control: it is deliberately Keynesian by design.

See how wrong you were? Feel better now? :-P

Seriously now, it isn't our society that's failing, so much as the economics-inspired ideologies of our business elite (to which our society has abdicated the responsibility of managing the country.)

On the plus side, the developing world is getting wealthier, as our former wealth flows out into their pockets and infrastructure. So perhaps the economists are right after all: free trade *is* a good thing, for humanity as a whole (at least if we neglect human rights and environmental devastation.) It just really sucks to whomever was on the high end of the wealth distribution prior to the commencement of the Great Equalization.
defunctdiety
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2010
Deindustrialization of America is good for us

Pretty sure you're being ironic, but I'm going to address this as if serious anyway.

Deindustrialization may be "good", in the short term, for corporations and on some level (reduced cost) for the people - again short term, but it is an unsustainable economic model/policy as we are finding out and will become more and more acutely aware of in the very near future as our currency and economy continues to shrink.

Spin it how you want, Keynes principles have always failed -the People- as it is not a sustainable principle and promotes false (unhealthy) growth, he was a politician first, a business man second, an average citizen never and a eugenicist - which you may say is not relevant to his theory, however it does give insight into how his mind works - he believes some are inherently better and more deserving than others.

And our society is failing -itself- the People are failing themselves by failing to give a damn.
defunctdiety
1.7 / 5 (10) Jan 14, 2010
our former wealth flows out into their pockets

The only thing preventing complete economic free-fall in America is how much money we owe to the world. So what is bad for us, for the moment, is bad for the world.

What happens as that debt is turned over and over? It becomes others debt upon debt, is recouped or dissolves, but that original worth becomes less and less relevant as the debt shifts form (currencies, etc.) and moves farther from it, and the farther it moves, the closer the bottom is to collapsing beneath America.

Our government continues to grow (it is the fastest growing job sector), but has no product (except military) / produces no profit. How is this sustainable in any sight?

Finally, I'd like to thank MikeyK for being the daftest person on Physorg, voting me a 1 and PE a 5 when he is backing me. Thanks MikeyK for showing us all exactly how mindless you are. Keep throwing out those 1s, maybe someday it'll matter, but always knowing it proves you're an idiot.
fixer
4 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2010
All political arguments aside, the trees are moving northward.
As they grow thicker they block the wind, and this eliminates wind chill which is a major factor in keeping temperature down.
Proportionatly less snow settles under trees which also reduces the cooling effect, and so the march north continues and the ice retreats.
Anyone find fault with this argument?
brant
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2010
The Sahara used to be lush green forests and rivers.
The earth is going thru a cycle.
operator
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2010
i get the impression there a fair few right-wing conservatives posting on any an all subjects concerning climate on this site.
something about kettles an blackness when they state that climate scientist have a political agenda.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2010
To a person consumed by "politics", it is inconceivable that everyone else isn't mired in exactly the same type of predicament. I put the word "politics" in quotes, because I don't think it actually fits what passes for civics these days. The word is too dignified, and carries with it too much import. Possibly a fitter word would be cultism. Or perhaps sports. It's a case of our team vs. their team, and it matters not why, or what for. The more losses a person has suffered, the more important it becomes to achieve victory at *something*... anything.
fixer
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2010
I agree, keep politics out of real life and focus on what the issue is realy about.
For those that have forgotten, the trees are moving northward, the tide is coming in and most people can't see past the end of their nose!
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2010
Everybody shut up and go home. We Need the Technology and we wont get it unless we have this big Crisis to force our hand. We're all (more or less) adults here, maybe a little wiser than the avg rabble. Sit back and watch crisis-driven sociopolitical economics work its magic (it will no matter what you all say).
MikeyK
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2010
The same extremist conservatives belong to the same paranoiac, conspiracy theorist sub-culture as the creationist....or maybe they are the same.
It seems the usual 'climategate, hide decline, cover-up..blah blah blah' fuss has died down amongst them. Joe public now realises that this is all they have, and it isn't anything approaching 'evidence' of a cover up.
RayCherry
5 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2010
Anyone telling everone else to shut up is displaying the same form of fascist censorship as those "commies" that the same folks consider dire enemies. The same that claimed "ClimateGate" proved AGW false, and due to their huge noise and economic priorities put Copenhagen in a very difficult light, but changed little of the outcome. The same ones who claim the Global Warming was also totally disproven as a result of the same hullabaloo. What are you people like?

Use all your intellect now, force your mental growth into the light of education, research, science, truth and perhaps personal revelation, as you avoid - by force of mental will power - to NOT click the One Star Rating.

Good luck. Don't shut up. Try to open your minds and learn ...
Claudius
1 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2010
FINALLY, they admit water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Now, I am waiting for them to acknowledge that global temperature changes are driven by the Sun. If this keeps up, I might even believe that mainstream media is becoming unbiased! And pigs may fly.
dk2009
not rated yet Jan 19, 2010
Funny. When I read this article I thought about the global warming that is currently heating our planet. I also worried about that heating causing Greenland ice to melt faster theoretically causing the Atlantic currents to shut down and send us into an ice age. My thoughts weren't about man causing this since it mentioned NOTHING ABOUT ANTHROPOMORPHIC WARMING. (And, yes, the planet is warming and scientist have found plenty of evidence that it is warming. The question of man's part in that warming is not a part of this article and has little to nothing to do with this particular research article.)
Claudius
1 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2010
My thoughts weren't about man causing this since it mentioned NOTHING ABOUT ANTHROPOMORPHIC WARMING. (And, yes, the planet is warming and scientist have found plenty of evidence that it is warming.


You must have recently come out of a coma not to know that anthropomorphic warming has been proved a fraud and a scandal. The "scientist" you mention has been fiddling with the evidence to try to prove the religious/political view that man is warming the planet.
dk2009
not rated yet Jan 22, 2010
My thoughts weren't about man causing this since it mentioned NOTHING ABOUT ANTHROPOMORPHIC WARMING. (And, yes, the planet is warming and scientist have found plenty of evidence that it is warming.


You must have recently come out of a coma not to know that anthropomorphic warming has been proved a fraud and a scandal. The "scientist" you mention has been fiddling with the evidence to try to prove the religious/political view that man is warming the planet.

OK, Cluadius, explain how I argued for ANTHROPOMORPHIC warming. Then explain how the article does so. I'll wait while you wake yourself from your trance....
MikeyK
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2010

The "scientist" you mention has been fiddling with the evidence to try to prove the religious/political view that man is warming the planet.


Is there some kind of irony here? It is really comical the way Denialists use the 'religion' card, especially as the vast majority come from the same right wing bible bashing crew that tried to get Darwinian evolution replaced by intelligent design in school teaching (the now-called Palinists).
As you don't understand how science works I would love to hear your take on gravity...are you one of those who think the theory is flawed as it is constructed by nasty scientists. Newton's apple falling was 'a trick' and objects are held to the ground by 'Angel Glue'..go on, tell us..
MikeyK
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2010
FINALLY, they admit water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

At least a denier that admits greenhouses work! Water has long been known as a greenhouse gas, as are a number of gasses. Where H2O and CO2 differ is that H2O is also a global coolant. No forms of CO2 are (despite that comic Watts trying to convince us that CO2 freezing at the poles raises albedo..priceless!)
Now, I am waiting for them to acknowledge that global temperature changes are driven by the Sun.


They have already shown the link between solar output and global temperature changes started disappearing in the 1970's, the last decade has been noteworthy as there has been no correlation..see here..http://www.woodfo...et:-1366
Claudius
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2010
At least a denier that admits greenhouses work!


I deny that I am a denier. And I resent the term, which automatically assumes anyone who questions AGW is a tin-foil wearing nutcase. I know very well there is a "natural" greenhouse effect. The question is whether man's industry is causing an additional effect.

They have already shown the link between solar output and global temperature changes started disappearing in the 1970's, the last decade has been noteworthy as there has been no correlation


It seems to me that the link between solar output and global temperature only disappeared when the CRU and the IPCC decided it needed to disappear. It is no longer debatable as to the reality of this accusation, as it was apparent before the release of the CRU emails, which confirmed the suspicion.
MikeyK
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2010

I deny that I am a denier.

A nice oxymoron there!

They have already shown the link between solar ou
It seems to me that the link between solar output and global temperature only disappeared when the CRU and the IPCC decided it needed to disappear. It is no longer debatable as to the reality of this accusation, as it was apparent before the release of the CRU emails, which confirmed the suspicion.

Your comment shows why you are a denier, not a sceptic. As has been shown on other threads the emails do not show a big conspiracy, the deniersphere picked 6 out of over a thousand, took them out of context and presented that as 'proof'. When you start saying that the link between solar irradiance and global mean temperature has been made to 'disappear' then I'm afraid your tin-foil connection is confirmed. I don't know who you are trying to kid about your denier/conspiracy theorist status, us or yourself...

Claudius
1 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2010
I don't actually care what you think of me. If you want to engage in ad-hominem attacks, it says more about you than me.

Going back to 1610 there has been a close correlation between solar activity and climate change. Suddenly the correlation breaks around the time the political world decided to criminalize CO2. We know the CRU manipulated data to emphasize warming, the commented source code is very clear on that. So it isn't unreasonable to say that the CRU "made the correlation disappear."

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.