Global warming likely to be amplified by slow changes to Earth systems

Dec 20, 2009

Researchers studying a period of high carbon dioxide levels and warm climate several million years ago have concluded that slow changes such as melting ice sheets amplified the initial warming caused by greenhouse gases.

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found that a relatively small rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels was associated with substantial global warming about 4.5 million years ago during the early Pliocene.

Coauthor Christina Ravelo, professor of ocean sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said the study indicates that the sensitivity of Earth's temperature to increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is greater than has been expected on the basis of that only include rapid responses.

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to increased atmospheric and sea-surface temperatures. Relatively rapid feedbacks include changes in atmospheric water vapor, clouds, and sea ice. These short-term changes probably set in motion long-term changes in other factors--such as the extent of continental ice sheets, vegetation cover on land, and deep ocean circulation--that lead to additional , Ravelo said.

"The implication is that these slow components of the Earth system, once they have time to change and equilibrate, may amplify the effects of small changes in the composition of the atmosphere," she said.

The researchers used sediment cores drilled from the seafloor at six different locations around the world to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels over the past five million years. They found that during the early and middle Pliocene (3 to 5 million years ago), when average global temperatures were at least 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than today, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was similar to today's levels, about 30 percent higher than preindustrial levels.

"Since there is no indication that the future will behave differently than the past, we should expect a couple of degrees of continued warming even if we held concentrations at the current level," said lead author Mark Pagani, an associate professor of geology and geophysics at Yale University.

Explore further: Ice in Arctic seas shrinks to sixth-lowest recorded

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Ice core studies confirm accuracy of climate models

Sep 11, 2008

An analysis has been completed of the global carbon cycle and climate for a 70,000 year period in the most recent Ice Age, showing a remarkable correlation between carbon dioxide levels and surprisingly abrupt changes in ...

Stabilizing climate requires near-zero carbon emissions

Feb 15, 2008

Now that scientists have reached a consensus that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are the major cause of global warming, the next question is: How can we stop it" Can we just cut back on carbon, or do we need ...

Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong

Jul 14, 2009

No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

Recommended for you

Study links changing winds to warming in Pacific

Sep 22, 2014

A new study released Monday found that warming temperatures in Pacific Ocean waters off the coast of North America over the past century closely followed natural changes in the wind, not increases in greenhouse ...

User comments : 59

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benier_Duster
3.1 / 5 (19) Dec 20, 2009
Scientists learn lessons from the past, shame our world's politicians can't/won't do the same
1911A1
3.1 / 5 (23) Dec 20, 2009
The past includes phoney data, fraud, shredded emails, destroyed hard drives, and counting tree rings. It will be fun to watch the hoaxsters sweating in front of federal grand juries. I hope the indictments and trials and prison come swiftly for these criminals.
Bacon
2.9 / 5 (17) Dec 20, 2009
" the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was similar to today's levels, about 30 percent higher than preindustrial levels."

So, 5 million years ago, the Earth was exactly the same, least greenhouse gas-wise, as today?

I think this study just stated we've had absolutely no effect on this planet, and that we're just now coming into the understanding of Earth's more long-term climate cycles. That or humans existed 5 million years ago.
deatopmg
3.2 / 5 (22) Dec 20, 2009
CO2 levels ALWAYS FOLLOW warming trends. This is just another example.

The cat is finally out of the bag - CO2 driven global warming is nonsense in spite of people like Pagani who don't see the writing on the wall. The charade is over!
fizzissist
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2009
I'd like to see which specific models were used. Any that are successful in predicting past climate, perhaps? Only because of the qualifier that only models with rapid response were used.

Was the typical lag of CO2 to temperatures of 800-2800yrs also considered? Did those models consider that kind of time lag rapid or not?
FadingFast
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 20, 2009
Oh my gawd! It's worse than we thought!
Sorry climate scientists but your word will no longer be taken at face value. Let's see the data, the data adjustments, and the computer code. Unfortunately for honest scientists in your discipline, the coven amongst you which has been driving the alarmism and manipulating the temperature and proxy data, the peer review process, and the IPCC review process have been exposed for the charlatans they are. Beyond that there appears to be a huge and widespread problem with confirmation bias in climate studies. It's now up to mainstream climate scientists to show that they are interested in truth where ever it leads rather than proving a preconceived political agenda.
ChiRaven
3.6 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2009
THIS is one of the problems with the Copenhagen agreement. World leaders made solemn commitments to produce a specific outcome,(less than a a two-degree temperature increase) but as this article plainly points out we don't really have all that positive a picture from the various models of just what that will take.

King Canute and his experience with the tides comes quickly to mind. There is a chance according to some models, I believe, that even if we halted ALL fossil fuel combustion at once it might not prevent a temperature rise larger than what those folks apparently committed to.
JDoddsGW
2 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2009
I think some climate scientists need to understand basic physics.
1. The Arrhenius GHE requires BOTH an energy photon AND a GHG to create GHE warming. Adding CO2 by itself DOES NOT DO IT. It just leaves more excess CO2 in the air.
2. On the Earth at the moment we have an excess of CO2/WV, AND ALL the energy photons get used up by the existing GHGs at any instant of time, leaving CO2 and water vapor as excess. It is impossible to get feedback warming or any additional warming from adding more GHGs or CO2 UNLESS you ALSO add the energy photon. At any instant of time all the nergy photons are occupied by the GHGs. There is NO MORE ENERGY available.
If you add energy for every GHG/CO2 you are violating the LAW of Conservation of Energy.
Since solar insolation is essentially constant since the 1960s where does the energy come from???

My answer is gravity- see Excess CO2 Scenario at www.scribd.com/do...Scenario
Going
2.8 / 5 (10) Dec 20, 2009
Not all climate changes are the same. A change caused by external forcing , like a change to the suns output or the Milankovitch Cycles of the Earths orbit do produce a warming before CO2 emissions rise. However a change in CO2 alone will push up global temperatures. Not all warming events are the same and its wrong to lump them together.
fixer
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 20, 2009
For the life of me I can't see who profits from global warming.
I can think of several businesses who profit from claiming it to be false.
Government,
Real estate,
Water authorities,
Tourism,
The list goes on.
To find the truth on any subject, observe the direction the money flows!
John_balls
Dec 20, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otto1923
3.2 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2009
For the life of me I can't see who profits from global warming
Think of the billions in research money. Think of the new investment loans, the new startup companies, the resulting flood of new taxes and the new govt agencies formed to oversee them. New materials to exploit because the old ones are becoming scarce. Think of all the possibilities presented with these new technologies: nanotech, new composites, alternative energy. They will enable the colonization of the inner system. The species will profit from the global warming campaign whether it's based on reality or not. And they will be equally as useful if we are entering a new interglacial. Humanity is a crisis-driven species. Only way to get the job done.
dachpyarvile
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 20, 2009
For the record, we are not adding excess CO2 to the atmosphere. If anything we are at most putting back what already was there.
Parsec
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2009
fixer - you can't see who benefits from the status quo? Are you nuts? The fossil fuels industry not to mention all of the axillary parts of the global economy that serve it make hundreds of billions dollars every year. You have heard about gasoline and oil tankers and refinery's and all the rest right?

All those profits will be reduced or eliminated (in the best case) from changes to the status quo. Politicians also stand to lose big by the loss of industry support for them by changing things from the way they work today.

I do agree that to find the truth, find where the money flows. In this case it is blindingly obvious to all but the truly blind, that the money is almost all on the side of maintaining business as usual for as long as possible.
dachpyarvile
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2009
A lot of oil money flows toward green technologies and research these days. Just saying... :)
wiserd
3 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2009
For the life of me I can't see who profits from global warming.


1. Countries competing with US Industrial capacity. Handmade items are worth less if they can be made industrially. Global warming politics give the rest of the world the chance to tax off of and profit from America.

2. Those, like Al Gore, who sell 'Carbon Credits.' (If Republicans are the 'party of big oil' then why do they support nuclear power and nuclear reprocessing far more strongly than Democrats?)

3. Those, like Enron, who sought to create and profit from a market that trades carbon credits.

4. Those who believe that consumption is immoral.

5. Those in climate studies. (funding increased dramatically along with the belief in global warming.)

6. Anticapitalists - Democrats have made Global Warming a wedge issue and climate scientists have direct ties to Moveon dot org.

7. Various industries; There was an effort to ban incandescent bulbs in one state supported by makers of fluorescents.
RJB26
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2009
follow the money to GE, al gore, rajendra pachauri. they have thier hands dipped into energy companies, carbon trading schemes and banks that will oversee them. thats quite a conflict of interest isnt it. the guy who is the head of the ipcc has positioned himself to make a ton of money off of global warming alarmism.

http://www.telegr...uri.html
zapme
Dec 21, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Parsec
4.3 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2009
We need to get smarter about the ways we generate and use energy simply because the damage we are doing to our environment, even leaving out the entire debate about climate change.

In addition, anyone who can create energy cheaper or more efficiently will be able to make a LOT of money selling the technology to those that can't. The Chinese will probably pursue these tecnologies for all these reasons in addition to the fact that their air is beoming unbreathable, and their increasing scarce water is becoming undrinkable. If the US doesn't get cracking, we will be buying the technology from them.
RJB26
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2009
http://www.digita...e/251232

yes smart guy al gore sells carbon credits and he buys them from himself. you are a little parrot regurgitating the talking points of discredited people. obviously technology is the answer to every problem mankind has and entrepeneurs will endeavor to create those technologies. guess how that happens people use thier own capital to invest in research and development or they take thier ideas to investors looking to put thier capital to work. everything the global warming alarmists are trying to enact would hinder that process and damage the economy at large. all you have to do is look at at communists and anti capitalists in copenhagen demanding social justice reparations from the US and other industrialized nations. its a farce. most of this settled "science" is based on data from GHCN which most of these frauds base thier findings from. weve seen manipulated data from CRU,NASA GISS, and NOAA's "homogenization techniques".
RJB26
Dec 21, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
marjon
3 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2009
We need to get smarter about the ways we generate and use energy simply because the damage we are doing to our environment, even leaving out the entire debate about climate change.

In addition, anyone who can create energy cheaper or more efficiently will be able to make a LOT of money selling the technology to those that can't.


So why do you think no one is doing so? Could it be the cheapest source of energy is coal?
Ve1anarris
Dec 21, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2009
Yes, Parsec, Al Gore is part-owner of a company that deals in carbon credits, which he buys from said company to "offset" his huge carbon footprint. It is an established fact that Gore uses more electricity in a month than the average American household uses in a year.

And, again, it is not just a few emails at CRU that is the problem. There is more. Let me guess, you have not combed through the data yet? I have and I have not even finished doing so and I have found a number of damning items in both emails and documents, including their own experts panel, members of which went on record with statements regarding the fraudulent nature of the figures in the IPCC TAR. There is also the matter of their "consensus" which also consists of inflated and unscreened numbers of scientists that appeared in their official Statement.

The fraud runs deeper than the public has been led to believe and deeper than the mainstream media has been willing to admit. CNN now begins to see the light...
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2009
Here's something (dated September 19, 2009) from the Calgary Herald about Latif, one of the lead writers of the IPCC, making an "about-face" in the subject of global warming and switching sides because of this decade's cooling trend.

http://www.calgar...ory.html
3432682
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2009
What damage has AGW done? None. How much has the temp increased? Little. Temp is now declining, and that should continue for 20 years, humiliating socialists forever.

Velanarris
Dec 21, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VeIanarris
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2009
Sorry guys, I was wroing about AGW al along, guess I was taken in by those oil rich arabs!
Next time I'll believe in what scientists tell me instead of the conspiracy theorists.
Once again, sorry for not believing the science.
Velanarris
Dec 21, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PinkElephant
3.2 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2009
What's really comical (or tragic), is that NONE of the above comments have ANYTHING to do with the subject or content of the article! Enough to make one laugh out loud (or weep quietly in despair...)

Really guys, can we get away from Al Gore bashing for just a few seconds, and refocus our ADD-riddled minds on the matter at hand? Or is this too much to ask?
RJB26
Dec 21, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PinkElephant
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2009
we have now had a chance to see what climate models are worth.


What on the ever-warming Earth do climate models have to do with the article, RJB26? (And are you absolutely sure it's ritalin that you're missing?)
RJB26
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2009
"Coauthor Christina Ravelo, professor of ocean sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said the study indicates that the sensitivity of Earth's temperature to increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is greater than has been expected on the basis of climate models that only include rapid responses."

in typical alarmist fashion the article says its even worse than the climate models predict. look alive pink. i might be missing something else, what do you got?
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2009
From the above article:
"Since there is no indication that the future will behave differently than the past, we should expect a couple of degrees of continued warming even if we held carbon dioxide concentrations at the current level," said lead author Mark Pagani, an associate professor of geology and geophysics at Yale University.


Actually, the ARGOS data seem to show that the global oceans have not warmed at all. In fact, there has even been a slight decline. And this decline is in spite of rising CO2 levels.

Given that the oceans are supposed to account for 80% to 90% of global warming, and the oceans have not warmed as the models predicted or expected, can we really say that we still can expect warming of similar degree, based upon a model?

Only time will tell but there has been a lot of fraudulent data put up around to contend with.
PinkElephant
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2009
...in typical alarmist fashion the article says its even worse than the climate models predict.


Yeah. In "typical alarmist fashion", the article says the models appear to oversimplify the situation (isn't that one of the favorite "skeptic" arguments?) -- and through oversimplification, miss out on some important factors that must have played a role in past climate, but are not accounted for in present models.

The article (and the research) had nothing to do with any modeling, and everything to do with hard empirical science. But I guess that's too "alarmist" and "typical" for your tastes. You'd much rather have your daily steaming pile of BS from a favorite political rant blog...
PinkElephant
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2009
Actually, the ARGOS data seem to show that the global oceans have not warmed at all. In fact, there has even been a slight decline. And this decline is in spite of rising CO2 levels.


Funny, just today I saw this article on physorg:

http://www.physor...986.html

Incidentally, if "global oceans have not warmed at all", how dost thou explain the rise in sea levels, and the record-low summer arctic ice coverage?
RJB26
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2009
hmmm some good ol paleoclimate proxy data from six locations. where have i heard something like that before. reminds thou of some cherry picked tree rings dost it not. and for the record the article doesnt say that climate models oversimplify "the situation", it says :

"the study indicates that the sensitivity of Earth's temperature to increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is GREATER than has been expected on the basis of climate models"

so like i said before- in typical alarmist fashion the article says its even worse than climate models predict.
PinkElephant
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2009
@RJB25,

You ought to read a level-headed take on the "climategate":

http://www.pewcli...7-09.pdf

Then maybe you'd finally at least know a little of what you're talking about with respect to "cherry picked tree rings".

hmmm some good ol paleoclimate proxy data from six locations


It's not paleoclimate, genius; it's contemporary temperature data. And that wasn't even addressed to you, so no wonder you once again have no idea what you're talking about...

so like i said before- in typical alarmist fashion the article says its even worse than climate models predict.


How should it say it, then? If it's worse than the models predict, should it say instead that it's better than the models predict? Should it say that, unbelievably, and contrary to RJB26's esteemed expectations, current climate models fail to take into account certain long-term feedback mechanisms? What should it say, oh wise one?
GrayMouser
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2009
Wow, I wonder if these posters are paid by the oil industry. I hope so, because I can 't imagine people being that ignorant on the subject of basic science.

Well, if the Chairman of the IPCC can accept money for Big Oil why can't everyone else?
http://www.telegr...uri.html
RJB26
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2009
heres a level headed one for you, a laymans version should be quite easy for you to understand:

http://wattsupwit...-laymen/

and a couple more:

http://wattsupwit...-go-bad/
http://climateaud...e-trick/

"The researchers used sediment cores drilled from the seafloor at six different locations around the world to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels over the PAST five MILLION years"

not paleo but contemporary huh. "i do not think that word means what you think it means" to quote the "esteemed" philosher inigo montoya. your really not very bright are you. did you even read the article. as the case for agw unravels you see more and more articles like this. in my "esteemed" estimation i would not conflate inadequate climate models with PALEOclimate data in the first place. as we have seen your heroes at CRU bemoan the fact they just couldnt quite get the two to match.
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2009
Actually, the ARGOS data seem to show that the global oceans have not warmed at all. In fact, there has even been a slight decline. And this decline is in spite of rising CO2 levels.


Funny, just today I saw this article on physorg:

http://www.physor...986.html

Incidentally, if "global oceans have not warmed at all", how dost thou explain the rise in sea levels, and the record-low summer arctic ice coverage?


I just quoted them. Ask them. It is inexplicable even by the crew of environmental scientists managing the ARGOS data. No one really knows why that is. Well, at least the honest scientists admit that they do not know. :)

Still does not change the fact that the ARGOS data shows no warming of the ocean and even a slight decline in global ocean temperatures. Take it up with them.

By the way, lakes are not global oceans. You really need to read your information better. :)
MikeyK
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2009

It is inexplicable even by the crew of environmental scientists managing the ARGOS data.
Still does not change the fact that the ARGOS data shows no warming of the ocean and even a slight decline in global ocean temperatures.

Don't forget that the mean ocean depth is 3.7km and ARGO measures temperature and salinity to 2.0km. That leaves nearly half the ocean unmeasured at present so any of those scientists will point you in the direction. They may also point out that there is very little coverage in the Arctic or Southern Ocean (Ice tens to get in the way!). The the last three years have seen record Arctic ice melt so much as icecubes cool down a drink...
As in another post I will ask "where is your data?" Current data will show an oceanic temperature rise, or are you basing your evidence on a radio show in March 2008 for your science? As mentioned before the strong La Nina resulted in oceanic cooling in 2007-2008.
MikeyK_PaidAdvocate
Dec 22, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2009
@RJB26

heres a level headed one for you, a laymans version should be quite easy for you to understand


That's not level-headed; that's a blogger's regurgitation of over-generalized and misinterpreted statements made by other bloggers. You haven't yet looked at the *actual* basis for this propaganda. Nor, by the sound of it, do you have any desire to. How do you spell, "brainwashed"?

"The researchers used sediment cores drilled from the seafloor at six different locations around the world to reconstruct carbon dioxide levels over the PAST five MILLION years"


I was referring to http://www.physor...986.html

What the hell were *you* talking about???
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2009
@dachpyarvile,

I tried to find some info on ARGO ocean temps, without much success. All I came up with so far, was a spring 2008 news story about ocean temperatures plateauing for some time -- same story said that such temporary plateaus were not unexpected, and routinely showed up in climate simulations that nonetheless indicated long-term warming trends.

Here's a news release of slightly more recent vintage, that you might find interesting:

http://www.noaane...ats.html
dachpyarvile
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2009
I most certainly found it interesting. Are you sure you want to stay with that source of information, though? Are you sure you understand what is mentioned there?

Here is one example for starters.
Arctic sea ice covered an average of 3.4 million square miles during July. This is 12.7 percent below the 1979-2000 average extent and the third lowest July sea ice extent on record, behind 2007 and 2006. Antarctic sea ice extent in July was 1.5 percent above the 1979-2000 average. July Arctic sea ice extent has decreased by 6.1 percent per decade since 1979, while July Antarctic sea ice extent has increased by 0.8 percent per decade over the same period.


Antarctic ice has increased. July 2009 was the THIRD warmest out of 2006, 2007 and 2009. Do you not see the overall decline in that summary of the data?

Here is another one:
El Niño persisted across the equatorial Pacific Ocean during July 2009. ...

Well, that explains heating for July 2009.

Got anything better?
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2009
Are you sure you want to stay with that source of information, though?


I generally tend to trust NOAA's data, yes.

Antarctic ice has increased.


Yes, by a whopping 0.8% per decade. In the meantime, Arctic ice dropped by 6.1% per decade. Do you need help calculating net effect?

July 2009 was the THIRD warmest out of 2006, 2007 and 2009.


From the TITLE of the release:

"Warmest Global Ocean Surface Temperatures on Record for July"

We were addressing alleged lack of oceanic heating, were we not?

And I really don't know what orifice you pulled that "third warmest" thing from.

Well, that explains heating for July 2009.


Partially; this year's El Nino was comparatively weak. Ironically, it also explains the record heating back in 1998 -- a year when we had a monster El Nino -- and also the year (surprisingly...not) picked as the baseline by those proclaiming "cooling".
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2009
Ocean surface temperature is not the same thing as global ocean temperatures. Ocean surface temperatures actually are taken about a few centimeters to several meters above the surface of the water, depending upon equipment and location.

The ARGO network, on the other hand, actually measures water temperatures by rising, sinking and sampling along the way. We already know that land temperatures have risen and we know that air temperatures above the oceans have warmed somewhat. But, the oceans themselves have not. So says the ARGO data.

As to the "third warmest" "thing", I do not see it there now. Wonder why...

Oh well, I like this text better:

The global land surface temperature for July 2009 was 0.92 degree F (0.51 degree C) above the 20th century average of 57.8 degrees F (14.3 degree C), and tied with 2003 as the ninth-warmest July on record.


NINTH-WARMEST. This makes it even cooler. Thanks for pointing that out. Either I missed that or something else happened.
VeIanarris
Dec 23, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phelankell
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2009
Hey Dachpy, good going. Just goes to show that creeping off topic, supplying no data and spreading a bit of disinformation always wins in any debate if you can get the last word in.
Always works for me!
"All science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided." K.Marx

Yes Mikey, it certainly does work for the AGW proponents.
Benier_Duster
Dec 23, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phelankell
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2009
Yes, by a whopping 0.8% per decade. In the meantime, Arctic ice dropped by 6.1% per decade. Do you need help calculating net effect?

The entire record is 3.5 decades deep. That isn't a large enough sample size to determine anything of relevance.
dachpyarvile
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2009
It also would appear that the crew involved with the ARGO data is working to rid themselves of the decline as did the CRU. Just saw that information posted today on the NASA website.

No offense to the climate scientists intended but I would very much like to see both the raw data and the source code used to smooth out the 2003 to 2008 ocean temperature decline. I already know how CRU did it with the post-1961 tree-ring data because I have looked over the leaked source code.
dachpyarvile
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2009
Here is the thing that gets me, though. Each kind of data shows a decline, no matter what it is. Each time the data has to be corrected for the decline to make it show warming rather than cooling or at least not warming. Why the declines in the first place? Both tree-ring and ocean temperature (not surface!) data show declines.

I think we seriously need to evaluate all of the data and determine why such declines show up at all. A lot more research and data measurement needs to be done than has been done. A lot of data will also need to be rechecked as well.

I write this as several inches of global warming are being dumped on my home....
GrayMouser
4 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2009
Not all climate changes are the same. A change caused by external forcing , like a change to the suns output or the Milankovitch Cycles of the Earths orbit do produce a warming before CO2 emissions rise. However a change in CO2 alone will push up global temperatures. Not all warming events are the same and its wrong to lump them together.

What is funny is that Arrhenius' greenhouse gas theory was dis-proven by his contemporaries AND as late as 1972 by Alfred Schack in his book Der industrielle W¨arme¨ubergang [The Industrial Heat Transfer] (Verlag
Stahleisen m.b.H., D¨usseldorf, 1. Auflage 1929, 8. Auflage 1983).
A recent paper on the history and physics for the less technical reader is in FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS by GERLICH & TSCHEUSCHNER in International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB)
http://ejournals....84X.html
Shootist
2 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2009
The past includes phoney data, fraud, shredded emails, destroyed hard drives, and counting tree rings. It will be fun to watch the hoaxsters sweating in front of federal grand juries. I hope the indictments and trials and prison come swiftly for these criminals.


Peer Reviewed Study: 'Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics' by Gerlich & Tscheuschner

A new peer reviewed paper has been published in the International Journal of Modern Physics. G. Gerlich, R. D. Tscheuschner:

http://arxiv.org/...61v3.pdf
Parsec
4.7 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2009
Given the thermal inertia of the entire ocean I would be astonished if even several degrees of global warming had raised the entire oceans temperature much if at all given the short time scales. This article is talking about the data showing that warming continued past the temporary effects after CO2 rises. The reason is currently unknown.
dachpyarvile
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2009
There is a whole lot that is unknown, which is why it is stupid to attempt legislation based upon a lot of unknowns. We need to be sure and with all the fraud involving data on the part of a number of climate institutions (not just the CRU, although they were the first to be exposed publicly) the work will need to be reexamined and do-overs are necessary before we can be reasonably sure about anything at all.
operator
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 27, 2009
these posts just seem to be trolled through by mostly mentally un-ballanced americans.
why the big divide in the general publics perception of climate change between the states and the rest of the world?
why is the most noise coming from the states? is there a correlation between energy consumption and level of science denial?
does the general level of public education in science reflect the acceptance of scientific findings? does the factor that ID is accepted in the education system have any net effect on understanding science?
given that 10 years ago we had 3 years reserves of wheat globally and now after the last 3 years of drought and floods in the major grain producing areas, we have about 3-4 months of global reserves left, is it really surprising that some people are really quite scared and in acute denial of physical reality? and others are still holding on destructively to the status que.
ArtflDgr
3 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2009
Modern Science(?): Everything leads to doom!!!!

Pick something, anything, and it leads to doom!

nihilism creates a culture where their only conclusions they can have for the future is negative.

so smart, yet so stupid...
Appraiser
3 / 5 (2) Dec 27, 2009
With regards to all points of view, I propose the analogy of a mythical high stakes poker game where you are playing on behalf of yourself and anticipated descendents. You have bet the pair of kings, expecting an easy win. But now the best players in the world have raised, putting you "all in" if you call.

Of course your inclination is to call. Your likely a winner, and even if you lose, nobody will know until after your lifetime. So what's the big deal?

But as you fumble your chips in contemplation of a decision, an uncomfortable thought occurs. "If I'm right here today, I have little to gain. But if I'm wrong here today, my great-grandchildren will occupy this chair of mine and look only at deuce/seven off suit from every deal, if indeed the game is still playable."

dachpyarvile
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2009
I propose something better than a stupid poker game. I say, make all the raw data available to the public instead of destroying it and replacing it with 'fudge factored' data. I say re-examine the evidence and see where it really lies. I say, stop altering data so as to hide declines in temperatures and isotope proxies. I say, stop hiding the true ice core data without interpolating other data in order to hide the declines seen there as well as the fact that temperatures were higher 5000 years ago than they are today. I say, discard the hockey stick and replace it with the real facts of the case. I say, discard station data that comes from locations suffering from heat-island effect and use only rural data. I say, make proper corrections for the new paints that have been used on the stations. I say, let's start doing real science and stop manipulating the data to support a political agenda.

That would be far better for all concerned so we can present the public with facts in truth.
trtf4006
1 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2009
Here's something (dated September 19, 2009) from the Calgary Herald about Latif, one of the lead writers of the IPCC, making an "about-face" in the subject of global warming and switching sides because of this decade's cooling trend.

http://www.calgar...ory.html


How very poignant!

"Uh, it's global warming...uh...wait...uh...it's global cooling...uh...damn!...uh...it's "climate change"...yeah...climate change... Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."

My whole life it's been this way; ICBM drills. DEET. Three Mile Island. The ozone hole. Global cooling. Global warming. Now global cooling again?

This is all very reminiscent of the story "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". "The Boy Who Cried Climate Change" is the newest means by which our tyrannical governments seek to further oppress what should be an otherwise free world of free thinkers.

After this blows over there will be a new scare tactic.
trtf4006
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2009
But as you fumble your chips in contemplation of a decision, an uncomfortable thought occurs. "If I'm right here today, I have little to gain. But if I'm wrong here today, my great-grandchildren will occupy this chair of mine and look only at deuce/seven off suit from every deal, if indeed the game is still playable."


A fine analogy indeed!

However this is true in both respects, my friend. Do we give our great-grandchildren a world which is devoid of freedoms and a global economy in ruins chasing the spectre of a now-less-than-credible claim of "climate change"? Do we give our great-grandchildren a robust and free society, possibly living on an earth which is vastly different than the one we see today?

All in all, I know that man is adaptable. From a solely pragmatic standpoint, it is a fool's errand to destroy ourselves in a vain attempt to address, not a perceived, but rather a *conceived* threat (moreover one which we admit we cannot ameliorate in any way).
trtf4006
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2009
What's really comical (or tragic), is that NONE of the above comments have ANYTHING to do with the subject or content of the article! Enough to make one laugh out loud (or weep quietly in despair...)

Really guys, can we get away from Al Gore bashing for just a few seconds, and refocus our ADD-riddled minds on the matter at hand? Or is this too much to ask?

No we can't, and yes it is. By asking such a question, you are asking us to ignore pertinent observed data.

I would submit that these comments reflect a re-focus on the true threat posed by "Climate Change": the very proliferation of the subject.

At this point, anyone with a truly scientific mind would approach the data with nothing more than the mere curiosity of finding any other mundane and supposed anomaly. Simply put, the entire MOVEMENT (since, in reality, that's what it is -- a political movement) categorically lacks credibility.

The authors of these posts are conferring over the most critical data recorded yet.
MikeyK
Dec 28, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
operator
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2009
there seems to be a thread to some post here concerning the economy and how curtailing your consumeristic lifestyles harms that. have you taken such an aggresive stance against the trillions bailled out to the super rich banking fraternity, or the absurd amount spent on military campaigns? these sums dwarf anything climate science has, yes ignore the obvious big economic issues that govern your lifes and focus on the evil of climate science. this kind of thinking is very backward and ignores the reality of the situation. people going on about their precious economies while ignoring the fact that its built on an ever increasing consumtion of finate resources, and by defualt supporting the present economic situation your supporting the present status quo of exploitation of peoples and lands to keep you in your periliously fragile westernised lifestyles. is this what scares you so much? that at some point you will not be able to exploit other peoples and their lands
Phelankell
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 28, 2009
have you taken such an aggresive stance against the trillions bailled out to the super rich banking fraternity, or the absurd amount spent on military campaigns?

Why yes, yes I have. Just because someone disagrees with you on one topic does not mean they are diametrically opposed to all of your viewpoints. Even the UN has ranked Global Climate Change as being less significant than a host of other more pressing issues, the majority of which are economic in nature.
MikeyK
Dec 29, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benier_Duster
3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2010
You obviously haven't. Your opposition to absolutely anything to do with climate research shows an extremist agenda which has little or anything to do with science.
Phelankell
3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2010
You obviously haven't.
Evidence?
Your opposition to absolutely anything to do with climate research
That's not accurate. My opposition is to portraying assumptions as fact within any science.
an extremist agenda which has little or anything to do with science.

To be skeptical of unproven truths is the most scientific endeavor one can engage themself in.

I'm not the one who's downranking people for saying: "I say, let's start doing real science and stop manipulating the data to support a political agenda."