Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?

Jan 19, 2010
Earth

(PhysOrg.com) -- Planet Earth has warmed much less than expected during the industrial era based on current best estimates of Earth's "climate sensitivity" -- the amount of global temperature increase expected in response to a given rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2). In a study to be published in the Journal of Climate, a publication of the American Meteorological Society, Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Laboratory, and colleagues examine the reasons for this discrepancy.

According to current best estimates of sensitivity, the amount of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases added to ’s atmosphere since humanity began burning fossil fuels on a significant scale during the industrial period would be expected to result in a mean rise of 3.8°F—well more than the 1.4°F increase that has been observed for this time span. Schwartz’s analysis attributes the reasons for this discrepancy to a possible mix of two major factors: 1) Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than currently assumed and/or 2) reflection of sunlight by haze particles in the atmosphere may be offsetting some of the expected warming.

“Because of present uncertainties in climate sensitivity and the enhanced reflectivity of haze particles,” said Schwartz, “it is impossible to accurately assign weights to the relative contributions of these two factors. This has major implications for understanding of Earth’s climate and how the world will meet its future energy needs.”

A third possible reason for the lower-than-expected increase of Earth’s temperature over the industrial period is the slow response of temperature to the warming influence of heat-trapping gases. “This is much like the lag time you experience when heating a pot of water on a stove,” said Schwartz. Based on calculations using measurements of the increase in ocean heat content over the past fifty years, however, this present study found the role of so-called thermal lag to be minor.

A key question facing policymakers is how much additional CO2 and other heat-trapping gases can be introduced into the atmosphere, beyond what is already present, without committing the planet to a dangerous level of human interference with the climate system. Many scientists and policymakers consider the threshold for such dangerous interference to be an increase in global temperature of 3.6°F above the preindustrial level, although no single threshold would encompass all effects.

The paper describes three scenarios: If Earth’s climate sensitivity is at the low end of current estimates as given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then the total maximum future emissions of heat-trapping gases so as not to exceed the 3.6° threshold would correspond to about 35 years of present annual emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel combustion. A climate sensitivity at the present best estimate would mean that no more heat-trapping gases can be added to the atmosphere without committing the planet to exceeding the threshold. And if the sensitivity is at the high end of current estimates, present atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases are such that the planet is already committed to warming that substantially exceeds the 3.6° threshold.

The authors emphasize the need to quantify the influences of haze particles to narrow the uncertainty in Earth’s climate sensitivity. This is much more difficult than quantifying the influences of the heat-trapping gases. Coauthor Robert Charlson of the University of Washington likens the focus on the heat trapping gases to “looking for the lost key under the lamppost.”

Schwartz observes that formulating energy policy with the present uncertainty in climate sensitivity is like navigating a large ship in perilous waters without charts. “We know we have to change the course of this ship, and we know the direction of the change, but we don't know how much we need to change the course or how soon we have to do it.”

Schwartz and Charlson coauthored the paper with Ralph Kahn, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland; John Ogren, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Colorado; and Henning Rodhe, Stockholm University.

The early online release of the paper is available at AMS’s journals online site.

Explore further: The mysteries of Antarctic sea ice

Related Stories

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 ...

Warming world in range of dangerous consequences

Sep 17, 2008

The earth will warm about 2.4° C (4.3° F) above pre-industrial levels even under extremely conservative greenhouse-gas emission scenarios and under the assumption that efforts to clean up particulate pollution ...

Where's The Heat? Think 'Deep Blue'

Jul 25, 2005

"It's a match!" For detectives in a crime story, identical fingerprints or cloth fibers might solve the case. For scientists, it could be something equally dramatic. It might be real-life observations that match the simulations ...

Water vapor confirmed as major player in climate change

Nov 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 ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 97

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

M_N
3.6 / 5 (31) Jan 19, 2010
It hasn't warmed as much as expected, because the "climate sensitivity" has been massively over-estimated by woefully inadequate computer models. The reality is that human-released "greenhouse gases" have a tiny impact on climate.

It's time to address REAL environmental problems rather than trying to fix this non-issue.
droom
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2010
While it didnt rise as expected, and for the reasons the previous poster listed, we cannot overlook that we are STILL in a warming trend. The earth goes through these cycles over tens of thousands of years, and we are in the temperature upswing. There are still many cities at or near sea-level that have to be prepared. Its not as drastic or dramatic as some AGW fanatics say, but its still a reality. Yes, its been privatized and exploited for monetary gain, but everything is, even aid to disaster areas. Does that mean we should ignore its existence and deny its reality in our mind? What it does mean is that we need to wise up as a society to the realities and falsities of both sides. There is a middle ground, and its actually where the truth lies anyways.

In agreement with M N, we need to address the REAL environmental problems, rather than getting our panties in a bunch over "carbon footprints".
Objectivist
3.6 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2010
It's time to address REAL environmental problems rather than trying to fix this non-issue.
You mean something like this?
http://boingboing...ast.html
x646d63
3 / 5 (21) Jan 19, 2010
AGW is a movement propagated by big business and government to separate money from your pocket. It grew from the *real* environmental movement in the 60s and 70s that was concerned about real pollution: toxic chemicals dumped into the environment, and destruction of ecosystems.

The real environmental movement would have negatively impacted big business and government so it was hijacked and turned into something fake (AGW) to either a) steal money from the people if it's successful, or b) make "environmentalists" look like idiots if it isn't successful.
freethinking
3.1 / 5 (30) Jan 19, 2010
The reason it didn't raise as much as expected is that after climategate was disclosed, a lot of the AGW proponents shut themselves up, resulting in a lot less hot air being generated.
stealthc
2.4 / 5 (23) Jan 19, 2010
These people are idiots. We need more co2. 1500 ppm would be just about right, this way we emerge out of the current ice age early, and restore co2 levels to a threshold that is closer to how things were when life on this planet was much more prolific. Co2 would ramp up crop productivity.

AGW is a scam, we all know it and we will tell the world that we almost got bamboozled by the rothschild's, and that we need to focus on restoring our sovereignty and fixing ourselves before we do anything further with the rest of the world. Every country should shut it's borders, and purge the elitists who've rigged our systems to make them filthy rich at our expense.

Can you all not see that "fascism lite" is now the "in" style.
PeterROwen
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2010
Do not forget that any overestimate will be due to errors in estimation parameters; here in particular, that due to the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When the proponents of the current anthropocentric global warming alarm get it right we'll be well into the cooling portion of the 400 year cycle; we are close to the end of the warming portion now.
flaredone
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2010
Temperature of ocean is still raising - and water in oceans has a 3.000x higher thermal capacity, then the atmosphere.

http://www.scienc...0303.htm

The trick is, warmer ocean doesn't mean warmer atmosphere, just drier atmosphere - especially when global atmospheric circulation switches from horizontal to vertical one.
Shootist
3 / 5 (22) Jan 19, 2010
The reason temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted is because much of the "warming" data was sorted, spindled, "massaged" and apparently (glacier melt rates) falsified, er, I mean, created out of thin air.

When again there are dairy farms in Greenland and vineyards in Scotland; until we return to those halcyon days of yesteryear give AGW a rest. It no longer passes as truth.
StarDust21
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 19, 2010
AGW is a movement propagated by big business and government to separate money from your pocket. It grew from the *real* environmental movement in the 60s and 70s that was concerned about real pollution: toxic chemicals dumped into the environment, and destruction of ecosystems.

The real environmental movement would have negatively impacted big business and government so it was hijacked and turned into something fake (AGW) to either a) steal money from the people if it's successful, or b) make "environmentalists" look like idiots if it isn't successful.

Explain me please how this would take separate money from our pockets plz
loreak
2.3 / 5 (20) Jan 19, 2010
I'll stick with the hundreds of PHD scientists and climatologists who have studied this for decades and devoted their lives to it. You guys stick with random comments on message boards to back your side up. The argument that higher co2 is good for us is rather humorous, what they forget is that we have trillions of dollars in infrastructure that are specifically installed geographically based on CURRENT weather patterns. It's not easy growing crops in deserts....

Global Warming will be a huge boon for Canada and Russia, they could use it, but the US will only be hurt financially.
stealthc
2.9 / 5 (18) Jan 20, 2010
loreak, you aren't seeing the bigger picture. Making things cost more because the bottom line is everyone will pay for cap and trade, means that millions more people will starve to death because they cannot afford food. We the people, are not stupid nor gullible enough to take one for you the elite, if society must downsize, perhaps our corrupt leaders can join some of those who must perish for their survival.
These hundreds of scientists took the IPCC's stance as empirical fact and now that the IPCC's findings have been challenged and proven wrong; perhaps your hundreds of PHD scientists have formed a new opinion on the subject. Please observe NASA GISS data and how if you disregard urban stations, global warming in fact minimal if anything using this data -- the warming in fact is produced by urban data and growing cities (which in themselves are hotter than suburban areas).
You people are fools, I hope you get to be one of the millions who'll starve because of this lunacy.
TegiriNenashi
4.2 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2010
They talk a lot about climate sensitivity but rarely mention that unknown parameters in the feedback loop make it educated guess, at best. As for climate models, as somebody eloquently put it, depending on how you play with the free parameters you can produce any prediction ranging from entire oceans freezing to boiling. In fact, there are so many unknown parameters (atmospheric physics textbooks list about 500 processes!) that one can produce any temperature curve, including silhouette of Taj Mahal.
vantomic
3.6 / 5 (16) Jan 20, 2010
I'll stick with the hundreds of PHD scientists and climatologists who have studied this for decades and devoted their lives to it.


The problem is since PHD production is good business you can get a PHD easy these days. Never trust anyone because of a degree. Merit only lies in what you do and if they have so many dissenters they are missing something in their proof.
Foolish1
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2010
Its undisputed global Co2 has risen by about 1/3 since the start of industry. The consequences of this taken in isolation are accuratly knowable with back of the envelope computations first completed **hundreds** of years ago.

This is all without resort to anything resembling sophisticated computer models.

Not understanding offsets preventing the realization of global warming based on the simple model is the real challenge.

Until this is better understood we remain ignorant of future outcomes and future consequences of our activities. Ignorance is not something that should be a basis for global policy. Given the stakes and state of current knowledge erroring on the side of caution seems perfectly reasonable.
Rynox77
3.6 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2010
Is it possible the earth's atmosphere has defense mechanisms... ways of dealing with co2?
deatopmg
3.1 / 5 (17) Jan 20, 2010
What is clearly missing in the news release and most of the postings is: If the theory/model(s) don't fit the data (all the data not the cherry-picked data) then either there isn't enough data or, as in this case, the theory is simply wrong.
Of these 100's of PhD "climate" scientists who support AGW, how many are supported by the research into AGW? Their "support" is no more believable than opposing views published by the energy industries. That leaves us Deniers (AKA in the past as Heretics) in the middle who have been following this for 10's of years and read a good portion of the literature. We have seen AGW shift from a serious search for the SCIENTIFIC truth to a religious movement taken over by the same type people who have brought us Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot - you fill in the rest.
Bottom line; now AGW is only about power and money and control - it is no longer about the the TRUTH because because the truth is; there is scant evidence that the Earth has warmed from AG CO2.
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (19) Jan 20, 2010
Is it possible the earth's atmosphere has defense mechanisms... ways of dealing with co2?


Yes, the oceans. And a recent study showed that the capacity of the oceans to absorb CO2 has not changed in the last 160 years, showing that it has the capacity to absorb even more CO2 if necessary.

The authors of this article are looking for reasons why their models failed to predict the rise in temperature accurately. Well, they need to consider the posibility that it isn't CO2 that is driving climate change, but the Sun, which is a well-established fact.
iknow
3.6 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2010
I'll stick with the hundreds of PHD scientists and climatologists who have studied this for decades and devoted their lives to it. **.


Errm.. the same ones that falsified the climate data last decade and sent the emails to each other slapping each other's backs for being so good at making up numbers .. or the other ones?
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (19) Jan 20, 2010
Yes, the ones who were encouraged to gather the names without checking into the credentials of the signers or screening of names.

They were told, in essence, "Don't screen the people in the list, just get the names and list them. People are not going to check to see how many Ph.D.s are in the list. Don't bother asking about whether they have published legitimate science, just get the names."

Yes, that is indeed a true story. It is among the thousands of bits of information now colloquially known as Climategate.

Another bit of information was stated in the discussion on the part of some expressing disappointment at not being able to account for the relative lack of warming overall predicted in light of observations and satellite data, and as to where all the energy was going.

In all seriousness, we need to go back and try to account for why the models are inaccurate and try to rework them to account for factors unaccounted for in the equations.
alq131
4.3 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2010
I never hear this mentioned in terms of reducing greenhouse gasses: In China, there are perpetual fires in coal mines that have been burning for years. These fires release the same amount of emissions as all of the cars in the US per year. If we cant figure out how to extinguish mine fires, how can we even think about CO2 sequestration or more technically complex "solutions".
stealthc
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2010
strange how there are actually people on this site that argue FOR AGW. Every respectable scientist would know about climategate already. Anyone stupid enough to bring the subject up is a COINTEL operative.
superhuman
4.3 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2010
It's really refreshing to see a climate publication which is upfront about the failures of climate models and the multitude of uncertainties which have to be addressed before anything reliable can be said about the future climate.
3432682
2.9 / 5 (15) Jan 20, 2010
The predictions of the IPCC model have not been correct. The oceans are cooling slightly. The increase in CO2 is very beneficial for agriculture and nature. The very slight warming (about 1 degree F) is a good thing, much better for everything than cold/cooler.

We need to pay much more attention to the solar cycles, and the 60-year oceanic cycles.

We need new climate models. We should keep the UN out of it, they have proven political and deceptive. We can take our sweet time. There is no emergency. We need a true scientific process, not one contaminated by highly charged political agendas.
jscroft
Jan 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phelankell
2 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2010
All together now: BECAUSE THE THEORY IS WRONG, YOU MORONS!

And the new question is: Now what's the reality of the situation?
jscroft
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2010
Fair question.

Inasmuch as there IS a "situation," I would say that the reality of it is that the moronic theory of AGW/ACC/anthropogenic-whatever is WRONG.

And I mean DEAD wrong:

- The CO2-temperature correlation is backwards. Temps drive CO2, not the reverse.

- The whole notion of "greenhouse gases" is shown to be absurd, because the greenhouse MECHANISM has been debunked... even as it applies to GREENHOUSES!!!

- Climategate, for f**k's sake.

I would submit that I will acquire an acute interest in advancing the theory of climate just as soon as everybody gets their stinkin' hands out of my pockets.
Phelankell
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2010
Exactly. Starting the inquiry into how our climate works, as AGW has done, was actually a good thing, now let us get back to science to find out what the truth of the matter is.
Parsec
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2010
I read the article and it totally agrees with my understanding of the situation. Then I read the comments and I realize that most of them could be cloned and reused without modification for any discussion on climate change.

To be clear, the current climate models based on inputs from our current understanding of how the climate works, are incorrect. This article confirms what every climate change scientist I have every heard on the subject has been saying.

This is not because of fraud, or incompetence. This is the current state of every field of science.

The energy in the field right now is to making both the models and the current understanding more accurate, closer to the truth. That is also the nature of every field of science. What we understand well, we want to question and confirm. What we do not understand well, we want to investigate and figure out why.

Conferring only evil motives to this process, stops building knowledge. Is that anyone's wish? Really?
Parsec
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2010
In addition, I have never seen any climate model generated by the UN, or any other politician or political organization. Nor have I seen them offer any data collection or publication of results from the field.

Complaining about the data because of the way some politician or politically oriented organization presented it is like complaining to the telephone company because your girlfriend jilted you over the phone.

I have nothing to gain from any part of the AGW debate, plus or minus. I have looked at mountains of data, some that support AGW and some that do not (its all out there if you look for it).

Based on what I have read and seen, I am personally quite concerned. The outlandish catastrophe scenarios of the AGW doom and gloomers are clearly out to lunch, but the milder scenarios have the potential to create huge problems for the society my kids and their kids will be growing up in.
otto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2010
For the some of you who havent seen this (like me) otto presents 'global cooling as proof of global warming':
http://www.foxnew...entists/
-either way, we need the tech so shut up-
marjon
2 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2010
but the milder scenarios have the potential to create huge problems for the society my kids and their kids will be growing up in.

What do you want world governments to do about 'it'?
What scenario do you want 'to do something about'?
The policy I propose is the one most creatures alive today have adopted, adapt...or die.
Treetops
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2010
this paper does not negate the warming trend at all. It just says that further research on some details of the models need to be researched more. We came a long way and the models are very complete. All those naysayers here have no clue about the level of physics contained in the simulations and each submodel is validated against real data. I wonder how many of these comments here come from the heavy polluter industry and other interest groups. To some patriots it is probably ok to sponsor the dear near eastern dictatorships with their fuel bill. Conservation of resources has benefits to every aspect without any loss of individual freedom. Thos with the head in the oil sands are just wrong and support pollution and, destroy the climate and endanger the health and economic well being of our kids!
Claudius
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2010
Exactly. Starting the inquiry into how our climate works, as AGW has done, was actually a good thing, now let us get back to science to find out what the truth of the matter is.


Actually, climate science had achieved a fairly good understanding of what drives climate change just before the AGW movement began. All that is needed is to continue where it was left off, before taking the big detour.
jonnyboy
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 21, 2010
For the some of you who havent seen this (like me) otto presents 'global cooling as proof of global warming':
http://www.foxnew...entists/
-either way, we need the tech so shut up-


For at least 3 years we have known that the IPCC would fall back to this position where they claim that any cooling of the planet is only "apparent" and not real cooling. The only new information here is that they have the testicles to claim that the cooling is going to last 30 years before the warming trend kicks back in and creates hell on earth. They are only after the money that they think they can get for the "third" world.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2010
this paper does not negate the warming trend at all. It just says that further research on some details of the models need to be researched more. We came a long way and the models are very complete. All those naysayers here have no clue about the level of physics contained in the simulations and each submodel is validated against real data. I wonder how many of these comments here come from the heavy polluter industry and other interest groups. To some patriots it is probably ok to sponsor the dear near eastern dictatorships with their fuel bill. Conservation of resources has benefits to every aspect without any loss of individual freedom. Thos with the head in the oil sands are just wrong and support pollution and, destroy the climate and endanger the health and economic well being of our kids!

Evidence suggests MORE warmth is better than LESS warmth.
Free, unsubsidized markets make better decisions than governments.
dachpyarvile
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 21, 2010
...The only new information here is that they have the testicles to claim that the cooling is going to last 30 years before the warming trend kicks back in and creates hell on earth....


In fairness, it is Dr. Latif of the IPCC who is pushing the view that the cooling trend will last 30 years. A great many of the other IPCC authors vehemently disagree with him. Some have even gone so far as to cast the same unsavory epithets at him as they do anyone who is skeptical of high degrees of mankind's involvement in hypothesized AGW scenarios.
Phelankell
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2010
I wonder how many of these comments here come from the heavy polluter industry and other interest groups.
That's an irrelevant statement. Rajendra Pachauri has received more money from big oil and big industry than any other independant scientist involved in the debate. The entire oil shill argument is utterly senseless and has been disproven in most applied cases.
To some patriots it is probably ok to sponsor the dear near eastern dictatorships with their fuel bill. Conservation of resources has benefits to every aspect without any loss of individual freedom. Thos with the head in the oil sands are just wrong and support pollution and, destroy the climate and endanger the health and economic well being of our kids!

This ending rant of yours is completely unrelated. No one wants to pay the Middle East for oil, or the Russians for gas, or the US for coal. No one wants to pollute. It's simple diversion from reality on your part.
otto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2010
To some patriots it is probably ok to sponsor the dear near eastern dictatorships
Bigger than loyalty to any one subsidiary nation-state
No one wants to pay the Middle East for oil, or the Russians for gas, or the US for coal.
World Govt requires that everyone be irrevokably invested in it and indebted to it. This artificial addiction to fossil fuels has proven essential to this end.
marjon
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2010
This artificial addiction to fossil fuels has proven essential to this end.

What artificial addiction?
It is the lowest cost solution to energy.
PheIankell
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2010
If anyone believes me about the oil shill I would be surprised! I am grateful to our Arab friends for their support.
back to topic though, I do remember they were saying back in 2005 hat there would be a cooling trend until 2015, due to -ve PDO and other cycles. The fact that ice caps are shrinking and thinning, lower troposphere temperatures are at record highs and the climate is going haywire, despite these cycles and an extended solar minimum, makes me think that any cooling we should have seen has been totally masked, and more by the effects of CO2
Phelankell
Jan 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
StillWind
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2010
Rising ocean temps w/cooling atmosphere is another nail in the coffin of AGW. In fact, rising ocean temps confirm that the heating is coming from inside the earth, and not the atmosphere.
jscroft
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2010
@Phelankell There ARE no "effects of CO2," at least none that have risen above the level of bare correlation.

On the other hand, variations in ocean temperatures SIGNIFICANTLY affect the ocean's capacity to absorb CO2, resulting in a continuous process of absorption/outgassing of CO2 that LAGS--not leads--ocean temperatures in a way that fits very nicely with observed data.

The notion of affecting climate by controlling atmospheric CO2 concentrations--whether deliberately or by accident--is as pure a case of the tail trying to wag the dog as any I've seen.
Phelankell
Jan 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RWilliscroft
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2010
This is just more smoke and mirrors. The paper STILL assumes the accuracy of the underlying models, which are now seriously in question. It also completely ignores the Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf D. Tscheuschner paper, "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" (see: http://arxiv.org/...7.1161v4

Furthermore, it completely sidesteps what appears to be the ACTUAL cause of climate variation: solar cycles.
PheIankell
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2010
I don't think solar cycles are the cause RW, we are just starting to come out of a prolonged solar minimum and global temperatures/ lower tropospheric temperatures and ocean temperatures continue to rise. Isn't it true that any link between solar activity and the climate vanished after 1970?
StillWind
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2010
I'm seriously wondering where you find any real data to show that the atmosphere has warmed over the last 8 years.
I'd also like to see any evidence that we are "coming out" of this prolonged solar minimum. A couple of sunspots here and there is not significant enough to show that things are going to start revving up any time soon.
While the new cycle may have started, things are still way below normal.
Phelankell
Jan 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VeIanarris
4.1 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2010
I'm seriously wondering where you find any real data to show that the atmosphere has warmed over the last 8 years.
....
While the new cycle may have started, things are still way below normal.

Good question, check out the link to UAH AMSU and go to channel 5, this is the lower tropospheric channel (around 14,000ft).http://discover.i...sutemps/]http://discover.i...sutemps/[/url]
If you want to see trends in lower troposphere (warming) and stratosphere (cooling) then go to this link: http://discover.i...sutemps/]http://discover.i...sutemps/[/url]
VeIanarris
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2010
I'd also like to see any evidence that we are "coming out" of this prolonged solar minimum. A couple of sunspots here and there is not significant enough to show that things are going to start revving up any time soon.
While the new cycle may have started, things are still way below normal.

Sunspot cycle 24 is showing all the signs of ramping up, the first M class flare for a while happened on Wednesday. If you look at the sunspot and flux charts you can see the recent increase: http://www.solarcycle24.com/
It is always possible that the sun may quieten down again but that scenario is becoming less and less likely.Last year there were 260 days without sunspots, this year so far only 2.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2010
stalker of mine Pheiankell
Stalkers and trolls need to be put down.
What artificial addiction?
It is the lowest cost solution to energy.
Dear Pudel;
Ist much like your addiction to funnelcakes and lard. Or ice cream... its nice to have but if it didnt exist we wouldnt miss it. Theres no reason, no historical precedent, for flying across the country to work or vacation. No need for lawn mowers or weed wackers, motorcycles, veyrons, garages, and the huge tankers and oil platforms and smelters they engender. The reason for our need is 1. because we are told we need them; 2. because life and society has been structured to make them essential; 3. they are defensive in nature, meaning that tanks and fighters are cheaper when the infrastructure exists to support them and consumption drops cost per unit; 4. inevitability- if the west didnt do all of this someone else would have. But the main reason is because a World Govt needs to have everyone invested in it and indebted to it.
MikeyK_PaidAdvocate
2 / 5 (12) Jan 22, 2010
This year is a whole 20 days old, and your reference source is a radio station. Please try again.

As for your tropospheric statement, where's the hotspot in the tropopause that a satellite detecting warming would have to find.

That's right, there isn't one. So either the yardstick is wrong or your measurement is wrong. Try again.
PheIankell
4 / 5 (11) Jan 22, 2010
Dear oh dear...if you want to know what the sun has been doing in terms of sunspots/ flares etc then talk to these radio guys. This site is by far the best at collating the information and presenting it, saves having to go to the SOHO site etc. Spaceweather.com is another good site, all have the same information. Interesting comparison between the solar minimum of 1954 and the present one http://www.leif.o...rch/F107 at Minima 1954 and 2008.png. All the evidence shows that we are very very probably coming out of a solar minimum.
Basic AGW, troposphere temperatures rise, stratospheric temperatures fall, that's exactly what you see. Maybe you could provide some links to evidence to support your point of view or are you just to ingrained in the destruction mode.
Try constructive contributions...you might enjoy it.
otto1923
2 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2010
Otto continues;
One more very important reason which is also related to defense and the distribution of power and control: petroleum is everywhere. It is very destabilizing. It was essential to consume all the easy-to-get-at petro and other such commodities to prevent some independent power base from arising by exploiting them.

All of this is world-scale planning. It took generations, centuries to conceive, initiate, manage and maintain. There is no obvious political structure that we know of which could have done all this, and yet it obviously was done. It convinces me that there exists Structure beyond what we know and are told, which is concerned with the orderly development of civilization and the survival of humankind. Good guys who must nevertheless do miserable things because these things are inevitable, and thus must not be allowed to happen by themselves.
MikeyK_PaidAdvocate
Jan 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MikeyK_PaidAdvocate
Jan 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DachpyarviIe
Jan 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
marjon
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2010
Otto continues;
One more very important reason which is also related to defense and the distribution of power and control: petroleum is everywhere. It is very destabilizing. It was essential to consume all the easy-to-get-at petro and other such commodities to prevent some independent power base from arising by exploiting them.

All of this is world-scale planning. It took generations, centuries to conceive, initiate, manage and maintain. There is no obvious political structure that we know of which could have done all this, and yet it obviously was done. It convinces me that there exists Structure beyond what we know and are told, which is concerned with the orderly development of civilization and the survival of humankind. Good guys who must nevertheless do miserable things because these things are inevitable, and thus must not be allowed to happen by themselves.

Another 'we, the 'educated', know what's best for everyone' reply.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2010
In Reality, They absolutely do. You just don't know who They really are and what They need to decide, which is best for everybody. But because, like most of the people, you want what YOU want and the hell with everyone else, is why They exist and why They operate without public scrutiny.

Who decides how and when to fight wars, to end viral religions (and to create them), to release and develop beneficial technologies and to sequester dangerous ones, to deal with viral cultures which overpopulate and ruinate, to deal with megathreats in the best possible way? They do. Someone has to, no one we are aware of can, and yet these these things are being done and have been for centuries. Their methods and reasons are written into the bible for gods sake. Hey thanks for asking.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2010
Look at the above thread. We all think this is how these issues are resolved in the real world by the people we elect to act in our best interests. But to leave the future of humanity to methods of resolution such as this would be insanity. And it would simply not work; the fact that we are still here is further evidence that we have Shepherds. People used to call it Providence but reason has taught us to look beyond Good and Evil; and This is what we find.
Shootist
1.5 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2010
AGW is a movement propagated by big business and government to separate money from your pocket. It grew from the *real* environmental movement in the 60s and 70s that was concerned about real pollution: toxic chemicals dumped into the environment, and destruction of ecosystems.

The real environmental movement would have negatively impacted big business and government so it was hijacked and turned into something fake (AGW) to either a) steal money from the people if it's successful, or b) make "environmentalists" look like idiots if it isn't successful.

Explain me please how this would take separate money from our pockets plz


You are asking a serious question? How does government, in cahoots with the likes of General Electric, take your money?

Heard of Cap and Trade? They take money from you, GE gets rich, the government gets tax revenue, and the turd world gets to burn coal.

BTW, Enron was the first to create the so-called "Carbon Credits". Enron. 'nuff said.
bluehigh
2 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2010
With maintenance of the CO2 cycle our capacity to use combustion for energy may have a manageable or insignificant impact.

The worlds rainforests could be protected by the UN and countires that are destroying major carbon sinks could be stripped of sovereignty.
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2010
Heard of Cap and Trade? They take money from you, GE gets rich, the government gets tax revenue, and the turd world gets to burn coal.


It worked well enough against acid rain:

http://www.edf.or...gID=1085

I suppose at the time there also were plenty of people just like you, bemoaning the government's "usurpations".

BTW, the "turd world" gets to utilize sweatshops, among many of its other best practices. Great, let's bring those other wonderful economic gems over here, too: we're missing out, it seems.

But not to worry: another 25 years of Reaganomics, and we shall join the 'turd world' in full measure. You're quite right: we shouldn't stand in our economy's way to complete ruination. Let the self-destruction (a.k.a. "consumption") continue unabated.
gort
4 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2010
The earth has a counter balance right now to global warming called global cooling.
Global cooling from aerosols in the atmosphere, which increases cloud reflectiveness.
In fact it would seem that the pollution we make works both ways, co2 increasing temp and particle pollution decreasing temperatures. So the question is , what will happen when or if we clean up our emissions will it be better , or worst?
Google wiki global cooling
robbor
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2010
Seems we'll never come to a consensus regarding the cause of global warming. If I had a choice I'd rather breathe healthy air that is clean and sweet and if it had a positive impact on global warming, that would be icing on the cake.
lewando
1.8 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2010
The reason that the Earth hasn't warmed as expected is: climate models suck. Don't mean to offend climate modeling professionals--those who are true professionals would even agree that the models suck. I believe that talented climate modelers are working very hard at improving the state of their art and should be funded generously towards that end. Only when we have developed reliable, verifiable models, should we get excited about their projections.
Husky
2 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010
The full extend of co2 is masked in several ways. In industrialized countries we co-generate enormous amounts of aerosols and fine dustparticles along with the co2, this causes cloud seeding, cooling rain and clouds themselves block sunlight. This could account for the paradox that we see glaciers retrait in remote and uninhabitet places, co2 makes it to the north pole,but replenishing snow has already fallen as rain on lower lattitudes.
Nartoon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2010
Could someone please ask Al Gore for his comments on Climategate?
Husky
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2010
Allthough the failure of the global warming lobby to churn out convincing (untweaked) global climate models to justify all the scaremongering politics, i don't want to hop fully onto the bandwagon of gloating global coolists, voicing the sentiment of those who felt their consumer freedom/addiction was increalingly denied by left/green regulations. These people now feel confident to go about careless and fart as you please. Turning a blind eye to consequences of our own actions might come back to bite us(allthough later and in perhaps more regional disasters than the imminent global Doomsday we were pushed to believe by GW lobby). So I suggest we keep at least one eye open and do more research/ refine models etc.
Husky
3 / 5 (2) Jan 24, 2010
Currently I think the best bet for both caring for our environment while meeting energy demands / growing economy, would be to go nuclear, we could see/learn how this plays out in china as in the next 20 years they are agressively replacing hundreds of dirty coal plants with nukes, maybe there is such a thing as ecofriendly kapitalism after all.
dachpyarvile
1.4 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2010
Husky,

As to your post above this one regarding keeping an eye open and doing more research, I want to make clear that I agree with you on those points 100%.

Earth has not warmed as much as expected, as the article states. That means that the models were wrong. Now, it is time to update and time to re-evaluate the data and try to refine the models. It also is time to go over the data with a fine-toothed comb to make darn sure that all of the information that came and comes from the CRU and related institutions is not inaccurate.

In addition, we need adequate controls to be set up when the experiments are done. This is standard scientific practice and I am not sure why the same standard is not applied across the board in the case of climate science. It would be harder to be skeptical if adequate controls were set in place. :)
andromida
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2010
What is a 'Mean Global Temp' and just how is it calculated, how many samples were taken and over what period of time, at what locations and times of day? What would the margin of error on such an experiment be?...rather large I would suspect ..just from the shear number of variables.involved..if we looked more closely .at the statistics....we would probably not have any thing worthy to write about...???
MikeyK
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2010
I'm not going to bother showing links, the information is out there without having to look too hard (use Google). Suffice to say that millions of points of data are used each day, from land based stations, satellites, sea based stations and bouys etc etc.
I know it seems incredible what modern science can achieve today, it truly is, but just because you can't grasp the enormity of it, doesn't mean it doesn't work! For instance gravity is an incredible force, both incredibly weak and long ranging. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist though (unless you believe things are held to the ground by 'Angel glue' or the like ;-)
stealthc
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2010
Some of you people still just don't get it.
Read the draft copenhagen treaty and see how it mentions global tax and global government, and considering this data was cooked to support this agenda so the UN can appoint itself global dictatorship, how on earth can you say that there is no fraud involved? All of our systems just attempted to bamboozle us into extra tax and extra global government bloat. Their models are off because they went out of their way to eliminate peer review. They bullied publications and others in the scientific community into supporting their propaganda. They had the wealthy involved, such as the IMF owned by the rothschild's. The wealthiest people in the world. Are you stupid or what? You can't take notice that the wealthiest people in the world are involved with this whole fraud? These people deserve our distrust more than anything else because all of this stuff is too much of a co-incidence to ignore. I don't want anything to do with their sick facism
MikeyK
4 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2010
Some of you people still just don't get it.
.... and considering this data was cooked ... UN can appoint itself global dictatorship, ...fraud involved? All of our systems just attempted to bamboozle us into extra tax and extra global government bloat. ... eliminate peer review. They bullied... supporting their propaganda. Are you stupid or what? .... this whole fraud? ... anything to do with their sick facism

From your comments I think we do 'get it'. There isn't a huge conspiracy going on, don't be suckered in by the nutjob blogs. Elvis is dead, there is no alien spaceship at Roswell, the Apollo moon landings were genuine........
Quantum_Conundrum
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2010
MikeyK:

I don't know what planet you live on, but the local weather, the weather channel, and private thermometers all report temperatures that vary by literally as much as 5-10 degrees on the same day at the same time within a few hundred yards to a few miles of one another.

I don't think these "global averages" are worth the time they spend computing them, because conditions can vary that much literally from one cloud to the next.
jscroft
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2010
It isn't just that the models were wrong.

It's that the models were wrong AND the people who had a strongly vested interest in the models being right were cooking the books while using their fraudulent results to justify sticking their hands DEEP into our collective pockets.

Does the science matter? Sure it does... but actually DOING the science is impossible in an environment where (a) the science is funded by Government and (b) Government has set itself up such that it has a vested interest in producing a fraudulent result.

What we have here is a PERFECT argument for the elimination of Government involvement in science, in any form.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2010

What we have here is a PERFECT argument for the elimination of Government involvement in science, in any form.


While I can't stand the false AGW agenda, your statement there is just plain stupid.

A significant portion of existing technology and infrastructure would be impossible without government involvment and funding, as it's too expensive for many individual corporations to be involved in those things when they were first developed.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2010
I don't think these "global averages" are worth the time they spend computing them, because conditions can vary that much literally from one cloud to the next.


That's spatial variability at a given moment in time. Which is not the same thing as temporal variability at a given moment in space. To measure a trend, you put a thermometer at a fixed location, and produce a continuous temperature record over a large time span. Provided the time span is much greater than the duration of typical weather fluctuations times the frequency of significant departures from average, then you can begin to estimate a trend for this data. It does not matter if another thermometer 100 feet away measures a different temperature. If there is a trend, both thermometers will show a *trend*, even if at any given instant their measurements differ between them.
lewando
1 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2010
Temperature measurements are sort of a distraction, actually. What we should really be measuring and reporting is heat content of the planet.
westelca21
1 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2010
The real crime, now that these politicians pretending to be scientists have been exposed for the liars they are, is if the climate does start to warm, who will believe them?

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies!
jscroft
1 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2010
While I can't stand the false AGW agenda, your statement there is just plain stupid.


First you have to account for the opportunity cost of government-funded research: the things that were NOT invented by free people investing their OWN resources in their OWN interest so that NASA could afford to develop a better orange-flavored beverage.

Do the math, sir, and THEN you can call me an idiot. Until you have done so, I would argue that as reasonable people we can disagree without indulging in pointless slurs.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2010
Combustion alters the oxygen content of the atmosphere. Fresh air in, crap out. Doesn't matter if it is humans breathing or volcanoes spewing.

We need machines that suck in CO2 (and other crap) and emit Oxygen, such that we can continue to burn the stuff.

The trees people are the key. Stop cutting down trees (especially major rainforests) and all will be well.

I could go further and suggest that the entire growth in CO2 atmosphere content is due to a reduction in forest areas.
mckddd
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2010
I like coming to this web-site and reading about all the fantastic advances in science that are occuring every day by a very dedicated group of global scientists.

I have recently become fascinated by the fact that every single article about anything to do with AGW gets endlessly spammed by dozens of deniers, whilst most of the other content here passes without incident.

Could it be that perhaps the emotive nature of this science (being perceived as a left wing issue and potentially leading to increased costs for the polluting individual). Has lead to a wider range of deniers choosing to try and over-ride the usual academic discourse.

I see very few people responding negatively to these articles who claim to have actually read them. The usual trend is to quote some crazy blog or talk about a wider left wing conspiracy.

If you cant be as productive and insightful in your discussions of the other scientific articles on this site you should question why this topic make you so irrate.
DachpyarviIe
Jan 25, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Claudius
1 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2010
I like coming to this web-site and reading about all the fantastic advances in science that are occuring every day by a very dedicated group of global scientists.


Same here.

I have recently become fascinated by the fact that every single article about anything to do with AGW gets endlessly spammed by dozens of deniers


The term "denier" is offensive. Better to say "truth-seeker." Or nothing at all.

Could it be that perhaps the emotive nature of this science ...Has lead to a wider range of deniers choosing to try and over-ride the usual academic discourse.


Perhaps some are, but in my case it is because I enjoy good science, to which I have dedicated most of my adult life, and hate to see it trashed by a political movement. Exposing the fraud of AGW is a natural result of my resentment toward those who have deliberately altered data to promote a political cause, and as a consequence have greatly harmed public trust in science.
jscroft
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2010
@mckddd: The one thing I can't "deny" is that every fellow who calls me a "denier" appears to have his hand in my pocket.

Take the politics out of the question and imagine ANY other venue where those delivering a scientific conclusion had their financial and political interests so clearly invested in public acceptance of the conclusion. There's a reason why we look askance at corporately-funded "studies" that wind up promoting the interests of the funder.

Why shouldn't we be at LEAST as suspicious of studies funded by Government that conclude with the admonition to raise our taxes?

One of the foundations of science is a skeptical world view. Label skeptics as "deniers," and you have stripped YOURSELF of the label "scientist."
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2010
Why shouldn't we be at LEAST as suspicious of studies funded by Government that conclude with the admonition to raise our taxes?


Ok, I don't usually get political in response to issues of science, but I'll make an exception this time. Let's think, specifically, abut U.S. during the period of 1994-2006. Which party was in control of Congress? Which party was in control of the Presidency from 2000 to 2008? Was that not, in both cases, the party of Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Gas, Big Nuclear Energy, and Big Industry in general? Was that not the party of tax cuts?

Is it not all the more remarkable, that from a government dominated by such a political ideology for 12 straight years, comes out science that directly contradicts the interests, and powerfully irritates the priorities, of the very same ideologues?
jscroft
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2010
@PinkElephant: Perhaps I am obtuse. You write in a contradictory voice, yet I fail to see how the CONTENT of your comment in any way answers or invalidates the question you yourself quoted.

My observation was that we are enjoined--and rightly so!--to be suspicious of research conducted by commercial organizations with interests strongly vested in the result. The question you elected to quote asked whether it makes sense to apply the same standard to Government.

That's a yes-or-no question. What in the world does it have to do with who's in control of Congress and when?
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2010
@jscroft,

I am a lot more suspicious of research conducted by commercial organizations, if the results seem to benefit those same organizations when they could have harmed them. However, when the results of the research do not appear conspicuously self-serving, they deserve of more trust. For instance, I don't go automatically doubting Intel's research into transistor optimization methods; whereas I'm very skeptical of RJ Renolds research into health effects of tobacco smoking.

The government that produced much of the hated IPCC science, was at the same time dominated by commercial interests for whom the results of the research were not just unprofitable, but downright deadly.

This tells me that the research, though it comes from government, was not influenced by the people in charge of government.

Quite to the contrary. The few attempts that indeed were made to influence the research, were quickly leaked to the media, resulted in loud scandals, and thus were quickly thwarted.
jscroft
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2010
... I don't go automatically doubting Intel's research into transistor optimization methods; whereas I'm very skeptical of RJ Renolds research into health effects of tobacco smoking.


Fair enough.

The government that produced much of the hated IPCC science, was at the same time dominated by commercial interests for whom the results of the research were not just unprofitable, but downright deadly.


Really? Which ones, pray tell?

This tells me that the research, though it comes from government, was not influenced by the people in charge of government.


What it SHOULD tell you--if your assertion were true, which remains to be seen--is the degree to which those "commercial" interests are not actually interested in free commerce.

So, let's see... when RJ Reynolds conducts research with its $16 billion market cap at stake, you feel suspicious. But when Government funds research to justify the collection of taxes in the $TRILLIONS, you shrug?

Really?
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2010
Really? Which ones, pray tell?

http://news.bbc.c...8009.stm

But when Government funds research to justify the collection of taxes in the $TRILLIONS, you shrug?

That's where you lost me. I see no evidence that this particular research, or any other, had been funded with the purpose of tax collection in mind.

To the contrary, what I see is a lot of industry-funded research and thinktanks designed to cast FUD regarding the government-funded research. Exxon has been one of the most notorious actors in this regard. Just like back in the good old days of the tobacco wars. That I certainly can't help but notice.
TegiriNenashi
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2010
Regarding albedo:
http://tintin.col...1978.pdf
predicted 5 degree temperature increase at latitude 80 deg (which is not really that different from 90 in the summer time). They also point that greenhouse effect is magnified at high latitudes. What were they smoking?
jscroft
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2010
Really? Which ones, pray tell?

http://news.bbc.c...8009.stm


That article mentions just TWO public companies:

- Halliburton, up 70% in the past year,
- Chevron, up 5%.

Two observations: (a) That's ALL??? (b) If those are "deadly results," sign me up!

But when Government funds research to justify the collection of taxes in the $TRILLIONS, you shrug?

That's where you lost me. I see no evidence that this particular research, or any other, had been funded with the purpose of tax collection in mind.


Um... Cap & Trade, anyone? Sheesh.

To the contrary, what I see is a lot of industry-funded research and thinktanks designed to cast FUD regarding the government-funded research. Exxon has been one of the most notorious actors in this regard....


I guess we could discuss Climategate, but I have to imagine I'm not alone here in wondering why I should bother.
7734
not rated yet Jan 26, 2010
Hi bluehigh
Fully endorse your comment re rainforest loss!!
You also quote "we need machines that suck in CO2 (and other crap) and emit Oxygen"
How would you feel about a worldwide,viral infection, genetically engineered of course, which caused a rapid mutation in the human species turning us into self aware intelligent photosynthesisers. This would solve both the CO2 problem and future food supplies!!! Rod.
gort
not rated yet Jan 27, 2010
google/ global cooling or/global dimming.
the counterbalance that is slowing global warming,
for now,,, co2 coming out of the oceans, solar cycles, the ocean's "great conveyor" being messed up by fresh water ice melting(lets hope it dosen't grind to a halt), deforestation,aerosols,dust storms, and everything else. sigh,,
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2010
15,000,000 years ago CO2 ppmv was at levels like those today. The difference? Temperatures globally were on the order of 5 to 10 degrees C higher than today.

http://www.physor...562.html

Moral of the story? We are placing too much emphasis on CO2 and not enough on other climate factors.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2010
@jscroft,

That article mentions just TWO public companies:


Wow... How did you manage to miss the image at the top of the article, and the photographs in the right margin? This wasn't about any "two public companies"; this was about who was in charge of the government (and their respective backgrounds.)

Um... Cap & Trade, anyone? Sheesh.


So you're saying climate research in U.S. (and globally) was driven by a multi-decadal conspiracy to institute Cap & Trade? A fossil fuel industry that conspired to promote a program that, by design, is intended to make fossil fuels more expensive, and eventually replaced by alternatives?

Climategate...


A tempest in a teapot, if ever there was one.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2010
@dachpyarvile,

Even if we halted CO2 at today's levels, global temperatures won't reach equilibrium for many years, perhaps decades, to come. So we haven't even come close to seeing the full effect of what we've already front-loaded.

But yes, there are of course other climate factors. Most of them not anthropogenic, and most of them unfolding over multi-millennial time scales.

But no, we are not "placing too much emphasis on CO2". The predicted temperature rise is just a couple of degrees K. This is on the order of 1% of current temperature. Not "a lot", in the big scheme of things. Just enough to cause some major damage. The planet will go on, life will continue, but the cost to humanity will be quite catastrophic.

Follows the general pattern of our behavior, really. Live large today, and don't worry about the hang-over tomorrow. The hang-over really sucks, though, when it finally does arrive.

Witness the unfolding Great Depression 2.0, for example...
jscroft
1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2010
Even if we halted CO2 at today's levels, global temperatures won't reach equilibrium for many years, perhaps decades, to come.


See, this is how we know you aren't serious.

Temperature drives CO2 levels, not the reverse. This is pretty well established now... in AGW parlance, the science is "settled."

Yet here you are, blithely wielding that state-of-the-art 1980s premise as if it were worth a hill of beans to anybody but a government bean-counter.

Meanwhile, while you MIGHT be a scientist--on paper, anyway--you ARGUE like a politician.

Do you think if you stick your fingers in your ears and just keep talking the Universe will eventually reorient itself to reflect your assumptions? Acknowledge the reality of what we do NOT know, and suddenly the REST of your message becomes superfluous.

Meanwhile, get your hand out of my pocket.
jscroft
1 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2010
Ladies and gentlemen, here's a question to consider...

Post-Climategate, post-Glaciergate, post the rest of the AGW embarrassment, why are we according proponents of this drivel with the respect and sanction due to serious thinkers? Why don't we down-mod and ignore these fools out of effective existence?

Don't cry foul just yet. Remember, THEY froze US out first. THEY are the ones who falsified their research. THEY are the ones who impugned our characters. THEY are the ones who STILL have their grimy hands thrust deep in our pockets.

The point is that there is no moral equivalence here. Asking us to keeping these guys around is analogous to suggesting Galileo serve a regular pancake breakfast to the judges of the court that threatened to burn him for heresy.

These people have long since demonstrated they have nothing useful to offer, and plenty of the other kind. Let us rescind their welcome to participate in the polite exchange of scientific ideas.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2010
Temperature drives CO2 levels, not the reverse.

Only 50% true. Yes, temperature drives CO2 levels. Also, CO2 levels drive temperature. The effect is relatively small (compared to the rest of the atmospheric gases) but not insignificant.
jscroft
1 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2010
Also, CO2 levels drive temperature.


Really? By what mechanism, pray tell?

The "greenhouse warming" mechanism was thoroughly debunked last year, as it applies to the atmosphere AND to greenhouses. The relevant paper is linked above in this thread. Unless you are prepared to provide a specific argument to counter the water-tight physics in that landmark paper, then it's time to change your world view.

If you are NOT willing to address that result, then you are engaging in politics here--NOT science--and really ought to go ply your wares elsewhere.

Meanwhile, get your hand out of my pocket.
dachpyarvile
1 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2010
@dachpyarvile,

Even if we halted CO2 at today's levels, global temperatures won't reach equilibrium for many years, perhaps decades, to come. So we haven't even come close to seeing the full effect of what we've already front-loaded.
...


I respectfully disagree. This is not settled and has yet to be established. Fact is, the IPCC has been exaggerating their materials on CO2 as well. In a scathing review of exaggeration of this magnitude one scientist on the review panel stated that they used exaggeration factors on the scale of between four and six.

That the IPCC is continuing their line of reasoning in spite of the scathing review is telling, especially in light of the fact that the same kind of exaggeration factor was used in making their report/political statement on glacial decline.

We all see where that got them and us.