Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I was going to make the point that Foxfyre's poster boy Phil Chapman has a pretty sketchy grasp on climate, that the change in average temperature in 2007 was due to a pretty strong La Nina in the last half of 07, and make the point AGAIN thatwhen you get an el Nino year the average temperature is higher. And in a la Nina year it's lower. And that's WEATHER. But hey, I don't need to, because his points have been rebutted already in "the Australian", where his oped was published (calling Chapman a geophysicist, incidentally, is really a stretch. His training and experience seems to be in instrumentation and systems, not geosciences).

From The Australian:

David Karoly | April 29, 2008
THE opinion piece by Phil Chapman ("Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh", Opinion, April 22) warns of an approaching ice age but contains a number of factual errors, misleading statements and incorrect conclusions.

Chapman reports global average temperature cooled by 0.7C in 2007 and says: "If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."

It is true that global data sets show a pronounced cooling from January2007 to January 2008 of slightly less than 0.7C. It is an error to state, as Chapman does, that this is unprecedented, as similar dramatic falls occurred from 1998 to 1999, and from 1973 to 1974. It should also be noted that the global average temperature has warmed substantially, by about 0.3C from January 2008 to March 2008. In addition, the annual average temperature for 2007 was within 0.1C of the average temperature in 2006 and 2005; no dramatic cooling there.

So what caused this rapid cooling during 2007, and also from 1998 to 1999, and from 1973 to 1974? What was common to all those periods? In each case, the common factor was a rapid change from El Nino to La Nina conditions, from warm temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean to cold temperatures in the same region, which has a significant effect on global climate patterns and global average temperature. La Nina is associated with below-normal global average temperature, and because of its influence, 2008 is likely to be about 0.3C cooler than the average of the previous few years.

Chapman did not consider La Nina as a cause of the cooling in 2007 and instead linked it to the minimum in the 11-year cycle in sunspot numbers: "The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday."

I don't know where these sunspot numbers came from but they are in error. The best source of data for present sunspot numbers is the World Data Centre for Solar Terrestrial Physics at the National Geophysical Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado. According to it, the average number of sunspots a day last January was 3.4, followed by 2.1 in February and 9.3 in March. The minimum was in October2007.

So, are variations in global average temperature directly related to sunspot numbers on a monthly, annual or decadal timescale?

Certainly not on a monthly timescale and the effect, if any, on a year-to-year timescale is very small, as can be found by correlating the variations of global average temperature on monthly or annual timescales with the sunspot numbers. Any relationship between sunspot numbers and global average temperatures is much, much smaller than the clear relationship between inter-annual variations of equatorial Pacific Sea surface temperatures and global average temperatures, showing the effect of the El Nino-La Nina cycle.

While those errors are bad enough, the main flaw in Chapman's opinion is trying to infer long-term climate trends from short-term (one year) variations of global temperature. It is well known (among climate scientists) that there are large inter-annual variations of global temperature caused by a number of factors, including El Nino, big volcanic eruptions, or just the chaotic variability of the climate system. It is not possible to make conclusions about long-term climate trends from inter-annual climate variations. Many lines of evidence support the conclusion reached last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", referring to changes over the past 100 years. Even when we consider only the global average temperature during La Nina episodes, such as the present cool period, we find that we are experiencing the warmest global temperature of any strong La Nina episode in the past 100 years, again showing clear long-term global warming.

Most of the increase in global average temperature over the past 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This long-term increase in global average temperature will continue throughout the 21st century because of further increases in greenhouse gases. Yes, there will be year-to-year natural climate variations, with some colder years, but the long-term warming trend will continue.

An ice age is definitely not going to occur in the 21st century. Instead, we will all need to make very large reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases if we are to minimise dangerous anthropogenic climate change.

David Karoly is a professor in the University of Melbourne's school of earth sciences and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23612876-7583,00.html

And, again incidentally, there were three sunspots yesterday. Not exactly an absence of those big ol' blems.

0 Replies

Well first Chapman is not my 'poster boy' as anyone with intellectual honesty would have acknowledged from my comment prefacing the post. But Karoly is hardly less suspect in objectivity as he has made AGW a personal moral crusade and strongly criticizes ANYBODY who disagrees with him. As one of the primary authors of the IPCC report and so far sticking to the story on that, it is understandable that he might choose to discredit anybody with a different theory. His reputation, after all, is on the line. His theories, however, have been questioned and/or disputed by numerous credentialed scientists as testified by the string of quotes Ican has been posting.

However the gauntlet has been thrown between Chapman and Karoly. I'm sure we haven't seen the last of that debate.

0 Replies

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

110.
Yury Zaitsev, an analyst with Russia's Institute of Space Studies, rejected man-made global warming fears in 2007. "Paleoclimate research shows that the chillier periods of the Earth's history have always given way to warmer times, and vice versa. But it is not quite clear what causes this change," Zaitsev wrote on September 28, 2007 in the Russian publication RIA Novosti. "Yury Leonov, director of the Institute of Geology at the Russian Academy of Sciences, thinks that the human impact on nature is so small that it can be dismissed as a statistical mistake," Zaitsev explained. "Until quite recently, experts primarily attributed global warming to greenhouse gas emissions, with carbon dioxide singled out as the chief culprit. But it transpires that water vapor is just as bad," he wrote. "Sun-related phenomena have fairly regular and predictable consequences on the Earth. Of course, they exert influence on humans and other species and, to some extent, on the environment, altering atmospheric pressure and temperature. But they are not likely to contribute much to climate change. This is a global process and is the result of global causes. For the time being, we are far from understanding them fully," he added.

0 Replies

username wrote:

I was going to make the point that Foxfyre's poster boy Phil Chapman has a pretty sketchy grasp on climate, that the change in average temperature in 2007 was due to a pretty strong La Nina in the last half of 07, and make the point AGAIN thatwhen you get an el Nino year the average temperature is higher. And in a la Nina year it's lower. And that's WEATHER.

A hail storm in Toulouse (SW France) last 16th May. It's WEATHER.
But past month's California wildfires were CLIMATE and of course caused by AGW.
Sounds so familiar Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Oh yeah. The environmental religionists have attributed our recent forest fire here to global warming too though there have been forest fires in the forest from time to time as long as I can remember, and, though that is a fair amount of time, I bet there were forest fires further back than I can remember.

Meanwhile from what I recall of sunspots, assuming I recall correctly, these vary in cycles from a minimum of about 10 per year to a maximum of about 110 per year; also the size and duration of these produce additional variables.

I doubt one study disputing the role of sunspots in Earth climate science will be successful in negating all other studies that suggest differently:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/activity/sunspot_history.html&edu=high

0 Replies

Now over 31,000 scientists in America alone not agreeing with the global warming "consensus." Sheesh, how many scientists are there? Will we eventually find out that it was only James Hansen that agrees with the consensus? And oh yeah, one non-scientist, Al Gore. Laughing

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/18/31-000-scientists-rejecting-global-warming-theory-be-named-monday

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I doubt one study disputing the role of sunspots in Earth climate science will be successful in negating all other studies that suggest differently.

Certainly. But there isn't only one but several. It's even mentioned on US-government websites that "comparisons of globally averaged temperature and solar activity" show that "the climate changes of the 20th century may have a significant solar component."

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Certainly. But there isn't only one but several. It's even mentioned on US-government websites that "comparisons of globally averaged temperature and solar activity" show that "the climate changes of the 20th century may have a significant solar component."

The 20th century warming has been 0.6°C. If the sun has had a "significant" influence on it, then the anthropogenic part in the warming has been "significantly" less than 0.6°C.
That means the AGW fuss has been a significant crap. :wink:
You see Walter, with vague qualifiers, ones can prove anything.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I doubt one study disputing the role of sunspots in Earth climate science will be successful in negating all other studies that suggest differently.

Certainly. But there isn't only one but several. It's even mentioned on US-government websites that "comparisons of globally averaged temperature and solar activity" show that "the climate changes of the 20th century may have a significant solar component."

The climate changes of the 20th century have an insignificant atmospheric CO2 component.

0 Replies

Somebody needs to tell the politicians that so they can quit wringing their hands and so they can quit inciting the people into a frenzy over nothing. And also tell all the grade school teachers so they can quit indoctrinating all the children with fear mongering liberal crap.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

only the original nasa publication which I believe links to the original data

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf

Thanks, Steve, but there is nothing I see in the data to contradict the doubt on the alleged existence of "anthropogenic global warming". Prof. Rahmstorf admits as much in his conclusion:

Quote:

The dependence of climate sensitivity on
the mean state ... cannot be avoided,
but it is a more serious problem for the time
period considered by Shaviv and Veizer [2003]
with conditions very different from the modern
climate system.Positions of continents shifted,
ocean currents took a different course,and
estimated CO2 levels were between two and
10 times present values during most of this
time. Little is known about the feedbacks
operating on these time scales and for high
CO2 climates

The time scale under review (for those who didn't look up the article) is of the order of 360 million years. Million years, please note, where ..."estimated CO2 levels were between two and 10 times present values during most of this
time".... but during which modern man (or his SUV) was nowhere to be seen.

Even if the article under review represents a change from the previous opinions of the authors - that hardly makes them cheats. Scientists necessarily revise their positions as new data is collected and/or their mathematical models are refined: the following is the most recent example, since we were previously discussing hurricanes:

Quote:

The news surprised the public opinion, since the scientist previously raised concerns about global warming's effects on storms. It seems like his position regarding this matter has changed, being expected to cause quite a debate among meteorologists regarding the present and future effects of climate change in the Atlantic.

http://www.enews20.com/news_Recent_Study_Shows_Global_Warming_not_Related_to_Hurricanes_08020.html

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I doubt one study disputing the role of sunspots in Earth climate science will be successful in negating all other studies that suggest differently.

Certainly. But there isn't only one but several. It's even mentioned on US-government websites that "comparisons of globally averaged temperature and solar activity" show that "the climate changes of the 20th century may have a significant solar component."

The climate changes of the 20th century have an insignificant atmospheric CO2 component.

I don't think any of us suggest that CO2 and/or other greenhouse gasses are no factor at all, however. We just have strong reservations about whether human generated greenhouse gasses are a significant factor in the big picture of climate change. I don't think any of us think that sunspots are the only driving force in climate change either, but in face of the evidence, we do have to at least consider the possibility that these are an important factor in Earth climate and there is likely absolutely nothing reasonable that humans can do to modify whatever effect these have. Nor are we likely to be able to stop volcanoes from popping off all over the place and whatever forces control the formation of El Ninos and La Ninas are so poorly understood we probably won't be able to even predict these accurately, much less control them, for generations to come.

We DO have the power along with technology to improve living standards and conditions for billions of people and we do have the power to refrain from polluting our planet in ways that spoil its beauty and/or efficiency and/or harm the creatures on it. My husband and I, for instance, have enjoyed the energy savings associated with small CFCs, but we have decided the environmental consequences involved in the manufacture and disposal of these do not justify the energy savings not even considering their higher cost and reduced efficiency. So we are likely to discontinue using them. We will continue to use our energy efficient refrigeration, cooling, heating units and will continue to drive our fuel efficient automobiles.

I will not personally support expensive, intrusive, and freedom restrictive policies that have not been proved to be necessary and/or that which will almost certainly make the lives of millions if not billions of people worse for generations to come.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I will not personally support expensive, intrusive, and freedom restrictive policies that have not been proved to be necessary and/or that which will almost certainly make the lives of millions if not billions of people worse for generations to come.

But you heavily support non-restrictive politics that are unproven and might make the lives of millions if not billions of people worser than worse for generations to come.

0 Replies

Im glad that this topic seems to have drifted away from personal attacks and politically based opinion mongering, to actual science.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I will not personally support expensive, intrusive, and freedom restrictive policies that have not been proved to be necessary and/or that which will almost certainly make the lives of millions if not billions of people worse for generations to come.

But you heavily support non-restrictive politics that are unproven and might make the lives of millions if not billions of people worser than worse for generations to come.

Okay you are directly and personally accusing me of something specific. Please name what 'non-restrictive politics' I support that are unproven and might make the lives of millions if not billions of people worse for generations to come. It would be helpful if you would also cite your authority for accusing me of such support.

0 Replies

HS the Rahmstorf et al paper pours a bucket of cold water over Shaviv's conclusions. As I said before they accuse them of using dubious statistical manipulation to make the facts fit their conclusion. In particular they take no account of the different time scales. And they use faulty regression analysis. Their conclusion is pretty damning, although couched in polite science based language. I used the word cheat not the Rahmstorf paper, but for anyone who can read between the lines, thats what they mean.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I will not personally support expensive, intrusive, and freedom restrictive policies that have not been proved to be necessary and/or that which will almost certainly make the lives of millions if not billions of people worse for generations to come.

You can influence policy, but you cant influence facts. Some futures markets are already trading oil at $200/barrel. Thats expensive and intrusive but your lack of support is immaterial. How do you propose to reduce the price of crude oil? Thats the question you cant answer.

(a little over 10 years ago, West Texas crude traded at $10/barrel)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay you are directly and personally accusing me of something specific. Please name what 'non-restrictive politics' I support that are unproven and might make the lives of millions if not billions of people worse for generations to come. It would be helpful if you would also cite your authority for accusing me of such support.

As well as you call any pro-climate change policy like above, I've only taken the right to do the very same in reverse.

So please name those authorities who say that people who want to do something against the effects of climate change are supporting something which makes might make the lives of millions if not billions of people worse for generations to come.

0 Replies

Fox

you give every impression of just not "getting it".

We will have to burn less fossil fuel for two reasons.

1. Its screwing up the earth's climate
2. The easy oil which has supported the western world's high standard of living just isnt there anymore. We've burnt it already.

You may not support painful measures towards a low carbon/fossil fuel economy but its going to happen.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Okay you are directly and personally accusing me of something specific. Please name what 'non-restrictive politics' I support that are unproven and might make the lives of millions if not billions of people worse for generations to come. It would be helpful if you would also cite your authority for accusing me of such support.

As well as you call any pro-climate change policy like above, I've only taken the right to do the very same in reverse.

So please name those authorities who say that people who want to do something against the effects of climate change are supporting something which makes might make the lives of millions if not billions of people worse for generations to come.

Oh no. I, along with several others, have quite clearly for months now been stating my opinions, observations, and conclusions as to why I believe certain policies are likely to be more harmful than helpful. Surely you do not wish for me to restate all those arguments now. It is not my fault if you chose not to read them.

But you directed your post at me specifically and personally and accused me of supporting certain non-political restrictive policies So again, please state those policies along with whatever you have to support the accusation. If you cannot do that, an apology and retraction of the ad hominem comment would be in order.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know