Take that you global warming skeptic
One of the main arguing points that global warming skeptics have had on their side is the discrepancy between observed temperatures in the troposphere and what computer models predict. The computer models predict that f, in fact, the climate is warming then the troposphere should be warming as well. However, weather balloon measurements and satellite data indicate that the troposphere is not warming. Or is it…
Researchers from Yale University have found that the problem is with the data, not the models.
The Economist has a short article on the subject here: An unexplained anomaly in the climate seems to have been the result of bad data.
If you want something a little more meaty then try reading this at RealClimate.com: A Mistake with Repercussions
Global temperature history has been determined from Vostok, Antarctica ice core proxies with more recent data from thousands of instruments distributed over the planet. This history shows that the average global temperature and the recent rate-of-change of temperature are not unusual. Although, since the temperature went somewhat higher 400 years ago and a few other times during this interglacial period, it could possibly go higher than it is now, the recent temperature profile suggests that the temperature increase stopped ten years ago as it usually has in the past at this temperature. There is substantial climate history data that refutes the theory that atmospheric carbon dioxide contributes to global warming and none that supports it. Thus the assertion that humans are causing global warming is a mistake. This is quickly shown with graphs that were constructed using government provided data (all website referenced so it can be checked) from NOAA at http://www.middlebury.net:80/op-ed/pangburn.html .
The data on the surface still does not match the predictions.
@enviro414, I debated for a few minutes about whether or not to approve or delete your comment because I think it’s borderline spam. You’re promoting your belief and nothing scientific.
Essentially you have an opinion and you are looking for data to back it up. That’s hardly the scientific method.
Ultimately what interests me is why you believe what you do. And likewise why I believe what I do.
I have a theory that one of the motivations people have to attack scientific discoveries is based on experiences with science is school. If a person struggled with certain scientific concepts and did poorly on tests they may harbor a resentment later in life. Then as they mature and begin to understand that scientists don’t know everything and that they are often grasping in the dark they feel empowered to attack any new theory that comes along.
Ultimately you, and people like you, take this personally. Global warming isn’t about your opinion, or your beliefs, or what you or anyone else may want. It’s about the physical world and how we scientifically go about understanding it.
As long as you are motivated by personal feelings you won’t be doing science. Regardless of the accuracy of your methods.
You have it backwards. First, after wondering what the truth was, I looked at the data. The link is to graphs of this data. A check of this data finds it to be credible. I am interested in your comments AFTER you have studied this data.
Careful, I have an excellent understanding of science, thermodynamics, heat transfer, electromagnetic radiation, absorption/emission spectra of gases, specular reflection of water, emissivity, etc. etc. and an open mind in relentless pursuit of the truth. Math was easy through partial differential equations but I have to admit that tensor analysis was a challenge.
@enviro414, okay, I’m looking at the data.
Graph #1 : there is no 1-to-1 correspondence between temperature and CO2. Global average temps are hugely influenced by things like El Nino. The overall trend of the temperature does show a relationship to the rise in CO2.
Graph #2 : Check out RealClimate.org for a detailed explanation of the historical lag in CO2 to temperature.
You’re statement that “..significant positive feedback did not exist then and does not exist now” is clearly incorrect. With your understanding of thermodynamics you should know better than most that there are going to be multiple and conflicting feedbacks in a system as complex as the Earth’s climate.
Few scientists would argue the issue that the earth is warming. But they will argue incessantly over the affects of various feedback systems. That’s the big unknown right now.
Lastly, my interest in this matter is purely academic. I don’t care that the earth is warming. In fact, I think it will make for more interesting hurricane seasons. I’m a big disaster fan. Always have been.
Oh yes, and I drive an SUV.
Thanks for looking. You really ARE interested! Here is a further look at my rationale.
IMO the apparent end-to-end correlation on graph 1 results from continued recovery from the LIA occurring at the same time as growth in fossil fuel use. The non-correlation is the 30-year long up and down trends which are too long to be explained by el nino/la nina or SOI. Graph 4 puts all the fuss in the last 120 years in perspective with the last 1000 years and shows that the last 120 years or so are not unusual in either level or rate-of-change.
I have probably already reviewed the usual lag explanations. The only one that I am familiar with that could be rational, with the usual given explanation, is with temperature going up only. There is no way that, if positive feedback is significant, the trend could change direction without some overpowering outside influence. I have not heard of any other feedbacks.
The usual argument that I have heard that the earth isn’t warming is based on the urban heat island effect which I think has been pretty much accounted for by the Goddard and NOAA folks (and Hadley). IMO anybody that says the earth hasn’t warmed (until 1998) is just being stubborn. As shown on graph 3, it has been warmer than now four other times during the Holocene so getting warmer than now is not out of the question. However, runaway warming because of high atmospheric carbon dioxide is refuted also by the planet entering the Andean-Saharan Ice Age when the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was over ten times the present.
I have nothing against the development of global climate models but I don’t think that they are good enough yet to predict climate. They don’t account for clouds very well at all and I know from my own research that average cloud area and average cloud altitude are both very important to climate. For example, a change in average cloud altitude of only 305 meters would result in an eventual change of average earth temperature of 0.75C. The only credible model at present is the planet itself.
As to the climate scientists. I have a bunch of issues. There are quite a few scientist types now, and the number has been growing, that think that AGW is wrong (I don’t buy the blanket denunciations of Sen. Inhofe’s list of 400). A fairly large percentage of them are retired which means they no longer need to report dire warnings to get funding continued. The significant number of anti-AGWers and paucity of peer reviewed papers by them raises the question of possible corruption of the peer review process by group-think control of the publications.
My ‘relentless pursuit of the truth’ is probably not much different from your ‘purely academic’ interest. However, I am concerned about the negative effect that additional regulation and spending resources on unnecessary activities would have on freedom and prosperity.
The increased activity in nuclear power is a good thing with its attendant reduction in mercury emission and acid rain although here in California they are still anti-nuc. The ultimate solution, when fossil fuels run out, is implementation of breeder reactors which will meet all of humanities need for energy for millions of years.
My perception is that the IPCC is too strongly influenced by politics. My impression on a limited review of their latest report is that it talks a lot about what I would call local weather.
I don’t drive an SUV but I strongly defend your right to. I use compact fluorescents where I can (they don’t work well if cold, at all with dimmers, or with my motion-sensing on/off switches). I also print on both sides of the paper for drafts, have the water heater set as low as it will go, etc. I do all this stuff to save money and because I abhor waste. Others encourage people to do this to cut their carbon footprint. Shrug.
I checked the Realclimate site. I had discovered it earlier and have even referred to it regarding the 85% (in the table) of ghg effect that the GISS GCM determines for water vapor and clouds. It does not address the issue of why the temperature trend changed direction and went down when the carbon dioxide level was higher than it was when the temperature was going up as occurred during the previous and earlier glacial periods.
@enviro414, I don’t have time to hit every point you covered but I admire your detailed analysis.
You’re right on target with the politics involved in global warming research. It sickens me when I hear scientists complaining that their research is being misrepresented. Sometimes it’s through ignorance and sometimes it’s deliberate. Reporters on both sides of the issue do this. That’s what I like about RealClimate.org – their mission is to educate reporters so that they can accurately tell their story.
I agree in general about your comments regarding computer models. There are quite a few models – I don’t know them by name – that have been able to accurately reproduce the climate over the past 150-200 years. The hope then is that they are going to be able to extend accurately into the future.
This is again one of those topics that get miss-reported in the press. It’s easy to attack the results of a computer model for obvious reasons. The modelers themselves know that a lot of what they are doing is guesswork. But I’ve read in the press where someone says that a computer model predicts that the ocean will rise 3 meters in the next 100 years. But they don’t mention that the model was run 100s of times and that the ocean rose 3 meters in only a small percentage of the model runs.
This can be attributed to the reporter not understanding and doing their research or not believing their audience is scientifically educated enough to understand the details or, I think most likely, they’re too lazy to write something that concisely explains the results.
In the end I applaud your research into the issue. I wish more people would take the time to educate themselves so that they can understand the details of these important issues.
Ultimately it is pretty frustrating. I don’t see the global release of greenhouse gases declining, or even leveling off, in the foreseeable future. If the globe is warming, regardless of the cause, then we’re just going to have to strap ourselves in and enjoy the ride.
This blog string is getting a bit stale but I thought you might be interested in my latest findings.
The very popular perception of a greenhouse gas blanket trapping heat and causing the planet to heat up is totally wrong. Anyone who perceives that greenhouse gas increase causes global warming has been mislead by a misunderstanding or ignorance of the physics of radiation heat transfer in a greenhouse gas. This is readily understood by anyone with even modest experience in optical spectroscopy but apparently is unknown to many climate scientists.
The reason why increased greenhouse gas level has no influence on average global temperature is proven at http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc and is summarized briefly as follows:
A gas is called a greenhouse gas because it has spectral absorption lines that cause it to absorb infra-red electromagnetic radiation (heat) radiated at those specific spectral frequencies from objects at earth temperature. The added energy places an atom at an elevated energy level compared to its neighbors. That added energy occasionally results in re-radiation at the initial or a combination of lower energy quanta but usually manifests itself as added motion (velocity and amplitude of vibration) of the molecule. Increased amplitude of vibration is increased temperature. Each molecule is surrounded by other molecules at lower temperature so the added thermal energy, (heat) is immediately conducted to adjacent molecules. That is, they bump into each other. All of this is well understood by people knowledgeable in spectroscopy. What is usually unknown to scientists who are not knowledgeable in the field of optical spectroscopy (e. g. many climate scientists) is that the absorption at spectral frequencies by atoms (the gas is transparent at non-spectral frequencies) is nearly all absorbed within about five meters of the radiating surface. Beyond a few meters from the surface, the greenhouse gas acts much the same as a non-greenhouse gas and the absorbed heat is carried up by convection currents. More greenhouse gas means only that the absorption takes place even closer to the ground. The convection process is unaffected. The end result is that climate is unaffected by increase in the amount of greenhouse gas.
Although the average global temperature has been trending down for the last decade or so it could still go higher than now as it has four other times in the Holocene. The good news is that the continued rise in CO2 will have no influence. Maybe it’s bad news since rice does not grow on ice.