Science: Not much warming under the sun

[matmann22]

Which 'models' are we using for this and who made them ? How were these 'models' tested ?

Even short term (<5 days) weather models have known inaccuracies and biases. Some models are 2 fast. Last winter we had the Northwest drift tendency for storms out 3 or 4 days. Some models suffer convective feedback issues. Even the best long range forecasters like Ed Berry in his atmospheric insights can miss badly.

I hope there are fewer of those models than there are models that predict future weather because a hurricane forecast can have at least 8 different model tracks on it and at least several will be wildly divergent and at least one will be wildly wrong (by hundreds of miles).

I'm not saying Its wrong, Im not saying Its right. I'm just trying to point out that even short term weather forecasts that we can easily judge have lots of known issues that have to be taken into acount.

[SpokaneCY]

The REAL coorelation is pirates. 200 years ago there were lots of pirates and little to no global warming. Now there are relatively FEW pirates and there IS global warming. Although there HAS been more pirate activity in the last 10 years which MIGHT explain the lack of warming?

[SpokaneCY]

Who are you trusting for this? Politicians? Gut feelings? the Bible?

You know - sometimes things just don't smell right. Politicians? No. The bible? Never read it. Gut feelings? Hhmmm. If I look at the "history" of global warming in a larger environmentalist context then the real driving forces make me skeptical.

All the research has shown that CO2 has been FOLLOWING rises in temps - not a forcing agent. Maybe this time its completely different and its the exception to the rule, but I'd hardly call the science settled on this - and I'm just a CPA but I CAN form my own opinions based on the work thats been published.

[pthebutcher]

I do believe this thread has diverged a bit from what I had originally posted. I never meant for this to turn into the accuracies/inaccuracies of modeling. I just thought it was interesting, as found in the study based on observations, that current global temperatures are unaffected by changes in solar output. The evidence would certainly suggest this is due to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

We do affect the earth's climate, it is naive and ignorant to think we do not. Is global warming good or bad? I don't know. But it is hard to ignore that our actions do have an effect on a global scale.

[pthebutcher]

You know - sometimes things just don't smell right. Politicians? No. The bible? Never read it. Gut feelings? Hhmmm. If I look at the "history" of global warming in a larger environmentalist context then the real driving forces make me skeptical.

All the research has shown that CO2 has been FOLLOWING rises in temps - not a forcing agent. Maybe this time its completely different and its the exception to the rule, but I'd hardly call the science settled on this - and I'm just a CPA but I CAN form my own opinions based on the work thats been published.

CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas is NOT in question. The real question is how much of what we pump into the atmosphere is affecting the rise in global temperatures. Study after study tends to suggest it is a significant amount.

[Phaedrus]

CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas is NOT in question. The real question is how much of what we pump into the atmosphere is affecting the rise in global temperatures. Study after study tends to suggest it is a significant amount.

Why not? Why isn't CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas NOT in question? Is it because it's the lynchpin bogeyman human-caused global warming is based on?

Actually, riddle me this: How do reputable scientists take a microscopic snapshot of a mutlilayered trend, which is most likely too complex to analyze, take ONE VARIABLE, CO2, and claim to be able to make long-term predictions on it?

The answer: The ones making predictions aren't reputable, nor are they scientists. Trend analysis is too complex to make predictive theories that stand up, much less those with several trends occurring simultaneously.

Of course, some of these same people, and people with the same axes to grind were calling for catastrophic, massive global cooling just a couple decades ago, but please, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....

[cmoneyr]

Why not? Why isn't CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas NOT in question? Is it because it's the lynchpin bogeyman human-caused global warming is based on?

Actually, riddle me this: How do reputable scientists take a microscopic snapshot of a mutlilayered trend, which is most likely too complex to analyze, take ONE VARIABLE, CO2, and claim to be able to make long-term predictions on it?

The answer: The ones making predictions aren't reputable, nor are they scientists. Trend analysis is too complex to make predictive theories that stand up, much less those with several trends occurring simultaneously.

Of course, some of these same people, and people with the same axes to grind were calling for catastrophic, massive global cooling just a couple decades ago, but please, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....

Well that settles it, CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas, thanks Phaedrus!

[CycloneWanderer]

I can't get access to that article at the start, am I in the minority? If most people can't see the article, why post it?

[pthebutcher]

Why not? Why isn't CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas NOT in question? Is it because it's the lynchpin bogeyman human-caused global warming is based on?

Just as water vapor's effect as a greenhouse gas is very well understood, so is CO2's. Basically, as a gas in the atmosphere, they allow shortwave energy from the sun to penetrate to the earth just fine. However, the longwave energy that the earth emits back out to space gets absorbed by CO2, H2O and other greenhouse gases and re-emitted back to earth. This is why they have been coined "greenhouse" gases. They let energy in, but don't let it out as easily. This is why CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas is not in question. Infact, if it werent for greenhouse gases the global temperature of the earth would be about 30 degrees cooler and this place would hardly be liveable.

Like I stated in my previous post, the real question is "how much warming is the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere causing?" The very long list of peer-reviewed journals would suggest its significant. If you would like a list of some these reading materials, I can provide them, but I'm guessing you don't really want to take the time to read through the real science and blame it all on scientists with 'agendas'.

[pthebutcher]

I can't get access to that article at the start, am I in the minority? If most people can't see the article, why post it?

Sorry, I just noticed that the article isn't accessible unless you have a subscription. I posted from my office, which is on the ISU network, and since ISU pays for the subscription, all computers on the ISU network are able to login without having to enter any user info.

[matmann22]

I do believe this thread has diverged a bit from what I had originally posted. I never meant for this to turn into the accuracies/inaccuracies of modeling. I just thought it was interesting, as found in the study based on observations, that current global temperatures are unaffected by changes in solar output. The evidence would certainly suggest this is due to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

We do affect the earth's climate, it is naive and ignorant to think we do not. Is global warming good or bad? I don't know. But it is hard to ignore that our actions do have an effect on a global scale.

1) The point behind pointing out the problems with even well tested and understood weather models is that weather models all have inherited biases and inaccuracies. Why would the models used in this paper to prove all this be any different ? Do we know what the limitations are ? Which climate model is most accurate ? Heck, what are the names and who makes them ? You can easily find the short term weather models and who is responsible for them (ex: SREF, GFS, ECMWF, NAM, RUC...)

2) I'm sorry but I just dont buy this entire chain of thought for "global warming".

First you have to believe that the globe is warming. Then you have to believe that this warming is permanent and unnatural. Then you have to believe that man is the only reason for this. Then you have to believe man can reverse his damage

3) Can we have an impact on some weather features, yes ? For example, man clearly is making flooding worse with drainage tile, paving over everything, and dams and levees. Is Iowa flooding a 'global climate' ? Many normal years, flooding years and drought years make up a 'climate'.

Heck, Global warming actually started and stopped in the 1930s if you use weather records for the Midwest.

4) I'm not arguing that CO2 and Methane aren't 'green house gases'

5) You also have to believe all the weather tools are taking accurate readings. Did you know that almost no official National weather service weather stations meet all the official criteria so they aren't impacted by urban heat islands or passing vehicles ?

[Cyclonepride]

Just as water vapor's effect as a greenhouse gas is very well understood, so is CO2's. Basically, as a gas in the atmosphere, they allow shortwave energy from the sun to penetrate to the earth just fine. However, the longwave energy that the earth emits back out to space gets absorbed by CO2, H2O and other greenhouse gases and re-emitted back to earth. This is why they have been coined "greenhouse" gases. They let energy in, but don't let it out as easily. This is why CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas is not in question. Infact, if it werent for greenhouse gases the global temperature of the earth would be about 30 degrees cooler and this place would hardly be liveable.

Like I stated in my previous post, the real question is "how much warming is the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere causing?" The very long list of peer-reviewed journals would suggest its significant. If you would like a list of some these reading materials, I can provide them, but I'm guessing you don't really want to take the time to read through the real science and blame it all on scientists with 'agendas'.

The percentage of man-made CO2 to naturally occurring CO2 in the atmosphere is tiny.

I have not seen a single study that could prove that removal of all man-made CO2, let alone some, would be likely to reverse the warming trend.

[pthebutcher]

Why not? Why isn't CO2's effect as a greenhouse gas NOT in question? Is it because it's the lynchpin bogeyman human-caused global warming is based on?

Actually, riddle me this: How do reputable scientists take a microscopic snapshot of a mutlilayered trend, which is most likely too complex to analyze, take ONE VARIABLE, CO2, and claim to be able to make long-term predictions on it?

The answer: The ones making predictions aren't reputable, nor are they scientists. Trend analysis is too complex to make predictive theories that stand up, much less those with several trends occurring simultaneously.

Of course, some of these same people, and people with the same axes to grind were calling for catastrophic, massive global cooling just a couple decades ago, but please, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....

And to be fair, I would like to point out that I haven't mentioned anything about long term predictions of climate change. That is a very complex subject and as a meteorology grad student I can safely say that any climatologist understands the downfalls and weaknesses of climate forecasts. Thats not to say that there aren't politically charged people with agendas taking these predictions as 100% truth.

Also, global cooling was NOT a popular scientific theory back in 70's, that was the media going crazy with a couple reports. Most scientists were curious about and researching global warming trends.

I hate to say it, but I get the sense some people are very ill informed on this whole issue.

[pthebutcher]

The percentage of man-made CO2 to naturally occurring CO2 in the atmosphere is tiny.

I have not seen a single study that could prove that removal of all man-made CO2, let alone some, would be likely to reverse the warming trend.

Incorrect.

Science 25 July 1997:
Vol. 277. no. 5325, pp. 494 - 499

The modern increase in CO2 represents the clearest and best documented signal of human alteration of the Earth system. Thanks to the foresight of Roger Revelle, Charles Keeling, and others who initiated careful and systematic measurements of atmospheric CO2 in 1957 and sustained them through budget crises and changes in scientific fashions, we have observed the concentration of CO2 as it has increased steadily from 315 ppm to 362 ppm. Analysis of air bubbles extracted from the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps extends the record back much further; the CO2 concentration was more or less stable near 280 ppm for thousands of years until about 1800, and has increased exponentially since then (17).

[jdoggivjc]

And to be fair, I would like to point out that I haven't mentioned anything about long term predictions of climate change. That is a very complex subject and as a meteorology grad student I can safely say that any climatologist understands the downfalls and weaknesses of climate forecasts. Thats not to say that there aren't politically charged people with agendas taking these predictions as 100% truth.

Also, global cooling was NOT a popular scientific theory back in 70's, that was the media going crazy with a couple reports. Most scientists were curious about and researching global warming trends.

I hate to say it, but I get the sense some people are very ill informed on this whole issue.

Being a Meteorology grad student, is that what your professors told you to believe? After all, Dr. Heidi Cullen, probably the nation's most famous "climatologist," believes no one should be in the fields of meteorology or climatology if they don't subscribe to the religion of man-made "global warming"... err... I forgot - this week she started calling it man-made "climate change."