Some interesting news in the global warming hysteria world I thought I should bring up. First is this report that man-made soot contributed to warming in Greenland last century.
New research shows that industrial development in North America between 1850 and 1950 greatly increased the amount of black carbon–commonly known as soot– that fell on Greenland’s glaciers and ice sheets. The soot impacted the ability of the snow and ice to reflect sunlight, which contributed to increased melting and higher temperatures in the region during those years. This discovery may help scientists better understand the impact of human activities on polar climates.
But I thought it was the CO2? Guess not, now it’s soot.
Then there was the theory by Goracles crowd that global warming would cause more cirrus clouds, but a new study shows otherwise:
The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville’s Earth System Science Center.
That was not what he expected to find.
Then this report on how sunspots and the sun affect our climate and its changes:
PLANET-wide heating and cooling of the atmosphere during the 11-year sunspot cycle has been measured for the first time. Climate-change sceptics may seize on the findings as evidence that the sun’s variability can explain global warming – but mathematician Ka-Kit Tung says quite the contrary is true.
Tung and colleague Charles Camp, both of the University of Washington in Seattle, analysed satellite data on solar radiation and surface temperatures over the past 50 years, covering four-and-a-half solar cycles. They found that global average temperatures oscillated by almost 0.2 °C between high and low points in the cycle, nearly twice the amplitude of previous estimates
But JunkScience has an answer for Tung, Camp, and the Goracles crowd:
yes and no. Yes, the temperature of the Earth is intimately linked to solar activity (duh!) but no, the consequences are nothing like Freddy the AGW Hysteric spins this piece. The major problem these days stems from excessive trust — specialists of many fields apply their work to "global warming" trusting that current and historical global mean temperatures and trends are as advertised and that climate models and their output are as useful as the modelling fraternity claims. They do so without guile or malice but out of simple ignorance. Few are aware there is no agreed standard of what we are trying to measure, or how. Most don’t know that models deliver a spread of ~5 K for the calculated Earth mean temperature, making the detection of changes an order of magnitude smaller over a century nothing but wishful thinking. Few know that enhanced greenhouse forcing from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide requires a massive (and yet-to-be-observed) water vapor amplification which simply refuses to manifest itself in the real world. Probably none of them realize they are attempting to found science on the unsupportable claims of a small coterie pretending to know the current temperature of the planet, along with its past and future trends.
But don’t tell that to the environazi’s. They will sputter "the evidence is indisputable!" over and over and over again when nothing of the sort is true. We do not know that man is causing global warming or if its just a regular climate cycle of this planet. We just do not know. And for people to spend billions, pass legislation that will cripple economies, and put on terrible rock shows, is just plain ignorant.
More bad data news:
Two papers,
Wang et al., Urban heat islands in China (GRL 1990)
Jones et al., Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land (Nature 1990)seem to be based on fabricated data such as data from China that were claimed to come from the same stations even though the location of most stations was changing many times by as much as dozens of miles (which is, of course, a huge problem for any analysis of the urbanization effects).
The paper by Jones et al. (1990) is important because it is used by IPCC AR4 to resolve an apparent contradiction: the paper argues that the urbanization effects are 10 times smaller than needed to explain the observed 20th century warming trend.
What! The IPCC used papers based on fraudulent data? Get outta here….I would never had expected that.
Sigh….
Oh, and on top of the soot it appears burning wood and dung in Asia is now causing global warming:
A new study indicates that poor Asians burning dung for energy may be a major cause of global warming. It may explain why glaciers are really melting — and why climate is more complicated than some think.
It used to be a straight-line theory based on easily connected dots. The Earth was warming due to increased levels of carbon dioxide generated by man, his factories, power plants and vehicles. The U.S. and the industrialized world had to drastically reduce its CO2 levels to prevent the poles from melting and the seas from rising.
But a new study in the Aug. 2 issue of the British science journal Nature suggests that the absence of technology, not its reckless use, may be a major factor in raising the Earth’s global temperature.
The haze of pollution called the "Asian Brown Cloud," caused by wood and dung burned for fuel, may be doing more harm than the tailpipes of our SUVs.
So now they want us to believe its not only the SUV’s and the lear jets the global warming crowd fly in but its also the poor burning wood and crap. Is there anything we can do except commit suicide to these people?
Oh, and probably my favorite story:
A man paddling and pulling his kayak from Brisbane to Adelaide to promote the need for action on climate change says he is disappointed with the sceptical nature of outback Australians:
Steve Posselt, who is pulling his kayak along the Darling River road due to a lack of water, says that many rural people do not believe in climate change.
He says he did not expect so many people to doubt what the majority of climate scientists agree on.
"I’ve been astounded by the actual lack of belief on this trip," he said.
"Many people want to argue the issue about whether there is such a thing as global warming.
"You can talk to blokes in the pub and they say yep winters aren’t what they used to be, they’re a lot shorter.
"And you say, ‘well do you believe in climate change? No, mate its just a cycle’."
Sounds like these Aussies have a good head on their shoulders.
See author page
What a shame. The poor “blokes” in the Aussie Outback aren’t buying into Global Warming.
Don’t they know that 8 out of 10 Hollywood scientists, oops, I mean celebrites, is convinced that manmade global warming is a fact?
Ice age?!! See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4
MewsMax has a shorter version
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/21/123227.shtml
All the “global warming is not caused by man” advocates are just looking for any excuse to perpetuate their selfish, greedy behavior. So, just as they say to hell with me, I say to hell with them too.
Wrong, we are just not sheep. The science is NOT over, the debate is NOT over, and for you environazi’s to tell us that it is in fact over is just disingenuous and dangerous.
Your happy being a sheep, cool. Just follow The Goracle somewhere else please.
All you “scientists”, who have certainly studied many years to come to your “conlusions”, don’t know an ounce more than the many scientisists, who most probably have been trying to warn us before the big lobbies stopped any reports from coming out. Now we have the internet, and a scientist who feels strongly, can get the news out. And when have you seen BP, Shell, Exxon, Total, spending billions in ads showing how GREEN they are??? If you don’t beleive the many scientists, beleive those mentioned above’s. Give me a reason for spending $$$$ to show how much they care? I base myself on what the polluters say, and they don’t question the veracity of the ICPP report. But you all know better. Just thank CERN’s invention of the internet. Before, scientists could not get out anything damaging to the established forces.
Thank you all for your unproductive input and I hope you will use common sense from now on!
I agree that the science is far from settled as far as our impact on the climate (though perhaps not our impact on other aspects of the environment, like dead zones, rampant pollution, habitat destruction…). I also believe that the current climate debate is far more political than scientific.
Scientists, at least the ones who comment, don’t actually seem to be saying that the question is “settled”. Rather they say that the extra carbon is “likely” or “most likely” to be the cause of the current warming, despite what some are saying.
Politicians are not going to save planet earth, and nor are the rest of us. What we are doing to our planet will have future repercussions – which means we won’t be alive when it gets bad, our descendants will be dealing with it.
That is why nothing will be done to alleviate our continuing, and accumulating, damage to the ecosystems that we, and so many other species, still need. We will largely disappear from the planet, either due to raised sea levels or lack of suitable land, because we will have destroyed much of it.
The current debate is really just a way of making ourselves believe that we can do something. But we won’t.