The July 27-29 2007 U.S. Senate trip to Greenland to investigate fears of a glacier meltdown revealed an Arctic land where current climatic conditions are neither alarming nor linked to a rise in man-made carbon dioxide emissions, according to many of the latest peer-reviewed scientific findings. Recent research has found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880’s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955.
A recent study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995-2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies. These studies suggest that the biggest perceived threat to Greenland’s glaciers may be contained in unproven computer models predicting a future catastrophic melt.
18 comments:
Not so good news for your theory
The bottom line is that CO2 induced global warming theory has now been proven beyond all reasonable (and even some unreasonable) doubts. If we do nothing to curb CO2 emnissions then temperatures will rise beyond the most pessimistic IPCC predictions and then the Greenland ice will certainly melt.
No doubt, I am aware of this, and other studies that indicate minimal sun spots. But the problem is is that he has derived the data from max and min data which is completely inadequate. Sure as a statistician he would have known this.
There is no value at all on doing statistical analysis on temperature n anyway if all you re going to look at is a kindergarden rule for average temperature.
The method has been validated. The effects you see in your study are simply not significant for the global average.
The data is validated using satellite measurements and other independent measurements. And the derived forcings you need to account for the temperature increase very accurately fit the derived forcings for CO2 and aerosols.
This is really proof beyond a resonable doubt, even if not everything about the research is performed in a 100% ideal way.
Count: Does the Church of Global Warming provide you guys with these standard lines? There are lots of doubts about CO2 induced global warming, just not at the IPCC where the mantra is sung loud and strong.
Considering temperature increase with the "business as usual" scenario has been observed to correspond to the IPCC's drastic cuts modelled scenario, I would say it is your side that should take another look. But then you guys don't do rel world observation very well, best to use a computer to tell you what the climate is like.
I recall that up until about a year ago, satellite data was considered to be deeply flawed. That was until it was "corrected" to better match the models. Can you tell me what makes "derived forcings" better than observed forcings?
Jonathan: I think the biggest threat to Greenland is computer models. If Greenland doesn't soon shape up and start melting big-time, the greens are going to have to resort to soot and heat lamps.
And the derived forcings
Known in the real world as guesses.
Jonathan, help me out here. I am struggling with how TOB can occur over significant time periods (years).
I can see how a TOB could occur over 24H and even over a month, but surely over years it would be tiny.
http://www.john-daly.com/tob/TOBSUMC.HTM
Count, it really is sweet that you think one paper can make or break the AGW hypothesis.
Have you actually read the paper? You say "And the derived forcings you need to account for the temperature increase very accurately fit the derived forcings for CO2 and aerosols."
Did you notice the caveat "we have not included estimates of indirect
aerosol radiative forcing because evaluations by the IPCC
indicate that the confidence in them is very low."
I also like how they've essentially ignored data post-2000. I think you know why.
You say "The data is validated using satellite measurements and other independent measurements."
Which satellite measurement are those? The lower troposphere showing no trend over the last 5 years, or the stratosphere showing no cooling trend for the last 10 years. Or are you referring to SST or surface Temperature showing no trend for the last 5 years?
You say "This is really proof beyond a resonable doubt, even if not everything about the research is performed in a 100% ideal way."
In other words you don't care how they did it, as long as they get the answer you agree with. Why do even bother trying to talk about science?
To everyone here, the study I linked to looked at global warming from a completely new perspective. And it exactly confirmed the CO2 as the driving force of global warming.
The failure of you here to comprehend the significance of that speaks volumes. You are to climate science what creationist are to biologists. There is always that argument from some creationists nutcase, or even a mor respectable scientists that hasn't been debunked yet...
Count, I think your analogy between creationism and biological science is very apt...... unfortunately you seem to have assigned the tags to the wrong groups of people.
And it exactly confirmed the CO2 as the driving force of global warming.
That's a lie and indicative of the chronic misinformation and deception coming out of the AGW camp.
The report actually said,
Verdes found that the driving-force profile that produced the best fit almost exactly matched records of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions (see Driving force).
Philip you failed to understand what Verdes actually did. The fit is to the temperature record. What comes out of the fit then almost exactly matches the driving force attributed to CO2 and aerosols by climate scientists.
See this graph
A deadly blow to climate skeptics, I would say
count, you'd do yourself a massive favour if you actually READ these articles, rather than just rely on magazines.
As I stated earlier, in calculating the driving forces attributed to CO2 and aerosols (ie the thick black line on Fig 2), the authors say "we have not included estimates of indirect
aerosol radiative forcing because evaluations by the IPCC indicate that the confidence in them is very low". Do you understand what that means? The IPCC has very low confidence in attributing a qauntitative effect to them. They're not saying that they don't have an effect, they're saying we don't have the knowledge yet to accurately calculate it.
So the authors have calculated an athropegenic radiative forcing that appears to match well with their calculated driving force. Except that they necessarily had to leave out some anthropegenic emissions. Also, as you can see in Fig 2, the thick black line ends 10 years ago, just as it begins to diverge from the calculated driving force which ends in 2000. Thus, no attempt at testing their methods against the temperatures this century. No surprise there, as the lack of trend in tropospheric temperature over the last 5 years or the lack of stratospheric cooling over the last 10 years is very tricky for AGW theory to explain.
So if you think that's a deadly blow to climate skeptics then you must be easily impressed.
the fit then almost exactly matches the driving force attributed to CO2 and aerosols by climate scientists.
Again more misinformation (aka lies) even after I pointed out the quote to you. What is it with AGW believers and their chronic inability to tell the truth?
The fit is to "GHGs and aerosols". GHGs include, but are not restricted to, H2O, methane, CO2, various CFCs.
It says precisely zero about the effect of CO2. To suggest otherwise is a lie.
regards
philip, count iblis isn't lying when he says what he believes to be true. He might be wrong, but I don't see how that makes him a liar.
In fact, one of the things I hate about this debate is the labelling of sides with pejorative terms like 'denier/denialist' or 'lies/liars'. Its just bullshit that detracts from a sensible discussion of the science.
Alan, were count iblis interested in a serious discussion of the science, I would agree with you. However, I am quite certain he is not. He is here to give the causal reader the (false) impression that AGW is scientifically incontravertable and where necessary muddy the waters, throw in red herrings and strawman arguments. He doesn't want debate. He wants to stifle debate.
The day count iblis genuinely engages on the science (and I'm not holding my breath), I'll be the first to positively welcome that.
regards
philip, if I thought the count was particularly smart then I'd agree with you. But he obviously ain't.
Alan, you have completely misunderstood the article.
The bottom line is this: (it may be clearer if you read the original Physical Review Letters article):
It is possible from the temperature, solar, volcanic data to derive what extra forcing you need to explain the temperature record. This function can be extimated as a function of time.
The fact that this is possible at all is highly non trivial. It is a new mathematical technique that didn't exist until a few years ago.
The forcing he found matched the assumed forcings due to CO2 and airosols as estimated by the IPCC.
This is highly significant. If current warming was not due to CO2 induced forcings then the derived forcing could be anything and would very likely not closely match the CO2 levels.
Ironic though that Alan wrote that I didn't read the article, while he himself failed to understood the significance of it: An independent method confirming the contested result, like a DNA test confirming the testimony of witnesses about the guilt of a suspect.
Post a Comment