Global Warming to Stop - CO2 Role Exagerrated

[Riverwind]

A peer reviewed paper in Nature is now claiming what AGW skeptics have been saying for years: that natural factors are more significant than CO2 when it comes to determining the course of climate.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/...nature06921.pdf

Of course they try to argue that this cooling phase is only a temporary and warming will resume 10-20 years from now.

However, they have just admitted that all of the climate models used by the IPCC are wrong because they did not take the effect of the world's oceans into account. This means their predictions of accelerated warming in the future should be taken with a huge grain a salt.

It is worth reminding people that the IPCC and the alarmists have stated over and over again that only CO2 can explain the warming over the last 50 years. They are now admitting that this claim is false and that the oceans were responsible for some of that warming. This means all of the calculations regarding the significant of CO2 are wrong and will have to be adjusted downward.

I don't understand why the alarmists think they deserve to be taken seriously anymore.

[eyeball]

I don't understand why the alarmists think they deserve to be taken seriously anymore.

I don't understand why the optimists think they deserve to be taken any more seriously. I wonder what else scientists are guilty of exagerating? Market forces top my list followed closely by fisheries and oceans...

So predicting climate change now depends on a better understanding of the ocean? You best not call the DFO if that's the case.

[Riverwind]

So predicting climate change now depends on a better understanding of the ocean? You best not call the DFO if that's the case.

A good example of why we should not be rushing to adopt radical changes to social policy based on the output of climate models.

There are plently of environmental problems that we know are real (water quality, smog, land fills, etc). We would be better off spending money on those things instead of the CO2 bugbear.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

A good example of why we should not be rushing to adopt radical changes to social policy based on the output of climate models.

You could say the same thing about policies based on the output of economic models.

[margrace]

Its time these pro goverment hacks realized that with the awful storms and floods around the world how stupid they sound.

[sharkman]

Imagine how stupid the environazis like Gore will look when they realize their God is dead. Imagine no religion...

[Riverwind]

Imagine how stupid the environazis like Gore will look when they realize their God is dead. Imagine no religion...

Nature abhors a vacuum - that is why the CO2 religion has found the most fertile soil among groups of people who don't believe in traditional religions. Edited May 1, 2008 by Riverwind

[August1991]

So predicting climate change now depends on a better understanding of the ocean? You best not call the DFO if that's the case.

It depends critically on a better understanding of the oceans. Oceans are a large absorber of CO2 and how they do this is poorly understood. In addition, the oceans are a ballast to the world's atmospheric temperature.

Here is a layman's BBC report of this Nature paper:

Dr Wood cautions that this kind of modelling is in its infancy; and once data can be brought directly from the Atlantic depths, that may change the view of how the AMO works and what it means for the global climate.

BBC

IOW, we don't understand well how the planet arrives at a temperature equilibrium and there is evidence contrary to current theories.

----

I agree with Riverwind that even the BBC simply can't bring itself to question global warming theories - despite contrary evidence.

For me, one of the key pieces of evidence were the first results of teh Argo project with thousands of buoys floating around the world's oceans and reporting back data.

The following article was linked on another thread:

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

National Post

----

There are plently of environmental problems that we know are real (water quality, smog, land fills, etc). We would be better off spending money on those things instead of the CO2 bugbear.

This disturbs me too. Environmentalists seem to have put all their eggs in one basket. That's a risky strategy. Edited May 1, 2008 by August1991

[eyeball]

I'll be back...

Edited May 1, 2008 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

The evolution of the BBC:

BBC August 2007:

Writing in Science, Met Office researchers project that at least half of the years between 2009 and 2014 are likely to exceed existing records.

BBC April 2008:

Experts at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for forecasting in Exeter said the world could expect another record temperature within five years or less, probably associated with another episode of El Nino.

BBC 1 May 2008:

The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted. However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002997.html

[eyeball]

It depends critically on a better understanding of the oceans.

Well, the carbon optimists should cool their jets until that happens. If I had a fishboat for every scientist that's uttered "the ocean is a big black box"...

Oceans are a large absorber of CO2 and how they do this is poorly understood.

But somehow we suddenly know enough to conclude that its okay to pump as much carbon into the atmosphere as we wish?

In addition, the oceans are a ballast to the world's atmospheric temperature.

How do you know that? The question I have is, what effect will the all the carbon we've released to date have on this latest cooling phase of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation? We don't have a clue.

Here is a layman's BBC report of this Nature paper:BBC

IOW, we don't understand well how the planet arrives at a temperature equilibrium and there is evidence contrary to current theories.

There is evidence contrary to e=mc2...even Einstein had his doubts.

----

I agree with Riverwind that even the BBC simply can't bring itself to question global warming theories - despite contrary evidence.

There's evidence the media is dominated by the left and the BBC is like the CBC so...

For me, one of the key pieces of evidence were the first results of teh Argo project with thousands of buoys floating around the world's oceans and reporting back data.

The following article was linked on another thread:National Post

I'd rather wait until these things have recorded an ocillation or two. Lorne Grunter tends to get a little excited at times.

QUOTE(Riverwind @ May 1 2008, 02:18 PM)

There are plently of environmental problems that we know are real (water quality, smog, land fills, etc). We would be better off spending money on those things instead of the CO2 bugbear.

Yeah sure, the minute environmentalists suggest money be spent on these they're told there's no need to do anything at all because market forces will supply the demand for solutions.

This disturbs me too. Economists seem to have put all their eggs in one basket. That's a risky strategy.

Edited May 1, 2008 by eyeball

[Kitchener]

From the Nature article: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

The authors do not contest AGW.

[jdobbin]

From the Nature article: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

The authors do not contest AGW.

That was my reading of things as well. It by no means an entreaty to dismiss global warming.

[eyeball]

The BBC probably has good reason to feel inconclusive.

On January 15, 2005, the BBC broadcast its weekly acclaimed Horizon documentary. This one was about a dangerous phenomenon called Global Dimming.

Link

There is just too much room for uncertainty no matter which way you turn.

Now about some of these economists so-called theories..

[Riverwind]

That was my reading of things as well. It by no means an entreaty to dismiss global warming.

You miss the point. The claim that the ocean currents may "temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming" is pure CYA crap. If the author's claims that the oceans can offset CO induced warming the then the following must also be true:

1) Previous models that neglected the effect of ocean currents are wrong;

2) Ocean currents cause warming as well as cooling;

This means the total effect of CO2 must be less than what was stated previously once the models are adjusted to take into account the effect of ocean warming.

Here is an analysis that illustrates the point:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...-cited-by-nasa/

As you can see from the graph - once the effect of the oceans is taken into account the total warming by 2100 is not likely to exceed 1 degC - an amount of warming that is not likely to be a concern.

[August1991]

From the Nature article: "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

The authors do not contest AGW.

But Kitchener, that's what's so hilarious here. Temporarily?

That's like writing both figuratively and in fact a huge blank cheque. Now, they can claim global warming whatever the evidence says. It's like medieval priests who claimed that the sinful would die but the pious would live. Whatever happens, they're right.

-----

It seems to me that the main point in this - whether it's the initial data from the Argo project or this particular paper - is that our current theories have not been proven. We can barely predict the weather a few days in advance. Attempting to predict the weather several decades into the future is beyond our models. We don't know enough about how all this works. We need to gather more data and test various theories against the data.

It's called the scientific method and it's what makes defending western values so important in this modern world.

BTW, I consider myself a strong environmentalist but I approach the question in a different way. IMV, if something appears to be free, it probably isn't.

[jdobbin]

You miss the point. The claim that the ocean currents may "temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming" is pure CYA crap. If the author's claims that the oceans can offset CO induced warming the then the following must also be true:

I think I got the point quite clearly. It still doesn't dismiss global warming or the implications of it.

[Riverwind]

I think I got the point quite clearly. It still doesn't dismiss global warming or the implications of it.

The idea that global warming would resume as fast as ever after stopping 'temporarily' is an absurd claim that anyone should be able to see. If they are right and the oceans cause cooling then the catastrophic AGW claim is false or exaggerated. No other rational conclusion is possible. The CYA statements are in the paper because scientists who don't show obeisance to the church of global warming don't get published. Copernicus put the same kind of CYA statements in his papers in order to appease the Catholic church. Edited May 2, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The idea that global warming could stop 'temporarily' is an absurd claim that anyone should be able to see.

Did they stop? I saw the words offset.

We've heard numerous times that there are natural climate variations out there. What I've haven't heard in this report is that the man-made global warming will stop as a result of any of it.

[Riverwind]

We've heard numerous times that there are natural climate variations out there. What I've haven't heard in this report is that the man-made global warming will stop as a result of any of it.

The report makes it clear that CO2 induced warming cannot be as significant as the IPCC claims. You can deny if you like but I think most people are smart enough to recognize that claims that warming will resume 20 years from now are nothing more than idle speculation and cannot be used to justify radical policy interventions today.

[jdobbin]

The report makes it clear that CO2 induced warming cannot be as significant as the IPCC claims. You can deny if you like but I think most people are smart enough to recognize that claims that warming will resume 20 years from now are nothing more than idle speculation and cannot be used to justify radical policy interventions today.

What the report says is that ocean currents can offset the warming but not end man-made causes which will continue regardless. Most people are smart enough to know that global warming deniers don't want any action to end human contributions to warming.

[Riverwind]

What the report says is that ocean currents can offset the warming but not end man-made causes which will continue regardless.

The issue is not whether there is a man made component - the issue is whether that component is large enough to be significant. If the man made component can be offset by ocean cooling then that component cannot possibly be as large as claimed by the IPCC.

You can deny it all you want but you cannot deny the real data: if the planet does not warm as fast as predicted by the IPCC then then IPCC is WRONG. It *is* that simple. I don't see why we should care about science that has yet to produce an accurate prediction.

[jdobbin]

The issue is not whether there is a man made component - the issue is whether that component is large enough to be significant. If the man made component can be offset by ocean cooling then that component cannot possibly be as large as claimed by the IPCC.

Or the conclusion could be that the offsets of oceans currents can be dramatic.

You can deny it all you want but you cannot deny the real data: if the planet does not warm as fast as predicted by the IPCC then then IPCC is WRONG. It *is* that simple. I don't see why we should care about science that has yet to produce an accurate prediction.

All I've seen so far is that oceans can have a dramatic if not temporary effect.

Man-made warming remains a problem and that is what something some people continue to deny.

[gc1765]

There are plently of environmental problems that we know are real (water quality, smog, land fills, etc). We would be better off spending money on those things instead of the CO2 bugbear.

A lot of other environmental problems are related to CO2 by the fact that both are emitted when fossil fules are burned. As I mentioned before, carbon dioxide is not the only product of combustion - there are many other carcinogens as well. If we can focus on cutting down on burning fossil fuels, we will not only reduce CO2 emissions, but also reduce other problems as well. The best part is we don't even need to spend money on it, just shift taxation from income/business to consumption of fossil fuels.

[Riverwind]

All I've seen so far is that oceans can have a dramatic if not temporary effect.

If oceans cause dramatic cooling - they also cause dramatic warming. If they cause dramatic warming then the effect of CO2 has been exaggerated. This should be obvious to anyone who is not a devoted member of the church of global warming. Edited May 2, 2008 by Riverwind