Another nail in the coffin of the human made global warming myth

[Horza2002]

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100128/full/news.2010.42.html

 

 

Another article showing that human caused global warming is a myth. But what are the chances this never makes the headlines.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How does this show that human-caused global warming is a myth? It just explains why the last decade wasn't as hot as we expected it to be.

[swansont]

The drop in water vapour doesn't explain the entire decrease in the rate of warming, but it could contribute to it, says Susan Solomon, first author of the study and a NOAA scientist who co-chaired the physical-science working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as part of its 2007 assessment.

 

"What we are trying to do here is explain not the overall multi-decadal trend, but the zigs and zags in that trend," Solomon says. "I think it's too early to know how they all play out."

 

Note that "decrease in the rate of warming" is still warming.

 

So the headline here is what? Scientists Do Science, Learn New Things

[jackson33]

If conditions in the each layer of atmosphere can influence Global Surface Temperatures or in fact the moisture of the lower, that could not be a direct reaction to human activity. The same would be true in Ocean conditions (oscillation) at sea level, which also never gets discussed. Almost forgot...........IMO.

 

 

Horza, with out getting involved with another AGW thread, the mention of moisture is really not all that new.

 

If interested in another skeptic of AGW, by a reputable Climatologist, formerly a NASA Scientist and author, you might check out 'Dr. Roy Spenser'. His research has also gone ignored and primarily based around surface moisture. By the way 'swansont' he changed his tune dramatically, on retirement from NASA, but had been trying to promote his theory for years. He is also a regular contributor to the 'Rush Limbaugh Radio' show, who pulls no punches, calling AGW a "HOAX".

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

[bascule]

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100128/full/news.2010.42.html

 

Another article showing that human caused global warming is a myth.

 

How exactly does it do that?

 

"What we are trying to do here is explain not the overall multi-decadal trend, but the zigs and zags in that trend," Solomon says. "I think it's too early to know how they all play out."

 

By the admission of the paper's own authors this paper is not about the overall trend in GMST.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So the headline here is what? Scientists Do Science, Learn New Things

 

This paper exposes the myth of Newtonian Mechanics and how it's fundamentally flawed:

 

http://www.bartleby.com/173/

[toastywombel]

Oh please, this article doesn't disprove the concept of man made global warming at all.

[Horza2002]

lets look at the facts:

 

Water is at least 50% more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2

 

Over 80% of global warming is caused by water in the atmosphere

 

Humans are resonsible for about 2% of all CO2 emmisions each year.

 

 

 

From the article, global temperatures begin to level off even though CO2 emisions remain constant/increase. It therefore implies that CO2 has a limited effect on global temperature and seeing as humans have a tny influence on CO2 concentrations then humans are not to blame for global warming.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If conditions in the each layer of atmosphere can influence Global Surface Temperatures or in fact the moisture of the lower, that could not be a direct reaction to human activity. The same would be true in Ocean conditions (oscillation) at sea level, which also never gets discussed. Almost forgot...........IMO.

 

 

Horza, with out getting involved with another AGW thread, the mention of moisture is really not all that new.

 

If interested in another skeptic of AGW, by a reputable Climatologist, formerly a NASA Scientist and author, you might check out 'Dr. Roy Spenser'. His research has also gone ignored and primarily based around surface moisture. By the way 'swansont' he changed his tune dramatically, on retirement from NASA, but had been trying to promote his theory for years. He is also a regular contributor to the 'Rush Limbaugh Radio' show, who pulls no punches, calling AGW a "HOAX".

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

 

 

 

Thanks very much for that link, I shall have a look at his work

[Mokele]

You are aware that water acts as nothing more than an amplifier, right? That the only thing that changes atmospheric water is TEMPERATURE?

 

Here, try reading something not written by a total dipshit:

water vapor as feedback

More on water vapor

and more

and more

 

Look, things suddenly become clear when you read stuff that's written by people who have a grasp of basic facts and logic, rather than crackpots and paid shills.

[swansont]

lets look at the facts:

 

Water is at least 50% more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2

 

Over 80% of global warming is caused by water in the atmosphere

 

And the amount of water that could be contained is limited. There are these things called clouds, and the phenomenon known as rain.

 

 

Humans are resonsible for about 2% of all CO2 emmisions each year.

 

 

But atmospheric concentration is what matters. How much of the increase in concentration are we responsible for?

 

 

You sin by omission. That tactic is unlikely to work around people who have an inkling of what's going on.

[jryan]

The drop in water vapour doesn't explain the entire decrease in the rate of warming, but it could contribute to it, says Susan Solomon, first author of the study and a NOAA scientist who co-chaired the physical-science working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as part of its 2007 assessment.

 

"What we are trying to do here is explain not the overall multi-decadal trend, but the zigs and zags in that trend," Solomon says. "I think it's too early to know how they all play out."

 

Note that "decrease in the rate of warming" is still warming.

 

So the headline here is what? Scientists Do Science, Learn New Things

 

 

Well, now there is a selective choice of phrase. It also said "flatten out" which means no warming. And it also says "doesn't explain all the decrease in the rate of warming", which tells me there is still a lot of unknown.

 

The coffin into which that nail was driven was not for "man made global warming" but for our confidence in the predictive abilities of our models... aka. the whole basis for our concern.

 

The damage this has is two fold -- and again, this is damaging to the assertions that AGW is a real and immediate threat to the planet. First it damages the credibility of the precision of current model predictions of future warming and second it damages the credibility of the predictive ability of these models on past temperatures.

 

I'm not sure you need to be a scientist to understand that if we don't know where we're going, or where we've been, then the present loses meaning.

 

Obviously these corrections are what science is all about, it is good to see a turn away from "the time for debate is over". But it is patently obvious, and has been for longer than many care to accept, that as a young discipline climatology has produced no real actionable material, and more attention than it really deserves... mostly due to scare mongering by people like James Hansen (who wants oil execs tried for treason against the planet: link to audio at NPR), Al Gore, and others.

[swansont]

Well, now there is a selective choice of phrase. It also said "flatten out" which means no warming.

 

No, "flatten" means "to make flat or flatter." Given the context, it does not mean "no warming."

 

 

The coffin into which that nail was driven was not for "man made global warming" but for our confidence in the predictive abilities of our models... aka. the whole basis for our concern.

 

The damage this has is two fold -- and again, this is damaging to the assertions that AGW is a real and immediate threat to the planet. First it damages the credibility of the precision of current model predictions of future warming and second it damages the credibility of the predictive ability of these models on past temperatures.

 

No, I disagree. There's nothing in the article that calls the longer-term results into question, just some of the shorter-term variations.

 

 

I'm not sure you need to be a scientist to understand that if we don't know where we're going, or where we've been, then the present loses meaning.

 

How is that an accurate reflection of the situation? Implying we know nothing is bunk.

 

Obviously these corrections are what science is all about, it is good to see a turn away from "the time for debate is over". But it is patently obvious, and has been for longer than many care to accept, that as a young discipline climatology has produced no real actionable material, and more attention than it really deserves... mostly due to scare mongering by people like James Hansen (who wants oil execs tried for treason against the planet: link to audio at NPR), Al Gore, and others.

 

As this isn't a politics thread, I don't see how a discussion of the alleged tactic of scare-mongering is relevant.

[jryan]

No, "flatten" means "to make flat or flatter." Given the context, it does not mean "no warming."

 

From that very same article they have the climate graph from NOAA (below):

 

 

Look at the trend since about 2003. Does that appear to be an upward trend to you?

 

No, I disagree. There's nothing in the article that calls the longer-term results into question, just some of the shorter-term variations.

 

Of course it does because it calls into question the assumptions for one of the primary (and actually the largest) forcers in global climate. If we don't understand the forcers, as the article admits we don't, how do you expect the long term to be correct?

 

This is also on the tails of the Nature article regarding the overstatement of the CO2 climate sensitivity. So now how can we be certain of the future when we don't even know primary forcers we are concerned about?

 

How is that an accurate reflection of the situation? Implying we know nothing is bunk.

 

No, I am implying we don't know enough, and we assume that we know far more than we actually do. These two studies aren't nibbling at the edges of AGW theory, but suggesting dramatic changes to some of the very base assumptions in our understanding of Earth climate.

 

 

As this isn't a politics thread, I don't see how a discussion of the alleged tactic of scare-mongering is relevant.

 

Because that is the reason we have robust debate about this subject at all. If the assumption was that all is well with Earth's climate and nothing is abnormal then there would be nothing to discuss.

 

A "skeptics", or "climate deniers", or however we are labeled on a given day, like me opposes the notion that we know enough about Earth's climate to make meaningful predictions at all about future climate. I don't see this study, or the CO2 sensitivity study as anything more than what they are: an increase in our knowledge of global climate that happens to pull back on the more dramatic predictions of future climate by the hotter heads in the discipline. It is a step forward for science and, as must be the case, a step backward for the alarmists.

[swansont]

From that very same article they have the climate graph from NOAA (below):

 

 

Look at the trend since about 2003. Does that appear to be an upward trend to you?

 

<sigh>

 

The caption on the graph is "Records show temperatures flattened off in the decade spanning 2000 to 2009." The context of the article is terms of multi-decadal temperature change, vs the fluctuations on shorter time scales. (How do I know this? It's in the frakkin' article!) So if you cherry-pick a shorter time scale, you are looking at the fluctuations, and creating a strawman argument. If you look at the temperature over the whole decade, you see that it has increased, as compared to the previous decade. But the increase was smaller.

 

 

Of course it does because it calls into question the assumptions for one of the primary (and actually the largest) forcers in global climate. If we don't understand the forcers, as the article admits we don't, how do you expect the long term to be correct?

 

Except H2O isn't a forcing, it's an amplifier. And the problem is not understanding what water does — if we didn't understand that, then how did the scientists do their measurements and come to their conclusions? I mean, if we take your position, then you have to question whether the scientists' conclusions are correct. They say that the drop in water vapor "could have offset the expected warming due to greenhouse gases by roughly 25%" but obviously you have to take the position that the 25% number means nothing, because the scientists don't really know what's going on. Either they understand what's going on or, you have no confidence in them. Can't have it both ways.

[Mokele]

Look at the trend since about 2003. Does that appear to be an upward trend to you?

 

Yes, just look - from about 1945 to 1975, the graph flattened and even descended. Clearly this disproves global warming, and there will be no increases in temperature after 1975.

 

Oh, wait....

 

So, hands up everyone who's too stupid to realize that a huge, complex system like the atmosphere might not behave linearly.

 

No, I am implying we don't know enough, and we assume that we know far more than we actually do.

 

We don't know everything about how you walk, either. Seriously, there are HUGE gaps in our understanding, far greater than in climatology.

 

That doesn't mean, however, we have no basis to conclude that if we cut your feet off, your walking will be impaired.

[jryan]

Yes, just look - from about 1945 to 1975, the graph flattened and even descended. Clearly this disproves global warming, and there will be no increases in temperature after 1975.

 

Oh, wait....

 

So, hands up everyone who's too stupid to realize that a huge, complex system like the atmosphere might not behave linearly.

 

No, it isn't linear, but it is your side claiming that henceforth it will be generally linear warming. We skeptics have always argued non-linearity, and the folly of picking trends from 30 years or even 150 years of data.

 

 

We don't know everything about how you walk, either. Seriously, there are HUGE gaps in our understanding, far greater than in climatology.

 

That doesn't mean, however, we have no basis to conclude that if we cut your feet off, your walking will be impaired.

 

To expand on your tortured analogy it is also foolish to assume someone will run fast because you can show they have feet.

[John Cuthber]

For a minute lets assume that these are facts

 

"lets look at the facts:

 

Water is at least 50% more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2

 

Over 80% of global warming is caused by water in the atmosphere

 

Humans are resonsible for about 2% of all CO2 emmisions each year."

 

So what?

The fact that you post this indicates that you haven't thought it through.

 

Water is a potent greenhouse gas.

True enough but it's more or less stable.

It's like saying that in cold weather you need a quilt so putting on another blanket won't make you warmer because the blanket is thinner than the quilt.

Don't you realise that the effect is (at least) additive?

 

Much of the earth's warming is due to water.

True enough, but the same argument applies, the CO2 still adds to it.

There are also complications due to saturation effects.

There's so much water in the atmosphere that, whatever wavelengths of IR are absorbed by water just about don't make it through the atmosphere. Only a tiny fraction of that radiation gets through.

Adding a bit more or less will not make much difference because it can only affect that tiny fraction.

 

Humans are only responsible for a small faction of the CO2 emissions.

Fair enough- but we are responsible for practically no removal of CO2. so, unlike the rest of the system (trees, volcanoes, subduction, whatever) we continuously push the CO2 concentration upwards.

 

 

Incidentally, re. that graph; even if the curve is flattening out, it's flattening out at a higher temperature than any before it on that record.

[jryan]

<sigh>

 

The caption on the graph is "Records show temperatures flattened off in the decade spanning 2000 to 2009." The context of the article is terms of multi-decadal temperature change, vs the fluctuations on shorter time scales. (How do I know this? It's in the frakkin' article!) So if you cherry-pick a shorter time scale, you are looking at the fluctuations, and creating a strawman argument. If you look at the temperature over the whole decade, you see that it has increased, as compared to the previous decade. But the increase was smaller.

 

No, Swansnot, it is you claiming that the temperatures over that same time scale haven't entered a decline or flattened. There arbitrary choice of 2000 to 2009 is no less arbitrary that the choice of 2003 to 2010... other than it is two years longer. and incorporates the end of a 20 year upward trend.

 

In all cases it is like watching the temperature go from 40F to 60F between 6:00am and Noon and deducing the the temperature will be 100F by midnight.

 

The article is what it is. It has determined that high atmosphere water (or the absence there of) has been a major contributor to the previous decade of warming, and as the high atmosphere vapor returns we are seeing a decrease in global temperatures.

 

To simply say "well look it's still flat or slightly increased on average" is as disingenuous a retelling of the article as you claim mine is. The whole point of the article that an unexpected drop in water vapor by 10% contributed to the warming by as much as 30%.

 

Your claim of a minor rise in the same time frame, one that is not readily apparent even on the 2000 to 2009 time scale still doesn't do service to the article itself.

 

So yeah "<sigh>" away. But the point remains, CO2 was not as strong a contributor to the 2000-2009 warmth as once thought.. and if you and others can feel some importance in claiming "warmest decade" claims then you have to accept the importance of studies that actually discuss why it was the warmest decade... even if that study doesn't bow at the alter of CO2.

 

 

Except H2O isn't a forcing, it's an amplifier. And the problem is not understanding what water does — if we didn't understand that, then how did the scientists do their measurements and come to their conclusions? I mean, if we take your position, then you have to question whether the scientists' conclusions are correct. They say that the drop in water vapor "could have offset the expected warming due to greenhouse gases by roughly 25%" but obviously you have to take the position that the 25% number means nothing, because the scientists don't really know what's going on. Either they understand what's going on or, you have no confidence in them. Can't have it both ways.

 

This is a matter of statistics, Swansnot, otherwise there is no wiggle room in a given observation to extract the 30% to begin with. The total contribution of all forcings on climate can not be less than or exceed 100%... this 30% contribution by stratospheric water vapor an only subtract from what we already assumed were the given forcings in that period.

 

That water vapor is an augmenter of climate is not what I am disputing, it is that the current model says that CO2 raises climate which in turn raises water vapor which raises energy retention (Louisiana -vs- Mojave daily osculation being a commonly used example) which raises CO2 which raises climate and so on. For the last decade the water vapor in the stratosphere decreased which contributed to warming. This is not what was the presumed function of vapor.

 

It is interesting (for me anyway) to note that this finding does fall in line with the solar forcing model, however, as that model assumes a great deal of forcing resides in high stratosphere cloud production, which is presumed to be driven in part by vapor concentration and in part by cosmic rays.

 

In that model a lowering of stratospheric vapor would lead to decreases in high atmosphere clouds, and lead to warming. At that same time we were also enveloped in the Sun's magnetic bubble, which also reduced the Earth's exposure to cosmic rays.

 

Anyway, that aside, a 30% contribution that was not previously known can only expose what we thought we knew was wrong by... 30%. You can't increase climate forcings to 130% to accommodate this discovery.

[Mokele]

No, it isn't linear, but it is your side claiming that henceforth it will be generally linear warming.

 

Strawman fallacy.

 

Intellectual dishonesty is not considered a positive trait here at SFN.

[swansont]

No, Swansnot, it is you claiming that the temperatures over that same time scale haven't entered a decline or flattened. There arbitrary choice of 2000 to 2009 is no less arbitrary that the choice of 2003 to 2010... other than it is two years longer. and incorporates the end of a 20 year upward trend.

 

It is less arbitrary when the whole context is (multi) decadal trends. And you have data for 2010? That's a neat trick, considering it's just February 1. So in reality you have 2003-2009, which is three years shorter than a decade, which is the time span the authors have explained is pertinent.

 

(BTW, you keep getting my user name wrong. Once is a typo. More than that and one has to wonder if it's deliberate)

 

In all cases it is like watching the temperature go from 40F to 60F between 6:00am and Noon and deducing the the temperature will be 100F by midnight.

 

Strawman and appeal to ridicule.

 

The article is what it is. It has determined that high atmosphere water (or the absence there of) has been a major contributor to the previous decade of warming, and as the high atmosphere vapor returns we are seeing a decrease in global temperatures.

 

To simply say "well look it's still flat or slightly increased on average" is as disingenuous a retelling of the article as you claim mine is. The whole point of the article that an unexpected drop in water vapor by 10% contributed to the warming by as much as 30%.

 

No, that's not what the article said.

 

Now a team led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Boulder, Colorado, report that a mysterious 10% drop in water vapour in the stratosphere — the atmospheric layer that sits 10–50 kilometres above Earth's surface — since 2000 could have offset the expected warming due to greenhouse gases by roughly 25%. Just as intriguingly, their model suggests that an increase in stratospheric water vapour might have boosted earlier warming by about 30% in the 1980s and 1990s.

[toastywombel]

JRyan you seem to be on this side of the debate and Horza, you earlier used the argument that we are responsible for 2% of the CO2 emissions. It is easy to shout that out and say, see its so small!

 

In reality the other 98% of CO2 that is released is absorbed by plants and other forms of absorption. Our 2% causes an imbalance, and makes it so an amount of carbon generally equal to what we released stays in the atmosphere and is not absorbed. Furthermore, were cutting down the rain forests around the world! That means even less CO2 absorbed

 

Essentially our 2% CO2 a year carries over year after year. This makes the CO2 concentration higher and higher. Plus water being a greenhouse gas is irrelevant to the debate here. Water doesn't get trapped in the atmosphere indefinitely. The debate is whether rising CO2 levels, and rising temperatures are caused by human release of CO2.

 

Also you do realise water in the atmosphere is not as dangerous as CO2. You can go outside and survive 100% humidity.

If you tried walking outside and there was a concentration of CO2 above 3-5% you most likely would pass out and die. The current concentration in the atmosphere of CO2 is 0.038%.

 

Why do you feel the need to debate global warming so vehemently. There are theories that are less proven than man made global warming and they are more widely accepted. I really don't understand it, why is it so controversial for everyday Joe's.

[jryan]

It is less arbitrary when the whole context is (multi) decadal trends. And you have data for 2010? That's a neat trick, considering it's just February 1. So in reality you have 2003-2009, which is three years shorter than a decade, which is the time span the authors have explained is pertinent.

 

Heh, whoops. Tree year out of 10 rose as expected, and 7 of the 10 flattened or declined unexpectedly.

 

In this case, however, note that the high stratospheric water vapor is not considered a decadal oscillation, they are stating that the change in high stratospheric water vapor effected the decadal oscillation.

 

 

 

(BTW, you keep getting my user name wrong. Once is a typo. More than that and one has to wonder if it's deliberate)

 

In my case more than once is dyslexia.

 

Strawman and appeal to ridicule.

 

It was an attempt to explain my point through demonstration.

 

 

 

No, that's not what the article said.

 

Now a team led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Boulder, Colorado, report that a mysterious 10% drop in water vapour in the stratosphere — the atmospheric layer that sits 10–50 kilometres above Earth's surface — since 2000 could have offset the expected warming due to greenhouse gases by roughly 25%. Just as intriguingly, their model suggests that an increase in stratospheric water vapour might have boosted earlier warming by about 30% in the 1980s and 1990s.

 

You're right, I mistakenly flipped the findings. But the paper is not about decadal oscillation, but rather a "mysterious" finding that is effecting the decadal oscillation.

 

And blast, Nature has apparently dumped the article into premium content. Your correction prompted me to go back and read it more carefully now that I am home and can dedictae more time to it.

[NightHawkIL]

Ok here's what I don't get: Why would anyone in their right mind want to discredit global warming?

 

Be it correct or not, the steps being taken to prevent global warming are certainly not bad for the environment. I have been in countries with less environmental controls and it's not pretty. Every inhabitant of the cities having a constant cough among other more severe health problems due to bad air - I witnessed this in Mongolia.

 

So long as global warming is a public issue it brings out other environmental concerns. An individual concerned with global warming might be less likely to throw a bottle out their window simply because they have taking care of the environment on their mind.

 

As someone who very much enjoys the outdoors, I do not dispute global warming - even though I am not convinced of the part humans play.

[eclecticcowboy]

This whoe debate is like two people standing in front of a speeding car debating about where the car came from, where it is going, is it speeding up or slowing down and will it turn before it gets to them. The car IS coming and the prudent thing to do is get the hell out of the way and then continue the debate at leisure.

[cypress]

If this analogy is to work then we must note that these two people have a major problem in that they don't know which way to jump to get out of the way. It may be best simply to stand there.

[skippy]

Ok here's what I don't get: Why would anyone in their right mind want to discredit global warming?

 

Be it correct or not, the steps being taken to prevent global warming are certainly not bad for the environment. I have been in countries with less environmental controls and it's not pretty. Every inhabitant of the cities having a constant cough among other more severe health problems due to bad air - I witnessed this in Mongolia.

 

So long as global warming is a public issue it brings out other environmental concerns. An individual concerned with global warming might be less likely to throw a bottle out their window simply because they have taking care of the environment on their mind.

 

As someone who very much enjoys the outdoors, I do not dispute global warming - even though I am not convinced of the part humans play.

 

 

People want to discredit global warming because of the potential economic impacts it will have. Proper science comes from criticism of beliefs,, but it is only useful is proper evidence is supplied. To date I have still not come across one skeptic who has been able to provide evidence that natural phenomena is causing the modern warming.

Plus, this goes beyond people's love of the environment and the outdoors,, being proper custodians of the planet is essential to our very survival..

 

People want to discredit global warming because of the potential economic impacts of mitigation. Proper science comes from criticism of beliefs,, but it is only useful if proper evidence is supplied. To date I have still not come across one skeptic who has been able to provide evidence that natural phenomena is causing the modern warming.

Plus, this goes beyond people's love of the environment and the outdoors,, being proper custodians of the planet is essential to our very survival..

 

*Fixed