Greenhouse advocates can’t see the obvious

The question: Why, despite steadily accumulating greenhouse gases, did the rise of the planet’s temperature stall for the past decade?

The short (and obvious) answer: Because trivial changes in the abundance of an essential atmospheric trace gas are not a significant driver of climate.

This, however, appears too complex for “climate scientists”

Provoked Scientists Try To Explain Global Warming Standstill – … The hunt for this missing energy, and the search for the mechanisms, both natural and artificial, that caused the temperature hiatus are, in many ways, a window into climate science itself. Beneath the sheen of consensus stating that human emissions are forcing warmer temperatures — a notion no scientist interviewed for this story doubts — there are deep uncertainties of how quickly this rise will occur, and how much air pollution has so far prevented this warming. Many question whether energy is missing at all.

For answers, researchers across the United States are wrestling with a surge of data from recent science missions. They are flying high, sampling the thin clouds crowning the atmosphere. Their probes are diving into deep waters, giving unprecedented, sustained measures of the oceans’ dark places. And their satellites are parsing the planet’s energy, sampling how much of the sun’s heat has arrived, and how much has stayed.

“What’s really been exciting to me about this last 10-year period is that it has made people think about decadal variability much more carefully than they probably have before,” said Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist and former lead author of the United Nations’ climate change report, during a recent visit to MIT. “And that’s all good. There is no silver bullet. In this case, it’s four pieces or five pieces of silver buckshot.”

This buckshot has included some familiar suspects, like the Pacific’s oscillation between La Niña and El Niño, along with a host of smaller influences, such as midsize volcanic eruptions once thought unable to cool the climate. The sun’s cycles are proving more important than expected. And there are suspicions that the vast uptick in Chinese coal pollution has played a role in reflecting sunlight back into space, much as U.S. and European pollution did decades ago. (GWPF)

About these ads

9 responses to “Greenhouse advocates can’t see the obvious

  1. While I agree with your general direction, I’m going to qualify this. What it proves is that greenhouse gases are not THE driver of climate. You cannot say that it is not a driver, or even that it not a major driver. While it undercuts a lot of the more foolish claims, and it certainly casts doubts on the determination, we cannot put too much weight and say that carbon dioxide is not a siginificant driver of climate change.

    Then, let’s not even approach the definition of “how significant is significant”

  2. Ben, I understand you cautionary approach here, but can you explain three things;
    1st. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
    2nd. As the UN has admitted, their IPCC report is merely dealing with a “what if” scenario (they also had to admit their computer models have serious flaws)… Why do you think so many people are so eager to buy the politically pushed “sky is falling” we need to tax you agenda?
    3rd. Like the just released CERN report on climate change (it’s solar variations, not AGW), more and more scientists are coming forward to admit they just don’t have enough information about climate to be able to predict what will happen next week, let along in a decade. You are aware of the Oregon Petition? Over 32,000 U.S. scientists signed it, advising our congress to step back and wait for the facts to emerge before imposing any kind of “greenhouse tax” on the country.

  3. I really do wish my side of the coin would drop “The planet’s temperature has stalled for the past decade” mantra. OK, it has, but then it stalled from 1945 to 1975 and from 1880 to 1910 as well. Our friends over at Skeptical Science have put up a nice little animated graphic that makes fools of people who only look at those episodes in the record where temperatures have stalled out or cooled:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

    Overall over the last 160 years temperatures have gone up and down, but mostly up to the tune of around 0.7°C in all that time.

    What I would like to point out is that if the models and projections, that emanate from all those Greenhouse Advocates, were correct, temperatures ought to be a good deal higher, about 0.8°C higher, than they are today given the record since 1850.

    The models aren’t accurate over the last 160 years, and there’s no reason to believe that their accuracy is any better predicting the future.

  4. CO2 emissions are higher than James Hansen’s ‘worst case’ scenario, and yet temperatures are lower than what he predicted they would be, if we had stopped adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Hypothesis disproven. Game over.

  5. I like the report of Dr. Easterbrook. professor emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

  6. Burning carbon adds to CO2 which warms the planet, EXCEPT if it is Chinese coal which makes soot that reflects sunlight back into space, cooling the planet, EXCEPT when the soot lands on the snow decreasing the planet’s albedo and warming the planet, EXCEPT when …
    You’ve GOTTA laugh!

  7. I have a major porblem with how tempratures are collected and how that flawed data affects this discussion. I live just outside of a medium sized metro area. When I travel in and out of that metro area to my home there can be as much as a 10 degree F variance between the two locations on a hot or warm day. The distance is less than 15 miles from city center and just over 15 from the airport (you know that giant slab of pavement that gets very hot in the sun) where the official temprature is recorded for the region. On the other side of the scale I see the same type of variation on a very cold day. I can have -30 F at my home but the official temprature will be -25 or -20. I spoke with the local meteorologist and he agrees that the official temprature collection process has issues and does not reflect variances in rural areas far away from metro heat islands.

  8. You all are wasting your time and brains. The things the effect climate are more numerous than you can study. It is all held to a nice average by something you might not understand or care to..

  9. Walter Allensworth

    All the things that count cannot be counted, and all the things that can be counted do not count. – Albert Einstein

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s