subscribe

Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

Also
Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

Donate to SolveClimate News

Climate Science Links

U.S. Government

International

Academic, Non-Governmental

Google Takes on Climate Change Skeptics with New Technology Effort

The search giant has brought together a team of 21 climate researchers to improve the way the science of global warming is communicated using new media

By Maria Gallucci

Mar 18, 2011
Google Earth image

Climate change skeptics who have created a political megaphone in Washington may finally meet their match in the world's largest search engine.

Google.org, the technology giant's philanthropic arm, has hand-picked a team of working in climate research to improve the way the science of global warming is communicated to the public and lawmakers through new media.

"We are seeing very clearly with climate change that our policy choices are currently not grounded in knowledge and understanding," said Paul Higgins, a Google fellow and an associate policy director for the .

The Google Science Communication Fellows program named its first round of participants on Tuesday. The announcement could not have come at a more timely juncture.

On Monday, an annual on the environment nearly 20 percent of Americans surveyed believe the effects of global warming will never happen, up from 11 percent three years ago, while fewer respondents are concerned about climate change than in the past.

A day later, House Republicans in the Energy and Commerce Committee against three amendments offered by Democrats that would accept that climate change is occurring; that it is largely due to human activity; and that human-made warming poses a threat to public health and welfare.

Democrats on the panel, all of whom voted for the measures, tied the proposals to larger GOP-backed legislation seeking to block the from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

That global warming is doubted by large swathes of the country — despite a consensus among climate scientists worldwide that says otherwise — underscores the large gap between the data and America's understanding of it, scientists say.

'They're Just Trying to Make Noise'

"The uncertainty argument, that we really don't know what is going on and that climate scientists are corrupt, has been reasonably effective in the last few years," said Andrew Dessler, also a Google fellow and a climate scientist at .

"We don’t know everything about the climate from a scientific standpoint and there are uncertainties, but they are uncertainties over whether climate change is going to either be bad or really, really bad," he told SolveClimate News.

"People who are opposed to regulation ... [are] not trying to prove that climate change [science] is wrong. They're trying to prove that there is an argument going on," he said. "They're just trying to create noise."

Higgins of AMS said that depending on their political beliefs, lawmakers have used skepticism or affirmation of climate science to stall or advance progress on partisan policy issues — such as the EPA's "tailoring" rules or cap-and-trade schemes for controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

For him, passing or rejecting the House amendments is less important than whether lawmakers actually understand climate science and are thoughtfully considering the risks of inaction.

"If we were well informed as a society — and if policymakers were well informed — then they would be taking the risk that climate change should be taken seriously."

Higgins pointed out that the Google fellowship is geared just as much toward influencing those who believe that climate change poses serious consequences, but may not yet grasp the science.

"The vast majority of people don't know and understand the details of climate science," he said. "The science of climate change spans 20 to 30 disciplines and sub-disciplines, at least ... It is an enormous amount of information, and distilling it is a bit of a challenge."

By the way, if you peruse the

By the way, if you peruse the book shelves at your local Barnes and Noble, you will notice at least as many, if not more, books by climate change skeptics, as mainstream climate science books. There is a reason for this. The same "think tanks" who are spreading the disinformation for the fossil fuel industry, (like the 32 from my previous post, who also have tobacco links) are funding most of these books. They promote 78% of skeptical books on climate change. This has resulted in at least 64 climate change skeptic books.

There would be no denialist movement or literature if not for these groups. Books are another part of how they have manufactured the impression of a controversy about climate science, where there really isn't one.


 Relevent industries have opposed all sorts of environmental protection. Whether its pollutants that cause acid rain, lead in gasoline that caused brain and neurological damage to children, CFCs that were damaging the protective ozone layer, cancer causing asbestos or formaldahyde, deforestation, health dangers of tobacco or CO2 that causes global warming, big industry has spend millions of dollars in attempts stop legislation designed to protect the public's health and that of the environment, and muddying the scientific discussion of these issues. Why do people think it is any different in the case of global warming?

Just last year (2009-2010) the oil industry spent over $175 million lobbying against climate change legislation. Compare that with the $24 million that environmental groups could afford to lobby for climate legislation.

The tobacco industry set the precedent and the method for raising doubts about the scientific evidence, in order to delay or stop effective legislation to protect peoples health. What they all learned from big Tobacco, was that you don't have to disprove the science. All that is necessary is to make claims that the science isn't 100% certain. (never mind that nothing in science is ever 100% certain)
They have been imitated by all those other industries, including today's fossil fuel industry and their climate change denial PR.


 


 


 

The propaganda that many of

The propaganda that many of you talk about is not what you think.  Or I should say, it is what you think, spoon fed to you by the conservative think tanks, that are just industry front groups who always oppose environmental protection, based on their free market- no regulation ideology.


 You see, the real scam is very well documented and detailed.  The denier conspiracy theories are absurd and based on complete conjecture.   How can a rational person believe the whole world scientific community is involved in a hoax, scam or political agenda like world wide socialism?  And they call the climate scientists alarmist.  Wow!


Anyone who really wants to know whats going on with the so called climate change debate, should read these books. 


"Climate Cover-Up": The Crusade to Deny Global Warming"
by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore

"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"
by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

"Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change"
by Clive Hamilton
He outlines the decade-long, coal-industry funded campaign in Australia to deny climate science.

"Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate"
by Stephan H. Schneider and Tim Flannery

"The Boiling Point"  and  "The Heat Is On"   by Ross Gelbspan


In these books you'll learn, that if you like scientist who can be counted on to support industry against environmental action, on issue ranging from acid rain, asbestos, tobacco, CFCs, DDT, to global warming;  then you're looking for the likes of Fred Singer, a favorite among climate change deniers. 


 


 


 


 


 


 

communicating science

Boy, have you people shot yourselves in the feet with this stunt. Can't you see that truth is luminous? It doesn't need spin, or consensus or committees, or government money. It shines and is recognizable. Badgering people to 'believe' is ridiculous and counter-productive.

doesn't matter

a)it got warmer for a while but there has been no warming for the past 15 years.


b)it gets warmer, it gets colder, look at the ice core data.  Who cares


c) even if you think it is still getting warmer, and you go even further and you think that CO2 is causing it to get warmer, there is nothing to be done but adapt.  If you think that billions of people in India and China moving into the middle classs are going to forgo air conditioning and refrigeration you are wrong.  If you think that some magic tech is going to create energy without CO2 you are wrong.  Do the math. 


d) Again, who cares.  I am all for people cleaning up after themselves but CO2 is small beer.  I do not think we can put a giant theromstat in the sky and set the planet temperature to 25C.  Think in the long term of 500 or a 1000 years.  When ( in north america) mammoth mountain or yellowstone blows or the new madrid pops all of north america will be completely changed, (in a bad way).  Similar stuff elsewhere.  foolish to think we can control the planet.  Relax and enjoy the ride.

a)it got warmer for a while

a)it got warmer for a while but there has been no warming for the past 15 years.

Aside from the fact that this is an example of specious cherry-picking, it's also simply false.  All global temperature records (both surface and satellite) show a positive trend for the past 15 years.  See .

b)it gets warmer, it gets colder, look at the ice core data.  Who cares

Yes, and based on our scientific understanding of the natural causes of climate changes such as those seen in the ice core data, the current warming trend is largely human-caused. Milankovitch cycles are thought to be important drivers of things like the glacial/interglacial changes of the Quaternary. However, the current phase of those cycles can't explain the recent warming - nor are they expected to cause a glacial period for another 20-50,000 years, due to the current minimum in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit (and comparisons with similar interglacial periods seen in the ice core records). See (2002), and (2004).

c) even if you think it is still getting warmer, and you go even further and you think that CO2 is causing it to get warmer, there is nothing to be done but adapt.  If you think that billions of people in India and China moving into the middle classs are going to forgo air conditioning and refrigeration you are wrong.  If you think that some magic tech is going to create energy without CO2 you are wrong.  Do the math.

We do have technology that creates usable energy without CO2 emissions, and although it's remarkable, there's no magic involved.  Fossil fuels are likely to continue to increase in scarcity and price (which will affect developing nations disproportionately), so we're going to have to make the transition away from them sooner or later.  It would be wise to do so ahead of the need, rather than in response to it.

d) Again, who cares.  I am all for people cleaning up after themselves but CO2 is small beer.  I do not think we can put a giant theromstat in the sky and set the planet temperature to 25C.  Think in the long term of 500 or a 1000 years.  When ( in north america) mammoth mountain or yellowstone blows or the new madrid pops all of north america will be completely changed, (in a bad way).  Similar stuff elsewhere.  foolish to think we can control the planet.  Relax and enjoy the ride.

We can't control everything, but we can control our own behavior.  It may be thousands of years before we would see major climate change from natural causes.  I think it makes sense to give our civilization that time to develop and prepare, rather than rushing headlong with our eyes closed.

Would Google please butt out of this discussion?

I find it enormously troubling that Google is setting itself up to decide what the correct answer about what if any policy should be pursued regarding concerns about climate change. 

This is like the librarian emptying the stacks of only some books in order to correct the message the library communicates.

It makes it hard for me to trust Google as a resource for indexing and discovering facts.

Debunking the straw men attacks against 'Deniers'

Most of the so-called counterarguments against the 'deniers' are strawmen arguments. It is easy to debunk such arguments and show unknowing visitors how flimsy the 'deniers'' arguments are. But I would recommend anyone really interested in finding balance to look at the scientists who are truly skeptical about the catastrophe the alarmiists warn us about. (I believe far too many really hope for it so as to show how evil humankind is and thus to justify social control -- but that is my opinion.) Look into  (a great science blog focused on mostly climate related topics),  (Steve McIntyre, the remarkable statistican/mathemetician),    (another statistician), ,  physicist Lubos Motl's  site and (climate scientist who is a bit more skeptical that she used to be). Any fair minded person will be stunned not only by the real uncertainty of the science, but also by the behavior of the so-called climate science community (who's behavior is more like thuggery than professional science).

Sea level rise

Sea level rise started way back in 1850 and has been rising at a nearly constant rate up until ~2005 (S., J. C. Moore, A. Grinsted, and P. L. Woodworth (2008), Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08715). Questions... why did it start rising before man-made CO2 contributions... and why hasn't it accelerated as more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere... and why is it now slowing even thou CO2 is at an all time high? All three of these observations would argue AGAINST warming being primarily driven by CO2.

Funny, because I just looked

Funny, because I just looked at the paper you cited (), and it does not support your claim.  In fact, they show that the rate of sea level rise has not been constant, and in the long term has been increasing:

The conclusions of the article are not that sea level rise is unrelated AGW, but that the IPCC estimates of projected sea level rise in response to temperature "are probably too low."

There is more than one way to

There is more than one way to look at that data. Warmists like to fit the data with a nice exponential curve because thats what they want to believe. You could just as easily fit the data with a flat line from 1700 up to 1800... at that point the level start to rise, and from about 1850 up to 2000 you have essentially a linear rise. The sea level rise in the 1800s does NOT fit with the AGW model. CO2 warming doesn't start until the mid 1900s. Sea level rise started in ~1800 and rate of rise in 1850 on is basically unchanged. The sea level rise from 1800 to 2000 does however match very well with the temperature reconstruction in the 1990 IPCC report (the reconstructions the warminng scientists believed most valid pre Hockey Stick). Rate of sea level rise from 1850 to 1900 (no CO2 enhanced effects) was ~ 150mm. From 1950 to 2000 it was also about 150mm (CO2 enhanced rate). No difference in rate at all. And if you look at the current Sea Levels from Univ of Co  sea level rise appears to be slowing starting around 2005. Warmists would have you believe the rate is increasing exponentially again from here to 2100 in order to get their 1meter rise by 2100. Unfortunately for them, the curve is bending down instead of up.

Warmists would have you

Warmists would have you believe the rate is increasing exponentially again from here to 2100 in order to get their 1meter rise by 2100. Unfortunately for them, the curve is bending down instead of up.

As you can clearly see from both the Jevrejeva et al. graph and the one you linked, there has always been variation around the trend, and given that the global temp was below the trend from 2005 to 2009, it's not surprising that the global sea level rise followed suit.  But in both cases, it is the long-term trends that are important, not cherry-picked periods of a few years.

And again, climate researchers do not think that there has never been natural variation.  That the current temperature trends of the past few decades are largely attributed to human effects is not an assumption, but a conclusion from the study of natural and anthropogenic factors that can affect climate.

Here's who has invented the

Here's who has invented the global warming denial phenomena that has fooled so many of you with their pseudo scientific arguments, most of which were disproven over 10 years ago.


These 32 conservative think tanks have all been involved in the tobacco industry's campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.
They are all now involved in the campaign to deny the science of climate change.  And they are the vehicle the fossil fuel industry uses to "wipe the oil?" off the money.  It's how the handful of contrarian scientists are funded.   After at least 4,000 hours spent studying this subject and reading probably at least 4,000 articles, mostly written by scientists, I still haven't heard of a well known skeptic scientist  who is not funded directly or indirectly by fossil fuel interests.

1. Acton Institute
2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
5. Americans for Prosperity
6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
9. Cato Institute
10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
11. Consumer Alert
12. DCI Group (PR firm)
13. European Science and Environment Forum
14. Fraser Institute
15. Frontiers of Freedom
16. George C. Marshall Institute
17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
18. Heartland Institute
19. Heritage Foundation
20. Independent Institute
21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
22. International Policy Network
23. John Locke Foundation
24. Junk Science
25. National Center for Public Policy Research
26. National Journalism Center
27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
28. Pacific Research Institute
29. Reason Foundation
30. Small Business Survival Committee
31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
32. Washington Legal Foundation


# 5 and #9 were created by the Koch brothers and they have their fingers in several others.


#24 is run by Steve Milloy, who Fox News features as a climate change expert.  He has no science training, but is a professional PR man and a paid lobbyist for fossil fuel interests. 

How many scientists have been swayed by $75B in AGW funding?

sailrick said:


' Here's who has invented the global warming denial phenomena that has fooled so many of you with their pseudo scientific arguments, most of which were disproven over 10 years ago.'


 


Hang on here - I thought the 'science was settled' 25 years ago ? What the ???


 


 

How many scientists have been swayed by $75B in AGW funding?

sailrick said:


' Here's who has invented the global warming denial phenomena that has fooled so many of you with their pseudo scientific arguments, most of which were disproven over 10 years ago.'


 


Hang on here - I thought the 'science was settled' 25 years ago ? What the ???


 


 

So, any organization that

So, any organization that opined that people should have a right to decide for themselves whether to smoke and die of cancer, or stop, must be corrupted and inherenly wrong in any and all things?  You warmists sure like to make assumptions. 

 

You really need to reference your sources on this one.  I am really, really skeptical about your claim. 

 

Warmists also like to imply that anyone accepting money from almost any source other than a government is necessarily corrupted.  It would be easier to make the conclusion that any organization funded by government is far more corrupt.  NPR comes to mind.  When was the last time our Federal Government funded reasearch specifically to falsify AGW, and how much did they spend?  When was the last time they funded research to further the claim of AGW?  How much did they spend?

You are a moron,lets check

You are a moron,lets check the science not think tanks,or fox science does not involve politics. climate change is normal, has been for millions of years.

187 years of greenhouse effect science

The greenhouse effect has been accepted science for a century.

Fourier calculates colder earth without an atmosphere (1824)

Tyndall discovers relationship between CO2 and long-wave radiation (1859)

Arrhenius calculates global warming from anthropogenic CO2 (1896)

Chamberlin models global carbon exchange including feedbacks (1897)

Callendar predicts global warming increase catalysed by CO2 emissions (1938)

Revelle predicts inability of oceans to sequester anthropogenic CO2 (1958)

from "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart


the greenhouse gas effect was first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, proven to exist by John Tyndall in 1858, and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

But for Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans and tea baggers, Global Warming is just an agenda cooked up by Al Gore and other liberals.



AGW basis

The whole premise that the 20th century warming cannot be explained by natural causes rests solely on the thoroughly discredited Hockey Stick temperature construction being correct. If the 1990 IPCC temperature reconstruction is the more correct (it at least is consistent with the MWP and LIA) then it is easy to account for ALL but about 0.3 degrees of warming since 1900. Using the 1990 reconstruction as a basis, it even is consistent with the observed cooling trend since 2002. It also predicts cooling of about 1 degree over  the remainder of this century.

The whole premise that

The whole premise that the 20th century warming cannot be explained by natural causes rests solely on the thoroughly discredited Hockey Stick temperature construction being correct.

No, you're mistaken about that.  Climate change researchers do not assume that climate chnage hasn't happened in the past, nor that ONLY carbon dioxide affects climate.  It can't be explained by natural causes because scientists have observed the natural causes of climate change, and they have not been acting in a way that can explain the recent warming trend.

What the AGW scientists would

What the AGW scientists would have us believe is that Earth's temperature for the past 1000 years has been almost flat with a very slow cooling trend up until the 1900's (ala Hockey Stick graph). The only way one can account for the "blade" on the reconstruction is by invoking CO2 induced warming. This graph has been shown to be fraudulent yet the warmists still rely on it.


On the other-hand, by using the pre Hockey Stick reconstruction (1990 IPCC version), which shows significant ups (MWP) and downs (LIA) in the global temperature (naturally caused) it is simple to show that most of the current warming (except ~0.3 degrees) is entirely of natural origin.

uhh.... the reason they claim

uhh.... the reason they claim the warming can only be explained by manmade CO2 is because they maintain that the Hockey Stick graph is correct... which it CLEARLY is not correct. If the 1990 IPCC version is correct (more likely since it is at least consistent with the MWP and the LIA) then almost all of the current warming is readily shown to be of natural origin.

Alcheson's fixation

Oh, now I get it.  I couldn't figure out why so many people were bringing up the "hockey stick" graph as if the entire AGW argument rested on it (which is certainly not the case).  Looking back through, I see that it's mainly just this same guy, bringing it up over and over again.

Guys, I'm sorry, but the

Guys, I'm sorry, but the "hocky stick" graph is not that important.  It's funny, I don't run into this claim on other sites that much, but it's shown up a good half-dozen times here.  It doesn't matter which reconstruction you use, they all show that the global temp trend has been robustly positive since the 1980s.  Meanwhile the natural forcings have not been increasing over that time period. 

Of course, other natural forcings have been responsible for climate variation in the past.  But there aren't any that explain the warming of the last few decades.

Hockey Stick Graph

Alright... you agree then the Hockey Stick Graph is not good. Excellent, what graph do you want to use then that shows the natural temperature cycles for the past 1000 years? You must have some graph that shows the natural temperature variations before you can even begin to say with any confidence what is natural temperature rise and what is not. Since I don't believe in the Hockey Stick graph either, I chose the one the AGW people came up with in 1990 and published in the IPCC report. Using that 1990 graph as the source for natural variation for the past 1000 yrs... well you know the rest of the story.

I never denied the trend from

I never denied the trend from 1980 to 2000 was robustly positive. In fact I agree it was robustly positive. What I maintain is that all but 0.3 degrees of it can be shown to likely have been from natural causes if you use the 1990 IPCC reconstruction rather than the descredited Hockey Stick. However, you are also leading people to believe that the this robust warming has also been occuring from 2000-2011. Patently not true... the earth from 2002- March of 2011 is currently cooling.

I'm not saying that the

I'm not saying that the "hockey stick" graph is bad, but it's not what AGW attributions are based on.  It's a just a summary graph to communicate a single point, that the recent warming is remarkable in the context of the past 1K years.  

That the warming of the last few decades is attributed to human effects is not based on simple extrapolation or line-fitting (like your "model" based on the 1990 IPCC graph), but on a mechanistic understanding of the natural forcings and feedback that affect climate, and observations which indicate that they have not been acting in a way that can explain the warming trend, which is consistent with what would be expected from the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

So you don't think the Hockey

So you don't think the Hockey Stick graph is bad? ... then explain why


1) MWP (medieval warm period) is missing


2) LIA (little ice age) is missing


3) Sea level rise started rising in the early 1800s and pretty much reached its current rate of rise starting in 1850. The hockey stick shows global temps dropping for 1800 to around 1920 or so.


On the otherhand the 1990 IPCC graph (Moberg reconstruction) is consistent with all three of the above observations. One would conclude based on the data, rather than some model, that the Moberg construction is probably a much better estimate of temperatures over the past 1000 years and that the Hockey Stick (as well as Hockey Stick clones) should be discarded into the trash heap.

Love or hate the "hockey

Love or hate the "hockey stick", I don't particularly care, and it's a topic unto itself.  But the important thing to understand is that attribution of recent trends AGW is not based on that graph.

Then what graph do you use to

Then what graph do you use to show what your background (ie natural) temperature variations are and therefore current warming trends are not likely to be of natural origin? Afterall, before you can say that the current warming cannot be explained by what has happened in the recent past (say 1000 yrs or so) you have to show reliable data to support your claim. AGW supporters maintain the Hockey Stick (or a hockey stick clone) is their basis for saying the current warming is unprecedented.

Then what graph do you use to

Then what graph do you use to show what your background (ie natural) temperature variations are and therefore current warming trends are not likely to be of natural origin?


Again, that isn't quite how attribution works.  You don't just look at a graph of past variation, and see whether the current temperature trend resembles trends in the past, because there are many factors that can be (and have been) influences on global climate.  The issue is, what factors are at play now


What you have to do is look at how the natural forcings are behaving in the period in question (the last few decades).  Physically speaking, can one account for the current warming trend based on them?  In this case, no - based on measurements and observations, there are no natural forcings that have been increasing in the past few decades in a way that can explain the warming trend during that time.  You can't explain it mechanistically without including the effects of human effects such as the increase in CO2.


If you're asking how they develop their models for how each of these forcings and feedbacks interact to affect climate, that's a complicated topic - but it's not based on the hockey stick graph, either.



AGW supporters maintain the Hockey Stick (or a hockey stick clone) is their basis for saying the current warming is unprecedented.


I think the above statement is a correct one, that's the main way that graph is used, to claim that the current trend is unprecendented in the last 1,000 years.  I personally don't think that's a very important point, because we know that climate has seen much greater changes in the more distant past.  In terms of temperature, we're not even yet above the natural range of variation seen in previous interglacials according to the ice cores (although we're way above the previous range of CO2). 

wow!

Quite surprised at the many negative comments. Perhaps there is hope for our society after all. AGW politics, like most socialist derivations, will enrich the few at the top, while causing harm to many at the bottom. It's heartening to read that many are recognizing just how wrong this all is.

Bing has now become my search engine of choice. ByeBye GooGoo. 

Issue is trust not science

It is frightening to hear Google search engine becoming partisan on such a politicised and controversial issue and Climate Change.

 It’s trustworthiness, not science communication that is lacking in Climate Alarmism.

Daily exaggerations of claims, frank lies, contradictory claims, rent-seeking, fraud, criminal carbon trading – AGW has defined the concept of a ‘good dishonesty’ – anything goes if you mean well by wanting to save the planet.

Just this week – we learn the IPCC, claimed to be a bastion of climate expertise, used a 25 year old scientific unpublished nobody as a lead author: “The Strange Case of Sari Kovats”.

AGW started as a scientific theory and has become a political and a business scam.

Google – keep out of politics and ‘don’t mess with our free internet junk !

LarryT " I have been

LarryT


" I have been following climate science since some of these same people were predicting a new ice age 30 years ago and was a contrarian then too. My pet theory is change in climate is driven by solar activity changes."


If your worked in climate science as you say, then you would know that the handful of scientists who's 70s published papers concerning cooling from human emitted aerosols were themselves  the contrarians.   A total of 7 papers suggesting cooling were published, while 44 papers projecting global warming from human emitted CO2 were published during the same time period.  Over Six to one.   It was the popular media that made the cooling hypothesis popularly known.   There was no consensus whatsoever for a cooling world.  These is overwhelming consensus for global warming (AGW) now.  It's a bona fide scientific theory.   The 70s cooling idea was just a hypothesis.   In fact, we have cut down on aerosol emissions, in order to slow acid rain and smog, with the result that the cooling effects of aerosols are not masking the warming effect of greenhouse gases as much as they were in the 70s.  We also started burning a lot more coal in the 70s.


  While you are welcome to entertain your pet theory that the sun is causing the recent warming, that's not what the science says.  If the sun were causing the warming, both the upper and lower layers of the atmosphere would be warming.  What is observed is a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere, just like it should in a greenhouse effect forced warming.


 Solar activity has been flat since about 1962, and in fact we are just coming out of a 100 year solar minimum.  It is not the sun.

stratosphere

Problem is models say the troposphere should be warming a lot faster than it actually is, and that it should be warming faster than the surface. Something is obviously wrong with the model.

Or rather, something was

Or rather, something was wrong with the data, which eventually turned out to be the case.  Analysis of the satellite data found that the records produced in the 90s failed to fully correct for the effects of satellite drift, and that once the corrections were made, the temperature trends were much more in line with model predictions.  See this , which includes "skeptic" favorite John Christy of UAH among its authors, and states:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

Why stop at 2006. Look at how

Why stop at 2006. Look at how well the troposphere temps match the models all the way up to 2011 (drroyspencer.com and the warming expected from average of IPCC models ). The divergence is getting worse and worse as time goes on. Better scream louder because your ship is sinking.

I'll look at the specific

I'll look at the specific data if you link directly to it (rather than linking to the home pages of the sites where you have presumably read about it).  However, I'll say it once again: cherry-picking variations around a handful of years is not really meaningful in the context of global climate change.  It's the long-term trends which are relevant in that context.

I agree that long term trends

I agree that long term trends are the more relevant. The troposphere is currently only 0.1C warmer now (2011) than it was at this time in 1980. According to the average of the computer models its supposed to be at least 1C warmer already. It would definitely appear that the actual warming rate is well below model predictions.

According to the average of

According to the average of the computer models its supposed to be at least 1C warmer already. It would definitely appear that the actual warming rate is well below model predictions.

Got a reference for that claim?

Also,... stratosphere not following models

Abstract

"Some important recent findings in climate studies
are the warming trend in the troposphere and the
cooling trend in the stratosphere. However, the evidence
for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be
revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere
is slightly warming since 1996."

 

Stratosphere is supposed to be cooling, and it was following the models nicely for a while up until 2006 but then it switched from cooling to warming.

That's not a reference

That's not a reference regarding the troposphere trends, but a separate issue.  The authors suggest that it could be a result of the recovery of stratospheric ozone.

Reference is

Reference is Wikipedia

 

"...models show a global average warming trend for the troposphere (models range for TLT/T2LT 0.6 - 0.39°C/decade."

Thus I would expect something on the order of 1C increase since 1980 would be consistent with the model.

Also from same Wiki reference:

"GISS and Hadley Centre surface station network trends are +0.161 and +0.160 °C/decade respectively"

"lower troposphere trends calculated from satellite data by UAH and RSS are +0.140 °C/decade and +0.148 °C/decade".

According to models Troposphere temperatures are supposed to be increasing faster than surface temperatures, not the other way around.

If the recovery of ozone is

If the recovery of ozone is used to explain the recent warming.. then couldn't the loss of ozone be used to explain the cooling?

Also, sorry bout the missed reference you requested. I provided it and clicked submit but it didn't appear, Ill provide it again shortly.

Open sea at north pole

Selecting images - GOOGLE "submarine north pole" Look through the the hundreds with OPEN water and the date many in the 50's and 60's. Look at the thickness of ice in those with no open water.  Compare this with the propaganda that the ice is melting and ther will soon be no ice at the north pole!

Arctic Facts

Sure , we will throw out all the scientific data and just use anecdotal interpretations of pictures of ice.


 Anyone who thinks the ice isn't melting rapidly might want to see the chart of Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly at the University of Washington's Polar Science Center.  



This winter, the Arctic had really warm temperatures, the kind unheard of in generations of native people.  Hudson Bay, which is usually completely frozen by the end of November, still wasn't all frozen in early January.  Spitzbergan above the Arctic circle -Forecast for December 29 is = 2C and rain.  That's 35.6 F 
This for Spitzbergen at 74.5 degrees north latitude, above the Arctic cirlce, dark 24-7 in the middle of winter.


Coral Harbour went 11 days without getting down to its average daily high.
•On Jan. 6, the low temperature was –3.7°C (25.3°F) - that's 30°C (54°F) above average.
•On both the 5th and 6th, Coral Harbor inched above the freezing mark. Before this year, temperatures above 0°C (32°F) had never been recorded in the entire three months of January, February, and March



 


Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
29 January 2011
Here is the latest data showing the record amount of ice loss Greenland experienced in the 2010 summer.
Around two decades ago and for some time before that, Greenland was probably in approximate mass balance - with ice gain in the interior matched by ice loss at the edges. Around one decade ago, the ice loss increased to around 100 billion tonnes per year. Currently, it's losing ice at over 200 billion tonnes per year.



Greenland Ice Sheet Losing Mass  2006
The amount of ice lost in two years is roughly the same as the amount of water that flows through the Colorado River in 12 years.
"This is a very large change in a very short time. In the 1990s, the ice sheet was growing inland and shrinking significantly at the edges, which is what climate models predicted as a result of global warming. Now the processes of mass loss are clearly beginning to dominate the inland growth, and we are only in the early stages of the climate warming predicted for this century."


 


 


Greenland ice sheet saw record melt, study finds
'Area of the size of France melted in 2010 which was not melting in 1979


"This past melt season was exceptional, with melting in some areas stretching up to 50 days longer than average," said study co-author Marco Tedesco
.... Greenland's summer temperatures last year were up to 3 degrees Centigrade above the average and that the ice sheet saw reduced snowfall.



 


There are no scientists who study arctic ice who believe the nonsense in your comment.


A sailboat navigated the entire Northwest Passage and the Northeast passage in one season last summer, a first in recorded history.  The Nothwest Passage has been navigable for the past 4 summers, another first in recorded history.


The Arctic is warming at least twice as fast as the rest of the world.


 

More Anecdotal evidence from Climate Alarmists

Sailrick said:


' This winter, the Arctic had really warm temperatures, the kind unheard of in generations of native people. '


And you were saying WHAT exactly, in regards to anecdotal evidence ?


 


And by the way, the RCMP St Roch sailed the Northwest Passage.....in 1942. And it completed the journey in both directions.


Arctic Facts

When it warms, ice might melt.  No one is saying that no warming has occurred.  How much and why is the question.  Skeptics are always accused of denying warming, which is just another falsehood spouted by the warmists.

The amount of ice that is melting now seems like alot, but as a percent of the total mass of ice, I don't believe it is all that much.  I saw some figures some time ago that indicated it is only a tiny fraction of the ice, esp. in Antarctica.  Sorry, don't have the numbers handy, but I'm not applying for peer review so I'm willing to let it go this time.

The assumption that there is something different going on now than in th past is a stretch.  Since the earth has been warming and glaciers melting since the end of the Little Ice Age, I suspect that what we are seeing is simply a continuation of what was happening naturally.  To argue otherwise requires making the assumption that all warming is due to CO2, but that is anti-scientific so we don't do that, do we? 

I don't have data on the extent of Arctic ice during the MWP, or the Roman Warm Period, but would be willing to bet that there was even less than today.  Romans must have burned a lot of coal!!

Questions.  I saw a picture of a submarine surfaced at the North Pole, dated 1964.  Very little ice.  No satellites then, so no record of true extent.  Might ocean currents have at least as much to do with ice cover and therefore air temperatures as general warming?  Is the cause of warmer Arctic air really due to the reduced ice rather than the other way around?  Open water in the Arctic is known to raise air temperatures.  This fits in well with the fact that global average ocean temperatures are falling (warmer Arctic in winter, more heat lost to space). Some negative feedback by mother earth?  Also in play, reflected heat is up, highest in the record apparently (short record).  Is low cloud cover up, increasing reflection and reducing net warming from the nuclear furnace.  More negative feedback?

See

 

 

The assumption that there is

The assumption that there is something different going on now than in th past is a stretch.

It's not an assumption - we know for a fact that we are directly increasing atmospheric CO2.  That is different from what has gone on in the past.

Since the earth has been warming and glaciers melting since the end of the Little Ice Age, I suspect that what we are seeing is simply a continuation of what was happening naturally.

Okay, what natural forcings do you think can explain the warming seen in the last few decades?

To argue otherwise requires making the assumption that all warming is due to CO2, but that is anti-scientific so we don't do that, do we?

No, rather it requires that measurements of natural forcings show that they are not behaving in a way that can explain the recent warming (e.g. no increase in solar inputs during that time period), while the increase in CO2 is.

This fits in well with the fact that global average ocean temperatures are falling

Untrue - the most recent analyses show a trend of robust warming of the ocean.  See , .

 

Recent ocean cooling

Other sources point to lower heat figures (black line) and a non-rising pattern after corrections for instrumentation bias were taken into account. Did you know about those?

Corrected ocean heat

A closer interpretation may even show a cooling of the oceans.....

From Loehle, C. 2009. Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003. Energy & Environment 20:99-102.

Yes, I am aware of the Loehle

Yes, I am aware of the Loehle 2009 paper, which uses a reconstruction from . Lieulette and Miller did a reanalysis of the same raw data and came up with different results:

Monthly variations in global mean steric sea level computed by (gray line) and (black line).

The two differ in their handling of the early Argo data.  A third study, , used independent estimates based on satellite gravimetry in addition to another analysis of the Argo data (using only the measurements with the best quality control ratings), also found a very slight but positive trend over that period (they further explain that it "increased on average since early 2003 through 2006, then shows a slightly decreasing trend"):

All of which is perhaps beside the point, because arguing about "ocean cooling" over a period of a few years is very much like the specious "decade of cooling" arguments that were made by "skeptics" in 2009 and 2010.  One could pick many periods of several years in the various records, and point out that a linear trendline during those times indicates "cooling", but doing so ignores the overall trend of several decades, which is robustly positive (for both mean global temp and ocean heat).  It's the long-term trends which are important in the context of global climate change.

 

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options