Classical Values :: Turn Up The Heat

March 22, 2008

Turn Up The Heat

Global Warming is not what it used to be. It appears that despite a continuing rise in CO2 global temperatures for the last 10 years have been falling. If you count just since 2002 temperatures have been stagnant. The ABC mentioned is the Australian Broadcasting Company.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Jeeze. That doesn't fit the models. Could our vaunted model makers and the Super Genius James Hansen have made a huge mistake? How is that possible?

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

The sun drives the climate? What an unusual idea. What will those wacky scientists come up with next?

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Let me see if I get this. The earth heats. The heat causes more clouds. By reflecting sunlight clouds limit the temperature rise. So water vapor is a negative feedback element, rather than a positive one as the warmologists have been saying. Who would have thunk this? This is so novel. Totally unexpected. Well not exactly. I have been saying something along these lines for over a year.

Global Warming Not So Hot
Clouds
More Clouds
Model Prediction
Climate Alchemy - Turning Hot Air Into Gold
Clouds In Chambers
Feedbacks Misdiagnosed
The Big Heat Pipe In The Sky

It is not like I haven't been trying to warn those fools.

Climate scientists Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Roger A. Pielke Jr. had this to say in 2006.

There is no greater danger to support for action on important issues of human impacts on the environment than an overselling of what climate science can provide. If the climate behaves in ways that are unexpected or surprising it will be more than just credibility that is lost. Advocates for action should think carefully when gambling with the unknown predictive abilities of climate models. The human influence on the climate system is real, but the climate may not always cooperate."

Of course they were ridiculed. The warmists had the best scientists the best computers and the best models. What could possibly go wrong? How about GIGO?

Man is Al Gore going to be pissed. Carbon indulgences are going to be a lot harder to sell now. Fortunately the Euros and California have already passed laws against carbon emissions. Making it harder for coal fired plants to get built. Raising their costs for electricity. Those Euros and the wacky Californians are really smart. Too smart by half.

A good page to read to learn even more is Icecap US.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 03.22.08 at 10:54 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6350

Comments

Another good site is Watts Up With That.

jan · March 23, 2008 12:00 AM

When Al Gore steps up at next election time, he will be old enough to get away with forgetting about his "global warming" phenom.

I predict he will be taking credit for household "greening"...the next new economy.

Heck, Al is three for three in getting the masses to react.

Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder about the fascinating conversations that the junior George Bush and Al Gore have around the campfire while sharing s'mores with the Clintons, one of whom looks well rested.

Oh look! Obama just stopped in to rest his weary bones. This guy is "working" the WORLD campfires... American ghettos to the desert tents, then south to his homeland and then east to his other homeland and then further east to his NEW homeland. Give this guy some jerky!

Thought not!

Anyway, so skinny, non-smoking blackish man from nearly every continent takes the world "as we know it" by storm.

And I used to think the internet was cool!

Al, you big lug! Ladies first!

Penny · March 23, 2008 01:59 AM

Hey now! Stop editing my comments out there!

Penny · March 23, 2008 02:03 AM

Classical values indeed.

Penny · March 23, 2008 02:05 AM

Mercury Mean Surface Temp = 340 K
Venus Mean Surface Temp = 740 K
Earth Mean Surface Temp = 288 K

How can that be when Mercury is much closer to the Sun than Venus?

Could it be because Venus' atmosphere is 97% CO2?

Can't be a shill for the Texas oil companies and be involved in science, M.

alphie · March 23, 2008 02:16 AM

Hey alphie. I'm sure if our atmosphere had a pressure of 300 psi and was full of sulphuric acid and CO2 it would be a lot warmer here too. Hard to breathe that stuff though.

Alphie are you a shill for Al Gore?

Or would you prefer we discuss the data?

BTW this data agrees with the 3,000 buoys in the oceans. Care to explain the correlation?

Let me ask another - is NASA cooking the data? I suspect Hansen is behind that.

Let me ask another - how did the oil companies manage to manipulate NASA data?

It must be hard when a person has his faith questioned.

And one other thing alphie. Please contact the oil companies on my behalf. My check is 20 years late and they do not respond to my letters or e-mails. I could really use the cash right now.

And just to go OT for a bit. How about those Democrats? That really swell fella Obama is dropping like a stone in the polls and Her Ladyship is not far behind. I thought this was the Ds year what with the war and the economy and all. Wha happened? I think Obama needs to go to church more and pray. Perhaps his Christian Minister can intercede with Jesus for him. Does Jesus listen to the prayers of Democrats?

I have seen polls that say 20% of Ds will vote for McCain if the former first lady gets the nod. That is not so bad. A different 20% will vote for McCain if Obama gets he nod.

Nothing like party unity for winning elections, eh? You must be so proud of your party.

Well don't take it too hard. I used to be a Libertarian and we never won anything of significance. You will get used to it. The pain only lasts for a few days after the election - and then it is time to start working on the next one. You gotta have faith. Have you tried Rev. Wright's Church? They don't discriminate and Obama says the good reverend brought him to Jesus. Maybe he can bring you to Jesus too. That should provide you with spiritual comfort at least.

M. Simon · March 23, 2008 03:15 AM

Nice, M.,

You almost sounded logical there.

I think the real question is why the folks who have blown $500,000,000,000 (and climbing) on the trivial chance that Saddam had WMDs are so unwilling to invest a few billion to reduce our CO2 output?

Could it be that both positions maximize Republican corporate welfare recipient profits?

As for the election, meh.

McCain is as much of a Democrat as Hillary and Obama...and I'm a Republican.

Enjoyable to see the wingnuts grab their ankles for "Juan" McCain, though.

Will be equally enjoyable to see Texas assume the same position next January...

alphie · March 23, 2008 03:28 AM

alphie you should have followed the link and read the whole article. Here is a bit you missed:

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Now even the IPCC is in the tank for the oil companies. I wouldn't trust a thing the IPCC says either alphie. The oil companies probably put them up to shilling global warming just to get higher oil prices.

There, I hope I restored your faith alphie.

No need to come to Jesus after all, eh?

BTW assuming you are a Republican who did you want to win the primaries. Are you a Paulian? That would explain a lot. If you are a Paulian I know you are familiar with the heartbreak of continual defeat.

And what exactly did you expect to happen in Texas? I don't get the reference.

M. Simon · March 23, 2008 04:04 AM

BTW how much CO2 mitigation do you expect from a few billion a year?

And how about those Chinese? And India?

Have you gotten a buy in from those guys? I hope so. Because higher energy prices caused US CO2 output to decline about 2% over the last year or so. Great huh? Well, the rest of the globe should follow our example shouldn't it?

I note that Euro CO2 is still rising. And those suckers bought into CO2 reduction big time. What is a matter with those people? Can't they do anything right?

M. Simon · March 23, 2008 04:23 AM

I liked St. Ronnie and Bush the Elder.

I supported Rudy until he started quacking like a wingnut.

I find all of the remaining three mildly acceptable (if dull) choices.

As for climate change, it's a long term thing and I don't mind spending a few bucks now to avoid the chance my grandkids will get cooked.

alphie · March 23, 2008 04:31 AM

OK you don't mind spending a few bucks.

But based on what?

Should we go for a solution to warming or cooling? Are the solar scientists right or are the climate guys?

Suppose we gear up for warming when the real trouble is cooling. It is obvious from what I posted that no one can tell for sure which way it is going to go.

Obviously we know that the computer codes are wrong re: clouds. So shouldn't real scientists fix that and then tell us what they come up with? And then we base our decision on the results? If it takes another year or two wouldn't it be worth it to get it right?

Current codes say there is a CO2 amplification factor of 3 or 4. Suppose the real number is 1.1? That means we can wait a while to make a decision.

And what should we spend the money on considering that China and India are not going to wear a hair shirt with us?

Should we be stepping on the gas or putting on the breaks?

Let me add that the IPCC needs some solar scientists on the panel. It needs more good data. It needs balance to eliminate the warming bias. So we get true science.

BTW the sceptics have been saying for at least a couple of years now that the multiplication factor was too high. It seems their estimate - around 1.1 is closer to the truth than 3X or 4X.

We need a better look at the cosmic ray factor. Is Svensmark right? His first experiment says so. Why not wait until the second (verification) experiment is done and add that knowledge to the code?

===

I'm not happy with McCain either. He will do damage. Less than Hillary or the Big O. Less damage means less cost for recovery. In addition McCain might listen to the Republicans. A D would be under no such obligation.

No matter who gets in we are not leaving Iraq - no matter what the Ds promise. Barry O has already hedged his bets. (It depends on facts on the ground he says). Same or worse for Hillary! So your fantasy of quick withdrawal is not likely.

M. Simon · March 23, 2008 07:41 AM

Regarding the effects of clouds:

It's almost as if there was some sort of self-correcting mechanism moderating earth's climate! [/facetiousness]

Climate is far more complicated that the global warming alarmists will acknowledge or, for that matter, are able to comprehend. And, in other contexts, they accuse us conservatives of being overly-simplistic! There are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than CO2. They are not all behaving in the same way. And greenhouse gases are not the "be all and end all" of planetary warming. Or climate, for that matter.

The sun, with its solar flares, sunspots, overall varaible intensity. The oceans, which are 75 percent or so of the planet's surface. Clouds. It's way too complicated for the comprehension abilities of Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio, blessed with walnut-sized brains, and their believe-anything followers.

A couple of hot summers on the East Coast USA, followed by a photo of a polar bear on a ice floe, and suddenly its GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!

The global warming alarmists are ignorant of science and of history. Yes, I called them stoopid (with two o's!). They are willfully ignorant and proud of wallowing in the filth and stench of their own ignorance. They deny the reality of the medieval warming and, prior to that, the Roman warming. They deny the reality that Greenland was green enough in the 1000's and 1100's for crops and Newfoundland (Vinland!) was warm enough for grape cultivation. They deny the reality of the Little Ice Age, from 1500 to 1900, and how that was fundamentally different from the preceding 350-400 years. They deny that the Dust Bowl Era of the 1930s was warmer than we are today. They deny the existence of any evidence that runs contrary to their pre-packaged, swallowed-whole politically-expedient world view.

As a wise man, Mr. T, I believe, once said: "I pity the fool."

Rhodium Heart · March 23, 2008 01:34 PM

Penny you screwed up your comment by putting little carrots on each side of several paragraphs.

While this wasn't my post and it isn't my job to correct your comments for you, I thought I should correct your insinuation about this blog, so here is your comment in full, minus the carrot marks which screwed it up:

***QUOTE***

When Al Gore steps up at next election time, he will be old enough to get away with forgetting about his "global warming" phenom.

I predict he will be taking credit for household "greening"...the next new economy.

Heck, Al is three for three in getting the masses to react.

[carrot removed]Side question here, but has anyone ever met a man who quit smoking because his wife made him who did NOT blow up like a balloon?[carrot removed]

Thought not!

Anyway, so skinny, non-smoking blackish man from nearly every continent takes the world "as we know it" by storm.

And I used to think the internet was cool!

[carrot removed]morphs from plastic mouse to the furry kind, as the campfire crowd begins to huddle around the final toasted marshmallow of the evening[carrot removed].

Al, you big lug! Ladies first!

***UNQUOTE***

Eric Scheie · March 23, 2008 03:47 PM