NASA blows hole in global warming alarmism

Lets start with in the past CO2 levels dont correlate with temperatures.Nor do they in the present.
Explain that and Im a believer.

 

It seems that over time CO2 concentrations DO correlate with temperature. I guess that makes you a believer?

CO2 vs Temperature: Last 400,000 years

Icarus

 

"CO2 variability does not correlate with temperature at any point in the last 600 million years; atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at the lowest level in that period; in the 20th century most warming occurred before 1940 when human production of CO2 was very small; human production of CO2 increased the most after 1940 but global temperatures declined to 1985; from 2000 global temperatures declined while CO2 levels increased; "

http://drtimball.com/2011/co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/

 

As I mentioned in another thread.
The last 10,000 years have been much warmer than today.
Yet CO2 levels were much lower than today.
Go figure.

 

another response by the other side that is pretty much the only thing i have seen from them

a screaming "show me the money" statement.

what i did not see was a comment disputing the effects of GHG, deforestation, black carbon, VOC's, disappearing ice caps, etc.

 

Did you figure that there are other influences on climate other than CO2? CO2 is not the only influence on global temperatures.

It’s more complicated than you might think | Grist

 

One year, or 5 years, does not a trend make. Phil Plait has done a way better job than I ever could in this blog post.

No, new data does not “blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism†| Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

I received a few emails, tweets, and comments on the blog yesterday asking about an Op/Ed article in Forbes magazine that claims that new NASA data will "blow [a] gaping hole in global warming alarmism".

Except, as it turns out, not so much. The article is just so much hot air (see what I did there?) and climate scientists say the paper on which it’s based is fundamentally flawed and flat-out wrong.


It’s clear after reading just a few words that this article is hugely biased.​

 

First lets look at the science, which in all this discussion seems to be lost. There is a large disagreement about what the magnitude for carbon dioxide sensitivity because we do not know how big feedback is. The IPCC has talked about a wide range, centered around 3 degrees C for every doubling of CO2, with most models using a log of CO2 concentration. Hanson who is at the high end of legitimate scientists uses 6 degrees, others have sensitivities as low as 1.

The peer reviewed article
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
uses 11 years of satellite data of ocean temperatures and finds low sensitivity to CO2, but discusses how this is a short period of time and most temperature changes during the period are climate variability caused by phenomena like ENSO. It does not mention alarmist or anything else in the criticism. Getting more data from NASA and allowing peer reviewed papers only adds to our scientific knowledge.

The "alarmism" talk is all outside the scientific article, and are often in editorial form. I don't think this adds to the discussion, but yes the science from the last decade seems to make some high sensitivities in models like 6 degrees per doubling seem alarmist.

 

Let's just pose this question,,,do people have any idea what the effect of 1 degree C is likely to have? Do people have any idea what 6C is likely to have.

My previously linked post shows that NEVER in 400,000 years has the temperature average been more than plus or minus 5C Relative to the present.

Are we prepared to accept that within 300 years we are potentially putting enough CO2 that might push that to 6C (or even a couple)? It seems the height if hubris to even take the chance when the solutions, ( even if we are wrong!) to take such chances with the only planet we have!

A rhetorical question,,, why is it or what is it about the denial community that is so vociferous in it's opinion that they are willing to take the chance?

As I have said before, the solutions for global warming ( real or not) are not a cost, they are an investment! The solutions lead to slowing the energy cost curves, they create real meaningful economic opportunity, and they create real national and energy security gains. What is not to like?

Icarus

 

I would say there are 2 questions here. Does the general population understand what would happen, and I would say absolutely not. Do scientists have a good idea of what would happen at a 1 degree C increase, as that is definitely likely and at 6 there is large disagreement. This is quite outside the scope of this discussion of what is actually happening, but I would say the bad possibilities are why many scientists are calling for action. Some have stated this publicly and quite clearly differentiate their politics from science. This however is not an excuse to do bad science or not to do science.

I didn't read that post, but some scientists have used this to talk about big natural negative feedback as temperatures rise. This leads to the non-vindictive earth scenario, with some cap to positive feedback from ghg. Ice cores from Greenland do show that we have had more rapid temperature rises than today, so hoping that nature will just take care of it fast is not likely either.

Well this is a political not a scientific question and assumes a lot. Under a high sensitivity model it is probably too late to really do anything to stop the rise, but investment in mitigation is important. Under a lower sensitivity model there is time, but it is important on what actions are taken. You can be against certain programs but for reduction of co2. Certainly Europeans cap and trade does not seem to have effectively reduced world wide ghg.

non-rhetorical question, why do you use the term denial community. It certainly exists but the alarmist community seems much larger. Certainly pointing out flaws in the science is more constructive than name calling.

Well I agree there, but.... The politicians don't seem interested in helping most of the real solutions. The cap and tax proposal that failed in congress was stripped of meaningful reductions and amounted to simple transfer payments. The one that is in place in the EU is very deeply flawed, but there is some hope they can fix it.

 

AustinGreen & Icarus, get your thoughts into the vaccine thread please. There seems to be too few posters with knowledge of the Scientific Method there.

Icarus - the denial community are upset at the money Al Gore & Company have made with alarmist views and political views.

If we could cut 90% of all industrial & car pollution - we have the technology - all the related problems would go away. A dead & polluted Gulf of Mexico cannot absorb & sequester CO2 like a healthy ocean mass would.

 

I would Rgu e tht the denial community is upset (personally) because of the money they THINK they will need to spend to solve it, not realizing the net gains, and potential lower net costs going forward.

Institutionally, the denial community is too entrenched with the status quo energy system, and doesn't want to loose their market (near) monopolies.

Neither position (IMHO) are not in the best national or world interests.

Icarus

PS (edit, man the self correcting function of the iPad keyboard is irritating. You make a mistake, don't see it and you are left w ith gibberish. I have no idea what I was try ing to write in that first sentence.)

 

Aah.. that's why the wehrmacht troops froze to death in 1941 on outskirts of Moscow?? didn't they know that most of the warming already happened and the russian October is already warm and mild??

just b/c most of warming in CONUS happened in 30s does not mean it is true for the rest of the world. Shifts in el Nino/la Nina cycle were responsible for Dust Bowl warming, YETOO.

Edit:
with respect to "temperature at any point in the last 600 million years" it is my understanding that most of the scientists "lie" was not related to current climatic data, but rather falsification of geological marker data, which cover the historic and prehistoric periods we do not have direct measurements for.

So why do you refer to temperatures in last 600 million years you have already discarded as falsified? Are you reversing your position on their credibility?

 

What did I say about temp proxies from the past 600 million years regarding "discarded as falsified"?Nothing that I recall.

 

read you comments in http://priuschat.com/forums/environ...s-have-falsified-global-warming-research.html and http://priuschat.com/forums/environ...gates-phil-jones-confesses-climate-fraud.html

Phil Jones specifically was accused in falsifying temp proxy data. :boink:

 

Can you be specific?
Im not going to read 20 pages looking for something I have no recollection of.
Either quote my post or kindly delete your previous post.