New study on climate change

Yup.

 

Legitimate Global Warming discussions will always have unknown factors that must be examined and re-examined. The best ones are those that are intensely reviewed by the unbias (very hard to find unbiased reviewers) and are very complicated (the real world). The best ones so far are showing effects from increased CO2 presence.

ANY study (pro, con, or otherwise) that speaks in absolutes is a propaganda piece. This one seems totally absolute.

 

Fred Singer? He's one of those miracle reversal blokes. He went from "the warming isn't happening" to "the planet is warming and there's nothing we can do about it, oh and it'll be smashing" in 1 year. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong, but that's a rather profound change in outlook in a very short period of time.

 

Yeah, but it rings a bit hollow when it's only a group of CC denialists who jump on that wagon. Since most of that lot have been proponents of the status quo, and their new view allows them to cling to that, it's rather difficult to take them very seriously.

 

To me it certainly speaks in absolutes. This just says "Climate model did not work--therefore GW is nonsense" Too bad he ignores the many other models that are much better.

 

Then what does this say?

"observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation."​

It would be interesting to see what comments the peer review gets. Solar variability has been pretty much shown as not increasing the last 30 years. Also, some early errors in measuring atmospheric temperatures were corrected a few years ago, that had been an embarrassing outlier in data, but turned out to have a simple sensor-based explanation.

In any regard, this doesn't affect my actions. Wasted energy is wasted money, so any ability to improve efficiency should be vigorously pursued. Air pollution is still a known carcinogen and affects asthma rates and other respiratory ailments. Oil imports are the biggest single product causing our trade imbalance and harming our nation's economy. Oil imports also prop up numerous governments that are known to support or shelter terrorists or are otherwise inhospitable to U.S. interests. I don't want to fund both sides of the Iraq war, so I drive a Prius. Then there's the peak oil concern, with the resulting shock wave that can devastate the current American economy unless we work hard on alternative fuels and energy conservation now. With the rest of the world working on alternative energy and conservation technologies, we'll be left behind in jobs if we don't also put some capital investment in this lucrative field.

Global warming is like reason #8 to reduce our consumption of foreign oil. Any patriotic American should stand up against this dependency for the good of the country.

 

Don't forget field evidence.

 

Please show us the evidence of the models he ignores. From the abstract it says:

"We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model
simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era).
Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by
more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than
observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs."

That sounds reasonably thorough to me. You may not like Singer, but that does not make the results wrong. And the study runs in a well-respected journal - it's not from a wikipedia article.

 

Yes it does. Note the following quote:

"The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

The choice of the word "inescapable" is mighty clear. This is the language of someone with a position to advocate, not the report of an investigator reporting his data.

 

No surprise in the conclusion it makes, given its source:

Science and Environmental Policy Project

"... S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon." [19]

In 2000 SEPP wrote on their web site:
"SEPP does not solicit financial support from either industry or governmental sources. Income is derived mainly from charitable foundations and private individuals. Some income is derived also from SEPP conference fees and the sale of books and reports to the public. As a non-profit educational and research 501(c) 3 organization, accepting tax-deductible contributions, SEPP is required to file an annual report with the IRS. SEPP operates on a modest budget; its officers and associated scientists do not receive salaries but contribute their services on a pro bono basis." [20] (emphasis added) ExxonMobil donated $10,000 to SEPP both in 1998 [21] and 2000 [22].

 

By proudly stating you get 18 mpg? Every 400 miles I need to put in 8 gallons, and I think that's too much.

Heh, look at your own link. Last paragraph:

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
​

However, most charts I see don't show a 25-year lag time in solar forcing to observable temperatures. We're currently at a minimum in the 11-year sunspot cycle, so if anything these years should be cooler than the recent average.
Another report, but older is here(http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/), after work I'll have to find the one that came out early this year. An interesting aspect from this NASA report is that solar forcing affects the upper atmosphere significantly. One of the claims of your link is the one GW model they tested can't be right because the upper atmosphere didn't warm as much as the ground layer. Yet solar forcing would warm the upper atmosphere, so solar forcing can't be increasing either.

There is some truth to that, particularly by non-scientists. That's what makes the IPCC report more convincing. Still, all the science needs to be looked at carefully and not dismissed out of hand. I'm not sure that's happening today.

BTW, we have very spotty records of Mars compared to the Earth. Some on-site records in the 70's, then nothing until the mid-90's, taken in completely different areas. Maybe a century worth of ice-cap coverage. Can't really say anything conclusive about climate trends and causes given that. The NG article you linked mentions a decline in polar ice caps over 3 summers, hardly a long-term trend. Neither Abdussamatov or the AGW protectors reported if there were any recent variations in Mars' orbit, supposedly a bigger factor in Mars climate shifts than changes in solar output.

Nobody denies that solar forcing was historically a strong influence on climate change. Just that it doesn't explain changes we've seen in the last 50 years, which happens to be the same time we've increased CO2 levels , an undisputed greenhouse gas, well above anything seen in the last 500,000 years. Coincidence?