CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63337
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:25 am
 


http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/29/study ... -23-years/

Quote:
Full title: STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years

Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy.

University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider found that by removing the climate effects of volcanic eruptions early on in the satellite temperature record it showed virtually no change in the rate of warming since the early 1990s.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

Christy and McNider found the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade after “the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record,” which “is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 … using only 15 years of data.”

The study is sure to be contentious. Christy has argued for years that climate models exaggerate global warming in the bulk atmosphere, which satellites have monitored since the late 1970s.

Christy, a noted skeptic of catastrophic man-made global warming, said his results reinforce his claim that climate models predict too much warming in the troposphere, the lowest five miles of the atmosphere. Models are too sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he said.

“From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said.

While many scientists have acknowledged the mismatch between model predictions and actual temperature observations, few have really challenged the validity of the models themselves.

A recent study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer found that while the models ran hot, the “overestimation” was “partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

Christy’s removal of volcanic-driven cooling from satellite temperature data could also draw scrutiny. The study also removed El Nino and La Nina cycles, which are particularly pronounced in satellite records, but those cycles largely canceled each other out, the co-authors said.

Christy said his works shows the “climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”

Two major volcanoes — El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — caused global average temperature to dip as a result of volcanic ash, soot and debris reflecting sunlight back into space.

Those eruptions meant there was more subsequent warming in the following years, making the rate of warming appear to be rising as a result of man-made emissions or other factors, Christy said.

“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said.

“While volcanic eruptions are natural events, it was the timing of these that had such a noticeable effect on the trend. If the same eruptions had happened near the more recent end of the dataset, they could have pushed the overall trend into negative numbers, or a long-term cooling,” Christy said.


[popcorn]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10660
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:38 am
 


But..But that CO2 molecule thingumajig, it's following the money.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23247
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:53 am
 


I just want to make sure I'm clear on the claim, they say that when taking the measurements of warming, the "cooling" effect of the volcanic eruptions near the beginning/middle of measurement timeline is making it appear that there is more warming than in reality?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23247
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:54 am
 


PluggyRug wrote:
But..But that CO2 molecule thingumajig, it's following the money.

Yeah that one that reflects IR radiation.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 10660
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:57 am
 


..in all directions.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 927
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:58 am
 


There is no "global" warming. Full stop.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23247
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:03 am
 


PluggyRug wrote:
..in all directions.

Sure does, just not light.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1576
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:04 am
 


DailyCaller.com.

Enough said.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33832

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:08 am
 


Coach85 wrote:
DailyCaller.com.

Enough said.


More fail from Coach. As usual. Can only whine about sources, not the materials.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 27544
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:09 am
 


Coach85 wrote:
DailyCaller.com.

Enough said.


Yup. Right-wing lie machine. lie lie lie


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1576
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:30 am
 


martin14 wrote:
Coach85 wrote:
DailyCaller.com.

Enough said.


More fail from Coach. As usual. Can only whine about sources, not the materials.


When the material comes from a credible source, it'll be worth discussing.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:33 am
 


The trick here is in the semantics--no acceleration in global warming. So, they are concluding that yes, global warming is happening, it's just not getting faster.

Originally, the deniers claimed there was no global warming (or, from some deniers, there was global cooling). As the evidence piled up to the point that even the deniers couldn't deny it with a straight face anymore, they switched to "well of course there's global warming, we never said there wasn't." Which is kind of where this paper is.

So I'm not sure what kind of claim Bart is trying to stake here. The paper concluded global warming at a rate of about 1.1 deg C per doubling of CO2, which I was saying ten years ago.

Removal of "volcanic cooling" likely skewed the results to lower the average warming per decade. I'll have to read the literature in the next little while to see if this was done in a scientifically defensible manner.

Bottom line: All this paper does is conclude there is global warming, just not as bad as the IPCC claimed.

And of course, now, at least in Canada (average warming is approximately doubled in the Arctic) we are actually dealing with it, so denying it at this point is pretty much flat-earth territory.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22865
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:25 am
 


Have you ever listened to Bill Nye try to sound sciencey on a television talk show?

He will tell you with great certainty that yes there has always been warming and cooling in climate, but what's different today is the speed with which the change is happening.

This speed of warming allows the prophets of the new apocalypse to predict their horrors.

Very well, so you take the speed of change out of the most recent trend, now what have you got?

Something not so scary.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22865
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:32 am
 


And this is a lie.

Zipperfish wrote:

Originally, the deniers claimed there was no global warming (or, from some deniers, there was global cooling). As the evidence piled up to the point that even the deniers couldn't deny it with a straight face anymore, they switched to "well of course there's global warming, we never said there wasn't." Which is kind of where this paper is.


I've been telling Zip it's a lie for at least 7 years. There are all sorts of opinions on the fringes of both sides of this debate, but the basic point of the skeptic side has never been there was no warming. It has always been a question of "how much." The question of what they call "climate sensitivity" has always been at the core. 'How fast' would be a part of that.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63337
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:44 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Originally, the deniers claimed there was no global warming (or, from some deniers, there was global cooling).


James Hansen, the 'father' of AGW theory was also the same James Hansen who in the 1970's was predicting a coming ice age apocalypse in the 1980's.

So I suppose that makes him a 'denier' since he wasn't always espousing The One True Faith, right?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.