Global warming debunked

[Greatcloud]

NASA Discovers 70% Of Global Climate Due To Pacific Ocean Oscillations - Not CO2

Published by AJStrata at 3:52 pm under All General Discussions, Global Warming

Well, well. Congress learned something shattering today, which will have the Church of Al Gore/IPCC running in fear of their lost credibility. It has been scientifically demonstrated that 70% of the Global Warming in the last century (and cooling in the last decade) is due to the Pacific Ocean Oscillations , not CO2:

One necessary result of low climate sensitivity is that the radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions in the last century is not nearly enough to explain the upward trend of 0.7 deg. C in the last 100 years. This raises the question of whether there are natural processes at work which have caused most of that warming.
On this issue, it can be shown with a simple climate model that small cloud fluctuations assumed to occur with two modes of natural climate variability — the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon (Southern Oscillation), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation — can explain 70% of the warming trend since 1900, as well as the nature of that trend: warming until the 1940s, no warming until the 1970s, and resumed warming since then.
​

The gentlemen making this claim is the lead investigator one of NASA’s flagship Earth Observing Observatories (H/T Ice Cap ). I have the honor of working on this mission on the periphery (Aqua ), it is operated out of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD.
I posted on some of these effects yesterday. What this means is no matter how much you change your CO2 footprint, how much you try to be CO2 green, no matter how much liberal governments tax you - you cannot save the planet from its natural cycles. Remember, the draconian actions being proposed by the Church of Al Gore/IPCC, which will run into the tens of trillions of dollars and cripple the world economies, is only meant to reduce today’s CO2 levels by a fraction.
Say they reduced the CO2 25%. Say the CO2 is the driver for the remaining 30% of Global Warming (which it cannot be, but let’s just be only half as ridiculous as the IPCC), then all that effort would only impact 7.5% of the forces driving the global climate. The other 92.5% would roll on, impervious to the effort. And since CO2 is not 100% of the remaining 30% of the equation (more like 10%), a more realistic expectation is that all the suffering that would go into dropping CO2 levels by 25% would result in a less than 1% change in the forces driving our climate.
In other words, you might as well light a match to all that money because it would have no effect, you would be throwing it away on a fool’s errand.
Must be the week to bust myths, because this means all those efforts to drive down CO2 emissions are a scientifically proven waste of time. I see a lot of Green turning to Red here soon (from the embarrassment of being so wrong).


Update: I like this part of the testimony where the Priests from the Church of Al Gore/IPCC did not even bother to look at this results:

While other researchers need to further explore and validate my claims, I am heartened by the fact that my recent presentation of these results to an audience of approximately 40 weather and climate researchers at the University of Colorado in Boulder last week (on July 17, 2008) led to no substantial objections to either the data I presented, nor to my interpretation of those data.
And, curiously, despite its importance to climate modeling activities, no one from Dr. Kevin Trenberth’s facility, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), bothered to drive four miles down the road to attend my seminar, even though it was advertised at NCAR.
​

Now isn’t that a piece of work?
Update: And for those still thinking the world is melting here are some interesting pictures comparing the Arctic Snow-Ice levels from this week, last year and the year before. Clearly we see that there is significantly more snow and ice at the North Pole than in 2007 (click to go to larger original).

​

​

​

​

Of the 3 years 2006 had the most snow/ice cover, 2007 the least. 2008 looks to be closer to 2006 given how little ocean in the clear north of Russia. But 2006 had thinner coverage in these areas (thin shown by red) than 2008 (thick shown by purple). So it would seem the sky is not falling - yet.

 

[Baggins]

That doesn't debunk global warming it is just an argument about how much of it is caused by CO2 emissions.

If you want to stay in the land of the truthful you should amend your thread title, but you won't because you aren't interested in truth

 

[Greatcloud]

Its not an argument it is scientific research.........of the 30% left that leaves maybe 10% for AGW if that.

 

[Baggins]

How do you work out the 10% caused by CO2 figure.

And does this mean that you accept global warming and climate change and accept that the scientific argument is simply about how much of the warming we are responsible for because that doesn't seem to have been your previous position?

 

[Greatcloud]

I believe mankind may cause 2% of global warming. The 10% is just a guess I determined on my own.

 

[chaim]

Great, we don't have to worry about climate change!

Just so we can confirm this result, can you direct us to where this research was published? SO far we have a blog that cites other blogs. I assume such a ground breaking result would be published in at least Science if not Nature.

 

[[serious]]

Man, if only someone had posted about ocean cycles a year ago...

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7218483

I mean, a increased warming period followed by a period of stability followed by more warming? Sounds like global cooling to me!

 

[atomweaver]

Its not an argument it is scientific research.........

It is not scientific research, either, its a summary of the personal testimony of Roy Spencer;

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index...._id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3http:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

...and its not based on the work he did at NASA, from which he retired in 2001.

Why lie, and pretend that the personal findings of Roy Spencer were those of NASA? A False Appeal to Authority for the epic FAIL.

 

[Hespera]

I believe mankind may cause 2% of global warming. The 10% is just a guess I determined on my own.

Just a suggestion.... not referring to this post but to previous ones... if you could cut out all the sarcasm it would make for better reading. And more credibility.

As a rule when someone uses a lot of sarcasm i figure it is because that is all they have. So I dont take any of it very seriously if i read it at all.

 

[atomweaver]

Just a suggestion.... not referring to this post but to previous ones... if you could cut out all the sarcasm it would make for better reading. And more credibility.

As a rule when someone uses a lot of sarcasm i figure it is because that is all they have. So I dont take any of it very seriously if i read it at all.

What are you telling us, Hespera... that calling AGW "The Church of AlGore" doesn't make the speaker seem more legitimate in what comes after? *shock*

I think you mistake who the audience is; other fundies. To another fundie, an ad hom on a liberal is all they need to hear to know that the speaker is part of "GO! Team Conservative!", and is therefore correct in everything they say. Its a kind of shorthand, to let other fundies know when to circumvent pesky things like fact-checking, verification, legality, etc...

 

[Hespera]

What are you telling us, Hespera... that calling AGW "The Church of AlGore" doesn't make the speaker seem more legitimate in what comes after? *shock*

I think you mistake who the audience is; other fundies. To another fundie, an ad hom on a liberal is all they need to hear to know that the speaker is part of "GO! Team Conservative!", and is therefore correct in everything they say. Its a kind of shorthand, to let other fundies know when to circumvent pesky things like fact-checking, verification, legality, etc...

Well I am SO shocked to hear this!!

hey one thing tho.. my dad is as conservative as you can get but he is also as unreligious as you can get. Unless i am more. Less? Anyhow conservative and religious fundamentalism are not the same thing.

I know of obama type voters who are into kooky spiritual stuff....for whatever difference that makes.

Over in the creation evolution threads, i posted something asking for the Christians to either say they agree or disagree with someone who stated that the native americans were evil and god wanted the spanish to destroy them as gods judgement.

Maybe nobody is going to venture to say but to me.... man....Im half scared to find out how many might agree with that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, it's not NASA at all, but a former NASA worker, who disagees with NASA's findings.

Here's the tip-off from the link:

Well, well. Congress learned something shattering today, which will have the Church of Al Gore/IPCC running in fear of their lost credibility. It has been scientifically demonstrated that 70% of the Global Warming in the last century (and cooling in the last decade) is due to the Pacific Ocean Oscillations , not CO2:

In fact, the last decade was the warmest on record, and the coolest year in the last ten years was warmer than any year but one, in the 1990s. GISS data can be found here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

The last year, although in a sunspot minimum and with a strong La Nina, was the 9th hottest on record.

When a site starts with a goof that egregious, you can bet that it's not going to get more accurate as it goes on. The usual games with numbers, along with some innuendo, and a great deal of cherry-picked data ensues. When someone argues that Al Gore is a religious movement, reality isn't going to be in hailing distance.

Nothing new, just a new spin, which won't last any longer than any of the others.

 

[atomweaver]

Well I am SO shocked to hear this!!

hey one thing tho.. my dad is as conservative as you can get but he is also as unreligious as you can get. Unless i am more. Less? Anyhow conservative and religious fundamentalism are not the same thing.

Understood. I meant both terms (fundie and conservative) in their political sense, only...

I know of obama type voters who are into kooky spiritual stuff....for whatever difference that makes.

Over in the creation evolution threads, i posted something asking for the Christians to either say they agree or disagree with someone who stated that the native americans were evil and god wanted the spanish to destroy them as gods judgement.

Is that the one where the fundie then said that the Spanish were later pushed from power by Protestants because they weren't "good enough" in God's eyes?

Maybe nobody is going to venture to say but to me.... man....Im half scared to find out how many might agree with that.

Very few, in all honesty. Although at the same time, CF has developed a culture where Christians are timid about denouncing each other, even over comments as outrageously stupid as the ones we're discussing. Yah well, that's what the "report" feature is for... *shrug*

 

[Hespera]

I guess i just have to learn which posters to totally ignore. i dont listen to the long hari crazies talking on the street corner, no need to pay attn to them here.

 

[Baggins]

I believe mankind may cause 2% of global warming. The 10% is just a guess I determined on my own.

Show your maths

 

[Baggins]

Actually, it's not NASA at all, but a former NASA worker, who disagees with NASA's findings.

Here's the tip-off from the link:

Well, well. Congress learned something shattering today, which will have the Church of Al Gore/IPCC running in fear of their lost credibility. It has been scientifically demonstrated that 70% of the Global Warming in the last century (and cooling in the last decade) is due to the Pacific Ocean Oscillations , not CO2:

In fact, the last decade was the warmest on record, and the coolest year in the last ten years was warmer than any year but one, in the 1990s. GISS data can be found here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

The last year, although in a sunspot minimum and with a strong La Nina, was the 9th hottest on record.

When a site starts with a goof that egregious, you can bet that it's not going to get more accurate as it goes on. The usual games with numbers, along with some innuendo, and a great deal of cherry-picked data ensues. When someone argues that Al Gore is a religious movement, reality isn't going to be in hailing distance.

Nothing new, just a new spin, which won't last any longer than any of the others.

I'm shocked

Actually I'm not, I was just waiting for someone to put in the checking that I could't be bothered to do.

Kudos

 

[mpok1519]

Actually, this proves climate change is directly influenced by manmade emissions.

Thank you for debunking debunking global warming. =)

 

[canukian]

did anyone knowtice all the trillions of dollars just to have 1% effect?

 

[Hespera]

Not Cool Anymore
Although America in 2000 passed up an opportunity to elect the man who invented global warming, eight years later we handed a decisive presidential victory to an avowed global warmist. And while the message of Barack Obama's candidacy on this subject was a bit muddled--he was for "change," while global warmists say they want to stop "climate" change--there is a widespread belief that the voters handed President Obama a mandate to "do something" about global warming.
A poll released last week by the Pew Research Center, however, calls this into question. In the New York Times's "Dot Earth" blog, Andrew Revkin described the findings:

According to the survey of 1,503 adults, global warming, on its own, ranks last out of 20 surveyed issues. . . .​

Although the more general issue of protecting the environment ranked higher than climate (named by 41 percent of the poll subjects) that figure was 15 percentage points lower than in the same poll a year ago.​

Revkin also links to a Rasmussen survey that finds Americans increasingly skeptical about the science behind global warmism:

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity. . . .​

In July 2006, 46% of voters said global warming is caused primarily by human activities, while 35% said it is due to long-term planetary trends.​

Why have global warmists lost ground with the public? One obvious reason is the recession. "The economy" and "jobs" top the Pew list of top priorities, and both have increased sharply over the past couple of years. People who are afraid of something real--losing their jobs or the value of their assets--have little energy left for esoteric and hypothetical terrors.
Another reason is that it is really cold out. Past Pew surveys were also taken in January, so that the figures can be construed as seasonally adjusted, but this has been an especially harsh winter, which seems to provide experiential evidence against the claims of global warmism.
Of course, this feeling is illusory: Weather is different from climate, and it is possible to have cold winters even amid a long-term trend toward hotter weather--just as, for example, the stock market has down days during a bull market.
Global warmists, however, have squandered their credibility in making this point, because they never fail to seize on a hurricane or a sweltering summer day as "evidence" to make their case. In fact, so cynical is the public about the claims of global warmists that the clichéd response to a pleasant winter day is, "If this is global warming, bring it on."
An additional problem is that whereas global warmists are emotionally consistent--in a constant state of alarm, accompanied by contempt, even hatred, for those who dare ask questions--their claims are filled with logical inconsistencies. A reader spotted a hilarious example in this Los Angeles Times article:

Even if by some miracle of environmental activism global carbon dioxide levels reverted to pre-industrial levels, it still would take 1,000 years or longer for the climate changes already triggered to be reversed, scientists said Monday.​

The gas that is already there and the heat that has been absorbed by the ocean will exert their effects for centuries, according to the analysis, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.​

Over the long haul, the warming will melt the polar icecaps more than previously had been estimated, raising ocean levels substantially, the report said.​

And changes in rainfall patterns will bring droughts comparable to those that caused the 1930s Dust Bowl to the American Southwest, southern Europe, northern Africa and western Australia.​

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide, the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years," lead author Susan Solomon, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in a telephone news conference. "That's not true." . . .​

Solomon said in a statement that absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans and release of heat from the oceans - the one process acting to cool the Earth and the other to warm it--will "work against each other to keep temperatures almost constant for more than 1,000 years."​

Is it absolutely crucial to the planet's future that we curtail greenhouse gases this instant, or would it not make any difference anyway? If the latter, what sense does it make to be alarmed? And that last quote by Solomon is a classic head-scratcher. We're supposed to worry that temperatures will be "almost constant for more than 1,000 years"? That's what they mean by global warming?
Weather forecast for the year 3009: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[canukian]

hespera thank you for shedding some light with the article...i often ask think it is preposterously presumptive that people cant predict the weather but presume they can predict the climate