posted 12-27-2003 12:25 AM            

.....Then tell that to the IPCC. They were the first to speak about “global warming”. Do you like “climate change”, or “instability” better?.....

This is ridiculous. You're acting like this is a matter of "liking" chocolate over vanilla. What a petty trivialization of a serious issue.

.....James Hansen made a statement back in August 2000, retracting on his previous contention that CO2 was the primary cause of “Global Warming” (he used those words) and blamed instead methane and soot particulate as the likely culprits.....

Yes, so? It would seem that he did what any good scientist must always be prepared to do - to be willing to change their views as new data are gathered to test working hypotheses.

.....I searched NASA’s website, but that press release apparently has been removed from the site, or placed in another web address. His statement provoked an irate reaction from his friends in the greenhouse industry, so he made some non very credible corrections to his press release saying he was misunderstood, that he didn’t mean that, etc, etc. However, I will trace it until I find it for you.....

I would like in particular to see where Dr. Hansen ever acknowledged that soot is a "cooler" of the atmosphere, as you pointed out in your previous post. Thank you.

.....Not only me. Thousands of climatologists and meteorologists are saying the same. After checking data from all over the world, I agree with them.

Would you like me to post thousands of temperature records from all over the world (1900 onwards) showing there is not a warming trend and most of them show a cooling trend? Or perhaps would be better if I gave you the link to such webpage?.....

Regarding my response to your comment about temperature readings being taken only from urban locations and then extrapolated to imply a global trend - I was being ironical. I guess this was lost on you. My apologies. It has been my understanding that this particular situation is well into the process of being corrected by the addition of satellite-based technology for making temperature readings and by taking readings from a much more diverse array of ground-based monitoring sites. I find it unbelievable that such a basic error would not have been rectified as soon as it was discovered - and it is, in fact, being rectified.

.....First it was “Global Warming”, then they changed to “anthropogenic climate change”, then it was “human-induced global climate change”. Now is “pollution-driven climatic instability”. Why the changes? What’s next?.....

It seems to me that the terminology is evolving to more accurately reflect that which a combination of improved data-gathering methods and continued direct observation are unfortunately indicating.

.....I think is crap. My Goodness! A reading from Thompson FARMS! Why didn’t they take readings from places as swamps, or landfills, or other sites as FARMS where the production of CO2 is also as huge as farms?.....

Do you know anything about the area where Thompson Farm is located? [I do. I am recently relocated from that general area.]

Do you know that Thompson Farm [named in 1827 for Samuel and Benjamin Thompson who purchased the land] is not, in fact, any longer a working farm but is merely a large expanse of rolling grassy space surrounded by mixed forest on the New Hampshire seacoast?

And what is it about this type of place, or any farm for that matter, that would cause a "huge" production of CO2? I have no idea what you are getting at here, unless you are implying that CO2 monitoring stations are deliberately being set up in locations that would supply the highest possible readings in order to convey false data to a poor, unsuspecting public.

.....Although CO2 concentrations are fairly average on the world (there is the same CO2 concentrations in the Sahara, the Everest, Antarctica, the Pampas, Africa’s sabanas, Canada’s and Russia’s tundra, Near, Middle and Far East, the Balkans, Norway, Japan, Australia, Mexico, the Arctic, etc, some localized areas show increased levels due to special conditions, as decomposing organic matter, or some industrial activities.

May I take you into a short journey in reasoning, routinely preformed at elementary and high schools?

1) The Sahara desert is located in a similar latitude as the Amazon Jungle.

2) In Hobart, Sahara, the temperature amplitude goes from -5º C to +50º C.

3) In Manaus, Brazil, the amplitude ranges from 24º C to 32º C (in rainy season).

4) In Hobart the heat was radiated back into space during the night.

5) In Manaus the heat was retained during the night.

6) CO2 levels in Hobart and Manaus are about the same: 365-370 ppm.

7) Hobart has a relative humidity (water vapor) of 5%

8) Manaus has a relative humidity (water vapor) of 90% (in rainy season)

Given the clues above: Who was responsible for “retaining the heat” at night?.....

It is not necessary to patronize people with elementary tutorials in "reasoning", thank you. Why don't you simply ask whether it is CO2 or water vapor that is responsible for retention of heat at night?

posted 12-27-2003 08:17 PM               

quote:

---

Yes, so? It would seem that he did what any good scientist must always be prepared to do - to be willing to change their views as new data are gathered to test working hypotheses.

---

quote:

---

I find it unbelievable that such a basic error would not have been rectified as soon as it was discovered - and it is, in fact, being rectified.

---

But, yes, they are trying to rectify that, but not by reviewing and correcting records for the "urban heat island effect". They are trying to show that satellite readings are wrong due a decay in their orbits, thus, providing erroneous readings.

But, wait: only on temperatures, not in sea level readings! That they cannot allow to be touched.

quote:

---

And what is it about this type of place, or any farm for that matter, that would cause a "huge" production of CO2? I have no idea what you are getting at here, unless you are implying that CO2 monitoring stations are deliberately being set up in locations that would supply the highest possible readings in order to convey false data to a poor, unsuspecting public.

---

quote:

---

It is not necessary to patronize people with elementary tutorials in "reasoning", thank you. Why don't you simply ask whether it is CO2 or water vapor that is responsible for retention of heat at night?

---

quote:

---

The answer is water vapor. And this is because, as regional greenhouse gas-loading heats up the atmosphere at the surface, normal evapotranspiration processes become accelerated. This, in turn, brings more water vapor into the atmosphere, which results in the retention of heat which, in turn, allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor. It is a vicious cycle.

---

In any weather stations along the world, common measurement of temperatures and rains are complemented by measuring of “pan evaporation”. They use simple open pans full of water, and the loss of water by evaporation during a specific time lapse gives de measure of evaporation.

Evaporation is important for predicting climatic changes because if the atmosphere warms up, as predicted by the IPCC’s “global warming” hypothesis, then the evaporation rates should increase. That’s is what you are saying in your post, Deborah, and have highlighted where you, and many other scientists, including the IPCC, are wrong. Water vapor is, by itself, a powerful greenhouse gas, so any warming caused by CO2 would be then complemented by more warming produced by the evaporated water from the pan. That’s is, at least, what the IPCC many scientists say.

It is considered that this positive feedback effect warms the atmosphere more than CO2 itself. In fact, the present theory promoted by the IPCC suggests that CO2 can only cause an 0.8ºC warming if its atmospheric concentration doubles over its pre-industrial levels. According to recent increase rates of CO2, this doubling point would be reached in 130 years.

An 0.8º C warming by the year 2130 does not seem something to get excited about, but the theory claims that the adding of water vapor to the atmosphere (what you say in your post, Deborah, following the idea by the IPCC), plus other minor positive feedbacks will make the warming “explode” to many degrees Celsius, as much as 5º C or more.

A new study by Roderick and Farquar (Science, vol. 298, p. 1410, Nov. 15, 2002), seems to throw this idea out the window. They reveal that the 50 year data on “pan evaporation” reveal a sustained reduction of evaporation rates in the Northern Hemisphere – contrary to what the IPCC and followers have been claiming that would happen if CO2 kept rising. The authors are not quite sure about the reasons for this decrease in evaporation rates, and cite cloudiness, pollution, and aerosols as the likely contributors, but the bottom line is the observed and recorded decrease in water evaporation with increased CO2 levels – whatever its causes may be.

With this decrease in evaporation there is no possibility that the “expected positive feedback” from water vapor increase adds nothing to the theorized warming produced by CO2. Certainly, the opposite is true. A decrease in water vapor in the atmosphere would really revert any small warming caused by CO2, a conclusion consistent with what we can see in NOAA’s satellite temperature records.

I will refer you (and other readers) to a paper by Dipl. Ing. Peter Dietze on this matter (quite technical) that will dissipate any doubts you have on water vapor and evapotranspiration.

The paper can be found at: http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm , and an excerpt is copied here:

Of course, at the bottom of the online paper, you’ll find responses evoked by to the paper. The first one came from Bert Bolin, head of the IPCC, reading:

But then, what else could he say? As its author, Peter Dietze wrote at the end of a long and interesting debate on his paper:

posted 12-28-2003 08:51 PM            

.....The authors are not quite sure about the reasons for this decrease in evaporation rates, and cite cloudiness, pollution, and aerosols as the likely contributors, but the bottom line is the observed and recorded decrease in water evaporation with increased CO2 levels – whatever its causes may be.....

Perhaps plant life attempts to adapt to CO2-induced temperature increase by self-regulating its rate of evapotranspiration in order to conserve water. I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that this kind of adaptive response could occur on a large scale and thereby possibly exert a cumulative effect on pan evaporation measurements.

Or perhaps the decrease in cloud droplet size within pollution-laden clouds, atmospheric aerosols and aviation trails is suspending water vapor in the upper troposphere.

Oh, well.

If the 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the turn of the century isn't a problem, then why is so much [U.S.] federally-funded research currently going into the development of marine and terrestrial carbon [dioxide] sequestration technology?

Here's a statement I came across yesterday while [still] trying to locate a reference to James Hansen's acknowledgement of soot as an atmospheric "cooler":

QUOTE: "Let's call carbon dioxide the capitalist gas. Its production in large amounts is a sign a country is prosperous, that its industries are booming and its citizens consuming. And it is envy of that success, of that wealth, more than concern for the environment, that has fired up many greenhouse theorists from the start." End QUOTE

posted 12-29-2003 03:09 PM               

quote:

---

Or perhaps the decrease in cloud droplet size within pollution-laden clouds, atmospheric aerosols and aviation trails is suspending water vapor in the upper troposphere.
Oh, well.

---

And this should ease the fears of people worried for the catastrophic effect this was supposed to cause.

quote:

---

If the 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the turn of the century isn't a problem, then why is so much [U.S.] federally-funded research currently going into the development of marine and terrestrial carbon [dioxide] sequestration technology?

---

As CO2 increase is not a problem, Government money is at the root of most environmental research and alert campaigns. The motto is: “Scare them, and keep the money flowing!”. "Scientists" survive because scared people (and politicians) give them money. Without this easy money, they had to go and drive a cab - not a scientist's ideal. Or perhaps go back to teaching, something worse yet, with no probability of accessing the headlines, fame and honors. And more grants... This is called "positive feedback". (Or as you put it, more appropriately: "a vicious cycle".

I will tell you why 30% increase in CO2 concentrations is not a problem.

Geological records and paleoclimatic studies have shown that during the Cretaceous, CO2 levels ranged between 2600 and 6000 ppm, while global temperatures were merely 1º C above today’s – and we must not put the blame all on CO2 levels, as 60-90 millions of Sun’s activity have wasted a lot of energy and now it does not shine as strong as then.

Forgive me for a couple of days, but I will be quite busy finishing an analysis of the Hohenspeissenberg weather station records – dating back to 1781. These records were kept with the proverbial German obsession for accuracy, and I am contrasting them with the sunspot activity – with extremely accurate records dating back to 1745. Those performed since Galileo started to watch the sunspots are good, but don’t apply to my analysis.

Even so, the lack of sunspots during the Maunder and Spoerer Minima triggered the Little Ice Age, while CO2 levels were constant. And increased sunspot maxima triggered the Medieval Warm Period since 800-1350 – while CO2 levels were constant.

So you see two huge climate changes, occurring in the span of a few centuries (the changes were abrupt, however) while CO2 concentrations kept the same. This should give you a hint on why there is so much federal money going into research. It has become a tremendous business. Scientific research, much more important, is being brushed aside in favor of a unbelievable political hoax.

posted 12-30-2003 07:00 PM               

Modern Global Climate Change

Thomas R. Karl (1) and Kevin E. Trenberth (2)

Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important. Although there has been progress in monitoring and understanding climate change, there remain many scientific, technical, and institutional impediments to precisely planning for, adapting to, and mitigating the effects of climate change. There is still considerable uncertainty about the rates of change that can be expected, but it is clear that these changes will be increasingly manifested in important and tangible ways, such as changes in extremes of temperature and precipitation, decreases in seasonal and perennial snow and ice extent, and sea level rise. Anthropogenic climate change is now likely to continue for many centuries. We are venturing into the unknown with climate, and its associated impacts could be quite disruptive.

1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Satellite and Information Services, 151 Patton Avenue, Asheville, NC, 28801–5001, USA.

2 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Post Office Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA.

Fig. 1. Time series of departures from the 1961 to 1990 base period for an annual mean global temperature of 14.0°C (bars) and for a carbon dioxide mean of 334 ppmv (solid curve) during the base period, using data fromice cores and (after 1958) from Mauna Loa (4). The global average surface heating approximates that of carbon dioxide increases, because of the cancellation of aerosols and other greenhouse gas effects, but this does not apply regionally (2). Many other factors (such as the effects of volcanic eruptions and solar irradiance changes) are also important.

Any questions?

posted 12-30-2003 11:29 PM               

Speaking of distorting the facts, see how truthfull the graph from Science is: This chart of global temperature as determined from surface thermometers was published in the latest 'Summary for Policymakers' by the IPCC, with blue and purple labelling added by this website, and its data is the one used by the "scientists" publishing in Science.

It illustrates one of the key points of contention between the advocates of global warming and the 'skeptics'. The surface chart was mostly compiled by Tom Wigley and Phillip Jones, and it shows a +0.6°C warming from 1860 to 2000.

In a recent interview he gave to the PBS TV network in the U.S., Wigley said this about the above temperature history –

"If I go back now and look at that record of global warming, it's true that over the period from about 1910 to 1940, there was very substantial warming, so much so that it cannot have been due only to human activities.  But there are two other possibilities. It could be due to changes in the output of the sun.  And, in fact, we believe that this is the primary reason for that warming."

Wigley's admission is based on the fact that the increase in atmospheric CO2 was not significant up to around 1940. He  referred to `human activities' rather than CO2 specifically during this period, since that could include such human activities as land clearing and agriculture.

The IPCC claims a +0.6°C warming over the last 140 years, but they present that claim as if it could all be blamed on fossil fuels.  However, it is clear from Wigley's remarks and from CO2 data on public record that anything pre-1940 could in no way be blamed on fossil fuels.  This means that fully half of that +0.6°C warming was due to pre-1940 forcings, most probably the sun, as is now generally agreed by everyone.

But was there really a warming of +0.6°C?

The final 21 years of the above surface record shows a strong warming.  However, it overlaps with the satellite data (thick blue line), which shows no such warming, leading to the obvious question as to whether the pre-1940 warming was as big as claimed.  If the statistical processing of the surface record post-1979 could lead to an error of that magnitude in the surface record, the same processing procedures applied to pre-1979 data would in all probability over-estimate previous trends also.  By contrast, the satellite record has been validated against independent radio-sonde data and is accurate to one hundredth of a degree.

The surface record pales in comparison.

posted 12-30-2003 11:37 PM               

In a story titled "Coloring Climate Change" by Nick Schulz, Tech Central Station reported that key documents, in a US government report titled "The National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change", were "doctored" to distort public perceptions of climate change. The report was published by the United States Global Change Research Program. According to their own web page, the USGCRP coordinates the research of ten Federal departments and agencies with active global change programs and provides liaison with the Executive Office of the President. The budget of the USGCRP in fiscal year 2002 was approximately $1.7 billion US dollars.

The National Assessment report has served as the basis for parts of the 2001 National Academy of Sciences' report "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions" prepared for President Bush on the state of climate science and, most recently, for the highly controversial "U.S. Climate Action Report – 2002", covertly issued by climate alarmists within the story provides additional background on the two graphs and is highly commended to your attention. Then the disparity between the two models' future forecasts, cast doubt on the predictive capacity of the Canadian and Hadley models, the USGCRP issued the final report on the right, with the color scale altered to obscure the differences between the two models.

Unfortunately for the USGCRP, the two models show the areas of warming and cooling to be occurring in widely different sections of the United States. The USGCRP's solution to this conundrum was to alter the temperature color scale by eliminating yellow and green, and extending the color orange into negative temperature ranges as low as -1.0°F, thereby implying warming,  when in fact the models were showing no temperature change or cooling for some localities.
 

When the "Draft" and "Final" copies of the USGCRP graphs are animated, employing a technique used elsewhere on this web site, the amateurish nature of the deception becomes painfully obvious:

Not only was the distorted temperature color scale used to obscure the next 100 years of temperature models, it was also used to change the perception of the United State's past climatic history. The page "Overview: Looking at America's Climate" contains a graphic titled "Temperature Change" (shown below), which attempts to minimize the significant cooling which occurred in the Southeastern United States during the 20^th Century. This is achieved by coloring even the zero or `no change' temperatures in light orange, and blending colors in such a way as to make it almost impossible to differentiate anything between about 0° and 5°.  Not even the IPCC has as yet stooped to this level of deception.

On the same web page, there is another graph titled "Summer Maximum and Winter Minimum Temperature Change" (shown below), which contains the USGCRP's final version of the Canadian and Hadley 21^st Century Summer and Winter Models, again with a choice of color scheme which blends everything from 0° to 5° into a deceptive spread of orange.  Even areas which these models show will not change, are colored in orange. What other purpose can this peculiar coloring scheme serve but to suggest future warming in areas where none is actually predicted by the model?

"The National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change" report is comprised of three separate sections which represent themselves as addressing increasing levels of detail. The descriptions are those used by the USGCRP:

1.    Overview Report:  Concise, well illustrated summary.

2.  
Foundation Report: Volume, more detailed than the Overview Report.

3.   
Background Information:  Learn more about the National Assessment.

The Overview Report is published in both HTML and PDF formats and contains all of the USGCRP graphs and most of the URLs, previously referenced. This report is clearly intended for the media and the general public. Its primary message is one of impending doom, associated with anthropogenic global warming.

I am not sure why the USGCRP expended the effort to create the Foundation Report. It has so many technical flaws, in terms of electronic publishing techniques, that anyone who attempted to read it, would be quickly discouraged from delving into its contents. The report is only published in two PDF formats. Each subsection of the report is comprised of two PDF files, one which is black and white, with extremely low resolution gray scale graphics. The second PDF file contains the color figures and graphs but only the text associated with each figure. As the figures associated with the text report are all but useless, because of the poor quality, the serious reader must have two PDF files open and switch between both files to comprehend the report. What is interesting is that the PDF file titled "Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change", which contained color figures, shows in Figure 13, the US temperatures using the altered color temperature scale, but in Figure 20, the Global temperatures are displayed using the original color temperature scale found in the draft report. The only function of the altered color temperature scale is to obscure the differences between the Canadian and Hadley models for the 21^st Century United States. By contrast, the 21^st Century Global graphs were not altered in this way.

In the Background Information section, things become interesting. On a deeply buried page at "VEMAP Trend Maps" the original high resolution images, on which the draft graphics were based, can still be found. The individual graphs are: "CGCM1 Maximum Temperature Trend (JJA)" and "HadCM2 Maximum Temperature Trend (JJA)".

One could engage in endless speculation as to why the USGCRP went to the trouble of altering the first two sections yet failing to alter the third, which contained the most incriminating information. The two most likely explanations are: (1) the Background Information section was overlooked and (2) the USGCRP did not expect anyone to find the original graphs from the Canadian and Hadley Models. Also, on the "VEMAP Trend Maps" page the Canadian and Hadley Models are not compared side-by-side, so the inconsistencies between the models are not as obvious. 

Of course, the USGCRP may not even care if the real results from the Canadian and Hadley Models are found. As long as the media continues to endlessly report only the results from the first two sections, the voices of a few skeptics can be safely ignored.

Last year in another story, a question was asked for which no reply has been forthcoming:   If the evidence for global warming is that compelling, why is it necessary for those who believe in global warming, to misrepresent data in this manner to support their cause?

posted 12-31-2003 05:37 PM               

Konstantin Y. Vinnikov (1)* and Norman C. Grody (2)

Science, Vol. 302, Issue 5643, 269-272, October 10, 2003

We have analyzed the global tropospheric temperature for 1978 to 2002 with the use of passive microwave sounding data from the NOAA series of polar orbiters and the Earth Observing System Aqua satellite. To accurately retrieve the climatic trend, we combined the satellite data with an analytic model of temperature that contains three different time scales: a linear trend and functions that define the seasonal and diurnal cycles. Our analysis shows a trend of +0.22° to 0.26°C per 10 years, consistent with the global warming trend derived from surface meteorological stations.

1 Department of Meteorology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.

2 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)–National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), 5200 Auth Road, Camp Spring, MD 20746, USA.

posted 12-31-2003 05:56 PM               

Human Influence

The rapid increase in atmospheric concentrations of the three main man-made greenhouse gases is clear from the data sets for these gases over the last 1000 years.

Since around the time of the industrial revolution in Western countries levels of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide of all risen dramatically. Fossil fuel combustion, increasingly intensive agriculture and an expanding global human population have been the primary causes for this rapid increase.

Methane concentrations have seen the biggest relative increase in the last 200 years, concentrations more than doubling. However, the rate of methane increase appears now to be lessening and it it concentrations of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide which are the man-made greenhouse gases which we are likely to see increase most in the next 100 years.

Sulphate aerosols, though not greenhouse gases, are nonetheless very important to global climate. Sulphate in our atmosphere has a net cooling effect (see below) and so goes some way to reduce the warming effect of the greenhouse gases.

posted 12-31-2003 06:12 PM               

US science body warns on climate

One of the most influential US science organisations dedicated to studying the Earth and its environment says human influence on the climate is increasing.
The American Geophysical Union has just adopted a new policy position on global warming in which it states its concern over rising greenhouse gas emissions.

The AGU's council says carbon dioxide concentrations may be climbing faster now than at any time in Earth history.

It calls for concerted worldwide study to understand how Earth will change.

"It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer," the AGU council statement says.

"The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place."

Recent meeting

It continues: "In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes.

"Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels.

"The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns."

The AGU has just finished its fall meeting held in San Francisco. As in previous years, it heard from researchers whose studies strongly support the idea that human influence on climate is real and growing.

One presentation sought to show that humans had been altering the climate for thousands of years, ever since the beginnings of agriculture.

The AGU said it was imperative scientists worldwide participated in climate research. It also called for policy discussions and decision-making "to be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results".

New technologies

The AGU is one of a number of leading US scientific organisations which have adopted a position on climate change that challenges US Government policies.

The US Academy of Sciences has also issued similar sentiments to the AGU.

The Bush administration and members of the Republican-led Congress have, however, frequently criticised what they regard as the poor and uncertain science that underpins much of the case for human-induced climate change.

The US has repudiated the Kyoto Protocol designed to mitigate the effects of global warming because it believes America's economic interests would be gravely damaged.

The White House wants greenhouse gas emissions to be cut not by what it calls the "command and control" of Kyoto, but by voluntary action and development of new energy technologies such as hydrogen-powered fuel cells.

posted 12-31-2003 06:23 PM               

Francis W. Zwiers, and Andrew J. Weaver

Science 290: 2081-2083 (Perspectives).

F. W. Zwiers is at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Victoria, BC. E-mail: francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca

A. J. Weaver is at the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada. E-mail: weaver@uvic.ca

ABSTRACT:

Global air surface temperatures increased by about 0.6°C during the 20th century, but as Zwiers and Weaver discuss in their Perspective, the warming was not continuous. Two distinct periods of warming, from 1910 to 1945 and since 1976, were separated by a period of very gradual cooling. The authors highlight the work by Stott et al., who have performed the most comprehensive simulation of 20th century climate to date. The agreement between observed and simulated temperature variations strongly suggests that forcing from anthropogenic activities, moderated by variations in solar and volcanic forcing, has been the main driver of climate change during the past century.

CONCLUSION:

By relating the large-scale climate signals from their forced simulations to decadal mean observations, Stott et al. demonstrate that natural forcing alone is not a plausible explanation for the observed changes in the 20th century and that natural and anthropogenic forcing have both made substantial contributions to the observed change. Together, these forcings explain about 80% of the observed interdecadal variance of global mean temperature.

The result is compelling, but more work is needed. There is still much uncertainty on the mechanism and magnitude of aerosol forcing and on feedback mechanisms involving clouds, the ocean, cryosphere, and the land surface. Historical reconstructions of natural climate forcing also remain uncertain. And the ability of models to simulate the variability of the climate system must be improved. For example, Stott et al. point out that their forced simulations do not reproduce the observed trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation (8). Also, most models do not accurately simulate the El Niño-Southern Oscillation in the Pacific (9).

Nevertheless, this impressive study is a substantial step toward explaining the observed variations of 20th century climate. Stott et al.'s approach is far from a diagnostic curve fitting exercise. Rather, a model built on physical principles is used to simulate the climatic response to independent estimates of historical climate forcing. The agreement between observed and simulated decadal-scale temperature variations strongly supports the contention that forcing from anthropogenic activities, moderated by variations in solar and volcanic forcing, has been the main driver of climate change during the past century.

posted 12-31-2003 07:11 PM               

Over the last 400,000 years the Earth's climate has been unstable, with very significant temperature changes, going from a warm climate to an ice age in as rapidly as a few decades. These rapid changes suggest that climate may be quite sensitive to internal or external climate forcings and feedbacks. As can be seen from the blue curve, temperatures have been less variable during the last 10 000 years. Based on the incomplete evidence available, it is unlikely that global mean temperatures have varied by more than 1°C in a century during this period. The information presented on this graph indicates a strong correlation between carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere and temperature. A possible scenario: anthropogenic emissions of GHGs could bring the climate to a state where it reverts to the highly unstable climate of the pre-ice age period. Rather than a linear evolution, the climate follows a non-linear path with sudden and dramatic surprises when GHG levels reach an as-yet unknown trigger point.

*********************************************

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been measured at an altitude of about 4,000 meters on the peak of Mauna Loa mountain in Hawaii since 1958. The measurements at this location, remote from local sources of pollution, have clearly shown that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are increasing. The mean concentration of approximately 316 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in 1958 rose to approximately 369 ppmv in 1998. The annual variation is due to CO2 uptake by growing plants. The uptake is highest in the northern hemisphere springtime.
*********************************************

posted 12-31-2003 07:17 PM               

The same graph is processed by a simple paint program and shifted the color scale so NO CHANGE falls in the dark blue color, and "decreased temperatures" in the black and green region. The 0.2º C warming region is purple while the 0.1º C is lighter shades of blue.

Do you see GLOBAL WARMING there?

Do you see now to what extent they will go in order to prove something that does not exist? So, keep publishing your press releases with distorted graphs, and the only thing you'll prove is that you cannot distinguish between truth and lies.

I can't figure out why did you posted a graph that I have posted before, showing the warming trend there is contradicted by MSU satellite data. The only thing I can imagine is that you don't read the posts I make. Compare both versions:

Analyze the graph. See the warming by natural causes, the cooling area during alleged big CO2 increases, the size of error bars (do you know what they are, don't you?), and the final part at the extreme right, showing their data is contradicted by MSU satellite records. Are they lying, or simply they are too stupid?

posted 12-31-2003 08:19 PM               

We know how skilled you are with your graphics program..we saw how you plotted "all eleven" (sic) vineyards in England.

Please provide the source(s) for the original satellite data that you "color enhanced", as well as that which you claim "contradict" surface warming trends.

By the way, as far as not reading data presented, why no coment on the work of Konstantin Y. Vinnikov and Norman C. Grody :

Global Warming Trend of Mean Tropospheric Temperature Observed by Satellites

...or is EVERYONE who provides data that contradicts your agenda automatically corrupt or incompetent?

and for that matter, what do you have to say about the correlation between CO2 concentrations and global temperature over the past 400,000 years!

posted 12-31-2003 08:30 PM               

quote:

---

and for that matter, what do you have to say about the correlation between CO2 concentrations and global temperature over the past 400,000 years!

---

Well, I would say the following paper (fully peer-reviewed by Science, as you seem to like) says what you don't like to hear: CO2 is not an important factor in warming. Worse, its increases lag behind the warming. So, the conclusion is: Natural warming cause CO2 increase, and not the opposite. (Thanks to our contributor John Daly ... and Monin et al.)

Temperature-to-CO2 Proved  (19 April 2001) Some studies get the full media treatment because they support global warming claims. The others just get ignored. A recent paper titled `Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination' by Monnin et al. appeared without fanfare in Science (Science, vol.291, p.112, 5 Jan 2001), and addressed a long-standing point of contention between promoters and sceptics of global warming. During the transition from the last Ice Age to our present Interglacial (or warm period), did rising CO2 cause temperatures to rise, or did rising temperatures cause CO2 to rise?  Global warming promoters frequently claimed or implied the former as a means to `prove' that CO2 really can warm the planet.  Although it has been known for a long time that CO2 changes were correlated with temperature changes, the question as to which causes which has been a controversial issue.  No more.  We now know for sure.

The authors examined samples from a recent ice core extracted from the Concordia Dome in Antarctica (75°06'S 123°24'E) in 1999, and which has provided a better dating resolution than previous Antarctic or Greenland cores.  According to the authors, "We found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the dD (temperature) increase by 800 ± 600 years, taking the uncertainties of the gas-ice age difference and the determination of the increases into account."  Even allowing for error factors in the time resolution, the temperature-to-CO2 sequence was quite clear.

The above graph (colour indicators added for clarity) shows the relationship between temperature, CO2 and methane during the Glacial-Interglacial transition, the temperature clearly leading CO2 (three matched transitions shown by blue arrows).  The `YD' refers to the `Younger Dryas' cooling episode and `BA' refers to the `Bølling/Allerød' warming episode, both in the North Atlantic and mainly affecting methane.  Since temperature clearly leads CO2, that means the rise in temperature caused the rise in CO2.  Notice also that at the start point of the Holocene period 10,600 years ago, CO2 had risen sharply during the immediate previous centuries, with no apparent effect on temperature which had already levelled out a thousand years earlier. That suggests that CO2 has only a very weak effect on climate.

If you first learned about these new findings here, thank the media - they only run stories that promote warming.

posted 12-31-2003 08:37 PM               

When over the past 400,000 years has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 reached 370 PPM?

Very simple question.

posted 12-31-2003 08:48 PM               

quote:

---

and for that matter, what do you have to say about the correlation between CO2 concentrations and global temperature over the past 400,000 years!
Please let us know when, over that period of time, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reached 370 PPM ? !?

---

posted 12-31-2003 08:52 PM               

Once again, an absolute truth for Eduardo, but we know how elsewhere he questions such certainty and "consensus".

Maybe he should look at the authors own "uncertainty" and assumptions:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5501/112/DC1

Possible Artifacts Produced in the Ice

Most chemical impurities in the ice show large variations over short depth intervals corresponding to one or several annual layers [annual layer thickness at Dome Concordia (Dome C) is ~10 to 20 mm in the considered depth interval]. If there is a production of CO2 in the ice matrix, we expect a scatter of the samples in a depth interval that cannot be explained by the analytical uncertainty (±1.5 ppmv). A c2 test yields agreement of the standard deviations with the analytical uncertainty. A detailed analysis of the Ca2+ record [continuous flow analysis with a resolution of 10 mm (2)], which is a qualitative indicator of the carbonate concentration, shows variations between 10 to 30 parts per billion per weight (ppbw). These variations correspond to a CO2 production potential of 60 to 180 ppmv (3). Our CO2 measurements performed with a similar depth resolution do not show variations that are correlated significantly with the Ca2+ variations. On the other hand, the concentration of H2O2, a likely oxidant, is below the detection limit (<1 ppbw) in the Dome C ice core, and therefore, no oxidation of organic matter by H2O2 is expected. Results from the Vostok (4) and Taylor Dome (5) ice cores are in agreement with this record within the analytical uncertainties (the time resolution of these records allows only to confirm the gross features). CO2 measurements from the Byrd ice core (6-8) are about 5 to 10 ppmv higher, especially on samples older than 18 ka. The reason for these deviations is still unclear. Apart from these systematic deviations, the general trend of the Byrd values is in agreement with the new measurements from the Dome C ice core.

Assumptions Made on the Link Between Deuterium Content in the Ice and Southern Ocean Temperature

Strong climatic connections could exist between Antarctica and the Southern Ocean (SO), as the SO could export latent and sensible heat to Antarctica. Similarities between temperature reconstructions in Vostok and reconstructions of the SO sea surface temperature (SST) by deep sea sediment core records (9, 10) and fossil Antarctic diatoms (11) were found at least for the long-term features. The Dome C temperature reconstruction based on stable isotopes measurements is very similar to the record of Vostok, so it can be expected that the Dome C temperature is an indicator for the SO SST. It is not clear without ambiguity if structures on shorter time scales such as the Antarctic Cold Reversal (ACR) were also a SO SST signal. Some SST temperature reconstructions on deep sea sediment core records (9) and fossil Antarctic diatoms (11) show a distinct ACR, but on other cores (10, 11), the ACR cannot be recognized. Short-lived peaks in Antarctic isotope records could, in principle, be due to temporary coolings of the evaporation sites of the deposits associated with cold conditions in the Northern Hemisphere (12).

Procedure for Determining the Correlation Coefficient Between the CO2 and dD Records

In order to compare the CO2 and temperature records, we carried out the following procedure. We calculated the correlation coefficient of the CO2 and dD records using the mean values of 11 dD data points (corresponding to a time interval of 200 to 500 years) to every corresponding CO2 data point. This procedure was chosen in order to take into account the fact that the enclosure process of air into ice causes a natural averaging of the CO2 record corresponding to ~10% of the gas-ice age difference and, therefore, a single CO2 value represents a time interval of 200 to 500 years. In order to estimate possible leads or lags, we shifted the CO2 record in steps of 10 years and calculated the correlation coefficient between CO2 and dD after each step.

posted 12-31-2003 09:02 PM               

Atmospheric CO2 data over four climatic cycles from ice cores
http://c3c4.utah.edu/snowbirdsymposium/abstracts/Blunier.html

Ice core records of CO2 reach as far back as 420,000 before present. The Vostok long term record shows a consistent pattern of glacial-interglacial CO2 changes over the last four climatic cycles. It is likely that the CO2 increase started before a large northern hemispheric warming for each termination. The long term records have a relatively low resolution and the propagation of the atmospheric signal is recorded significantly smoothed by the gas occlusion process. Several records with higher resolution reach back into the last glacial. The CO2 record in the last glacial shows minor variations which parallel larger temperature changes in Antarctica.

It is possible that this characteristic of the CO2 record is linked to the bipolar sea-saw between northern and southern hemispheric temperature. A model study over the Younger Dryas period supports this hypothesis. The CO2 record is generally highly correlated with the Antarctic temperature over glacial interglacial cycles.

Detailed analyses over the last termination revealed that some characteristics of northern hemispheric climate change is
imprinted in the succession of the CO2 increase. It appears that the large
CO2 changes are dominated by southern hemispheric climate change with an overlaid northern influence.

There are still open questions about the reliability of the CO2 record.

Greenland records are evidently altered by physical or chemical processes.

Such effects are not completely ruled out for Antarctic records either.

However, the uncertainty for recent high resolution CO2 measurements from

posted 12-31-2003 09:40 PM               

Did you understand what Monin et al. said? It is another of your shots in your foot!

quote:

---

If there is a production of CO2 in the ice matrix, we expect a scatter of the samples in a depth interval that cannot be explained by the analytical uncertainty (±1.5 ppmv). A c2 test yields agreement of the standard deviations with the analytical uncertainty.

---

So all ice cores (not only theirs) show the same chemical composition regarding CO2 levels. You must be hating this, but there is no other potato to throw into the pot.

They showed everybody the method employed to reach their conclusions, so other scientists could repeat the process and reach the same results, or prove them wrong. The opposite of Mann et al. Hockey Stick study, that have been hiding and misplacing their data in order to discourage replication.

REPLICATION. That’s the basis of scientific studies. The validity of scientific studies is based on replication. Otherwise is garbage. And no IPCC scientist has ever contradicted this study – and they tried, no doubt here, because this is dangerous stuff!

This is just one of many studies that goes unnoticed by the media, and no press releases are made to scare people – because this is not scaring news, on the contrary, is something that should carry peace to your mind. There will be not catastrophic warming, so you should go looking for another reason for those Chemtrail sprayings. As solar activity diminishes, temperatures go down (no doubt about this, just compare solar cycles and global temperatures, and the correlation is there, too close to ignore), and CO2 levels will follow the temperature decrease.

For your information, in 2020 there will be a Double Gleissberg Solar Minimum, just as there was a double solar minimum during the Spoerer, Dalton and Maunder Minima, that sunk Earth into the Little Ice Age. Prepare to buy some fur coats, increase you electrical bill because of heating, or moving nearer the Equator.