I wonder if the “models” accounted for dirt … likely not, as gool’ol dirt just ain’t as sexy as C02 or Ozone. Cleaning up ordinary pollution; something I can get behind:
The global warming debate has until now focused almost entirely on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, but scientists at the University of California – Irvine, suggest that a lesser-known problem – dirty snow – could explain the Arctic warming attributed to greenhouse gases.
Dirty snow is created when particulate matter from exhausts, smoke stacks, land use and forest-fires enters the atmosphere and infuses snow. Because dirty snow is darker than natural snow, it absorbs more sunlight and heat.
… Keep Reading
crossposted @ Celestial Junk
Posted by: ward at October 4, 2007 5:21 PM
How many more thousands of studies do you want before you’re convinced? Since the IPCC AR4 was initially put out a few months ago, thousands of other studies carried out and published, polishing the data that the AR4 presented.
The only place where the IPCC fall short is that it’s too conservative.
Soot is one of the few points I agree with the AGW folks. Melting snowpacks and glaciers seem much more likely to melt from soot deposits than from a half degree or so of air temperature. Similarly small changes in ocean currents can cause massive melts of sea ice. You can’t explain meltig glaciers by half a degree. It makes me curious as to why the fixation on CO2.
Can man make the environment change? Sure, I’d say so, but not by very much on a global scale. CO2 emissions are way down the list of worries for reasonable people.
And, as I’ve noted before, since no industrialized country has made anything more than gestures towards lowering their output of CO2 then doesn’t the whole argument become moot?
CNN weatherman knows his science; (click video)
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnn-meteorologist-definitely-some-inaccuracies-gore-film.html
Video — Al Gore debates;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU
Albatross:
We are already learning that the data collection methodology and accuracy is suspect with regards to temperature. Junk in Junk out.
So they have done lots of studies. Again why can’t the IPCC be wrong?
They ARE wrong !! Often !!
Mann’s fake hockey stick graph is the most glaring example.
ward at October 5, 2007 12:21 PM
Ward why don’t you learn the science behind the warming and you wouldn’t make such laughable statements that clearly demonstrates ignorance. As I read the posts here it’s painfully clear people are simply getting their global warming info from three sources.
1- Global Warming Climate Catastrophe – Cancelled!
2- The Great Global Warming Swindle
3- Bjorn Lomborg
All three of these are very badly flawed and are simply lying to the people. Too many deniers go no further than these sources and are willing to simply let a video they found on the internet tell them what to believe with regards to global warming.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/
Heh, when I first read that ling thought it said http://www.moonbat.com
So if i understand correctly, there are scientists that do not agree with other scientists. “There is no debate…”? Sounds to me like there IS debate over many things.
What do your puppetmasters claim was the warmest year in the last decade albatros39a? This is not a rhetorical question, i truly want to know. I think i read somewhere it was 1998, no?
Warmest years on record
2005
1998
2002
2003
2004
What scientist’s are you referring to that have actually done research on global warming? There are scientists (I’m being very generous calling them scientists) out there that have done no research on global warming and are growing rich by selling their PhD sound bites to the highest bidder.
Of course the 2007 numbers are still not in but it appears that 2004 is going to get bumped off that as 2007 may just take top spot.
ol’ hoss: the term “moonbat” is a slang of “monbiot”, so you are nearly correct!
“There are scientists… out there that have done no research on global warming and are growing rich by selling their PhD sound bites to the highest bidder”
Doubtless. Some of them may have even specialized in researching fruit flies, and never came close to studying climatology for their PhD thesis. And speaking of “scientists growing rich”, it would be illuminating if albatros provided the technical school and climatology degree conferred upon the High Priest of AGW, Algore. You might have difficulties in ascertaining his scientific training, but at $100K a throw for AGW fearmongering, there’s no doubt that Gore is growing rich with his shtick.
The NASA “heat list” was was debunked here, and reported on SDA in August.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
The following is a very brief glimpse of educated individuals who do not believe the debate is over…
Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg:
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute:
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports
William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at University of Colorado
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
I could go on and on…
I think any one of them would like to see your proof that the debate is over…
Have your credentials ready, though. They may find it odd that you can’t even get the list of 10 hottest years on record correct…
I would be curious to know who stands to make more profit over this issue, Big Government who will be able to create a brand new type of tax from scratch? Carbon Offsetting companies (doesn’t Al Gore have a stake in one of these)? Do you think they might be willing to spend billions of dollars hiring “scientists” who blindly say “YES, the debate is over!!! Humans and big business cause all our misery and suffering and will bring about the end of the world!!!”
I hear Al Gore alone makes $250,000 just for showing up to regurgitate his highly disproven propoganda video. And he won’t even open the floor to ACTUAL scientists who want only to debate his claims…
Wonder how many above ACTUAL scientists make income like that selling their PhD’s to the highest bidder? (i would really like to see your proof of this as well, otherwise it would be wise to be very careful what you accuse these people of)
BTW:
1934
1998
1921
2006
1931
1999
1953
1990
1938
1939
Looks to me like we have been on a cooling trend since ’98.
Recent NASA Research:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
I am just fanning the flames here albatros. I don’t know anyone who denies temperatures are rising. But most i know ask why is the debate over, the science settled, etc. etc… Where was I when the undeniable proof was laid out for all too see?
Let’s see your proof Dr. albatros (PhD)
oops – proof that you and i are responsible is what i am after here albatros
end the debate here and now
Best check your facts, particularly the those temperature records.
Of those names you have listed, that’s a nice little list that you have, now were is their research on the subject. I’d be really interested for you to tell me what papers Tim Ball or Fred Singer have published on the subject.
I randomly picked one name out of you list, “Syun-Ichi Akasofu” who is one of the authors of “Atmospheric CO2 balance – The role of Arctic sea ice.” Based on the text of that article he certainly doesn’t belong on your list. Maybe it’s time to double check the information you are trying to flog.
W Soon: You should read his article titled “Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings” in it he does anything but dispute AGW. What he’s saying is that if we continue to let the earth warm we will see a much faster warming as the oceans release CO2 in a positive feedback scenario.
That’s good enough, you’ve been shown the errors of you ways.
Really?
“The method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement …, there is so far no definitive evidence that ‘most’ of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. … [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term ‘most’ in their conclusion is baseless.”
– Syun-Ichi Akasofu
“[T]here’s increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed.”
– Willie Soon
Are these the words of men who think the science is settled and the debate is over?
I did not say any of the above are (what you would call) “deniers”, merely that they do not believe the “science is settled” or that there is “no debate”.
Read what i am typing here albatros – THERE IS STILL DEBATE AMONG SCIENTISTS!!!!
NOTHING IS SETTLED!!!
Show me where my temperature data is incorrect.
Show me where yours is correct.
Show me your published papers on the subject.
“That’s good enough, you’ve been shown the errors of you[r] ways.”
sigh
Once again, your superiority complex is hindering your ability to reason.
Nothing is settled albatros, not even your own mind.
Show me my errors again, i love it.
An interesting read, alby:
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.24/01-weather.html
I think you will find a rather interesting quote from good ol’ Willie Soon in there…
I know you are not interested in reading it, so allow me to share another error with you:
“Many research advances in reconstructing ancient climate have occurred over the past two decades, so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of them and look for patterns of variability and change,” says Willie Soon of CfA. “Clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced higher temperatures from 800 to 1300 and lower temperatures from 1300 to 1900 than we have felt during our lifetimes.”
hmmmm…sounds like the evidence is in to me.
NOTHING LEFT TO DEBATE, right?
Or is he a stooge of Big Oil now too, living in one of many 10,000 square foot mansions he owns paid for by selling out his PhD to the highest bidder?
*a little off topic*
Cumulatively, how many detached properties covering how much earth do you think Suzuki and Gore own?
When was the last time you planted a tree?
What the AGW zealots don’t – or won’t – recognize is that “science” isn’t a closed shop, demanding conformity of opinion.
Science is about – should be about – demanding answers to nagging questions, and not placing anything above debate or analysis. Those with contrary opinions should be encouraged to delve deeper and either disprove the current model, or reinforce it with unexpected results. Some age-old scientific principles still hold today; Newtonian mechanics are still valid at the macro level, but fall apart at the quantum level. However, if we’d only demanded fealty to the Newtonian model, the realm of quantum mechanics – to say nothing of the gains from researching same – would be a closed door.
In a world where legitimate skeptics are shouted down, had research grants rescinded, reputations smeared, and insultingly named “deniers”, this isn’t science. Call it enforced dogma. Politically correct propaganda gone mad. Para-scientific McCarthyism. Whatever.
But “science”, it ain’t. All one needed to hear was Suzuki storming out of AM640 Toronto when he was asked – politely – if he thought the scientific “debate” on AGW was truly over. Suzuki’s hissy fit and storming off like a 3-year-old whose birthday cake fell on the floor tends to suggest the debate indeed isn’t over, else it would have been much easier for him to remain and sell the idea on the “facts”.
And to hold up Al Gore as the spokesman for AGW, a man without even a rudimentary Bachelor’s degree in science, is laughable in the least. Sort of like nominating a fine arts grad or landscaper to lead the Federal Reserve; it’s pitiful when you think of it. All you need do is follow the money to realize where Gore’s bread is buttered, and it’s obvious he has a very high financial stake in frightening the masses into believing in AGW.
mhb23re
Fantastic post mhb.
Bryan
Soon is basically saying that anthro CO2 is causing a positive feedback increasing the amount of CO2 released by natural sources like the oceans. He is in no way saying man made global warming isn’t happening.
Akasofu on the other hand he isn’t quite sure what to believe. He has been quoted in saying:
“Most people assume that period called the Little Ice Age is over, but what I can see, is that temperature has been increasing almost linearly at a constant rate of about 0.5° C, by 100 years, continuously; to the present. So I doubt that much of the increase over the last 100 years the IPCC says, of about 0.6°, is due to the greenhouse effect—that’s what they say. Well, they assume. They have not taken the natural component; we don’t know what they did!”
One look at the temperature record of the past 300 years will tell you the rate of warming has been anything but linear. He has also been quoted as saying that he likes to take the opposite side of the fence to promote scientific advancement and that he doesn’t like the way the IPCC goes about it’s business. In his article above he support the idea of AGW. So what is in this guys head, even he isn’t sure and therefore not to be taken seriously. Perhaps he has retired for a reason.
Re: “Many research advances in reconstructing ancient climate have occurred over the past two decades…”
Nobody is arguing those points. Nobody is denying the Medieval Warming period or the Little Ice age. What is of concern is the rate of change being seen, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the related implications. If these changes occur unchecked the temperature could easily surpass the Medieval Warm Period. The Medieval Warm Period was not a global event, but the current warming is. The global temperatures should be cooling, but it’s instead being overwhelmed by AGW.
“Cumulatively, how many detached properties covering how much earth do you think Suzuki and Gore own?”
I neither know, nor do I care. You will never hear me quoting Al Gore. Suzuki on the other hand in my opinion is doing a great job.
When was the last time I planted a tree? Well I suppose that would be in July when I planted two silver maples in my back yard. They both died. The other 23 trees that I planted on my 1/4 acre town lot over the past ten years are doing just fine.
mhb said it all !!
‘Warming Alarmists’ use Mythinformation.
Soon is basically saying that…
Willie Soon speaks for himself:
http://epw.senate.gov/108th/Soon_072903.htm
You do not speak for him, albatros
Syun-Ichi Akasofu speaks for himself:
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/people/indiv/iarc_all_staff.php?photo=sakasofu
Perhaps he retired because he had a long and distinguished career – nothing more. Are you trying to suggest he is a quack because he merely wants more research before calling the science settled?
Good lord albatros, clearly the science is not settled. It’s ok to admit you are wrong once in a while. Get over yourself.
Bryan at October 7, 2007 12:59 PM
No Bryan, I don’t speak for Soon, I read the source articles relating to the story.