Skeptics Speak Out on Global Warming

Aqua satellite data suggests there are reasons why we should be skeptical to the extent to which carbon dioxide drives warming, that CO2-driven increases in water vapor actually cool the earth, not magnify warming, and with equal interest the latest data from Argos float buoy data in the ocean could suggest the ocean is cooling since 2003 when they became operational.

In a report posted on Australia’s ABC National on March 17th entitled “Climate Change,” Jennifer Marohasy of the Australian Environment Foundation comments on data from the NASA Aqua satellite:

“The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite…and the first time this data has been able to be collected is 2002 so we’ve got a little bit of data now, it’s actually showing just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re actually getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”

On March 24th in the National Post, author Lorne Gunter posted a story entitled “Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong,” where he reports on an NPR interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings:

“When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.  So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys’ findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters’ hypotheses, must be wrong.”

These quotes from a post on ECOWORLD, which neglects to mention that Marohasy's comments were taken somewhat out of context.  Marohasy also said:   

"It (global warming) has stopped for the last ten years, but that's a very short timeframe. If you look over the last 100 years, it's mostly been warming over the last 100 years but there was some cooling from 1940 through to 1975 and now there appears to be some cooling since 1998. But if you look at the longer timeframe, say, since the last glacial maximum, well, that's going back, say, 16,000 years, then there actually has been significant warming, and sea levels of course have risen over 100 metres over this period. So the last eight to ten-year dip may just be a dip, and there may be continued warming into the future, or it could be the end of this interglacial warm period and we could go into another ice age. We don't know what the future holds."

Willis also said:

In nearly 30 years of operation, the satellites have discovered a warming trend of just 0.14 C per decade, less than the models and well within the natural range of temperature variation.

These statements haven't changed my opinion that global warming is probably a true phenomena, but they do cause me to take pause in my thinking and I thought that I should share these comments with you.

Comments

[Al Fin]

Very interesting. A physicist on another blog assured me that the ocean buoy data was caused by melting sea ice--like ice cubes melting in a glass cause the drink to cool. I suppose that means that when sea ice freezes, it releases large quantities of heat that warm the entire globe.

We would all be a lot better off if we stopped thinking about global warming as a religion (in terms of "belief") and started thinking about climate theories as falsifiable hypotheses. Look at all the data uncompromisingly, regardless of whether it agrees with previous "beliefs."

If you cannot make a falsifiable hypothesis out of an idea, then it is not science. Computer models are not science. They are tools that can be used to either advance or abuse science. Too often, they are merely tautologies.

[Marcus]

Regarding climate science, its simple. Its in peer reviewed science journals. Forget the conferences, blogs and magazine articles.

Show me the skeptic papers or forget it.

[JRip]

Tonight I am a fan of airborne particulates.

1945 thru late 1960s/ early 1970s = cooling
Parallel: Post war growth of industry in USA, Europe and USSR. NET: more airborne particulates

Then we warmed up.
Parallel: Late 1960s thru today USA and Europe cleaned up air pollution and USSR died. Net: Decreasing airborne particulates

Temps now cooling...
Parallel: Russia is now coming back and China has been growing and growing but since 2000 is on a rocket of great size. The greatest polluter.
Net: airborne particles increasing

and of course the 9/11 experiment. With the airlines grounded (reduced particulates) the temps rose.

[disdaniel]

Climate change is a complex issue, the temperature changes we are talking about are relatively small in any given year or series of years. These changes are occuring within and throughout complex systems that have various feedin/feedback mechanisms that are not completely understood. Still over a period of decades the warming is both significant and increasing. Keep an open mind, and watch the data that comes in from various fields...I'd give more weight to pieces from widely accepted sources, but double check what you hear. Over the last few months there has been a flood of data suggesting glaciers are altering much faster than expected...

[GreyFlcn]

For some background on this.

What Marahoasy is describing is Roy Spencer's 2007 paper.

Roy Spencer and John Christy are famously the guys who used to say the Troposphere was cooling, only to find out that they "accidentally" flipped it in reverse.
greyfalcon.net/christycorrection.pdf

Much in the same way, there was an earlier NASA study using the Aqua Satellite data showing that there was net warming occurring.

Spencer's new paper, not surprisingly, shows the exact opposite.

_

Yeah, good ol' Roy Spencer.
desmogblog.com/rush-limbaugh-falls-for-global-warming-hoax
exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=19#src2

[Cyril R.]

Crude oil prices have also fluctuated over the last month. Does that mean there is no structural oil shortage?

If they think the climate change models are wrong, then they have to present an alternative theory and models that are more compatible with the satellite data - all of it.

If they can't even do that, then they are not improving the science.

[Kublai Kahn]

You need to read the following article:

Common sense on climate change

Josh Willis, National Post Published: Monday, March 31, 2008
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=411287

As a scientist, I always enjoy it when people outside my field take an interest in oceanography. But I was a bit disappointed to read Lorne Gunter's column: Perhaps The Climate Change Models are Wrong, March 24.

It is a well-established fact that human activities are heating up the planet and that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come. Climate change skeptics often highlight certain scientific results as a means of confusing this issue, and that appears to be the case with Mr. Gunter's description of our recent results based on data from Argo buoys.

[Kit P]

“As a scientist, I.....

It is a well-established fact that human activities are heating up the planet and that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come.”

Apparently KK is not a very good scientist. He does not understand the difference between fact and theory.

As an engineer, I have a real problem with the 'sky is falling' type prediction made by some scientist. It is a fact that models show AGW is insignificant in the context of climate change on a geologic time scale. I want numbers that I can evaluate. It is irresponsible for KK to make the above statement without providing the amount of temperature change for a given confidence interval.

The AGW component of climate change is too small to worry about and too small to measure. Change is the only constant in the environment and it is amazing how many environmentalists hate change.

[Andre Angelantoni]

Haven't done it yet for this, but my next stop is realclimate.org to get the full scoop.

[Diodor]

" A physicist on another blog assured me that the ocean buoy data was caused by melting sea ice--like ice cubes melting in a glass cause the drink to cool. "

If sea ice is 10% of the world ocean by surface, 0.2% by height and 10% of it melted away in the years the ocean temperature was measured, that makes our cocktail 1 part ice and 50000 parts water. The latent heat of water is 300 joules a gram, the specific heat 4 joules a gram a kelvin. So melting a blob of ice can make 75 blobs of water one degree cooler - yielding a guesstimate of 75/50000 kelvins due to the mentioned effect. That is 0.0015 degrees of temperature.

[Stoner]

Take a look at these graphs:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/hadcru-8yr.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/images/giss-15yr.jpg

obtained from here:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/#more-523

To say that the earth has cooled since 1998 is really quite crazy given that 1998 was a big El Nino year.

Paul

[Stoner]

I looked at the "Climate Change" link and read a bit of the transcript. This Jennifer is a biologist. If she want's to have a technical discussion with an actual climate scientist to say that her new data shows something different then I am fine with that. Unfortunately her spouting off to the media only serves one single purpose - to confuse the general public who reads one story saying GW is real and then another story that says it's not real. The ARGO's temperature measurements were discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/ocean-cooling-not/ it's a well written piece and deserves a read.

Paul

[NiraliSherni]

I for one see evidence of global warming all around me. Let people be skeptical about global warming if it pleases them, but at least dont ignore the plain economic effect that rising fuel prices are having on the common man. Experts are of the opinion that fuel price rise is helping pull the economy into recession. That should spur people on to make some life style change if not anything else.

[Demesure]

Stoner,
Your link to Realclimate (who has been set up by Mann to defend his now discredited hockey stick) is outdated.

The Argos results of a slight cooling is from NASA Josh Willis on March 2008. And here, you can't even attack the messenger since Willis belongs to the "consensus".

According to the greenhouse theory, oceans can only be warming. So have a sensible attitude like Jim's, take pause in your thinking.

[Reality Czech]

So melting a blob of ice can make 75 blobs of water one degree cooler

And if those melting blobs are fresh water (which they are) in a mass of saltwater (which it is) then they will tend to float on top and be greatly concentrated right where we measure them.

The opposite is also true. The thermohaline circulation of the Gulf Stream comes about because saltier water can become dense enough to sink at a relatively high temperature.

[fjh]

As someone who is an acknowledged heretic because of my articles linking H20 emissions from jetplanes to n. Hemisphere warming; I and delighted to see even more evidence that warming has stopped since 1998.

This is a view people coming from different directions are taking.

Canadian scientists have already switched their research focus toward fluctuations in solar radiation.

Russian scientists have already dissmissed the CO2 theories and are predicting a new 'ice' age.

And CARIBOU Maine is under more ice than just broke off in Antarctica..over 200" and still snowing... .Much of eastern Canada is under the same ice cap.

When the science goes the other way; posters don't change their view but mount personal attacks on the scientist...oh she's a biologist, wasn't Rachel Carlson more of a writer with rather skimpy science credentials?

I believe this is a major sea change and people are posed to go in the opposite direction and figuratively 'burn' the ecotheologians at the stake.

Barak Obama has backed off on an endorsement of the KYOTO framework and is open to new theories---I remember who reviewed sat. photos of Greenland's melting glaciers in a time frame.

He noticed two decades ago they were much whiter than now; and attributes it to the build up of Chinese coal fired plants and pollutants which wafted over the Arctic circle and were deposited on the glaciers.

Dirty ice melts a lot faster than 'white' ice...DUH!

[fjh]

Where was El NINO hiding in the KYOTO deliberations?

Get it straight, its EL NINA for Greenland melting and EL NINO for global warming...right?

And these are cyclical, reoccuring phenomena unrelated to human activity...right??

[Bill Nichols]

As an atmospheric physicist with extensive background in Climate Science...offer three points.

1.) We should strive for the HIGHEST QUALITY OBSERVATIONS AND FACTS. Then promote objective...proven scientific and decisionmaking standards in addressing this subject. Takes the hype and emotion out for either "side". There are major issues the data shows...these need to be pursued.

2.) More accurate and balanced reporting of these challenges needs to be agreed and promoted by all and especially the media to educate the general public...especially key decisionmakers

3.) The IPCC report does not account for the most powerful greenhouse gas - water. Which by objective measures is 90-98% of the Greenhouse phenomena. Importantly, not one AGW model replicates current and future Climate Processes; plus the assumptions used are still highly questionable. Statistical Analysis shows inadequate, if not contradictory correlations of CO2 versus natural variability the past several decades.

Yes...I am a believer in being a good stewerd of our planet. But science is based on understanding and facts. We should make assessments from that...not closed minded views. Otherwise...the way this is being presented in worst case...if wrong which could easily be the case hurts future issues for decades to come...whatever they are. Then...we all lose!

[Zachary Stowasser]

more reason to focus on peak oil.

and we should keep a positive approach like rob hopkins and his transition towns project. his concept is basically " a better world COULD be better, post peak oil, if we plan and work together " - http://infopatriots.blogspot.com/2008/04/rob-hopkins-transition-towns.html

[Robert Schreib Jr.]

Dear sirs A bombshell of an article! Global cooling?! Hard to wrap my head around that after reading volumes of data saying the opposite! Still, if you are fighting global warming, please google "The Global 50/50 Lottery", or "A New CO2 Elimination Tactic", Or "Power Pipeline and Goff's Hair", and scan these global warming ideas in the Techrex (me) blog on the 11thHourAction website. If you see any ideas you like, please forward them to the REAL experts in global warming solutions. Thank you.

[GreyFlcn]

==3.) The IPCC report does not account for the most powerful greenhouse gas - water. Which by objective measures is 90-98% of the Greenhouse phenomena.

Importantly, not one AGW model replicates current and future Climate Processes; plus the assumptions used are still highly questionable.

Statistical Analysis shows inadequate, if not contradictory correlations of CO2 versus natural variability the past several decades.==

Then I find it hard to believe your first claim that you have an "extensive background".

Water Vapor has a residency time in the atmosphere of only a few days. And the amount of water vapor in the troposphere is directly proportional to the temperature of the troposphere. Not the other way around. Any excess water condenses and rains out.

The models do predict the past temperatures. Quite well actually.

Natural Variability describes whats happening? I'd love to see where you're coming up with that statement from.
greyfalcon.net/forcing4.png
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm
greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png

[ChipSeal]

"I for one see evidence of global warming all around me. Let people be skeptical about global warming if it pleases them..."

You seem to be blind to all the evidence I see of global cooling all around me! But every time I point out this contrary evidence to a AGW believer, they say; "You can't point to a local phenomena to prove your case, it is the world-wide picture you must mind!"

Of coarse, they are oblivious to their own double standard on the matter.

For too long, AGW folks have been given license to trumpet evidence in their favor while suppressing contrary data. Until this issue gets fair treatment, it would be foolish to form policy based on such biased presentations.

We are diverting precious resources on phantom problems and neglecting imminent ones to our peril.

[Mike]

Marcus

There is still time to get out. Are you seeking the truth, or do you wait until someone feeds it to you? Why don't you point us to the most credible evidence you can find against the AGW hypothesis.

[Marcus]

Mike perhaps you misunderstood my post. It is I who is asking for credible evidence against AGW. Evidence that is published in peer reviewed scientific papers, not talking heads.I ask because I can't find any myself. Funny that.

[Thehaymarketbomber]

"As an engineer, I have a real problem with the 'sky is falling' type prediction made by some scientist."

As an engineer, I have a real problem with engineers who pop off about things they obviously don't understand.

[Paul F. Dietz]

The IPCC report does not account for the most powerful greenhouse gas - water.

This is one of the canards regularly bleated by the denialists. It is completely, painfully wrong. The models could not come at all close to producing the current climate if water were not included, since water vapor is a major greenhouse gas. The physics in the models would give an very cold earth if water vapor's effect of IR transmission were omitted.

[Ronald Brak]

Unfortunately, we cannot say that the warming trend has stopped from the satellite and bouy data. This is because the data is very noisy. Here is a graph showing seven year trends in temperature deviation since 1975:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/giss-7yr.jpg

As you can see there were a number of seven year periods in which the trend was downwards. But when you look at a graph showing 15 year trends:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/giss-15yr.jpg

It is obvious that over each 15 year period the trend is for higher temperatures. So to sum up, we cannot say that satellite and bouy data, collected since 2002 and 2003 respectively, indicates warming has stopped or reversed. We know that there have been plenty of periods longer than 6 years in the last 3 decades in which this has occured, so no statiscally significant conclusions can be drawn.

[Mike]

Marcus

Are you looking for a paper that says man has no effect on the climate? Of course we are. The question is how much. Is CO2 the main factor? Is it something to get alarmed about? In other words, should we listen to Al Gore and his minions? The hard science does not support the alarmist case.

[Benjamin Cole]

I am not a scientist, but an amateur cartographer, which led me to study Leif Ericson, who sailed to North America from Greenland. Why was he sailing primitive vessels in the barren northern wastes about 1000 years ago? Well, they were not barren back than.

see this cite from Wkiipedia:
"Leif and his crew left Markland and again found land, which they named Vinland. They landed and built a small settlement. They found the area pleasant: there were plenty of salmon in the river and the climate was mild, with little frost in the winter and green grass year-round. They remained in the region over the winter."

That's Newfoundand! Little frost in winter! Green grass year-round!

The colonies established by Norse in Greenland were eventually wiped out by advancing cold. The winters just kept getting worse and worse.

I have never seen anybody rebut these facts, or explain why it was warmer 1000 years ago than today.

Maybe CO2 is causing global warming, but if so we are not even back to how warm it was 1000 years ago.

Moreover, based on past trends, we are about due for another Ice Age. I suspect the consequences of an Ice Age will be worse than global warming. Just ask the Ericsons.

So, how about anyone? Global warming 1000 years ago. What caused it?

[Alex]

It is a proven fact that the evaporation of sea water is primarily caused by wind, not by heat.

[Jeremy Hughes]

Nice objectivity!

[fjh]

Frozen water in contrails persists for a fairly long time...3-4 days, while the tiny amount of CO2(>3%) is dwarfed by the radiative forcing of the ice crystals which are replenished 24/7.

Ground level CO2 isn't the problem, it's what's in the greenhouse layer that counts.

Never forget the upper level study after all air traffic was halted after 9/11 that revealed a 'normal' cooling at night and a change of 1 degree C....um, I think we found the problem Mr. Gore!

[Demesure]

"So to sum up, we cannot say that satellite and bouy data, collected since 2002 and 2003 respectively, indicates warming has stopped or reversed"

@Ronald Brak,
Satellite data exist since 1979, see for example here
or here

And they show that since 2002, not only the globe has not warmed but it has cooled.
As to bouoys data, NASA say they unambigously show an absence of warming.

In the 80s and 90s, there has been periods of cooling because of massive eruptions (el Chichon in 82, Pinatubo in 91). But in the past >10 years, there has been no major eruption. So for more than 6 years, GW is neither in the air, nor in the ocean, it's AWOL.

[fjh]

The size and depth of the ICE CAP in Northern Maine staggers the imagination of someone who's lived here for 31 years.

I mean even Logging trucks can't be seen behind the drifts and piles at intersections.

There is a pic of a van sticking out of small hill of snow, about 10' off the ground.

So forgive us a bit of skepticsm; along with that 'scientific' fact that we are >1,000 degree days over the annual average.

[Cyril R.]

The hard science does not support the alarmist case.

True, but it does point to GhG induced increased warming more than it points to any other theory.

Like Marcus said, the science is in peer reviewed articles.

[Enoch]

The earth has been warming up since the last ice age without any help from man. I hope that it is still warming up, otherwise we will shiver under three miles of ice.

[Bob Wallace]

Do you hope that the Earth continues to warm to the point where vast amounts of methane are released from melting permafrost?

Wiki provides us this little description of what likely happened last time the cork was pulled from the methane bottle....

"The Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying, was an extinction event that occurred 251.4 million years ago, forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods. It was the Earth's most severe extinction event, with up to 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct."

[Demesure]

"Do you hope that the Earth continues to warm to the point where vast amounts of methane are released from melting permafrost?"

Wallace,
Methane concentration has not risen over the past "unprecedented warming" 10 years. Go read its graphic in the IPCC report. It's "peer reviewed".

[Bob Wallace]

Are you suggesting that there is no temperature at which the permafrost will melt and release stored methane?

All you seem to be saying is that "we ain't there yet".

We're starting to see some data suggesting that methane release is increasing. Is it real or will it turn out to be a bad bit of data? Don't know yet.

All I'm saying is that when it comes to global warming we should be very careful of letting our political stance determine our decisions.

[GreyFlcn]

==Is CO2 the main factor? Is it something to get alarmed about? In other words, should we listen to Al Gore and his minions?==

Well then who should we listen to?
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake

Every National Academy of Sciences in the World?

The Pentagon?

Can you name me even 1 significant scientific organization which says that climate change isn't primary caused by human actions? No!

Thats how overwhelming the agreement in the scientific community is.

[Demesure]

"We're starting to see some data suggesting that methane release is increasing. Is it real or will it turn out to be a bad bit of data? Don't know yet."

Wallace,
There is no data suggesting methane release. They are either very localized and short term data, or results from simulations.
The only reliable global data about methane is its atmospheric concentration and it suggests methane content is stabilizing. This is a result that contradicts even the IPCC's predictions in its 2001 report and scientists don't know how to explain that.

You shouldn't trust predictions from models that are not even able to explain the current situation.

[Demesure]

"Like Marcus said, the science is in peer reviewed articles."

@ Cyril R.
There are plenty of recent peer reviewed articles that question the "consensus".
So what ?

[Bob Wallace]

Demesure,

Read what I wrote rather than replying to what you think I wrote.

Furthermore, you can't have it both ways. You can't make a blanket statement that there is no data on increased methane release and then attack that "nonexistent" data.

[Mike]

"Can you name me even 1 significant scientific organization which says that climate change isn't primary caused by human actions? No!"

Hmmm. How do they account for the climate change before humans arrived on the scene?

There hasn't been any warming in the last 10 years anyway. The article you seek will be coming.

[Bob Wallace]

"Scientists examining a spike in worldwide ocean temperatures 55 million years ago have linked it to massive volcanic eruptions that pushed Greenland and northwest Europe apart to create the North Atlantic Ocean."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070426145029.htm

[Benjamin Cole]

So why was North America warmer 1000 years ago than today?

[Gene]

I'm still waiting for ther great polar bear die-off. I keep reading how they will all be extinct in thirty or twenty or even ten years. Some people are trying to sue the government to get them listed as an endangered species, and this despite their numbers having increased 400% in the last 40 years. I wonder what their rule of thumb is. If the population of some animal hasn't at least doubled in population in the last 40 years it's probably going extinct.
't

[GreyFlcn]

==So why was North America warmer 1000 years ago than today?==

Well it certainly wasn't warmer globally.
What you're probably thinking about is a few niche locations in America which were warmer. That can be explained by more trees, and microclimates.
greyfalcon.net/moberg2005.png
www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676

==Hmmm. How do they account for the climate change before humans arrived on the scene?==
Primarily? Changes in the earth's orbit.
aka "Milankovitch Cycles"
Thats why ice ages are so cyclical.
But that takes tens of thousands of years.
Not tens of years.

[Bob Wallace]

The locals were sending lots and lot of smoke signals?

[Bob Wallace]

"great polar bear die-off"

When did the Arctic ice begin to melt?

When did their habitat start disappearing on a large scale?

How many years ago?

Just think about it.