BBC notices that the world is not getting warmer
posted at 9:30 am on October 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
When global-warming skepticism reaches the BBC, then it has become a major issue. This weekend, the BBC asked the question, “What happened to global warming?”, and then answered it with a balanced article that reported on the response from both sides of the debate to the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last eleven years, despite an increase in carbon dioxide release. Skeptics point out that the models never predicted it, while advocates say that massive warming is still just around the corner:
For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. …
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature. …
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
For the sake of argument, assume that the last statement is true. That in and of itself proves … nothing. It proves that the Earth warms at times, and cools at others. The question isn’t really whether the Earth has warmed over the last several decades — the question is whether that warming is anthropogenic, or man-made, through the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Clearly, as the modeling of the advocates has failed to predict a cooling cycle, the answer appears to be no.
Besides, weather cycles of this sort do not move in decades. They move in centuries, or millenia, or eons. Fluctuations from one decade to the next would be akin to determining that a hurricane is approaching because the wind shifted direction over the space of a few minutes. Meteorology is at best an inexact predictive science even at its basic level, precisely because the weather gets impacted by myriad factors whose interaction dynamics cannot be predicted easily.
Global-warming advocates have used higher temperatures in the 1990s as a “sky is falling” data point, but have been thoroughly unable to connect that to carbon dioxide release as a primary or even minor cause. Their predictive computer models have failed to predict actual temperatures for the last eleven years, which for any other “science” other than that which means tons of government cash for scientists and state control of energy production would mean the discrediting of the models and the hypotheses of their authors. Even the BBC has begun to notice that global warming, like its predecessor hysteria The Coming Ice Age, is little more than hot air from environmental activists.
Update: Just in case you thought Saturday was a fluke:
Update: Here’s the second clip I took this morning, and finally figured out how to upload in HD. This is the view from the back yard:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
The earth has continued the same general warming trend since the mid 1500′s when climatologists figure we left what they called a mini ice age. While there are short term fluctuations in temperature change, the mean averaging of the increase has remained the same, despite man’s effect on the environment due to industrialization.
There is no evidence that carbon dioxide has any specific re-radiative properties. And the entire theory of a greenhouse effect flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics.
These hysterical climate change nuts cherry pick their science to prove their theories much like truthers do. Everything in life runs in cycles — the earth warms and cools, the hole in the ozone opens and closes. Climatologists state that even with present warming, the earth is still not as warm as it was in the time of Jesus. Like someone said above, it’s just another means of control and money making opportunites for failed politicians and scam artists like the Goracle.
postaldog on October 12, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Woke up to 27 degrees in south western NY state this morning.
Yike’s!
heshtesh on October 12, 2009 at 10:39 AM
thomasaur, the long-term data on climate has been collected and has been used to inform climate models. I’ve followed this subject since the mid-1980s and can assure you that climatology has put a lot of effort and resources into the subject of global warming.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 10:39 AM
The temperature at the end of the last century, was approximately the same as the temperature during the Mideival warm period of 1000 years ago. It was several degrees cooler than the Roman warm period of 2000 years ago, and the Minoan warm period of 3000 years ago was warmer still.
Anyone else notice the pattern here?
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Reposting from Saturday’s thread:
All mathematical / statistical models are bound and beholden to assumptions chosen by the model builders. This is especially true for the all-knowing, all-seeing “global warming” or “climate change” models so beloved by True Believers of the Church of AGW.
Absent a thorough exposition of their assumptions and sensitivity of their models’ outcomes to changes in the assumptions, their proponents are simply fans of the latest (extremely) high-priced video games… who are bent on destroying free enterprise.
ya2daup on October 10, 2009 at 4:23 PM
ya2daup on October 12, 2009 at 10:41 AM
The only problem is that the long term data shows that there is absolutely no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Ocean currents and cycles are a factor in how heat is distributed around the Earth, but the key fact is that the PDO is an oscillation that does not cancel out the global warming that’s been occurring.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 10:42 AM
You mean, looking at the last ten years, when more carbon has been released into the air as was released the previous ten years?
Esthier on October 12, 2009 at 10:43 AM
I agree it it is a good thing that the BBC has a relatively neutral commentary. Maybe the BBC felt comfortable doing so considering the latest government propaganda effort will likely swamp the BBC commentary.
Daisy? The UK government has just spent $6 million for a one minute TV ad highlighting man made global warming. The Ad premiered last night during prime time show Coronation Street.
“The advertisement attempts to make adults feel guilty about their legacy to their children. It features a father telling his daughter a bedtime story of “a very very strange” world with “horrible consequences” for today’s children.
The storybook shows a British town deep under water, with people and animals drowning. Carbon dioxide is depicted as rising in clouds of black soot from cars and homes, including from a woman’s hairdryer. The soot gathers into a jagged-toothed monster menacing the town.
The daughter asks her father if the story has a happy ending and a voiceover cuts in, saying: “It’s up to us how the story ends” and directs viewers to the Government’s Act on CO2 website.”
davod on October 12, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Gee, hasn’t “Harry” been here yet to tell us “weather” isn’t “climate”… and ignore the last ten years of non-warming?
Doorgunner on October 12, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Tell that to Venus! There’s no doubt about the physics with regard to how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Then why isn’t the Earth even warmer with more CO2?
Esthier on October 12, 2009 at 10:45 AM
No significant statistical warming for almost 15 years. Significant statistical cooling for 7 1/2. The atmosphere is NOT behaving as predicted by the “Global Warming” models.
Peer reviewed science for your perusal: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 10:47 AM
FWIW, I think there’s been less CO2 emitted recently due to the global recession. What’s been happening is that the oceans have been moderating the effect, thanks to the actions of decade-long changes in ocean currents such as the PDO.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 10:47 AM
The reason the temperature is higher on Venus is because the atmospheric pressure is higher! You know, like a pressure cooker?! To get enough CO2 into our atmosphere to raise global temps via increased pressure, we’d be dead from CO2 poisoning long before. geez
postaldog on October 12, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Venus is 26 million miles closer to the Sun than Earth. Maybe the Sun is driving Venus’ climate too! Go figure.
Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 10:50 AM
AGW is this decade’s polywater
ya2daup on October 12, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Unlike you, most of us don’t have Kirk jammies and a cardboard appliance box teleporter, ergo, we’re going to have some trouble getting the message to the Venusians.
Dammit, Jim, we’re only adults!
Doorgunner on October 12, 2009 at 10:51 AM
It’s true that an oscillation by definition means that at times it will cool and at other times warm.
The fallacy here, is that you are looking at the period where the PDO was warming the climate, but ignoring the period where it cooled.
You can’t examine half the cycle and proclaim that you know anything.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Are you absolutely certain that nothing else is happening on the entire planet of venus that might cause some warming? Also, I’d love to see some data on Venus’s global climate trends. Is it warming and cooling at different times than earth, or does it follow the same trends?
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Ordinary1, Venus is further from the Sun than Mercury, but Venus is hotter.
As for pressure being a factor in temperature, keep in mind that temperatures don’t rise in the oceans as pressure increases with depth.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 10:55 AM
How can being closer to the big fire affect the temperature? I heat my house with a woodstove and the livingroom is much warmer than the office which is furthest from the stove.
thomasaur on October 12, 2009 at 10:55 AM
That’s the best laugh I’ve had in a while.
thomasaur on October 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Man oh man, you really do love playing the idiot on TV.
The only thing earth and venus have in common, is they circle the same sun.
One interesting thing, on both venus and mars, when you compare the points on the three planets where the atmospheric pressures are the same, the temperatures are also the same.
I might add that mars has an atmosphere that is 100% CO2, and it’s freezing there.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Then why are the oceans cooling as well?
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:57 AM
We’re not cherry-picking an interval. We’re comparing the computer predictions (you could call it a hypothesis) to the actual observed events.
That’s exactly how science is done. Come up with a theory, run a test, compare the test results to your theory, revise, repeat.
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 10:57 AM
That would apply to 2009 and maybe part of 2008, but that doesn’t explain a cooling trend from 1998 to 2008.
And as far as Venus is concerned, the argument isn’t just that CO2 might be causing this warming but rather that mankind itself is responsible. Obviously that isn’t the case with a planet we cannot visit.
Esthier on October 12, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Man, you really do prize the role of village idiot.
Do you even understand that there is a difference between liquids and gases?
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Notably absent of late has been the World Wildlife Federation’s sob story advertisement concerning the pitiful plight of the polar bears (you know, another example of an overpaid celebrity ‘splaining the “problem” to ignorant rubes). Can’t help but wonder if the cost / benefit ratio didn’t pan out as they’d hoped.
ya2daup on October 12, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Um, you do realize that Venus has an atmosphere (much denser than earth’s) while Mercury essentially has none?
The global recession only accounts for the last 12-18 months. And it still doesn’t account for the continued buildup of CO2
rbj on October 12, 2009 at 11:00 AM
But three big hurricanes… now that’s science!
LibTired on October 12, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Complete BS
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact10&fsize=0
marklmail on October 12, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Yes, wasn’t 2006 supposed to be even worse?
Katrina and Rita weren’t even that big. They were Category 3s. If the levies had held, we wouldn’t even be talking about either today.
Esthier on October 12, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Metro-West Boston reported in at 34* at 6:14 AM today according to my backyard thermometer. Full sunshine now and we have yet to break 55*. Every year I turn on the heat earlier and earlier.
The reality is that the left decided in the 70′s they needed a movement everyone could get behind – the civil rights movement didn’t do it, the women’s movement didn’t do it. So, they invented the “end of the earth” movement.
I recycle, I conserve energy, I grow organically in my yard and shop at local farms, plant drought hardy flowers, compost, etc – all because of common sense and budget not because some politician or actor in a lab coat told me I had to. Yet I am public enemy #1 because I drive a big SUV and don’t believe in this cult.
The theory of global warming is just another example of a few wack-job leftists getting together around the hookah and “thinking of the next great thing” while the rest of us were just getting on with life. They can’t even get “Cap and Tax” passed, Obama’s #2 great agenda item. The Left is a joke and the further we get away from Nov. ’08 the more I realize what a fluke it all was – or fraud.
gopmom on October 12, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Obama’s speeches more that offset the recession.
Johan Klaus on October 12, 2009 at 11:12 AM
When 96.5% of the atmosphere on Venus is CO2, it’s CO2 that’s responsible for the warming. The physics of how CO2 serves to trap heat is not an issue.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Few remember it, but the original switch from new ice age hysteria to global warming hysteria was caused by the release of the 1989 pseudo-scientific Arthur Herzog novel Heat. The same author who gave us Giant Swarms of Killer Bees Descending on our Cities! in Swarm.
If you simply must panic over climate change (here sudden cooling on the order of double-digit degrees), don’t forget volcanoes. Then keep saying to yourself “geologic time means it won’t happen to me.”
Beagle on October 12, 2009 at 11:17 AM
CO2 as a Greenhouse gas… 101… basic physics.
All gasses in an atmosphere will absorb IR radiation within very specific wavelengths, this is called their absorbtion bands.
As they absorb IR energy, they reach a higher energy state, which they then pass off to the rest of the atmosphere using conduction and convection.
The IR radiation comes from two sources, the sun, and the blackbody radiation of the earth (or venus) itself.
This is can all be verified in labratory studies.
Problem is, that all of the IR energy in CO2s absorbtion bands are already being absorbed by either the existing CO2, or water vapor… thus adding MORE CO2 will do nothing… to raise the temp you have to add ENERGY.
see: http://www.nov55.com/atmo.html
Venus, being closer to the sun, (square of the distance law) has MUCH more IR energy within CO2s absorbtion bands… thus it has MORE of an effect on its atmosphere than on earths.
The warmers say that CO2 is driving temperature because they have historic data that suggests that their is a corelation between the two…. but… Seawater is the largest repository of CO2 on Earth… and as it WARMS it releases more CO2 to the atmorphere (labratory verified)… thus, the warmers have Cause and Effect exactly backwards. It is NOT getting warmer because CO2 is rising… we get more CO2 AS it warms…
But… that does not help them get political power…. so they must continue with an easily disprooven theory… because you know.. the science is settled…
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Pressure is that, just pressure. You can have gas at a high pressure as well at low temperatures, as anyone who had pumped a bike tire full of air knows. What makes Venus so hot isn’t the pressure, but the CO2′s ability to trap the incoming heat from the Sun.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 11:19 AM
That doesn’t, however, make them correct.
I know from reading the literature that they’re still trying to make the models more reflective of the real world, such as efforts to develop a general cloud model.
If the models were correct, why would they be trying to improve them?
mr.blacksheep on October 12, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Romeo13, if your claim about there being some sort of limit to the ability of CO2 to trap heat was at all true, Venus would never have had it’s runaway greenhouse effect.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Sigh… Venus gets MORE IR energy in the specific absorbtion bands than Earth does… almost 4x as much if I remember correctly.
Its a combinatin of the AMOUNT of CO2, and the Energy… not just the amount of CO2.
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 11:21 AM
.
Mercury has government mandated Prius’.
Johan Klaus on October 12, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Someone already pointed out that Venus has an atmosphere, while Mercury does not.
Consider this. If you moved Earth to Venus’ orbit, you might very well see the oceans evaporate (from the increased heat from the Sun) releasing massive amounts of CO2 into a much thicker atmosphere. You may well turn Earth into a Venus-like planet just by moving it closer to the Sun. Shocking, I know.
As for Earth in it’s current position… CO2 is a trace gas. (something like .03% of the atmosphere. Man contributes just a fraction of that.) Water vapor is a much much (much) bigger factor in our atmosphere retaining and regulating the heat received from the Sun. The Sun is by far the biggest driver of weather and climate. That’s the first thing anyone learns in a weather or meteorology class.
MarkTheGreat, correct me if I’m wrong here :-)
Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Tell that to Venus! …
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Unlike you, most of us don’t have Kirk jammies and a cardboard appliance box teleporter, ergo, we’re going to have some trouble getting the message to the Venusians.
Dammit, Jim, we’re only adults!
Doorgunner on October 12, 2009
You don’t even want to know what he does with his Sulu action figure alone in the dark.
SKYFOX on October 12, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Or, it would stabilize at some point. Maybe around an almost constant planet-wide temperature of about 900 degrees? :-)
Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 11:25 AM
The presence of something doesn’t prove that it’s the cause of something else. But that’s what you say, above: When X is present, X must cause Y.
Is a colony of men on Venus that’s causing all that CO2? Because I’ve been lead to believe by the media that CO2 builds up only when mankind is using carbon fuels. I’m sure that CO2 is never naturally occurring, or if it is, it must be a trace gas.
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 11:25 AM
A bit of planetary science: Venus reflects into space the majority of sunlight hitting it due to the highly reflective cloud it possesses, making it the brightest object in our skies barring the Moon and of course the Sun.
Despite this, the surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury, despite Venus receiving 25% of the insulation that Mercury does.
The reason? It’s atmosphere, especially the large proportion of CO2, acts as a thermal blanket blocking heat radiation back into space.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 11:27 AM
It does NOT have a runaway effect… it has reached its OWN equalibrium, based on its atmosphere, and the amount of IR energy that atmosphere absorbs.
Its also true that the Surface temp of Venus is like 894 degrees F… thus it also puts off MUCH more Blackbody radiation than the earth (blackbody radiation is temp dependent…). Thus, CO2 has much more ENERGY to absorb.
And I “claim” nothing… go look at the PHYSICS.
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 11:28 AM
So, how hot was Venus last year? And how hot is it this year?
Funny how you argue the presence of CO2 on another planet is proof that only man can be causing the warming on our planet. Yet animal flatulence contributes more CO2 than industrial activities, which is why the UN suggested making everyone a vegetarian in order to stop global warming.
Following this logic, the only way to save the planet is to kill every animal on the planet.
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 11:28 AM
CO2 is about .0384% of Earth’s atmosphere — or less than one tenth the concentration of CO2 at other times when life flourished on our planet — as we speak. It’s so low, can you imagine the hysteria if it was dropping at the exact same rate it’s increasing?
Beagle on October 12, 2009 at 11:29 AM
hawksruleva, Venus is not like the Earth, but it does clearly show how CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas that also helps to warm the Earth.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Mercury? What atmosphere?
You want to compare that to Venus?
mankai on October 12, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Then again, all that plant life on Mercury must eat up the CO2.
mankai on October 12, 2009 at 11:35 AM
This just added to the Drudge bunch of headlines: Austria: Earliest snowfall in history set to break records…
Ordinary1 on October 12, 2009 at 11:36 AM
mankai, the surface temperature of Venus reaches 480 °C and the average temperature is 462 °C! Clearly, the CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus is why Venus is indeed hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Of course, solar activity has nothing to do with global climate.
Johan Klaus on October 12, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Well, ya know John Carter of Mars DID go to Venus, a few books after he saved the Oxygen Factory on Mars…
And those stories are about as believable as the Warmers theories…
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 11:37 AM
If Venus is not like Earth how can anything that happens there show us anything? Serious question.
thomasaur on October 12, 2009 at 11:38 AM
I have been reading your comments with some mirth on how you cling to AGW. I would like to point out just a few holes in your argument.
1. Your example of Venus is somewhat correct, but for the wrong reasons. The atmosphere of that planet is full of CO2 but it is also at a greater concentration than that of Earth. The amount of our CO2 is less then 1% while Venus has a concentration of about 96% with the next gas being nitrogen followed by sulfur. The atmosphere is also much denser: try 92 times denser. It is so dense that to get the same amount of pressure here on Earth you would need to dive in the ocean to a depth of 1 km. You can also include Venus’s extreme volcanism and slow day. All of these combined equal one place you never want to visit.
2. You keep mentioning on how you can’t point to just one decade and say that this is a trend, yet you are doing just that. Let us take the very long view. At best you can say man has polluted since he tamed fire about 200,000 (Tuesday, August 8th) or so years ago. If you were to divide up the entire history of the Earth into a 24 hour period that equals 1/2 second before midnight. What happened before that 1/2 second before midnight? The climate was very warm during the Cretaceous Period. It was so warm that there was no ice anywhere on Earth and you could walk around in shorts in the arctic circle. If you go back to just the time when man was thinking a rock might make a good tool you have ice sheets that are 2 miles thick covering the northern hemisphere. Heck, if you go back to the pre-Cambrian the Earth was entire;y covered by ice. That’s right, there was a global glacier.
3. Everything gets blamed on man when the Earth is warming, but somehow the other planets in our solar system are warming and that is a natural phenomena. How is it natural there and unnatural here? Could it be that man is not as powerful or as important as he thinks himself to be? To believe that we are so great and powerful that we can destroy a planet is hubris at its finest.
txaggie on October 12, 2009 at 11:38 AM
For those that are “believers” in anthropogenic global warming, please look up “ A year without a summer”. I was watching a special on the National Geo channel on the Alps. About 2/3rds of the way through they started with Global warming, I was about 2 seconds away from changing the channel when the announcer stated that, If you tried to re enact Hannibals crossing of the Alps that it cannot be done today, as the passes and mountains are covered in snow and glaciers, So I stayed with the show and low and behold they touched on naturally occurring global warming. They said that there was evidence that glaciers have advanced and retreated many times in the past and will do so in the future. This to me was as if some one rang a bell. Finally they are admitting that global warming (re-warming) is still a mystery.
ColdWarrior57 on October 12, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Sigh… Yes… CO2 IS a greenhouse gas… however, on EARTH, at this time, ALL of the enegy in its Absorbtion bands IS ALREADY BEING ABSORBED…. thus under basic thermodynamics, adding more CO2 will do NOTHING.
Its Greenhouse effect is governed by a combination of Levels of CO2 and the levels of IR radiation in its absorbtion bands.
OH, and read this… a bit of SCIENCE about Venus…
http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Venus.html
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 11:42 AM
txaggie, higher pressures do not result in higher temperatures. If that was true, the ocean would get warmer as you got deeper. Obviously, that’s not the case.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Romeo13, the physics of CO2 are the same on Earth as they are on Venus, and there’s no mystical limit to the greenhouse effect such as you’re proposing.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 11:45 AM
I’m no scientist but let me try this one. Liquid water weighs more than air and is more dense thereby not letting the Sun’s rays to penetrate into the deep and warming the water at deeper depths.
thomasaur on October 12, 2009 at 11:47 AM
I am not stating that it did. You seemed like a smart fellow when it came to planetary geology so I didn’t think I needed to specify that, alas I was mistaken. To be more specific, the intense pressure and CO2 combined make the surface of Venus a perfect example of a greenhouse. I am not debating that. You are also correct that most of the sun’s visible light is reflected back into space. This is caused by the high level sulfur clouds. I am not debating that CO2 will never retain heat, I am merely pointing out that comparing the climates of Earth and Venus is about the same as comparing a tricycle to a tiger.
Also, what about my other points? Merely trying to disprove my entire argument by stating a very flimsy Gotcha! statement isn’t exactly enlightened.
txaggie on October 12, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Wait- when was that temperature taken? Venus should be warmer now. Because you’ve already told us that Venus is constantly warming, and never cooling, because of the runaway greenhouse effect.
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 11:50 AM
That was caused (in 1816) by the Tambora eruption of 1815, coming on the heels of the Little Ice Age. Volcanoes are the X-factor in all attempts to predict the climate.
Beagle on October 12, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Would the environmentalists be demanding that we set all the oil wells on fire? Or would they be telling us to burn all our crops?
Something tells me that they would still be against burning the rain forests.
Count to 10 on October 12, 2009 at 11:53 AM
There’s also some evidence that we were already rolling through a sunspot minima. 1816 was more or less a perfect storm of cooling factors coming together.
I guess there must have been some really low CO2, as well. I mean, temperature couldn’t POSSIBLY ever drop unless CO2 levels dropped, right? heh
hawksruleva on October 12, 2009 at 11:53 AM
LOL… apparently you know NOTHING of physics.
Please, befor you bother to post again, you may, as I did, want to go research the PHYSICS of how Greenhouse gases actualy work.
Its not “myth”… its SCIENCE…
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Less known, the Laki eruptions of 1783 which caused Ben Franklin to put one and one together and arrive at two: volcanic cooling.
Beagle on October 12, 2009 at 11:54 AM
So with scientists lacking the knowledge to predict what happens below the Earth’s surface they are just grasping at straws to claim the ability to predict what will happen above the surface.
thomasaur on October 12, 2009 at 11:56 AM
That’s misleading.
If you study up on black body radiation, you’ll see that the peak of the radiated spectrum is determined by temperature. If Venus is three times as hot as Earth, the bulk of its radiation will be at frequencies three times higher (in addition to being 3^4 as large in magnitude). If the absorption spectrum of CO2 is catching only the high energy tail of the spectrum of Earth, it might be catching the bulk of the spectrum on Venus.
Same physics, different superficial dynamics.
Count to 10 on October 12, 2009 at 12:01 PM
The longer times you average over, the more stable a prediction you make. Any serious discussion of global climate changes has to be in terms of thousands of years, because there are just too many quasi random fluctuations for time periods less than that.
Count to 10 on October 12, 2009 at 12:04 PM
.
Wrong, Ed.
Climate shifts move in cycles of approximately 100,000 years. They’re called Milankovitch Cycles (google it) and there have been twenty-five of them since the current ice age started.
Climate whipsaws can come in as little as 100 years. The last was called the Younger Dryas (google again). It began about 10,600 years ago when the temp dropped 15 degrees F in 100 years. The cold spell lasted for 1,200 years and then zoomed up 15 degrees F in 100 years. The climatic optimum (highest temp and sea levels) occured about 4500 BC. When it ended, the Akkadian Empire collapsed as a result. Incidentally, before, during and after the Younger Dryas CO2 levels stayed steady at about 250 ppm.
All of this data is available in the Greenland Ice Core research but for some odd reason, warming advocates are ignoring it.
lonesomecharlie on October 12, 2009 at 12:25 PM
It’s a lot more complicated than that. For example, 99% of the earth’s CO2 has been locked up into the rocks. Since Venus never cooled off enough for water vapor to condense, this process didn’t happen there. Also, 100% of it’s water, is still in the atmosphere, vs. 0.001% for the earth.
Since the tiny bit of CO2 that the earth has left in it’s atmosphere is sufficient to make the earth 99% opaque at the limited number of wavelengths that CO2 absorbs at, the fact that Venus has 1000 times as much CO2 int it’s atmosphere than does the Earth, is utterly irrelavant when calculating the temperature of the two planets.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Man, you love to tout simple solutions as if they explained anything.
Gas compresses when squeezed, as a result, it heats up. Water on the other hand is incompressible.
That’s why the oceans do not get hotter as you go deeper, but atmospheres do.
As to your claim that CO2 traps heat. So what, as has been demonstrated over and over again, the wavelengths captured by CO2 are already saturated. Adding more CO2 has no affect.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Good point. You should probably mention that to this guy, who seems to think that posting video of snow on his deck is useful to the debate.
Ahem.
orange on October 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM
If only that were true. It’s a well known fact that when historical data is fed to the models, the models are incapable of reproducing historical climates.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 12:31 PM
The so called runaway greenhouse on Venus has absolutely nothing to do with it having more CO2 than the earth does.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Yeah, the problem is that we really don’t know the mechanisms by which climate shifts.
Some seems to be solar variablility… and sun spots… but that does not explain all of the variation…
We “should” be able to figure this out eventualy, as the Earth is a “closed” heat system with very limited input… and known output… but we are being slowed down by too many Dollars going to try to proove a bogus theorem (CO2).
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 12:33 PM
ColdWarrior57 on October 12, 2009 at 11:40 AM
A few years ago, the retreating glaciers in the Alps uncovered a Roman era mine.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Water isn’t compressible you dolt.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 12:37 PM
How does one absorb more than 100% of the energy oh brilliant one?
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Here’s a chart showing the absorbtion characteristics in our atmosphere. It quite clearly shows that despite the cries of the dudlet, the CO2 bands are already virtually saturated.
http://www.heliosat3.de/e-learning/radiative-transfer/rt1/AT622_section10.pdf
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 12:42 PM
I must add that pressure will cause a molecule to absorb a wider band. This is because as pressure increases, the molecule vibrates more.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Its magical Unicorn Energy… the Fairies of the Air spread it…
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Tell the crews of submarines then how pressure really doesn’t go up as the ship goes down.
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 12:53 PM
The increase in pressure does not affect the water it affects the pressure of whatever enters the water at different depths. Mine is a laymans assumption and would love to be corrected or informed of my wrong thinking.
thomasaur on October 12, 2009 at 12:58 PM
sigh… pressure, and compression, are two different things…
Pressure comes from the “weight” of the water… but the volume of water does not decrease under pressure.
Gas, however DOES compress under pressure…
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 12:59 PM
When you compress a gas, the termperature rises, when you decompress the gas the temperature decreases. Try compressing a gas into a cylinder and the cylinder will get hotter as the pressure rises and the cylinder cools as the pressure is released. Water also acts as an insulator.
Johan Klaus on October 12, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Exactly, and the center of the earth? Like ice.
Lava? Very very cold… because of the pressure of the earth pressing in.
Someday maybe we’ll make a probe capable of handing that terrible terrible cold and can measure how cold that lava really is…
gekkobear on October 12, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Every time you post, you further reveal what an absolute idiot you are.
Water is incompressible, submarines aren’t.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Like water, rocks are incompressible. The center of the earth is hot because the center of the earth is radioactive. It has nothing to do with pressure.
MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 1:39 PM
He forgot the /sarc tag…
Romeo13 on October 12, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Yeah, I should have thought of density not pressure especially since water gets denser as it cools until it freezes. My bad.
That said, the assertion that there’s enough CO2 to “saturate” the atomosphere’s ability to absorb infrared radiation isn’t the case:
starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »