Greenhouse Gases Highest for 800,000 Years

Thursday May 15, 2008, 2:44 pm
Aside from the fact it is not true, and that the sequence is: first the Earth warms and THEN then CO2 goes up, this is an interesting story.

What it really shows is how subservient science has become to politics.

The video explains why the premise of the article is nonsense.
The Global Warming Debate Al Gore Doesn't Want You to See

http://globalwarming.org/node/1132

Friday May 16, 2008, 7:47 am
would you be dismissing facts again Judy???

You use a youtube vidio as evidence against a scientific paper - that is halarious!!!!

Friday May 16, 2008, 7:49 am
holding on to the same old CO2 follows montra...we have discussed that before...CO2 is a feedback...it warms from some natural cause...which leads to more CO2 releases...which leads to more warming...

you can ignore the truth all you want, but don't expect the knowlageable people to buy the dogma...

Friday May 16, 2008, 7:49 am
EXCELLENT ARTICLE Jessica! When I was working on my doctorate I met a German scientist who is now working on this project. Fascinating stuff.

Friday May 16, 2008, 7:51 am
So, what you are trying to tell us is that the University of Berne, the UN Climate Panel, & scientist from Switzerlan, France, & Germany are all lying to us???? Hmmmm seems to me that that is highly unlikely. However, I do believe that the US government will do whatever it takes to try to keep the truth from the people. Remember the gag order on scientists which was implemented by the US government? Well, we all know there is a long list of incidents where the US government has tried to out right lie to the people, so certain individuals with power could fulfill their own greedy agenda. The bottom line is that mankind is destroying Mother Earth & it is time for mankind to become true stewards of the earth & do whatever it takes to preserve this world as it is. When the sky turns red from all the pollution it will be too late.

Friday May 16, 2008, 7:55 am
Hey Ze - don't you know, that according to Judy there is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence for human caused climate change - so stop posting facts will you (unless they are blessed by Exxon)

Friday May 16, 2008, 8:20 am
Actually, yes. There is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 can change climate. The relationship is first it warms and then CO2 levels rise...that's it!
All the rest is flapdoodle.
http://energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=880
The Heartland Institute along with 20 other supporting organizations sponsored the First International Conference on Climate Change in New York City on March 2-4. Over 500 people attended, with a cross section of specialties – climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, astrophysicists, biologists, economists, engineers, government officials, policy makers, and the media – from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course, the U.S. Many were current and former members of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who had participated in the reports but did not support the conclusions. Some have quit the I.P.C.C. in disgust.

In his opening remarks, Joe Bast, the Heartland’s president, called the event historic and addressed the questions that the I.P.C.C. had ignored, such as how reliable are the data used to document the recent warming trend? How much of the modern warming is natural, and how much is likely the result of human activities? How reliable are the computer models used to forecast future climate conditions? Is reducing emissions the best or only response to possible climate change?

He noted the attendees have stood up to political correctness and defended the scientific method at a time when doing so threatened their research grants, tenure, and publishing ability. And the attendees should be heard, because the stakes are enormous. Last October, in a column published in Newsweek, George Will wrote that if nations impose the energy use reductions that Al Gore and the folks at RealClimate call for, they will cause “more preventable death and suffering than was caused in the last century by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot combined.” With regard to the scientific debate, Will wrote “People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.”

Bast noted that Heartland and the attendees had been attacked as shills for Big Oil in the alarmist media and blogs. He said Heartland gets less than 5 percent of its income from all energy-producing companies combined: “We are 95 percent carbon free.” Heartland invited Al Gore to speak, and even agreed to pay his $200,000 honorarium. He refused. We invited some of the well-known scientists associated with the alarmist camp. They also refused.

Bast ended his remarks with this message: “It is my hope, and the reason Heartland Institute organized this conference, that public policies that impose enormous costs on millions of people, in the U.S. and also around the world, will not be passed into law before the fake ‘consensus’ on global warming collapses. Once passed, taxes and regulations are often hard to repeal. Once lost, freedoms are often very difficult to retrieve.”

Over 100 scientists and other attendees spoke in the two sessions (I’ll discuss mine in a story to come). Keynote addresses by Pat Michaels, Bob Balling, Ross McKitrick, Bill Gray, Tim Ball, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, and John Stossel were all excellent. The most inspirational moments came in an address, “From Climate Alarmism to Climate Realism,” given by Czech President Vaclav Klaus, the only head of a major nation who “gets it.” Klaus, with a Ph.D. in economics, was elected president in 2003.

“I am afraid there are people who want to stop the economic growth, the rise in the standard of living (though not their own), and the ability of man to use the expanding wealth, science, and technology for solving the actual pressing problems of mankind, especially of the developing countries. This ambition goes very much against the past human experience, which has always been connected with a strong motivation to go ahead and to better human conditions. There is no reason to make the from-above-orchestrated change just now – especially with arguments based on such an incomplete and faulty science as is demonstrated by the I.P.C.C.

“I am also afraid that the same people, imprisoned in the Malthusian tenets and in their own megalomaniac ambitions, want to regulate and constrain the demographic development, which is something only the totalitarian regimes have until now dared to think about or experiment with. Without resisting it we would find ourselves on the slippery ‘road to serfdom.’”

In other keynote talks, Ross McKitrick and Bob Balling addressed the contamination issues of global data bases. These include station drop-out, urbanization, and land use changes, which have been improperly adjusted for, resulting in a warming overestimation of up to 50 percent. Similar results have been found in numerous peer reviewed papers in recent years but have been ignored by the I.P.C.C. and the global data centers.

Tim Ball showed how, over time, temperatures have led, NOT followed, rises in carbon dioxide levels. He showed that the sun was more likely to blame for the changes over the millennia, and suggested a cooling on our doorstep. Fred Singer introduced “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate,” a report by 24 scientists (including myself). Based on meetings held last year in Vienna and Rome, it found that the major greenhouse signature is supposedly warming in high atmospheric levels in the low to mid-latitudes. But in actual fact, observations from weather balloons show no warming or even a slight cooling there, invalidating these models as forecast tools.

Bill Gray’s address, “We Are Not in a Climate Crisis,” discussed the importance of the multi-decadal ocean cycles in climate cycles and hurricane frequency, which he explained are the result of regular thermohaline circulation changes. He also explained how water vapor is an issue the climate models get wrong, making them unreliable for climate forecasting. Roy Spencer’s presentation supported this view. Using the new satellite results from National Aeronautics and Space Administration data, he showed how current assumptions about water vapor are wrong. From satellite measurement of water vapor and the resulting cloudiness, it appears that vapor serves as a negative feedback, reducing any greenhouse warming from increasing carbon dioxide.

The results from all these studies show that the evidence is tainted for carbon dioxide’s supposed role in global warming. There is no “DNA match” between the models and observations. In a court of law, carbon dioxide would be acquitted.

The final output from the meeting was a document called “The Manhattan Declaration” (available at http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22866), which summarizes the meeting’s findings.

The attendees left the conference with renewed enthusiasm and new ideas. Many told of others who had wanted to attend but could not get time off from their jobs or afford the trip, or feared their attendance might affect their employment. The 500 attendees are likely just the tip of the iceberg of a silent majority of scientists in climatology, meteorology, and allied sciences who do not endorse what is claimed to be the consensus position.

Major media coverage was limited. The Washington Post brushed over the conference details but went on to call it a sort of global warming doppelganger (the I.P.C.C.’s evil twin), a conference where everything was reversed. It published critical quotes from environmentalists who poked fun at the conference, calling it “Custer’s Last Stand” and referring to attendees as “flat-earthers.” John Tierney of the New York Times provided the only positive coverage from the mainstream media. He published a blog item about the first day of the meeting, and told his readers, “I welcome substantive comments – by which I don’t mean denunciations of ‘deniers’ or ‘eco-Nazis,’ or lazy ad hominem attacks and conspiracy theories about who’s being paid off by whom. Let’s stick to the science, or lack thereof, in this particular critique.” When readers did not listen, he re-blogged in an angry piece called “Global Warming Payola.” “I still find it baffling. Do the critics really think there’s more money and glory to be won by doubting global warming than by going along with the majority?”

The answer is no. The attendees were there because they care what will happen to science and the people and economies of the world if the alarmism is not checked.

Joseph D’Aleo is executive director of Icecap (http://icecap.us) a site publishes climate-related news and information.

Friday May 16, 2008, 8:31 am
Icecap.us is another Exxon front group BTW...

Friday May 16, 2008, 8:34 am
"There is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 can change climate."

That would be DOGMA - you ignore ANY and ALL counter information

Friday May 16, 2008, 8:37 am
do a search on The Heartland Institute funding...what do ya know...Exxon money is there :)

Friday May 16, 2008, 8:52 am
Chris, Chris, Chris...don't feed the trolls.

Friday May 16, 2008, 9:00 am
I know, I know... it just provides such a good oportunity to provide real information to the other folks reading these posts..its lost on Judy, but there are many who really would like to know what is going on...

Friday May 16, 2008, 9:14 am
OK, where is the evidence that negates the observation by numerous researchers that CO2 follows warming and CAN NOT initiate it? You never provide it.
Yet there is plenty of evidence that sunspots or their lack are one of the things that do influences climate...over 200 years of correlation through continuous observation http://climate.arm.ac.uk/publications/

Then there was the paper published only a year ago showing how when ocean currents synchronize, the climate changes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801175711.htm
Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts

ScienceDaily (Aug. 2, 2007) — In the mid-1970s, a climate shift cooled sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean and warmed the coast of western North America, bringing long-range changes to the northern hemisphere.

After this climate shift waned, an era of frequent El Ninos and rising global temperatures began.

Understanding the mechanisms driving such climate variability is difficult because unraveling causal connections that lead to chaotic climate behavior is complicated.

To simplify this, Tsonis et al. investigate the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Nino/Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation.

By studying the last 100 years of these cycles' patterns, they find that the systems synchronized several times.

Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed. Then. a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Nino/Southern Oscillation variability.

The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century.

Title: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts

Authors: Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, and Sergey Kravtsov: Atmospheric Sciences Group, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030288, 2007

Adapted from materials provided by American Geophysical Union.

Friday May 16, 2008, 9:21 am
yes, I have provided that information MANY times...your biased reading filter just does not recognize it since it does not fit your dogma...here it is et again..

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

just because you ignore this information, does not mean it does not exist LOL

By the way, for the other readers of this thread, the entire article series makes good reading

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Friday May 16, 2008, 9:23 am
sunspot parrterns do indeed CORRELATE to temprature UP UNTIL THE CURRENT WARMING TREND...the pattern falls apart now because the human influence is overwhelming the natural variables...

Friday May 16, 2008, 9:36 am
Cool it! Anybody who wants to learn more about global warming should read cool it! Global warming is too hot! We should all cool it!
http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0307266923

Friday May 16, 2008, 11:47 am
Chris, your refeence proves my point:
"Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more."

It then goes on to dance around it and pretend it is only a little detail and doesn't negate the central argument. Ice cores are a faulty proxy because of migration of gas within ice according to an expert witness

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski's criticism's of the assumed reliability of IPCC graphics merging pre-industrial CO2 data from ice cores with atmospheric measurements from 20C*



The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] *(Figure 2)*. In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].

Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified “Siple curve”, but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the “hockey curve” of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion “climatic” dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Do try reading some of the real science I provide links to...or is fact and getting at truth not part of your job description?

Friday May 16, 2008, 4:56 pm
Nice job Chris and thx Jessica!

Friday May 16, 2008, 6:02 pm
Is that not an interesting enterpretation of the article LOL

Only the part that supports the denialist view is true, the rest of the article is lies. Kind of how you intrepret ALL of the literature - ANYTHING supporting your view (even the stuff comming from Exxon pupets) is true, but ANYTHING that is against your view (dogma) are lies - ROFL

That kind of logic shure makes it easy to make your case :)

You have used ice cores in the past as evidence for your dogma - but when it does not support your view, they are garbage. If models support your view - they are proof positive - when they counter your view - they are unreliable!!! This would all be quite funny if you were not killing people and entire species whith you nonsense...

Friday May 16, 2008, 6:07 pm
and for the record, I do understand that there are SOME counter arguments to human caused climate change...but THE VAST MAJORITY of scientists support that humans are at least a significant contributor to the current warming trend. Though, given the real counter information they only give it a 90% chance that they are right - but a 10% the COULD be wrong. Unfortunately the denialists are betting the life of many species on that 10% - Russian rullet with one empty chamber and nine full ones!!!!

Thursday May 29, 2008, 8:47 pm
The ones playing Russian Roulette are the 2,500 administrators, politicians and scientists as opposed to the 19,000 scientists, meteorologists and climatologists that do not agree with the findings of the IPCC. Not even all of the scientists that participated in the IPCC study agree with the final report which was edited by the politicians. You are pretty close on the percentages, but you have them reversed like most of the other data you offer to support your manmade global warming claims.

Thursday May 29, 2008, 9:05 pm
More posturing - no data - no facts - just words - like usual

You may try to "take down" the IPCC - but what you fail to understand is that organization is only a small part of the equasion:

Your 19,000 scientists number comes from a old FACKED petition (or highly contrived):

Myth 2
American scientists don't buy it - 19 000 signed a petition against the IPCC's views and the need for the Kyoto Protocol

The petition is a hoax. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists of the USA:

In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not.

The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in a renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.

In fact, American experts agree with the IPCC on its fundamental assertions:

In the summer of 2001, George W. Bush asked for the assistance of the US National Academy of Sciences "in identifying the areas in the science of climate change where there are the greatest certainties and uncertainties," and for its "views on whether there are any substantive differences between the IPCC Reports and the IPCC summaries." The NAS was given only a month to respond but did so nonetheless:

Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions

Despite the fact that the committee producing this report includes a notable skeptic who allegedly colludes with industry* (Dr. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T.), the NAS report states:

"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. … Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years" (p.3).

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html#cc10t