Nature, Not Man, Is Responsible For Recent Global Warming

[Rage for Order]

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3756

Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity...says Marc Morano

Extract...Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the 1958−2008 period. GTTA are represented by data from satellite microwave sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980–2008 and from radiosondes (RATPAC) for 1958–2008. After the removal from the data set of short periods of temperature perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic eruption, we use derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close relationship between SOI and GTTA.

Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the 29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer 50-year RATPAC record. Because El Niño−Southern Oscillation is known to exercise a particularly strong influence in the tropics, we also compared the SOI with tropical temperature anomalies between 20°S and 20°N. The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.

Received 16 December 2008; accepted 14 May 2009; published 23 July 2009. Citation: McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter (2009), Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D14104, doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.

Submitted to the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research and published July 23, 2009

According to the three researchers, ENSO-related warming during El Niño conditions is caused by a stronger Hadley Cell circulation moving warm tropical air into the mid-latitudes. During La Niña conditions the Pacific Ocean is cooler and the Walker circulation, west to east in the upper atmosphere along the equator, dominates.

"When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the temperatures since 1950 the modellers added some estimated influences of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall," says McLean.

"The IPCC acknowledges in its 4th Assessment Report that ENSO conditions cannot be predicted more than about 12 months ahead, so the output of climate models that could not predict ENSO conditions were being compared to temperatures during a period that was dominated by those influences. It's no wonder that model outputs have been so inaccurate, and it is clear that future modelling must incorporate the ENSO effect if it is to be meaningful."

Bob Carter, one of four scientists who has recently questioned the justification for the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme, says that this paper has significant consequences for public climate policy.

"The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.”

“Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”

:popcorn:

[DeadEyeDyck]

1. Oh this is going to be good

I can feel the global heat already

[Rex]

2. 50 years of geological time

meh. The Age of Mammals...meh.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Oh boy.

[texastoast]

4. Hmm

Another study that conflicts with another study. So, what you do think is valid?

[Rex]

7. Lizard people from deeeeeeep within the Earth!

eom.

[PSPS]

5. This is too easy to debunk

I'll leave it to these guys:
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/07/chris-de-freitas-back-pedals.html
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/ahh_mclean_youve_done_it_again.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink

(The "press release" contains "facts" that aren't even mentioned in the article they reference.)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. Well that was quick and easy.

[Rage for Order]

13. LOL

Let's see, an article published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, or a couple of postings on internet blogs. Hmmm, I wonder which is more credible?

:shrug:

[texastoast]

17. But but but

what about those pesky ice cores? No model. Just history.

:shrug:

[Rage for Order]

19. I don't know

I'm not a geophysicist, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. However, given the fact that this was published less than a week ago in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, I'm sure it will be heavily scrutinized by people who are eminently more qualified than I to evaluate the veracity of the claims in the published research paper.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. As it turns out, the science blogs.

If you'd bothered to read, the press release contained data and claims the Journal of Geophysical Research did not see fit to publish.

[ColbertWatcher]

33. Thread over. n/t

[sakabatou]

34. PWND

[PVnRT]

39. Game over, man (n/t)

[Mojorabbit]

6. We need a real

battle royale between scientists to put this to rest once and for all if it can be done. Televise it. Make it a reality show. I don't care. If it is correct we are the cause we need to get to work right now without all these distractions.

[rurallib]

10. Maybe they could discuss it over beers?

[virgogal]

9. Phew,what a relief. :-)

[NYC_SKP]

11. That's funny! I know a lot of scientists just kicking themselves about this news.

Maybe we should ramp up our burning of fossil fuels even more than projections.

What the hell....drill baby, drill. :sarcasm:

[tabatha]

12. debunk

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/#polar

[Rage for Order]

15. None of those links debunks this paper

Which was just published 6 days ago. Is your mind so closed, already made up, to the point that you aren't willing to explore any other theories? Maybe the sun really does revolve around the Earth!

:crazy:

But seriously, I don't know what is correct, but I'm not going to completely discount a scientific paper that's been published less than a week ago.

[PSPS]

20. That's fine

Simply being published doesn't mean is has any imprimatur. It's perfectly reasonable to wait and see how it plays out as it gets "reviewed." Nevertheless, one can't deny the significance of:

1. The news release refers to findings in the published article that are simply not there; and,

2. At least one of the authors is already saying that the "conclusions" mentioned in various news releases are not the conclusions he made in the paper.

[tabatha]

26. They seem to be rehashing the stuff that has been debunked before.

And they are taking an IPCC quote out of context.

Furthermore, CO2 is definitely contributing to the acidity of the oceans - which is a huge problem.

[countingbluecars]

14. Someone from ExxonMobil Exploration Company

is listed as a committee member under that first link. Enough said for me.

[Rage for Order]

18. Yeah, I can't think of any legitimate reasons for Exxon to employ Geophysicists

You've read the abstract (maybe), but not the whole paper, and your mind is made up? Sounds like you could be Sarah Palin's next science adviser!

:rofl:


eta: Nice Dishwalla reference :hi:

[countingbluecars]

22. Why do Geophysicists need Exxon?

Funding maybe?

[villager]

28. You haven't read the whole paper either, right? Is your mind made up?

Meanwhile, what interest would ExxonMobil have in debunking fossil fuel contributions to global warming?

:rofl:

[timeforpeace]

16. Our minds are made up, the movie's been made, the science is in. No more science please.

[scubadude]

21. They have added another variable, but they haven't solved the equation.

Add 4 to the detractors mound, sitting adjacent to the advocates mountain. Now it's only 95.9% (est for sarcastic measure) of scientists who study global warming that believe CO2 adds to warming.

All these fellows have discovered is one more factor which may add to warming. It is known there are many factors that do so. Cyclic changes in the output of the Sun, changes in the tilt of the earth on it's axis, volcanic venting of CO2 and other chemicals can be added to the incredibly large and complex list.

Yet, it is mans additional CO2 output that the earth hasn't evolved to handle. Of course there are natural forces at work, but the man made ones contribute way beyond what is natural, potentially pushing the system to it's breaking point.

Scuba

[jimmyflint]

24. Well, the Earth was heating and cooling

Long before people were living in caves and trying to poke their dinner with sticks.

[tabatha]

27. It was heating and cooling before humans walked the earth.

At one time there was not enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support human life.

But these teeny tiny little things called blue-green algae started contributing oxygen to the atmosphere, that fostered the start of plant life on earth, that also added oxygen to the atmosphere.

Humans are on earth, thanks to plant life that keeps the oxygen in the atmosphere at around 21%.

But humans adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever.... yeah, right.

So this sentence ......

"Long before people were living in caves and trying to poke their dinner with sticks. "

means absolutely nothing, presents no evidence for anything, even the conditions under which it was possible for humans to live and to poke their dinner with sticks.

[jimmyflint]

32. Wow, jump to conclusions much?

"But humans adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever.... yeah, right"

At no time did I say or even imply that. Some people choose to ignore previous heating and cooling and hold man alone responsible.

[tabatha]

38. Your comment did not say much at all.

That was the point of my post.

[Birthmark]

25. I wonder what real scientists have to say about that?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/friday-round-up-3/

So, it appears that McLean, et al. have demonstrated that 72% of a certain kind of variability is probably caused by ENSO/SOI...which was news to no one.

Of course, they had to take the warming trend (AGW) out to demonstrate that piece of obviousness. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/old-news/

So, all in all they demonstrated not much of anything worth bothering about.

[kestrel91316]

29. FAIL

[G_j]

30. Chris de Freitas, one of the 'researchers' sited, is a passionate skeptic

just sayin'

[warren pease]

31. The only relevant question re this study -- and all such studies that ignore well over 90 %...

... of peer-reviewed data -- is who paid for it. Is it Exxonmobileshellchevronbpunocal or some derivative thereof, or did these guys pool their spare change in a noble effort to set the record straight?

Of course, since the bible tells us the earth is only about 6,000 years old, such studies are, by definition, horseshit.

All this as I sit in temperate Portland, OR, where today's high was 107 and the NWS says tonight's low will be around 70.


sf

[ColbertWatcher]

36. Okay, NOW the thread is over.

He went went extinct for your sins.

[bridgit]

35. Damn flatulent cattle in New Zealand anyhow eh screw it!! I'm saturating the market down there...

with industrial strength Beano! It's not allot but it's a start :kick:

[madville]

37. Just follow the money on either side

Anyone can make a study to say anything they want. There are trillions of dollars on the line for all sides of this debate. Businesses, the government, individuals etc all have a monetary interest in working this issue to their advantage so I don't trust any of it.