Study: Part of Global-Warming Model May Be Wrong (FOXNews.com)

[Warfish]

[QUOTE]Study: Part of Global-Warming Model May Be Wrong

Wednesday, December 12, 2007
FOXnews.com

Part of the scientific consensus on global warming may be flawed, a new study asserts.

The researchers compared predictions of 22 widely used climate "models" — elaborate schematics that try to forecast how the global weather system will behave — with actual readings gathered by surface stations, weather balloons and orbiting satellites over the past three decades.

The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere —1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface — would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.

"Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? It seems that the answer is no," said lead study author David H. Douglass, a physicist specializing in climate at the University of Rochester.

Douglass and his co-authors S. Fred Singer, a physicist at the University of Virginia, and John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, are noted global-warming skeptics.

However, Christy was a major contributor to the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and is one of the world's premier authorities on collection and analysis of satellite-derived temperature data, having been commended by both NASA and the American Meteorological Society for his efforts.

"We do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere," said Christy. "Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface."

The difference between the climate models and the satellite data has been known for several years.

Studies in 2005 found that improper compensation for temperature differences between day and night was the cause of most of the satellite-data discrepancy, a correction that Christy has accepted.

No explanation has been put forth for the weather-balloon discrepancy.

[url]http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117857349/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0[/url]

[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm[/url][/QUOTE]

Posted for our ongoing (and never-ending) discussion on this topic.

[PlumberKhan]

Global warming and peak oil are manufactured hysteria phenomenon both aimed at the same goal.

[bitonti]

if someone can come up with a rational explanation why the arctic ice is melting or why seven of the highest recorded temperatures ever are all after the year 2000, i'm all ears.

[jetstream23]

Does this explain the heat at the Gate D spiral? Or the how cold the Jets offense is? If not, I don't wanna hear it no more! :P

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=bitonti;2260421]if someone can come up with a rational explanation why the arctic ice is melting or why seven of the highest recorded temperatures ever are all after the year 2000, i'm all ears.[/QUOTE]

Due to human activity and global warming, we have forestalled the next ice age. We are now at least 5000 years into what would of been the next ice age. Scientists predict that when we stop burning fossil fuels, or run out, the planets temperature will catastrophically drop.

[jetstream23]

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2260442]Due to human activity and global warming, we have forestalled the next ice age. We are now at least 5000 years into what would of been the next ice age. [B]Scientists predict that when we stop burning fossil fuels, or run out, the planets temperature will catastrophically drop[/B].[/QUOTE]

That's when we send all the girls from Jersey to spray hairspray towards the ozone layer!

[parafly]

Scientists make mistakes and models make incorrect predictions, especially when you deal with issues having a high level of unpredictability.

The fact that parts of the troposhere had "a little warming" over the past 30 years instead of "drastic" warming has little, if any, bearing on the man-made Global Warming theory. The planet is still getting warmer, and changes to our ecosystems are happening at a much higher rate than was predicted even 5 years ago.

Stopping progress on a macroscopic level because of these fringe microscopic level observations accomplishes nothing except for fueling a debate that's all but decided.

[JCnflies]

[QUOTE=bitonti;2260421]if someone can come up with a rational explanation why the arctic ice is melting or why seven of the highest recorded temperatures ever are all after the year 2000, i'm all ears.[/QUOTE]


I recently heard that while the North Pole is melting, the South Pole is growing.

[parafly]

[QUOTE=JCnflies;2260530]I recently heard that while the North Pole is melting, the South Pole is growing.[/QUOTE]

I read an article recently that explained this phenomenon. With warmer ocean temperature levels, there is more evaporation of the ocean water. These higher levels of evaporation are causing more precipitation, which falls as snow in the cold Antarctic and builds up more ice.

Think of it as lake effect snow on a much larger level which falls on an entire continent instead of a few cities east of the Great Lakes.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=parafly;2260493]fueling a debate that's all but decided.[/QUOTE]

I'm wary of anyone who would say any scientific debate is "decided".

This isn't faith, it's science, and good science always takes in all new data open mindedly, and will adjust theories and ideas as appropriate. I'm all for researching the crap out of Global Warming/Climate Change, but not if there are ulterior motives behind it's support (and put simply, there is as much as there is on the side against it) and not if those who "believe" in one side over the other start taking those beliefs as dogmatic faith, rather than just one point in what is bound to be a long chain of scientific-explorataion based changes and adjustments.

[fukushimajin]

I see that the article is clipped from Fox -- it would be nice to see how it ended up there on the same day as the AP story I've put below was released. It is hard to imagine that the changes we're seeing in the Arctic are anything like normal, historic climate changes. They do happen naturally, but this seems souped-up . I think it's strange that people cling to the idea that adding a massive quantity of any chemical to the atmosphere while simultaneously removing tremendous swaths of wilderness wouldn't cause serious environmental change.



From AP:

Just last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."....

"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."....

More than 18 scientists told the AP that they were surprised by the level of ice melt this year.

"I don't pay much attention to one year ... but this year the change is so big, particularly in the Arctic sea ice, that you've got to stop and say, 'What is going on here?' You can't look away from what's happening here," said Waleed Abdalati, NASA's chief of cyrospheric sciences. "This is going to be a watershed year."

[angry jets fan]

NASA: Hottest year in U.S. was 1934

and 3 of the top ten hottest years were in the 1930.!

FACT!

[URL]http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt[/URL]

[quote=bitonti;2260421]if someone can come up with a rational explanation why the arctic ice is melting or why seven of the highest recorded temperatures ever are all after the year 2000, i'm all ears.[/quote]

[angry jets fan]

[FONT=Verdana][B]Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle[/B][/FONT][FONT=Verdana]
[URL]http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-21/polar.htm[/URL][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][URL]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html[/URL][/FONT]

[quote=bitonti;2260421]if someone can come up with a rational explanation why the arctic ice is melting or why seven of the highest recorded temperatures ever are all after the year 2000, i'm all ears.[/quote]

[Phoenixx]

[QUOTE=bitonti;2260421]if someone can come up with a rational explanation why the arctic ice is melting or why [B]seven of the highest recorded temperatures ever are all after the year 2000[/B], i'm all ears.[/QUOTE]

After 2000, we have had 7 years. (almost complete)

You just said that every one of the years 2001-2007 is on the list of the 7 highest recorded temperatures of all time.

Just for giggles, would you care to source that data ??

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=parafly;2260551]I read an article recently that explained this phenomenon. With warmer ocean temperature levels, there is more evaporation of the ocean water. These higher levels of evaporation are causing more precipitation, which falls as snow in the cold Antarctic and builds up more ice.

Think of it as lake effect snow on a much larger level which falls on an entire continent instead of a few cities east of the Great Lakes.[/QUOTE]

it's called turning chicken sh!t into chicken salad....if glaicers at one end of the world are thickening let's find a way to use it as proof of global warming....

[Come Back to NY]

[QUOTE=angry jets fan;2260714][FONT=Verdana][B]Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle[/B][/FONT][FONT=Verdana]
[URL]http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-21/polar.htm[/URL][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][URL]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html[/URL][/FONT][/QUOTE]

plants and forests also cause global warming...


[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm[/url]

[Piper]

[QUOTE=bitonti;2260421]if someone can come up with a rational explanation why the arctic ice is melting or why seven of the highest recorded temperatures ever are all after the year 2000, [B][U]i'm all ears[/U][/B].[/QUOTE]

Does anybody believe this?


BTW, I bet there are a few historic lows as well.

[HDCentStOhio]

[QUOTE=Phoenixx;2261110]After 2000, we have had 7 years. (almost complete)

You just said that every one of the years 2001-2007 is on the list of the 7 highest recorded temperatures of all time.

Just for giggles, would you care to source that data ??[/QUOTE]

Didn't know temperature records were available for the past million years. What these global warming "experts" neglect to mention is that temperatures have been recorded for only a very brief period of time. How are we to know that the last seven years are among the "hottest" of all time? And how do you explain 1996? An abberation? Then why can't the ten year period be described in the same way?

Alternative energy exploration is a good idea (nuclear, wind farms, etc) but don't use "fear" of global warming to make your argument. After all, thats what the left accuses the Conservatives of doing with terrorism. So why is it OK to use "fear" for global warming but not OK to use fear for terrorism?

[angry jets fan]

Magma May Be Melting Greenland Ice

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071213/sc_livescience/magmamaybemeltinggreenlandice[/URL]

[Phoenixx]

[QUOTE=angry jets fan;2261631]Magma May Be Melting Greenland Ice

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071213/sc_livescience/magmamaybemeltinggreenlandice[/URL][/QUOTE]

Damn, that Bush's evil knows no bounds!