Journos' Biggest ClimateGate Regret: Getting Scooped, Not Getting it Wrong
Nearly a year after leaked emails from the University of East Anglia revealed scientists manipulating data to embellish the case for anthropogenic global warming, journalists are finally starting to learn a few lessons. Unfortunately, few, if any, of those journalists are Americans.
Margot O'Neill of the Australian Broadcasting Company reported last week:
[A] key BBC news manager has declared that climate science "isn't quite a settled question"; and the BBC Trust is investigating the impartiality of science reporting including on climate change and including whether sceptical views are given due airing.
O'Neill, who examined the apparent decline in coverage of global warming, highlighted the blind-faith approach many journalists had taken in reporting on AGW. That approach was shaken by the so-called ClimateGate scandal.
According to O'Neill:
Many journalists say the UEA email hacking, combined with the discovery of an error regarding the melting of the Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 report by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also proved they had failed to cast a critical enough eye on climate science and that they had been far too dismissive of skeptics…
Previously, media coverage of sceptics had focused almost exclusively on whether or not they believe in anthropogenic climate change, but that is likely to change, the journalists say, because there are many different kinds of sceptics and a range of other debates. Some say they wished they had engaged credible sceptics earlier.
The revelation is welcome - better late than never, after all - but by O'Neill's account, it seems as much due to the fear of being scooped than a concern for balanced reporting.
O'Neill claims that "probably the most important reaction" to ClimateGate for journalists occurred "in their own newsrooms," where editors became angry with reporters who had unquestionably parroted claims that turned out to have been contrived.
"[W]hat is it that the journalists believe they were guilty of?" asks O'Neill.
Firstly, they missed a cracking story that was instead first pursued by the blogosphere and which proved to be, unlike many other climate change stories, a hit with the public. After struggling to find stories the public wanted to read, a tabloid journalist observed "Climategate … got a strong response; it made climate change more topical."
That was the primary regret among journalists? That's quite an admission; journalists apparently believed that getting scooped by bloggers - on a story with legs, no less - was more regrettable than running with a story for years without fulfilling the fundamental journalistic responsibility of simply asking questions.
The revelation is welcome among the journalism community abroad that ClimateGate was in fact big news, and demonstrated fundamental problems with the conventional case for AGW. Still, it is troubling that the mainstream media's failure to get the jump on the story would be considered even a remotely comparable journalistic offense to the failure of reporters - for years! - to fulfill their duty as critical observers and watchdogs.
Journalists in the United States, meanwhile, don't seem to grasp either of these revelations. So while they may still be missing part of the picture, at least reporters abroad, one year after ClimateGate, are starting to see how they got it wrong.
- Lachlan Markay's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Hmmm
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 9:58am.
A T
G e
W a
S P
k a
e r
p t
t y
i
c
See any parallels?
When did it happen?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:13am.
When did it start that the truth didn't matter anymore to the journalists? Was that Cronkite?
Aside from Fox News and Drudge and a couple of others, it seems like the truth stopped being important a LONG time ago but more people are starting to see that.
Too little, too late?
-Jon
Surprising
Submitted by Ozconservative on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:34am.
That it had to come from the ABC which has a leftist slant at the best of times.
Yeah right.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:55am.
If the scientists and insurance companies are right...
Insurance companies? Ain't heard much about them. Insurance for homes on the coast, at or near sea level should have skyrocketed if insurance companies truly believed the AGW line.
And we are still waiting for land prices in Canada to skyrocket. A warmer Canada will be a much more inviting place should temperatures go up.
What amazes me to this day is
Submitted by Harbour11 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 2:09pm.
What amazes me to this day is that the whole anthropogenic global warming debate can be distilled down to the very simple concept we all learned in grade school. When given a string of variables, the answer can only be as precise as the least precise variable.
While there is a much-lauded a "consensus" in regards to the effect of increased CO2 levels on climate change, there is absolutely no consensus as to how much of an impact it has. The reason all of the models are flawed and cannot be proven as accurate, is that the scientists are trying to produce a precise model, utilizing incredibly imprecise data and highly dynamic and interconnected variables. How can they determine what impact CO2 has on climate, without first quantifying the various oceanic, solar, land, volcanic, atmospheric moisture, cloud cover, and ice flow conditions, now, in the past, and in the future? It can't be done. We can't even predict the huricane activity strength 6 months out.
The Climategate scandal was the result of one of these flawed models, which after a few years of looking accurate and showing the dramatic increase the UN Climate Panel and proponents wanted to see, started to deviate and collapse during the 2000s. Instead of accepting the fact that our understanding of the numerous non-CO2-related variables influencing our climate, and the existence of an accurate historical data set of these variables exists to allow us to accurately predict the global climate, the proponents will continue to vilify those who point out the models are flawed and move to a restrict their voices in the debate.
Climate change deniers are the planets last flat-earthers
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 7:55pm.
Six major investigations into the climategate emails have found absolutely no evidence of fraud, deception, or corruption of the peer-review process. The right wing's preoccupation with climategate is paranoid, laughable, and amusing. The righties are growing ever more divorced from reason, logic, and science.
Perhaps it is time to accept that there IS such a thing as the Greenhouse Effect... we've only known about this phenomenon since 1828. It's not a wacko theory that was just recently made up by Al Gore or the demonized IPCC. So, exactly why are we denying it? Most people who deny it act under the assumption that they know more than the global scientific community. That would be laughable if this wasn't such a serious topic. This is not a global conspiracy. This is science, and it is real, and scientists are much smarter than deniers on this subject - so cease the arrogance. Find some humility and accept that humans aren't exempt from consequences. Open your eyes to the reality of cause and effect...
CO2 = Greenhouse Gas -> Greenhouse Effect = Warming
If you pump CO2 into the atmosphere (*cause*), then you will experience warming (*effect*). You just can't argue with the physics.
Except of course...
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 8:59pm.
that there's no evidence to prove that humans are the cause. But good try at pushing propaganda. Your battle is lost, retreat has occurred. You were left to die on the battlefield.
Direct observations find that
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 11:33pm.
Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less infrared radiation is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
That humans are the cause of the rising carbon dioxide concentrations is confirmed by isotopic analyses of the decreasing ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in the atmosphere. Further confirmation comes from the decreasing concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere, because when hydrocarbons are oxidized oxygen in the air goes down.
Satellites have measured the infrared spectra of the planet from space since 1970, and have detected a steady decrease in the amount of outgoing infrared radiation at the absorption wavelengths of carbon dioxide and methane as the concentration of these gases increased. Surface measurements of downward infrared radiation since 1972 find a trend of increasing infrared radiation returning to the planet's surface as predicted by atmospheric physics. A high resolution spectral analysis allows scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase of downward infrared radiation to each of several greenhouse gases. This is empirical evidence that anthropogenic gases are enhancing the greenhouse effect.
If an enhanced greenhouse effect is causing global warming, scientists would expect to see a warming in the troposphere coupled with a cooling stratosphere, and this has been observed. Other indications of greenhouse warming that have been observed are more warming at night then during the day, and more warming at high latitudes than in the tropics. These fingerprints all run counter to what would be expected of other climate forcings.
LIES. LIES. LIES. LIES. LIES. LIES. LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:43am.
Satellite and surface measurements find less infrared radiation is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. -- LIE. LIE. LIE. LIE
Even worse, they’re focusing only on the parts of the graph where carbon dioxide and methane absorb heat. Why the spikes they point to? Simply because emissions of carbon dioxide and methane were slightly higher in 1997 than 1970. But since CO2 and methane don’t represent the bulk of the heat absorbed by the atmosphere those spikes cannot tell us whether the earth is cooling or warming. And in fact if you include the effect of water vapor, as shown in a different part of the graph, it appears that the earth was cooling over that period."
Again, remember that water is the single largest factor in the heating and cooling of the Earth. There is far more water in the atmosphere than CO2, and it absorbs a lot of infrared radiation. But from the computer modeler’s point of view, atmospheric water in all its forms is very variable. Rain, they can’t predict; clouds, they can’t predict; humidity, they can’t predict. All the greenhouse models fall down in this single inability to model the heating or cooling effects of water, whether in the form of humidity, clouds, ice, snow or ocean currents. The heart of the problem is that water is super complex. Take clouds. How much heat they absorb depends very much on the diameter of ice crystals, which no one knows very well. Clouds vary even more. Dark clouds absorb sunlight. White ones reflect it. So some clouds contribute to heating, some to cooling. That’s why water is so maddening to modelers.
Now back to the graph. Sprey points out that if you look at the region in which water vapor absorbs heat, the most critical parts of the graph lie between 800 and 1000 and 1100 to 1200, precisely because these are the windows in which water does absorb heat. The reader will note that on the graph, both of those regions on the horizontal scale are positive, which means that in 1997 less heat was absorbed by the atmosphere than in 1970. Since the total positive area is much larger than in the total negative area in the CO2 and methane windows (those lunging but narrow downward spikes), the graph clearly shows that, overall, between 1970 and 1997 the atmosphere’s water cooling effect was 2.5 times larger than the CO2-methane heating effect.
between 1970 and 1997 the atmosphere’s water cooling effect was 2.5 times larger than the CO2-methane heating effect.
between 1970 and 1997 the atmosphere’s water cooling effect was 2.5 times larger than the CO2-methane heating effect.
between 1970 and 1997 the atmosphere’s water cooling effect was 2.5 times larger than the CO2-methane heating effect.
between 1970 and 1997 the atmosphere’s water cooling effect was 2.5 times larger than the CO2-methane heating effect.
between 1970 and 1997 the atmosphere’s water cooling effect was 2.5 times larger than the CO2-methane heating effect.
And yet-
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 12:48am.
The earth has been warmer before humans ever showed up on the planet. Your blathering is pure propaganda. You fail.
Natural climate change, in
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 5:32pm.
Natural climate change, in reality, actually demonstrates why humans can effect climate today. Climate never changes without a reason, its not magic.
The most fundamental determinant of the planet's temperature is the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation given off by the planet. If the amount of solar radiation coming in equals the amount of infrared leaving, the planet's average temperature will not change. If the amount of solar radiation coming in outweighs the amount of infrared leaving, the planet's temperature will rise and return to equillibrium at a higher temperature. If incoming radiation is outweighed by outgoing infrared, the planet will cool.
So, in order for this balance to be changed, an external climate forcing must increase or decrease the amount of energy coming in or out. An increase in solar activity, for example increases incoming energy, and warms the planet. An increase in greenhouse gases also can cause warming by reducing the amount of energy radiating back to space. A volcanic eruption can cool the climate by blocking incoming energy with sulfate aerosols.
The atmosphere's concentration of carbon dioxide is by far the most important factor in past climate changes in the planet's 4.5 billiion year history. Many of the past global warmings were caused by higher concentrations of greenhouse gases. The cretacious period, for example, was approximately on average 11 degrees fahrenheit warmer than today, and carbon dioxide was well over 800ppm. Further back in time, roughly 4 billion years ago the planet's atmosphere was an inferno with carbon dioxide as the main constituent of the atmosphere, despite the fact that the sun was only 70% percent as bright as it is today.
Water vapor cannot drive long-term climate changes because its concentration is highly dependent on the temperature of the atmosphere and only has a residence time of a week at most in the atmosphere. The concentration of carbon dioxide on the contrary, is much less dependent on the temperature of the atmosphere and has a residence time of over a century. While water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide plays a bigger role in changing the strength of the greenhouse effect. If carbon dioxide were to suddenly vanish from the atmosphere, the atmosphere would cool significantly and water vapor would precipitate out, and the planet would cool further, until most of the planet froze over. Increasing carbon dioxide levels will warm the atmosphere and increase its ability to hold water vapor, thus further enhancing the greenhouse effect.
Citing past climate change actually invokes a large climate sensitivity. The reason why the the planet's climate has changed so dramatically in the past is because the climate is very sensitive to radiative forcing. Carbon dioxide is now causing an accumulation of heat on Earth through the enhanced greenhouse effect, and the earth's history shows the climate will respond significantly. Saying that humans can't change the climate now is like arguing that since forest fires occured naturally in the past, a careless camper can't cause a forest fire. People have gotten lung cancer long before cigarettes were invented.
garbage
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 11:02pm.
That's the most insincere argument I've ever heard. Well, almost anyway. That's almost as insincere as saying that since the earth was warmer at periods before humans, humans have to be the cause of warming.
Of course, the earth isn't currently warming...
"That's almost as insincere
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 1:42am.
"That's almost as insincere as saying that since the earth was warmer at periods before humans, humans have to be the cause of warming"
Your misunderstanding is addressed in my previous comment. I suggest you read it again more carefully if you do not fully understand my message.
Yes, the Earth is currently warming. ALL major global temperature datasets, including NCDC, NASA GISS, HadCRUT, RSS show continued global warming with 2010 on track to being the warmest year on record. Even UAH( managed by John Christy and Roy Spencer, one of the most well known climate change skeptics) shows that the planet is currently warming at a rapid rate, with the 2000s as the warmest decade on record.
As humans put more greenhouse gases into the air, the atmosphere will absorb larger amounts of outgoing infrared radiation. In accord with simple physical laws, the temperature will go up. When you add energy to a system its, temperature will rise. The laws of physics are not liberal or conservative, they are what they are.
Must suck for you huh?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 2:14am.
Global Warming is 22 years old and not a damn thing has been done about it. And not a damn thing is scheduled to be done in the foreseeable future.
Why ain't all the doom and gloom happened in the past 22 years? I don't feel any warmer these past 22 years. Anyone else?
What have you done to fix global warming? Tell us. Now. You are standing here whining on and on about Global Warming and what identifiable thing have you done? Tell us.
You are standing next to your car with a flat tire screaming at passersby to fix it. Meanwhile, it has been 22 years and you won't even pop the trunk and pull out the jack.
Cutting and pasting from other sites without attribution is plagerism. It does nothing to cool mommy earth.
"Why ain't all the doom and
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 11:18am.
"Why ain't all the doom and gloom happened in the past 22 years? I don't feel any warmer these past 22 years"
Global warming refers to an extended upward trend in GLOBAL temperatures. Global temperatures, so far have risen about 1.4 degrees fahrenheit. However weather fluctuations from day to day, season to season are much larger than the 1.4 degree global warming. Its human nature to remember exceptional weather events, such as the extreme cold last winter, or the sweltering heat last summer, but longer term statistical trends are not easy to calculate with your own personal experience. A study last year by the National Center for Atmospheric Research noted that record daily high temperatures over the past decade occured twice as often as record daily lows. What I'm saying is that weather fluctuations dominate in the short term but on longer decadal timescales global warming will determine the frequency and intensity of temperature events.
The 1.4 degree temperature increase is only the beginning of this warming trend, we have plenty of Coal left to burn. The IPCC estimates that global temperatures will rise by another 5.4 to 7.2 degrees fahrenheit under a" business as usual' Scenario by 2100, and its not gonna stop there. The 1.4 degree temperature increase is not a full reflection of the atmosphere's current concentration of carbon dioxide. Even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the globe will still warm by at least another 1 degree fahrenheit, this because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. There is an even larger lag time between greenhouse gas increases and sea level rise, even after atmospheric temperatures stop rising sea levels will continue to rise for centuries because it takes long time for the anthropogenic warming to penetrate the deep ocean, and ice sheet disintegration is slow nonlinear process. So we see that the climate system has considerable inertia and it takes a while for the "doom and gloom" to set in.
In order to solve global warming, the governments of the major countries must cooperate to slash greenhouse gas emmisions. Individual lifestyle changes are good, but without regulation of greenhouse gases we will burn all of the fossil fuels in the earth. There is enough carbon dioxide in these fossil fuels to return the planet to the ice-free state, which it has not experienced in 35 million years. On an ice-free earth, sea level would eventually be over 240 feet higher.
Oh look, the plagiarism troll steals more words.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 12:11pm.
Fix that flat yourself plagiarism troll. Get out of the car, pop the trunk and change that tire.
22 years you been standing beside that car whining to passerby to fix your flat.
Tell us what you have done in the past 22 years to fix it instead of stealing other peoples work.
Fix it troll.
No, the earth is not warming
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 11:18am.
You can push this lie until the cows come home if you like, but the data does not, in fact, show the earth as warming. Recent data shows the earth is cooling. But, given that propagandists like yourself, and the media like to spout of the sources of this data, you should be aware how flawed it is. Satellite data has been proven as the least accurate. Physical temperature stations have been strategically located to skew the temperature data, and other data not fitting the pre-conceived notions by warmers has been purposefully eliminated or de-weighted. Your argument has been exposed. Your argument is false. You can copy and paste from whatever propagandist website you'd like- but it doesn't change the fact that not only is the earth currently not warming, but that the science shows that temperature variations greater than we saw in the 90's (with the skewed temperature data manipulated to show increased warmth) was not greater than other periods before human beings existed on the planet. Add to that the claim by warmerslike yourself that sans some sort of asinine umbrella or roof painting project we'll all be dead in 10 years, and your complete and hysterical idiocy is shining like the great ball of fire called the sun that is the actual regulator of the earth's temperature.
Now, be gone.
The surface temperature
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 4:35pm.
The surface temperature record is not needed to prove global warming. The most important evidence for global warming is the way the planet itself, is responding to the warming. Summer arctic sea ice extent is only slightly half of what it was in the 1970s. The ice-shelves of West Antarctica are collapsing and melting at a rate faster than any glaciologist would have predicted just a decade ago. Glaciers all over the planet are retreating at an accelerating rate, don't be fooled when deniers say this or that glacier is growing, the global glacier mass volume is shrinking precipitously. Arctic permafrost is thawing and releasing methane into the atmosphere. The ranges of species are shifing poleward, and the treeline in the tundra is migrating further north, and on mountains, the species and treeline are moving up. And the subtropics are expanding.
No, bkeyser, the sun is not the cause of global warming. The sun is the fundamental source of all our climate's heat, so its intuitive to point to the sun as the source of climate change. A more useful analysis would be to find out whether the sun is the cause of the "unequivocal" warming of the past century. Satellites have accurately tracked total solar irradiance since the late 1970s and have detected no increase or if anything a slight decrease. Moreover, when we look at the way the earth is warming there seems to be pattern. If the sun were warming the atmosphere from space we would expect to see a uniform warming pattern all the way down. But that is not what we observe. What scientists have observed is the lowest layer the troposphere, is warming. But above that, the layer known as the stratosphere is showing a cooling. This pattern is the thermodynamic fingerprint of human-caused greenhouse warming. Also, if the sun was causing global warming, daytime temperatures would warm faster than nightime temperatures, and the tropics would warm faster than the high latitudes. The current observations show that there is more warming at night than during the day, and more warming at the high latitudes than in the tropics. And finally, for the past few years the sun has been in deep solar minimum, experiencing the lowest solar output levels in over a century, and yet this hasn't stopped the past few years from being the one of the warmest on record.
I suggest that you take climate change more seriously. Don't listen to what they say on Fox News, or any other conservative echo chamber. This not is not some global conspiracy, its real science. One of my favorite quotes is by the physicist, Richard Feynman "Science is what we do to keep from lying to ourselves" There will always be those who seek comfortable lies to uncomfortable truths and no shortage of those willing to tell those lies. Real science sometimes upsets our preconceived notions of the world, I wouldn't call that a bad thing.
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 5:28pm.
The liar with the fake enviro-degree: Summer arctic sea ice extent is only slightly half of what it was in the 1970s.
LIE. LIE. LIE. LIE. LIE. LIE. LIE.
Note that 1979 is near the end of the coldest period in the Arctic since the 1920s. Nowhere in news stories about Arctic ice has this fact been noted: in the beginning of the satellite history, sea ice had to have been abnormally expanded. Since then, about half the contraction probably represents a return to more normal conditions for the 20th century, whereas the warming of the most recent years has resulted in another contraction to far below normal, compared to the last century. The fact that warmer temperatures in the Arctic persisted for millennia after the end of the last ice age almost certainly means that the sea ice was depleted far beyond today’s level for much of that era, and was perhaps even gone at the end of almost every summer.
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 5:28pm.
The LIAR with the fake enviro-degree: ...the lowest layer the troposphere, is warming. But above that, the layer known as the stratosphere is showing a cooling..
LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE
We've all heard the claims (repeatedly) that the Earth is currently hot and getting hotter. In fact, a quick sort on the GISTEMP near-surface amalgam shows the top 7 global mean temperatures since 1880 have occurred in the period following our Pinatubo shading. Logically then, if "global warming" (enhanced greenhouse) causes stratospheric cooling and 7 of the 11 years in our final trend split are the hottest years, at least since 1880, we expect to see stratospheric temperatures cooling, no? Let's look at the graph...
... uh-oh - that's not Big Warming's desired result is it. What could have gone "wrong?"
Perhaps the near-surface record is now so UHIE-corrupted that the planet wasn't really that warm? Possible but they won't go there because that would trample the enhanced greenhouse thing about increased infrared capture in the troposphere denying the stratosphere and causing cooling there (which is masking the warming in the tropospheric record - right?).
Recovery in the stratospheric ozone? Nope, that would upset too many fellow travelers because there'd be no need to continue attacking chlorine/bromine compounds as alleged ODS (Ozone Depleting Substances) - imagine a world where you couldn't get rid of so useful a compound as methyl bromide - unthinkable!
Hmm... a tough one. Big Warming seems to have [another] problem.
How long, do you suppose, before they come up with the old shell game: stratospheric cooling being masked by tropospheric warming?
No? Why not? Big Warming, the three-M coalition of Misanthropists, Miscreants and Misguided are certainly masters of the art of circular reasoning. The troposphere is really warming, despite what your lying eyes and empirical data tell you, it's just being masked by the cooling stratosphere - which you could see to be cooling except that cooling is being masked by tropospheric warming. Quod erat demonstrandum.
We might surmise that components of Mt. Pinatubo debris increased ozone destruction, contributing significantly to stratospheric cooling as the atmosphere cleared following that event. It is interesting that there appears to be two step reductions in stratospheric temperature following both the explosive volcanic events that caused initial warming - that would not appear consistent with enhanced greenhouse-induced cooling since increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has been more or less consistent over the period. We might surmise a lot of things but we find no support for Big Warming's contention though.
LIES. LIES. LIES. LIES. LIES. LIES.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 1:00am.
Most of this is copied and pasted from elsewhere. This is a troll stealing others postings.
Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. - LIE. LIE. LIE. LIE. LIE. LIE.
Temperature is not Heat!
Hype generated by scientists and institutions over short-term changes in global temperature (up or down) has diverted us from the real issue: heat accumulation. Heat is not the same as temperature. Two liters of boiling water contain twice as much heat as one liter of boiling water even though the water in both vessels is the same temperature. The larger container has more thermal mass which means it takes longer to heat and cool.
For any given area on the ocean’s surface, the upper 2.6m of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it! Considering the enormous depth and global surface area of the ocean (70.5%), it is apparent that its heat capacity is greater than the atmosphere by many orders of magnitude. Consequently, as Hansen, et. al. have concluded, the ocean must be regarded as the main reservoir of atmospheric heat and the primary driver of climate fluctuations.
Observed Ocean Heat. A comparison of these projections to observed data is shown below. Despite expectations of warming, temperature measurements of the upper 700m of the ocean from the ARGO array show no increase from 2003 through 2008.
The heat deficit shows that from 2003-2008 there was no positive radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing, despite increasing levels of CO2.
The heat deficit shows that from 2003-2008 there was no positive radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing, despite increasing levels of CO2.
The heat deficit shows that from 2003-2008 there was no positive radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing, despite increasing levels of CO2.
The heat deficit shows that from 2003-2008 there was no positive radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing, despite increasing levels of CO2.
The heat deficit shows that from 2003-2008 there was no positive radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing, despite increasing levels of CO2.
More 80% of the excess heat
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 5:47pm.
More 80% of the excess heat trapped by anthropogenic greenhouse gases goes into the oceans. Using data of just the upper 700 meters doesn't give the full picture of ocean heat accumulation. Ocean heat content measurements that extend to 2000 meters deep show continued warming, not to mention a smoother and steadier warming trend due the smaller degree of internal variability at that depth. Ocean heat content of below 2000 meters deep is sparse, but preliminary data find a warming trend.
To claim that the ocean stopped warming, ignores the full body of evidence. The ocean is still accumulating heat due to the planet's energy in balance. Satellite data of incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the earth's atomsphere show that the energy imbalance is steadily growing as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise.
Knock it off with the plagiarism.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 2:17am.
I linked to a site with a credible message.
Repeating the same post over and over again does nothing to further your message.
Liar.
Knock it off with the plagiarism.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 2:17am.
I linked to a site with a credible message.
Repeating the same post over and over again does nothing to further your message.
Liar.
Could you please stop the
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 10:39am.
Could you please stop the accusations of plagiarism. I'm an environmental science major, I am required to learn how to write about the environment. I've meticulously studied climate change for 4 years. Cease your harsh accusations.
Oh dear, let me look here, just a sec...
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 12:17pm.
Be right back... I have to look. Wait here....
Wait....
Wait...
Maybe it is under here....
Nope...
Dang it...
Basement?....
Nope, not there....
Yep, can't find the level of my concern. It is that low.
So take your LIES about AGW and your fake degree and your stolen words from others, pack it all up and PUT IT IN THE TRUNK when you grab that jack.
22 years, what has the plagiarism troll done to fix it.
22 years beside that car with the flat tire and all you do is scream at passerby to fix it.
Whiny crybaby troll. Oh please stop, don't hurt my trollie feewings. I is study, Honext. Study hard. I ix lie just a little, no wait, not liez, trollie not lies. Honext. Cross 1, no both trollie heartz.
SiberianExpress2007, You fail to mention the SUN various outputs
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 1:09pm.
This chart will help you to put the warming and cooling in perspective. What is normal?
Makes this chart very tiny, tiny, (cooling) however, cooling none the less.
So it's "big oil" ea... 79 billion and counting
You want a death spiral with that?
sExpress you need to bring the SUN into any argument about global warming.
You Didn't Build That.
If you are so convinced that
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 7:58pm.
If you are so convinced that I'm plagiarizing my comments, why don't you check them using a verbatim search on an authoritative search engine checks for plagiarism?
I woud say you were 007memo but...
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 10:14pm.
Nah. It is 007memo. Why is it trolls think they are being sly by somehow keeping a small part of their old monker?
Physics huh?
Measurements made in 1976 by the Viking landers established the exact composition of the atmosphere on Mars as 95.3% carbon dioxide...
Is that why the planet is red? Cuz it is on fire?
Still as stupid as ever 007effemimemo.
Mars' atmosphere
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 11:03pm.
"Measurements made in 1976 by the Viking landers established the exact composition of the atmosphere on Mars as 95.3%"
Mars' atmophere has only about 1% the density of Earth's, so it has a negligible greenhouse effect. Also, the much higher albedo of Mars' surface makes it even cooler.
Mar's reddish color comes from the presence of iron oxide, not a high temperature.
Trollie forgets nah.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 12:22pm.
Trollie blamed the ENTIRE greenhouse effect on earth on CO2. Now trollie wants to talk atmospheric density is all to blame. Trollie lies. Trollie is sad.
22 years Troll. FIX IT.
The plagiarism troll is a liar. A damnable LIAR.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 1:05pm.
Plagiarism troll ---
CO2 = Greenhouse Gas -> Greenhouse Effect = Warming
If you pump CO2 into the atmosphere (*cause*), then you will experience warming (*effect*). You just can't argue with the physics.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The lying plagiarism troll that lies about his degree LIES about CO2. We pump CO2 into the air. CROPS THRIVE.
Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat, land that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population.
A growing population use more fossil fuels. More Co2 gets pumped into the air. More crops increase their yields to feed a growing population.
But But But plagiarsim troll knows exactly where all the CO2 goes, right? Wrong.
Half our estimated emissions fail to accumulate in the atmosphere, "disappearing" into sinks as yet undetermined.
But But But the more CO2 the more the warming effect right? WRONG. The effect is logarithmic, The first 280 mml already converts most of the longwave radiation, adding more does very little. Think of it like a frosted window that defracts the light, will adding another frosted window behind it defract the light even more?
Readers should be aware that the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (that means there is a diminishing response as you keep adding more, like the additional window shade example, above).
If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv (0.026%).
To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we'd never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%, although humans have absolutely no prospect of achieving such concentrations).
GO AWAY LYING TROLL WITH THE FAKE ENVIRO DEGREE.
No one denies the fact that
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 4:51pm.
No one denies the fact that carbon dioxide is used by plants for photosynthesis, but the effects of rapid global warming will outstrip any potential agricultural benefits. More carbon dioxide also causes ocean acidification
The warming effect of carbon dioxide does incrementally dimminish slightly with increasing concentrations, but at this point this irrelevant. Empirical observations, and mathematical calculations show that a doubling of carbon dioxide will impose 3.7 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing. The Earth's history shows that the response to a radiative forcing of that magnitude will yield a global temperature increase of 2.5 to 4.5 degrees celsius. A good demonstration of the warming power of carbon dioxide can be seen by looking at the planet Venis. Most of Venis' thick atmosphere is comprised of carbon dioxide. The warming effect of carbon dioxide is apparently not saturated on Venis where the average temperature is over 800 degrees fahrenheit. This is much hotter than Mercury despite being further from the sun.
S007, Cute data twist, Mercury has NO atmosphere.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 5:21pm.
And what is "much hotter" in degrees, science dudelette!
You Didn't Build That.
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 5:36pm.
THe plagiarist lying eco-troll: More carbon dioxide also causes ocean acidification
LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE
Note the continual use of the word acid. Yet there is not the slightest possibility that seawater will turn to acid, or even become mildly acidic, so this is drivel. Note also the claim that pH has changed by 0.1 units over the last 200 years: it was not possible a hundred years ago, never mind 200 years ago, to measure pH to the accuracy necessary to support that assertion, so it’s just posturing.
As an aside, we should note that if lower alkalinity per se were so unfavourable to shellfish as is claimed then we would have no freshwater shellfish and snails – but we do. The freshwater mussel has lived for thousands of years in waters that are genuinely acidic and with highly variable pH, not only seasonally, but geographically. With spring snowmelt and high rainfall, the pH of rivers and lakes can fall to below pH 5, and experiments have shown that mussels can survive this acidity indefinitely without any deleterious effects to their shells. Note: a pH of 5 has 1,000 times as many ‘acidic’ H+ ions per litre as seawater, and 100 times more than pure water. This is not to say that sea creatures can survive in fresh water – they are adapted to a radically different saline environment – the point at issue is that the idea of a small change in ocean pH due to increased dissolved carbon dioxide having a deleterious effect on marine shells of living organisms is not as obvious as the alarmists make out.
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 5:45pm.
Why is it the ecotard dismisses comparisons with Mars but then 2 posts later wants to use Venus as an example.
The atmospheric pressure on Venus is about 90 times that of Earth. The crucial variable is the molecular density.
Ya think there might be something diffent there Retard? Where is hydrodyn? He knows this. It was explained when that other retard Bill Nye the science guy LIED last year.
A 4 day
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 12:32pm.
wonder troll? Wow, I'm impressed, Skippy. You can bleat all you want that the sky is falling, or filling, and the oceans warming, but, just cuz you say it, don't make it true. Sorry, epic fail, yet again.
And, the Vet has shown you the way. He posted links to back up his side, so the message should be obvious to even a troll like you, link or slink. And, do try not use any of those who've been discredited by any of the various scandals?
Express*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 12:49pm.
The Siberian is not interested in discourse, resources, nor any debate. Spewing the same garbage over and over sounds like a sto' bought troll. Wonder if his organization received money from the EPA through that fine stimulus package?
Oh plagiarism trollie with the fake degree....
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 1:15pm.
At what point were you planning on telling us about the logarithmic effect of CO2?
Trollies lie. They lie a lot.
Oh plagiarism trollie with the fake degree....
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 1:16pm.
At what point were you planning on telling us about the logarithmic effect of CO2?
Trollies lie. They lie a lot.
Unpeer-reviewed climate
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 7:48pm.
Unpeer-reviewed climate denial websites like Watts Up With That twist and distort the debate over climate change. Watts Up With That seems to be a valuable resource of info on climate for the science-impaired deniers here at Newsbusters. Anthony Watts is not a climatologist (no surprise) and has ties to "Fair and balanced" news (Hint hint) .
Okay, back to the logarithmic effect of CO2. Again, like I stated in a previous comment, satellites have closely measured outgoing longwave radiation since 1970. What satellites have detected is a progressive decline in outgoing infrared radiation at the wavelengths that greenhouse gases absorb. Chen et al 2007 extended the infrared spectra measurements from 1997 to 2006, and showed that outgoing infrared radiation measured from space is still on the decrease as carbon dioxide levels continue to rise. This demonstrates that warming effect from carbon dioxide is not saturated.
I'll give some more stark examples of why the greenhouse effect is not saturated. During the Jurassic period, global temperatures were approximately 11 degrees fahrenheit warmer than today, and CO2 is estimated to be over 1,000ppm. In the mid Ordovician period, the planet was warmer than it was in the Jurassic, and the sun was 4.5 percent dimmer than today. If the sun was that dim today, we would be in the depths of an ice age if all other radiative forcings remained constant. Carbon dioxide concentrations were about 5,600ppm at this time, and the carbon dioxide has to be included to explain climatic conditions of the Ordovician. The killer proof that a completely saturated CO2 greenhouse effect is a myth is the fact that about 4 billion years ago, the Earth's average temperature was 100 degrees fahrenheit, and carbon dioxide was the main constituent of the atmosphere. This in spite of a sun that was only 70% as bright as it is today. If the CO2 absorption spectrum was saturated by the current concentration of carbon dioxide, Earth would have had a MUCH colder history than it does in reality.
By the way, could you please stop insulting me. Your comments are disheartening and hurtful. I'm here to have a civilized and mature debate over climate change, not a childish riot of demonization, name calling, and character assault.
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 8:29am.
The lying ecotard: Anthony Watts is not a climatologist ...
And neither are you. So shut up. LIAR.
If we get to dismiss Anthony Watts because he is not a climatologist. Then we get to dismiss YOU.
The lying ecotard: I'm here to have a civilized and mature debate...
No you are not. You are paid to come here and LIE.
I am not paid to be here, I'm
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 10:59am.
I am not paid to be here, I'm here by my own free will. I am here to correct the ultraconservative columnists who post on this website, and to provide real balance.
Your offensive accussations are a stark demonstration of the ignorance, laziness, lack of research, and unscrupulous that define the climate denial racket.
Since you brought up ignorance
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 11:23am.
"accusations" only has one "s" after the "u"
"unscrupulous" used in the context of your sentence should have been "unscrupulousness"
...just trying to help you make a little less of an ass of yourself.
Nothing angers me more than
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 11:44am.
Nothing angers me more than the fact that the discussion of global warming frequently arouses cynicism, and captiousness.
Now, all of you GROW UP!!! Find some humility and show some human decency!
Nothing angers you more than people who don't agree with you?
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 11:50am.
Well, you're young and still in college.
You'll find lots more substantive things to be angry about as you mature and get out into the real world.
no no no no no
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 12:22pm.
Let's explore this. Come on. We can be civil. We have a guy who publishes under his own name, Anthony Watts, not a pseudonym. He holds a very real, very public job. If he were to get caught in a verifiable lie, his career would suffer.
Versus
A guy with an anonymous moniker caught in more than one verifiable lie here on this page. A guy that won't admit he lied. A guy that claims he has a degree and yet plagiarizes and lies.
Who are we to believe ecotard?
Or is it climatard? Which do you prefer?
no really. honest.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 12:31pm.
the climatard : Now, all of you GROW UP!!! Find some humility and show some human decency!
Are we being unfair to you little boy?
What was the very first sentence you posted here?
the climatard : Climate change deniers are the planets last flat-earthers
Ah yes, the climatard started it by INSULTING US.
By the way, climatard, the models the IPCC uses, the ones that predict all the global warming, the use a FLAT EARTH model. The earth is not round in the models, it is a X by X representation, just like a map.
Now what were you saying about human decency AFTER you insulted us all?
Trolls don't think things through.
FORGET IT!!! I've recieved
Submitted by SiberianExpress2007 on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:05pm.
FORGET IT!!! I've recieved recieved enough ad hominem attacks! The personal insults I recieved are beyond shocking to me. Why has our great nation betrayed science and reason and developed a deep hatred towards knowledge, and a desire for fear and ignorance? Its such a tragedy to America that such radical and hostile conservatives, like yourselves have gained so much traction. You right wing zealots have confirmed the validity of my long-held suspicions about conservatism. I'm leaving!
You animals continue yacking away in your echo chamber.
Speaking of ignorance,
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:14pm.
"I've recieved enough ad hominem attacks! The personal insults I recieved are beyond shocking to me."
Remember, "i before e except after c...."
ROFLMAO
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 6:17pm.
ROFLMAO
Anthoer whiny crybaby fills his diapers and walks away.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:38pm.
Whatever little boy. You walk around in a crowd of grown-ups, you're gonna get a knee in the head sometimes.
Little boy started with the ad hominems with his comparing us to holocaust deniers by using the insult climate change deniers and called us flat earthers. HE STARTED IT.
Then the little boy thought we would take the word of an anonymous liar over a man that has a reputation to hold up.
The whiny little climatard gets a little pushback and immediately goes into whine mode.
Must be related to Dead Zippers.
Hey Crybaby, is this how you convince others you are telling the truth? By throwing a hissy fit and wandering off in a daze like you just got hit with a Stupid Stick?
Friggin' Crybabies.
Oh whiny Crybaby. Don't forget.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:43pm.
Your post is locked in now. You come back, and we will let everyone know, no matter where you post, EXACTLY what a whiny little crybaby you are. It is like this ---
Look at what happens when this crybaby gets a little pushback, his diapers fill up.
So keep your promise. And stay away.
Dang it. He got banned already?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 2:45pm.
Where. When. Did he pop off and lose it somewhere?
Dang it. I wanted to make him pop off.
~
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 11:37am.
UPDATED - I see you did in fact (just now) comment
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2010/11/07/here-we-go-again-...
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 12:16pm.
I am here to correct the ultraconservative columnists who post on this website....a stark demonstration of the ignorance, laziness, lack of research, and unscrupulous that define the climate denial racket.
Oh swell! Yet another lunatic warmer to teach us the error of our ways. Isn't that special?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)