There’s a new study out from Ohio State University that seems destined to be totally ignored by the media and all the global warming alarmists.
As many folks that have been following this debate are well aware, the majority of the hysteria surrounding anthropogenic global warming is based on climate models created by folks responsible for much of the fear generated by this issue.
With that in mind, a new report out of Ohio State University concludes, “the world’s southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.”
As of 10PM EST, not one major media outlet has bothered to report these findings.
The article continued (emphasis mine throughout):
David Bromwich, professor of geography and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.
“It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” he said. “Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It’s very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth.”
Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe. And the records that we have only date back a half-century.
Of course, this has been pointed out by many of the global warming skeptics in the past several years. Unfortunately, people who don’t support the views of non-scientists like Al Gore, Ellen Goodman, and Katie Couric don’t get much attention. Regardless, the article continued:
“The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica.
“We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment,” he said.
Last year, Bromwich’s research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn’t increased in the last 50 years. “What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down,” he said.
Don’t expect to hear or read anything further about Bromwich or his research, for this entire “debate” has become a ridiculous joke as the left and their media minions hide all opposing views from the public.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
It shows how desperate many
February 15, 2007 - 22:29 ET byIt shows how desperate many liberals are, that the only 'cause' they can pick up on, to try to over-shadow their otherwise pattern of destruction, is a made-up and a quite fanciful one at that.
They have no problem ripping babies apart, limb by limb in mothers' wombs, but they must.... oh they must.... save the world from global warming!
I guess this is the type of 'cause' a group takes up, when the group's need to destroy all that is good, outweighs their need to show themselves as humane.
This truly is right up there with their "hug-a-tree" stunt in the 1980s.
Well, my feeble mind knows the difference between effect and aff
February 16, 2007 - 08:00 ET by acaiguanaWell, my feeble mind knows the difference between effect and affect.
You might want to think about that.
And ocean temps have to do with 'layers' and you need to rethink the polar temperature issues a lot. Further, you are right about a 'lot of variables' affecting climate change and we don't even have a partial list completed of what those might be.
Why don't you study the actual models being used, their assumptive basis and the math associated with them? Once you familiarize yourself with all of that, take a political science class and get back on it.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
ACA, looks like a new batch o
February 16, 2007 - 08:23 ET by USA4freedomACA, looks like a new batch of trolls has arrived....
America is best described by one word, freedom... Dwight D. Eisenhower
You are great ACA - perfect
February 16, 2007 - 10:01 ET by Dee BunkYou are great ACA - perfect
shucks
February 16, 2007 - 10:05 ET by acaiguanashucks
Having said that, my innate and well-known modesty prevents me from saying more.
:-)
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
icon..."the biggest fact
February 16, 2007 - 09:50 ET by bassndudeicon..."the biggest factor is the ocean temps,..." Well, thank you. Now if you will please explain to me what is heating up the ocean? Well, never mind, let me enlighten you.
First it has nothing to do with man. It has to do with the underwater tectonic activity. Underwater volcanos spewing hot magma. Heated ocean water creates high levels of CO2 which it sends up with larger amounts of moisture. This explains the large record breaking rain falls and snow falls we have been seeing lately. The "greenhouse gas, CO2" is at 400ppm now. Paleoclimatologists tell us that everytime CO2 has exceeded 300ppm, in the past, the Earth as seen to onset of an ice age. Thats everytime, not almost everytime.
The mid atlantic ridge is more active right now than it has been in the known past. In the pacific you have what is known as the ring of fire. 25000 miles of tectonic activity,(volcanos and hydro thermal vents).
Gakkel ridge, from Greenland to Siberia, is producing "suprisingly strong magmatic activity". That is to say, hot magma welling from the earth into the arctic ocean. Hot springs are showing up where science thought there were none.
These are only a part of the activity. There are many more not mentioned here. All of these activities are working and heating up the worlds oceans, and dumping CO2 and moisture into the atmosphere, sending us in the direction of another ice age. And your screaming "Global warming! Global warming!"
Now, what is it you were saying about ocean temps?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Ocean temps are affected by r
February 16, 2007 - 09:51 ET by fosstenOcean temps are affected by recent magma activity on the ocean floor, not atmospheric conditions supposedly caused by American Rethuglikkkans.
Go educate yourself.
foss...Rethuglikkkans?? LOL..
February 16, 2007 - 10:02 ET by bassndudefoss...Rethuglikkkans?? LOL...I like that...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Would you care to debate my f
February 16, 2007 - 11:52 ET by NL207Would you care to debate my feeble mind on this topic?
"Only a small amount of
February 16, 2007 - 09:43 ET by chessplayer"Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century."
Fall back position? Translation = "If we had more weather stations in Antarctica, it would prove our computer model predictions are correct."
"Only a small amount of
February 16, 2007 - 09:44 ET by chessplayer"Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century."
Fall back position? Translation = "If we had more weather stations in Antarctica, it would prove our computer model predictions are correct."
Seems John McCain has jumped
February 15, 2007 - 22:36 ET by ckc1227Seems John McCain has jumped aboard the "fleece the people" train too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6364663.stm
Dear UN and Al Gore,
If you don't drop this global warming crap, we will invade your countries, kill your leaders, and convert you to Christianity.
I'm shrivering in my boots...
February 15, 2007 - 22:42 ET by bigtimerI'm shrivering in my boots...
This reminds me of Bill Nye the Science Guy on CNN about a week ago explaining to the folks in Upper NY that this is just global warming lake effect stuff...
Yah Bill, and what do you tell the people who never get mentioned about the eleven feet of snow that dropped here about ten years ago and we had the same problem but no lakes that would affect us...man-made...
Cycles my man...cycles...always has been always will be
Computers! Ain't it grand tha
February 15, 2007 - 23:24 ET by upcountrywaterComputers! Ain't it grand that we can compile data (faster and faster now) .
On one level ,just think of all the sports statistics that occupies life's data stream .
Last time that happened was in 1969, in the rain too!.
When it reaches 120 F in Omaha THIS SUMMER! THAT pinch of data will make me sit up and take notice ( record 119 set in 1934 in the dust bowl). Could happen the Suns energy is increasing .05% for like 40 years .
Okay, so global warming isn't
February 15, 2007 - 23:54 ET by dahliatraversOkay, so global warming isn't totally ... global. So shoot us.
Puppy saved from Global Warmi
February 16, 2007 - 01:31 ET by mastersofdeceitPuppy saved from Global Warming!
Oh wait, it's LA County and people do stupid things. Move along.
Puppy saved ...
February 20, 2007 - 16:51 ET by SportPoliticsPuppy saved ...
Human threatened with $1,000.00 fine and 6 months in jail, by demolib activist legislation.
Amazing,a thousand bucks or 6 MONTHS in jail ?
By golly what would these libs do in farming country where the less of the litter is shot dead before the pigs eat 'em ?
I think someone needs to covertly organize a chinko chihuahua chow down, and when the libs go out their minds screaming, the asian illegal alien honored guests can claim discrimination and cultural insensitivity, and sue the crap out of PETA and her protester proletariats.
Intoloragensia
February 16, 2007 - 08:37 ET by allanfThe Intoloragensia on the left, as part of its free and open discussion of ideas, will not consider such a "flawed" study. Uncomfortable speech has no place in the world of the intoloragensia
Noel:What I gleamed from the
February 16, 2007 - 08:57 ET by Dave HighNoel:
What I gleamed from the article is that there simply isn’t enough data available from Antarctica right now to support the case for global warming because there is a lot of variability there and relatively few weather stations based in this vast region. Read the article again, except with my emphasis and not yours:
“It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” he said. “Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It’s very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth.”
Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe. And the records that we have only date back a half-century.
The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica.
“We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment,” he said.
Last year, Bromwich’s research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn’t increased in the last 50 years. “What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down,” he said.
You see, Bromwich is not a denier, he is just pointing out that Antarctica doesn’t fit the model just yet because of a lack of data.
What troubles me Noel is that you don’t pay attention to the works of the “1,200 scientists from 113 countries who agreed that global warming is ‘unequivocal,’ likely to accelerate in the 21st century, and adversely affect weather, drought, rainfall, and sea level.” (Quote from Philadelphia Inquirer. See link below.) But hey, don’t take their word for it. They are all probably liberal socialists, every last one of them. But if you can’t listen to them, how about listening to DuPont, BP, Shell, Alcoa and Wal-Mart? These corporations are now lobbying Congress and the Bush Administration to address global warming and place caps on industrial and automobile emissions. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/16700894.htm
DuPont has been a corporate leader in addressing global climate change and atmospheric change for many years; ever since the company’s CFCs were found to be destroying the ozone layer. And it’s not just about fixing their own environmental problems to avoid lawsuits. DuPont has cut its corporate emissions contributing to global warming by 72 percent since 1991, thus saving the company some $3 billion in energy costs. Think about how much money we could save if we all got on board. Not quite the disaster you keep predicting, eh Noel? Heck, if your SUV got an extra five miles more per gallon, you might be able to put a little extra food on your family.
Regards, Dave High
Ah, Dave High, back with all of your flawed logic and knowledge.
February 16, 2007 - 09:08 ET by acaiguanaAh, Dave High, back with all of your flawed logic and knowledge.
'What troubles me Noel is that you don’t pay attention to the works of the “1,200 scientists from 113 countries who agreed that global warming is ‘unequivocal,’ likely to accelerate in the 21st century, and adversely affect weather, drought, rainfall, and sea level.”'
Maybe Noel doesn't pay attention to a group containing a very large proportion of third-rate scientists dependent on UN funds for research that is not supported by third-world country scientific communities because third-world scientific communities don't have the money to invest in their scientists? Or maybe Noel ignores these 1,200 scientists because the numbers keep changing on the number of scientists.
First it was 3,000. Then it was 2,500. Then it was 2,400. Now it is 1,200?
Just how many 'scientists' are there in this 'unequivocal' consensus.
Dave, riddle me this. How many scientists are there in the US? How many in the world? How many who are recognized as being able to render an opinion on Global Warming (now changed somehow to Global Climate Change).
If this debate had any legs at all the terms would not be changing (I think the number system is still 1-9 with a zero thrown in for fun). Since the numbering system hasn't changed over time; I would expect 'unequivocal' to not mean changing every time something new comes out about the issue.
By the way Dave High, what ever happened to the old 'hockey stick'. Remember the 'hockey stick'? The fundamental 'unequivocal' underpinning of the last IPCC report funded by the UN (and my tax dollars by the way) which has now been debunked, dare I say it, 'unequivocally'.
You are always good for a serious laugh Dave High. Keep 'em coming.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Well there's at least 10 aciaguana
February 20, 2007 - 16:13 ET by SportPoliticsWell there's at least 10 scientists in each of 113 countries, aciaguana.
10 per country.
Soon one of our 10 will be global climatologist bestowed paper Al. He used to be wood but now he's been crushed and emuslified.
I guess the world is kind of short on scientists in the "consensus".
"There simply isn't enou
February 16, 2007 - 10:23 ET by NL207"There simply isn't enough data .... to support Global Warming".
So why do you support the most massive government intervention into private affairs in the history of mankind to address a "problem" that is unproven?.
Could the answer to this question be that your real agenda is the further expansion of government power? Socialism?
These corporations are now
February 16, 2007 - 10:35 ET by Dave in TexasThese corporations are now lobbying Congress and the Bush Administration to address global warming and place caps on industrial and automobile emissions. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/16700894.htm
If DuPont has proven that emission reduction efforts are possible without the government being involved, and that emission reductions will be rewarded with billions of dollars in reduced operating expenses (which I assume ultimately results in an increase to their profit), then why are they so gung-ho about the government creating new legislation requiring every company to reduce emissions?
Also, just how did DuPont achieve that 72 percent reduction:
Is it possible that DuPont simply sold off its most "polluting" divisions, that are still churning out just as much "pollution", just under new owners? Is it also possible that DuPont hopes that government legislation mandating the use of certain materials in the construction of new houses and buildings could increase demand for some of their products?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
February 16, 2007 - 10:44 ET by bassndudeSave a SeAL, club a liberal!!
"Is it possible that DuPont simply sold off its most "polluting" divisions, that are still churning out just as much "pollution", just under new owners?" It is not only possible, that is exactly what they did. They sold off the pollutant laden industries there by reducing their "carbon footprint". Not really "reducing greenhouse gases", just giving them to someone else.
Here's a con$en$u$.[ Forward-
February 20, 2007 - 16:21 ET by SportPoliticsHere's a con$en$u$.
[ Forward-looking businesses realize they can't slow global warming alone. They need government to drive technology innovation and maintain economic growth..]
Ahh, so the billions of dollars are now beginning to flow.
Did mr Virgin Records announce his "investment recipients" ?
Can't be all bad, the libs will finally want to invest instead of demanding social security go bankrupt so they can blame the republicans. I can see it now, tree huggers stocks, floor plantasia carpeting shares, and hemp curtain investments. Soon some wild eyed vegan 100% cotton clothed earthenware gothic coven wicca lib girlyman warlock is set to knock on our doors and beg for us not to ignore the signs of the solstice and save humankind by purchasing a solar battery powered au-natura' swifter,with a global carbon credit charity discount.
Follow the money; think expir
February 16, 2007 - 19:37 ET by whitetopFollow the money; think expiring patents on CFCs and what was the replacement? Why RU 434 (I believe that was the crap that replaced the CFCs). It had nothing to do about a corporate conscience related to atmospheric emissions; everything to do with patents.
The O3 depletion was the 80s
February 16, 2007 - 19:46 ET by whitetopThe O3 depletion was the 80s cause environmental that GW is for the 2000s. Just like pesticides were the environmental disaster of the 60s, thanks to Rachel Carson, and leaded gasoline was the cause celebe of the 70s to name a few.
Face it the communists are using the environment to control the hearts and minds of the people since their social takeovers have not worked. People need to educate themselves on what has happened in the past to understand where things are going now. Unfortuneatly too many corporations are capitulating to green mail.
That American use of CFC refr
February 16, 2007 - 22:04 ET by MikeBThat American use of CFC refrigerants causing a hole in the ozone layer confused (and still confuses) me. How did CFC use in the northern hemisphere cause a hole in the ozone layer over the south pole?
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Allow me to help you understand Mike B
February 20, 2007 - 16:29 ET by SportPoliticsAllow me to help you understand Mike B. The evil white slavemaster along with his fiat global banking theif minions and their world mapping monopoly craftily made up down and down up, and then printed their ruse and imbued the charade into the minds of the earth's inhabitants. Since the white slavemasters came late and stole the basement of the world, they had to convince the rest of the populace that they were really, and always had been "on top". Hence the southpole is really "up" despite the longstanding scientific consensus in the matter, and that's where everything rises to, cfc's and such.
Oh, have to go, tata, I have brinner with rhayes, LoD, and thoughtpolice.
How can we account for pre-
February 16, 2007 - 22:55 ET by dahliatraversHow can we account for pre-industrial periods of global warming?
Why are so many meteorologists skeptical that global warming is man made?
How many of the 1,200 scientists (down from 3,000) are meteorologists? Why does the opinion of a scientist not in that field of study carry any weight? Why does the opinion of a scientist non-expert about global warming carry more weight than that of a meteorologist? Can we interview some of the 1,800 and ask why they changed their minds?
I read about this yesterday.
February 16, 2007 - 09:07 ET by moonjohnI read about this yesterday. The scientist said something like - just because the Earths’ temperatures were not in agreement with the model prediction, it doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with the Global Warming Model-.
Apparently it is the Earth that is wrong.
Your global warming update
February 16, 2007 - 10:08 ET by Dave in TexasYour global warming update from Houston:
And, no, it wasn't a record high.
Global Warming
February 16, 2007 - 23:46 ET by pocomocoI have worked with computers for 30 years, and using computer modeling is generally a self-serving way to get the answer you’re looking for. As for using it as a means for predicting the weather, you would do better in Vegas.
You can say that again pocomo
February 20, 2007 - 16:42 ET by SportPoliticsSure seems correct to me. My bikini clad virtual desktop girlfriend is exactly what I want, and everytime she's says things are heating up, she's right.
At least the lib alarmism is good for something:
[ "The market is melting," said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago. "Once again, traders are declaring the end to winter — which is the third time they've declared it this winter — and that's putting pressure on the market."]
roflmao - the libs actually got what they wanted for once.
[Oil prices fell below $58 a barrel on Tuesday as warmer weather in the Midwest and Northeast was expected to cut into heating demand.The contract for March delivery of light, sweet crude — which was to expire later Tuesday — dropped $1.42 to $57.97 a barrel in midday trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.On London's ICE futures exchange, April Brent crude oil futures fell 47 cents to $57.67 a barrel.Heating oil futures fell nearly 4 cents to $1.6337 a gallon, while natural gas prices dipped 2.5 cents to $7.478 per 1,000 cubic feet. ]