How does this update released Monday affect your understanding of global warming?

Question

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20071210_GISTEMP.pdf

100 year trend?
claims of no 10 year trend?
claims of solar radiation cycles and current influence?
"cooling" in the 1900s?
What's the U.S. and world trend?

Trevor, Technically I think a wide variety of greenhouse gases have been involved, with CFCs and methane being more powerful. Since the early 1990s CO2 seems to have the worst growth rate, which makes it a growing concern despite its weaker effect:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Hansen_Sato.pdf

DJ, If it's fabricated, why are so few scientists opposing it?

Mike, What agenda would Hansen have? Worth risking his career? Worth battling administration attempts to censor science?

Philip, Most of that is in the past few decades. IPCC forecast is up to 6 degrees by 2100, and many of the participating scientists think the published result was far too low due to the political review & edit.

Answer 1

Oh jeez, another Hansen paper. I will never believe this guy because he is clearly driven by agenda.

I am also not affected by this because I have seen some of the sites where they keep their temperature monitors for their readings. They sit them in an area that has a lot of pavement, building that emit heat, and pretty much caged so they can retain heat. This may just be the reason why the rise in the surface temp is higher than the rise of the temp in the troposphere. Another factor is how there is no accurate way to truly determine the planet's temperature. There are way too many variables.

Hansen has been trying to create hysterics about GW since the end of the 90's. He IS censoring science, by not debating or allowing other views to influence anything his dept is working on. The skeptics are being censored and the alarmists have the media behind them. It is quite obvious to see if you have an open mind.

Answer 2

The intense quantities of rain and droughts that aspects of the u . s . a . are seeing is do to the El Nino and l. a. Nina result. it extremely is nicely documented and is going lower back hundreds of years in Mexico lifestyle. however I do understand what you're saying approximately evaporation and condensation. i'm in simple terms no longer confident that guy is the reason for worldwide Warming. The earths temperature has never been solid over a "long" quantity of time it extremely is long undergone warm and chilly cycles. do no longer you undergo in concepts gaining understanding of on the subject of the Ice a while? The Earth has been heating because of the fact the final ice age or do you no longer undergo in concepts gaining understanding of on the subject of the Ice Bergs that created Yosemite? The Ice that used to connect alaska to Siberia? A a hundred-150 3 hundred and sixty 5 days sampling of temperatures and climates and utilising that to gauge worldwide climate shift and place blame for it extremely is silly. further extra we gained't even accurately are waiting for the components forecasts are incorrect some place between ninety seven and ninety 8% of the time! you're telling me you are able to no longer are waiting for the subsequent days climate yet can are waiting for a worldwide shift in climate? Come on.

Answer 3

DJ said it all. I really can't add any more than that. I think that the whole global warming crisis, is a rush to judgement based on incomplete information. When you look at all the variables, you realize that there are many reasons for climate change and that the climate has changed many times throughout the history of the earth. For man to think he can stop it from happening is the ultimate example of hubris. All that being said, cutting pollution, saving energy and restoring forests, while they may not affect the climate are very good for the environment. And it should not take a huge scare tactic like global warming for people to do these things. Just make them economically beneficial as well as environmentally helpful and people will do them.

Answer 4

I found this information particularly interesting:

"The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean has entered the cool phase of its natural El Nino – La Nina cycle."

That pretty much disproves the skeptical theories that global warming is due to the Sun or that the warming has "stalled". 1998 was an abnormally hot El Nino year while 2007 was in a cool period of this cycle, yet 2007 ended up being nearly as hot as 1998. Plus TSI was at a much higher level in 1998.

That tells me another factor must be warming the Earth, and the only one I can think of to explain the continued warming is increasing CO2 emissions.

The responses to your question also tell me a lot about the global warming deniers (though nothing I didn't already know). Hansen includes the data itself, yet some say they don't trust him anyway, claiming (without proof) that he's politically motivated. Others ignore the data altogether because their mind is made up that this is all a hoax. Others' minds are made up that this warming, despite being 20 times faster than when the planet naturally comes out of an ice age, is unimportant because 0.6 degrees sounds small.

That's quite a group.

These are simple indisputable facts - the planet continues to warm at an alarming rate, the Sun continues not to warm, we're in a cool southern oscillation cycle, and CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere.

If you can use these facts to explain how the planet is warming without humans being responsible, that's great (you'll probably win a Nobel Prize). But to ignore these facts is to be in denial, pure and simple.

Answer 5

DJ, I am taking the liberty of forwarding Your posted answer ,which uses Lindzen, to him at MIT and see how he feels being included this way by a scurrious anonymous poster. You said : "Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, characterized Gore's assertions as "shrill alarmism." Lindzen writes, "A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the Earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.""

Dr Lindzen replied to my email after 2 hours and he said the statements quoted by DJ were consonant with his position on GW and he sent me 3 pdf documents to read of speeches or lectures he has delivered. Dr Lindzen in his signoff replied in a manner indicating he also teaches at the Sloan School of Management. That indicates a probable business connection since MIT professors make the bulk of their money consulting outside the Institute. Any way DJ quotations are apparently correct. DJ's extensive post indicates he is somehow connected to something besides a personal interest- possibly a consultant himself by the nature of the rest of the quotations which I am compelled to now acknowledge are probably representative of the position of Anti-GW alarmists (a ad hominem term which when applied for rhetorical effect tries to dismiss GW arguments and evidence across the board).

Someone has said : "Oh jeez, another Hansen paper. I will never believe this guy because he is clearly driven by agenda." And what agenda would that be? Put up the facts or delete the unjustified smear!

Answer 6

Like Dana I focused in on the sentence:
"The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean has entered the cool phase of its natural El Nino – La Nina cycle."
What can be added, that's very sobering.

Answer 7

DJ, JAMES L -

Socialists like these?

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"Republican governors team up against global warming"

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Republican_Governors_team_up_against_Global_0716.html

"the overwhelming number of scientists now believe that there is significant human cause,'' Giuliani said, adding the debate on the existence of global warming "is almost unnecessary ... ''

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/13/GIULIANI.TMP

"(from Republicans for Environmental Protection) The consensus of almost all climate scientists is that global warming is already happening, that human actions are causing it, and that it will cause major problems for our planet."

http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html

Answer 8

It doesn't change my understanding at all, just backs it up with even more proof.

Good paper though, I liked the cool maps of the temp changes throughout the world.

Answer 9

My understanding of "Global Warming" is the same....

It's fabricated Socialist Propaganda!

There may be climate change that's perfectly natural, but there is nothing that man is doing that can affect it one way or the other.

Answer 10

It is still only .6c warmer than 60 years age. Just over half a degree.THIS IS GLOBAL WARMING?THIS HALF A DEGREE IS WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT?