Birth of a Climate Crock

The observation that natural climate variability exists is not a new one.  Early in September 2009, at a gathering of experts on global climate change, one of the world’s most respected and experienced climate modelers: Mojib Latif, made some observations on climate, media and human nature.

The message seemed clear: natural variations in the long term warming, might be misinterpreted by the media, out of ignorance, or malice.

Climate deniers were quick to take Latif’s remarks, and begin doing exactly that.

,

  • wfzlsster

    The climate debate is no where near over. By labeling people “climate deniers” or their argument a “crock” the debate is not being advanced and the discussion of facts is not taking place. According to the man made global warming crowd the effect of increasing CO2 should be a increase in the temperature of the troposphere but NASA data over the past ten years has shown no increase. Now the 'experts' are telling us that we may see one or two decades with no global temperature increase at all. As long as we have to wait that long to them to prove their point we might just as well wait that long to pass legislation mandating their new taxes as well.

    • Alt. Report

      There is a general warming of the troposphere around East Antarctica, greatest at around mid-height (at 600 hPa) at 0.7 ºC/decade over the last 30+ years. However one interesting point worth considering, is even if you discount the long warming trend (only focusing on short term variability, which is actually quite myopic, considering science requires at least 30 year trends to deduce any kind of meaningful data) and you think it's entirely overstated. We still have the problem of ocean uptake of C02 and the resulting acidification.

      I would recommend you read this pair-reviewed report by the Royal Society. As quoted:

      “In the past 200 years the oceans have absorbed approximately half of the CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning and cement production. Calculations based on measurements of the surface oceans and our knowledge of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake of CO2 has led to a reduction of the pH of surface seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions.

      If global emissions of CO2 from human activities continue to rise on current trends then the average pH of the oceans could fall by 0.5 units (equivalent to a three fold increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions) by the year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, this rate of change is probably one hundred times greater than at any time over this period. The scale of the changes may vary regionally, which will affect the magnitude of the biological effects.

      Ocean acidification is essentially irreversible during our lifetimes. It will take tens of thousands of years for ocean chemistry to return to a condition similar to that occurring at pre-industrial times (about 200 years ago). Our ability to reduce ocean acidification through artificial methods such as the addition of chemicals is unproven. These techniques will at best be effective only at a very local scale, and could also cause damage to the marine environment. Reducing CO2 emissions to the atmosphere appears to be the only practical way to minimise the risk of large-scale and long-term changes to the oceans.”

      Source:

      http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=1

      • sororyzbl

        I like the way you think. “Fuck it, the planets toast. Let's fuck it up even more before we die.” Great job. I hope you're spayed.

        edit – to the other guy lol.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PDDVWRQVUPMKRGHURIEQVNYWHQ Sean

    you don't need proof when you have a messiah(all gore) and blind faith,
    the global warming people are just as dogmatic as any cult.
    I'm all for resource conservation and stewardship, but man made global warming hasn't been proven scientifically, and a decade of temperature data is meaningless in a field of science that measures things in millions of years, think what you will but don't pretend it is fact, yet

    • Alt. Report

      One doesn't require Al Gore or blind faith, one simply requires pair reviewed journals, like Nature and Science.

      There is significant data that collaborates the theory of AGW, all one need do, is look at the evidence and stop focusing on the politics.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/PDDVWRQVUPMKRGHURIEQVNYWHQ Sean

        the evidence isn't conclusive to call it fact yet.
        20 years ago we had people citing evidence of a coming ice age,
        with all the money involved i don't believe any party involved is basing the opinions on fact.

        • Alt. Report

          You can't use money as a justification to not look at the evidence. You also can't dismiss a theory simply because of people citing evidence of a coming ice age? The fact is, we SHOULD actually be moving into an ice age (we are right on the tipping point) and the planet should actually be in a slight cooling phase at the moment. Alas the opposite is true. Something has upset the balance, it's a given.

          Again I must reiterate there is a great deal which is conclusive and that we can call fact.

          For instance:

          We know exactly how much C02 in the oceans and atmosphere is due to man made activities due to carbon isotopic signatures.
          We know that C02 is a greenhouse gas which causes warming (well known and undisputed)
          We know that the planet is on a long term warming trend (all instrumental records confirm this despite margins of error)
          We know that this warming cannot be attributed to solar forcing alone, otherwise the upper troposphere would be warming too, which by and large is not.
          We know that C02 levels are extraordinarily high (deviating from the norm) when compared to the past eight climate cycles, which only ever peaked at approx 280ppmv at the peak of the interglacial periods.
          We know the ocean Ph level has changed dramatically from our activity, which again can be proven is due to our activity from carbon isotopic signatures displaying in coral, rocks and shells.
          We know the earths albedo is shrinking.

          All of this can be proven 100% using instrumental records and comparative data. These are all facts, the only people who are claiming otherwise, are those who have not looked at the actual data and are still caught up in all the political rhetoric, reacting to people like Al Gore, as if he is somehow the most important pillar of the science community? I mean seriously, does anyone actually think they will be able to deduce the truth from politicians?

          I can tell the both of you posting don't know all the details simply from reading your posts. For instance the troposphere argument made above by the other poster, actually reinforces AGW theory, without him/her even realizing it.

          Silliness.

          My advice: stop reacting to the politics, Al Gore et al. and making accusations of bias because of funding, and LOOK at some actual credible science papers (not signed petitions as if science is supposed to be a popularity contest), which explain everything for you in great detail, have sited references and numerous
          proxy samples to base the conclusions on.

          There is nothing greater than one group of scientists being able to prove another group of scientists wrong, and a great deal of debate has already been and gone in the pair reviewed literature. Indeed, sometimes those who have not been following it, pick up old articles and post them up as successful refutations, without realizing, they have been counter refuted, 5 years ago.

          Personally I understand that a lot of this problem is based on what we call: information asymmetry in economics. More specifically the principle/agent problem. Where there is potential for adverse selection and moral hazard and so people don't trust the people in positions of authority. Take this into consideration and you are less likely to suffer from cognitive dissonance.

          This is all coming from an ex climate skeptic too.

          Just remember, if you are truly a skeptic, you should also be skeptical of your skepticism.

21