Global Warming Debunkers Debunked

In a refreshing twist, one scientist who’s work was misused to debunk global warming, has spoken up that his work was grossly misused and sadly that this misuse has now become accepted lore.

Cold, Hard, Facts
http://www.amhersttimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2308&Itemid=27

In the debate on global warming, the data on the climate of Antarctica has been distorted, at different times, by both sides. As a polar researcher caught in the middle, I’d like to set the record straight.

In January 2002, a research paper about Antarctic temperatures, of which I was the lead author, appeared in the journal Nature. At the time, the Antarctic Peninsula was warming, and many people assumed that meant the climate on the entire continent was heating up, as the Arctic was.
But the Antarctic Peninsula represents only about 15 percent of the continent’s land mass, so it could not tell the whole story of Antarctic climate. Our paper made the continental picture more clear.

My research colleagues and I found that from 1996 to 2000, one small, ice-free area of the Antarctic mainland had actually cooled. Our report also analyzed temperatures for the mainland in such a way as to remove the influence of the peninsula warming and found that, from 1966 to 2000, more of the continent had cooled than had warmed. Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change.

Newspaper and television reports focused on this part of the paper. And many news and opinion writers linked our study with another bit of polar research published that month, in Science, showing that part of Antarctica?s ice sheet had been thickening - and erroneously concluded that the earth was not warming at all. “Scientific findings run counter to theory of global warming,” said a headline on an editorial in The San Diego Union-Tribune. One conservative commentator wrote, “It?s ironic that two studies suggesting that a new Ice Age may be under way may end the global warming debate.”

In a rebuttal in The Providence Journal, in Rhode Island, the lead author of the Science paper and I explained that our studies offered no evidence that the earth was cooling. But the misinterpretation had already become legend, and in the four and half years since, it has only grown.

Our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents ? all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that “the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.” I have never thought such a thing either.

Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals ? thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals ? all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?

Also missing from the skeptics arguments is the debate over our conclusions. Another group of researchers who took a different approach found no clear cooling trend in Antarctica. We still stand by our results for the period we analyzed, but unbiased reporting would acknowledge differences of scientific opinion.

The disappointing thing is that we are even debating the direction of climate change on this globally important continent. And it may not end until we have more weather stations on Antarctica and longer-term data that demonstrate a clear trend.

In the meantime, I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming. I know my coauthors would as well.

Peter Doran is an associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Isn’t this article and for the matter of the fact, the author contradicting his own findings? In the article it clearly states that 58% of Antartica cooled? Isn’t that most of the continent? In reality the conclusion sums it up the best. We do not have enough long term data to draw a conclusion. That is the key point.

I agree. Let’s shut down industrial civilisation and go back to living in caves, and hunting for roots and berries for dinner.

Actually, aren’t a lot of the measurements about global warming done either next to active volcanoes, like in Hawaii, or over big cities like Toronto? Why is that?

“I got to pee.”
— Forrest Gump

HH

LOL… what a bunch of retards.

The guy is saying his research has been misused for political purposes.

People generally parrot “Antarctica has cooled” which is not really an accurate statement. This is especially so, apparently, as the author relates such cooling in some way to improvements in the ozone layer.

So, a few of the folks parroting this so-called fact are regurgitating spin, though they are tired of hearing me say so.

Hmm, I wonder who around here has pointed to the “cooling” of antarctica as an argument against global warming?

Most reports dicussing global warming ignore that parts of Antarctica are cooling so this looks like spin to the third degree.

Thanks for the article though. I would like know the truth but with all the politics involved I don’t think we know.

Both sides are guilty of spinning the data.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Most reports dicussing global warming ignore that parts of Antarctica are cooling so this looks like spin to the third degree.[/quote]

I don’t think it qualifies as spin when a researcher says to stop making unsupported claims based on his research… :wink:

Hey. Like you said, we can’t be sure about this thing (or any really) unless we do the data, which i’m not. But i’d be interested to hear, what do you feel consequences of global warming to a limited degree would be?

Obviously we have tsunamis washing away low-lying islands, and more water/less ice, increased global temperatyre and less disparity between the seasons (correct me if i’m wrong) but what else? Would it be a disaster, or if we took precautions, would a realistically-fucked-up ozone just turn up the heat?

One of my favorite debate topics around here.

Different angle, anyone?

The present level of solar activity is historically high. Solanki et al. (2004) suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years [22]. Solanki concluded based on their analysis that there is a 92% probability that solar activity will decrease over the next 50 years. In addition, researchers at Duke University (2005) have found that 10-30% of the warming over the last two decades may be due to increased solar output.

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

Logic question: Where does our heat come from? The sun, right? Shouldn’t we be looking there first as a cause for any possible warming to our planet? I mean, call me silly for thinking this, but it’s just how I am I guess.

I’m all for lowering pollution, but if we are to believe that the sun’s activity will be dropping over the next fifty years with a 92% degree of certainty – shouldn’t we be glad that we got us some backup greenhouse gas action? Remember, if it wasn’t for greenhouse gases in our atmosphere in the first place, Earth would not be habitable to humans… it would be a bit chilly around these parts. CO2 = Good.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Logic question: Where does our heat come from? The sun, right? Shouldn’t we be looking there first as a cause for any possible warming to our planet? I mean, call me silly for thinking this, but it’s just how I am I guess.[/quote]

Not silly, just ignorant. :wink:

First of all, you own quote (which is, in my opinion, wild speculation, as you’ll understand in a moment) says that only 10-30% of warming might be explained by the increase in solar activity.

Second, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

The “increased solar activity” has mostly produced sunspots and other radiation bursts. There was only a measly 0.1% increase in solar output since 1950, that has been FAR outweighed by the decrease in transparency of the Earth’s atmosphere (due to pollutants) in the same past 56 years. In fact, there has been 5% reduction in the amount of global hemispherical irradiance (or total solar irradiance) at the Earth’s surface, observed since the beginning of systematic measurements in 1950s.

That means the Sun is 5% dimmer today (from the perspective of an observer at the Earth’s surface) than it was 56 years ago.

[quote]hspder wrote:
Second, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

The “increased solar activity” has mostly produced sunspots and other radiation bursts. There was only a measly 0.1% increase in solar output since 1950, that has been FAR outweighed by the decrease in transparency of the Earth’s atmosphere (due to pollutants) in the same past 56 years. In fact, there has been 5% reduction in the amount of global hemispherical irradiance (or total solar irradiance) at the Earth’s surface, observed since the beginning of systematic measurements in 1950s.

That means the Sun is 5% dimmer today (from the perspective of an observer at the Earth’s surface) than it was 56 years ago.
[/quote]

Errrm, I must beg to differ. From the Duke study:

According to Scafetta, records of sunspot activity suggest that solar output has been rising slightly for about 100 years. However, only measurements of what is known as total solar irradiance gathered by satellites orbiting since 1978 are considered scientifically reliable, he said.

So let’s stop at comparing wild speculative guesses from 1956 with modern satellite technology, shall we?

And more about old, bad data, let’s talk about how hurricanes are supposedly getting stronger:

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060728/NEWS01/307280001/1013/NEWS04

That’s right, before satellite imagery with top-view radar, meteorologists simply looked at crappy pictures and pulled some number completely out of their asses as to how intense the windspeed of a particular storm was. For example, they blew it with Hurricane Hugo – and that was a recent as 1989… imagine how far off the measurements probably were twenty years before then!

But what do I know? I clearly have no idea what I’m talking about. :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Errrm, I must beg to differ. From the Duke study:

According to Scafetta, records of sunspot activity suggest that solar output has been rising slightly for about 100 years. However, only measurements of what is known as total solar irradiance gathered by satellites orbiting since 1978 are considered scientifically reliable, he said.[/quote]

Why does this differ from what I said?

It says solar output has been rising slightly – which I also said. 0.1% is slightly. Do you have a different number (difference in solar output from 1978 to today)? Which one? Where is it? Tell us…

It says nothing about measurements ON THE SURFACE. Which are the ones that show a 5% decrease. Do you have a different number for that one too? Where?

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
So let’s stop at comparing wild speculative guesses from 1956 with modern satellite technology, shall we?[/quote]

What the heck are you talking about? What wild speculative guesses? Since when do you need a satellite to perform measurements on the surface?

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
And more about old, bad data, let’s talk about how hurricanes are supposedly getting stronger:

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060728/NEWS01/307280001/1013/NEWS04

That’s right, before satellite imagery with top-view radar, meteorologists simply looked at crappy pictures and pulled some number completely out of their asses as to how intense the windspeed of a particular storm was. For example, they blew it with Hurricane Hugo – and that was a recent as 1989… imagine how far off the measurements probably were twenty years before then![/quote]

What does that have to do with this particular discussion? How is this relevant? Are you trying to point out that we don’t really know if hurricanes are getting stronger? How does that help any of the sides of the discusson?

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
But what do I know? I clearly have no idea what I’m talking about. :P[/quote]

Yap, the truth hurts, doesn’t it?

Hmmm, let me help you… this is a little trickier than you may think.

[quote]hspder wrote:
It says nothing about measurements ON THE SURFACE. Which are the ones that show a 5% decrease. Do you have a different number for that one too? Where?[/quote]

Here, a quick primer on measuring this shit:

http://www.jgsee.kmutt.ac.th/exell/Solar/Intensity.html

Relevant quote:

Great care is needed when choosing a site for these radiometers, especially when the measurements are required for climatological studies in conjunction with measurements by other instruments over a large area. It is surprisingly difficult to find sites that have an uninterrupted view of the sky from the zenith to the horizon in all directions. Objects that stand above the horizontal plane of the instrument obscure part of the sky and influence the diffuse solar irradiance measured. Such objects may even obscure the beam solar irradiance for part of the day at some time in the year. It should also be remembered that a good site chosen at one time may become unsatisfactory later because nearby trees have grown taller, or because new buildings have been constructed.

As we can see, making the surface measurements themselves are particularly difficult, as the readings are greatly affected by cloud cover and other such stuff. Common sense would tell us that a reliable measurement of solar radiation would have to take place away from interference such as clouds – hence, the satellite measurements being more accurate and reliable.

[quote]I wrote:
So let’s stop at comparing wild speculative guesses from 1956 with modern satellite technology, shall we?

You wrote:
What the heck are you talking about? What wild speculative guesses? Since when do you need a satellite to perform measurements on the surface?[/quote]

I hope I have explained why surface measurements = bad. If not, have some more linkage:

http://edmall.gsfc.nasa.gov/inv99Project.Site/Pages/science-briefs/ed-stickler/ed-irradiance.html

Here, we see that satellite measurements of EMR are taken at a perpendicular angle at the top of the earth’s atmosphere, effectively eliminating artifact from passive sources of radiation from our planet surface, and eliminating that pesky cloud stuff. In other words, we get what the sun is shining at us and nothin’ else.

Satellite = Good. :slight_smile:

Does anyone here seriously think that we can in any way dramatically impact the environment, especially the temperature of a planet? I suggest that, since capitalism has proven to be the most successful ‘ism’ ever devised to attain the well-being of a population, the Left can’t attack that system on ECONOMIC terms any longer. They therefore come out with nonsense claims how we’re heating up the planet and endangering everyone! What a steaming pile of Leftist arrogance!

Think I’ll go shit now and melt a glacier.

HH

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What a steaming pile of Leftist arrogance!

[/quote]

arrogance

n : overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors

I’m confused. Wouldn’t the arrogant ones be the people who think their way of doing things is so great that to even consider possibilities that they may be causing damage is beneath them? Since when do organisms have no effect on their environment? While “how much” may be the issue, to think that our presence on this planet simply can not effect the atmosphere, or the ecosystem is plain…arrogant?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Does anyone here seriously think that we can in any way dramatically impact the environment, especially the temperature of a planet? I suggest that, since capitalism has proven to be the most successful ‘ism’ ever devised to attain the well-being of a population, the Left can’t attack that system on ECONOMIC terms any longer. They therefore come out with nonsense claims how we’re heating up the planet and endangering everyone! What a steaming pile of Leftist arrogance!

Think I’ll go shit now and melt a glacier.

HH[/quote]

H2,

You continue to prove yourself a completely biased and unthinking dope.

Did you know that oxygen was a byproduct of life? That it was toxic to earlier organisms? That forms of life that use oxygen later developed, such as us?

Biology has always had an influence on the nature of the environment. To think otherwise is pure stupidity. Well, why should I be surprised!

Sticking our heads in the sand and claiming we “can’t” be having an effect is absolutely retarded. Congratulations for making the stupidist contributions to this thread.

Nobody, especially around here, is trying to dismantle the economy or suggest we regress in technology. If you even begin to think so you are exercising spin to the highest degree.

Gaaah! You are such a retard it’s embarrassing.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’m confused. Wouldn’t the arrogant ones be the people who think their way of doing things is so great that to even consider possibilities that they may be causing damage is beneath them? Since when do organisms have no effect on their environment? While “how much” may be the issue, to think that our presence on this planet simply can not effect the atmosphere, or the ecosystem is plain…arrogant?[/quote]

Or it could be those running around with faulty data and wild speculation that are the arrogant ones.

The earth has corrected itself without any need for human “help” for infinity past. The arrogant ones actually believe we should legislate and tax our way to helping the earth.

Like the earth gives a shit.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I’m confused. Wouldn’t the arrogant ones be the people who think their way of doing things is so great that to even consider possibilities that they may be causing damage is beneath them? Since when do organisms have no effect on their environment? While “how much” may be the issue, to think that our presence on this planet simply can not effect the atmosphere, or the ecosystem is plain…arrogant?

Or it could be those running around with faulty data and wild speculation that are the arrogant ones.

The earth has corrected itself without any need for human “help” for infinity past. The arrogant ones actually believe we should legislate and tax our way to helping the earth.

Like the earth gives a shit. [/quote]

Who has ever said that the Earth gives a shit? However, I am pretty sure your future ancestors might if it turns out we could have prevented further damage by simply acknowledging that we do have an impact on our environment. Since when before recently in human history have we populated the planet to this degree and increased air pollution in some cities to hazardous levels?

Stands to reason that global population like it is (MANY times biiger) would affect the planet. Wonder which’ll live longer, earth or man? I remember a speech by that Chief of the Inuit, he said something deep about how we are destructive in nature. Bet there’ll be a species that digs in the ground in many years to come, and finds the weathered bones of the great dissolute society.

Whoever said it, i’ve got to disagree that capitalism is the shit. If it was proper ‘trickle down’ It’d be the shit. But seriously, i’ve seen too many intelligent poor people stay that way, just because to get ahead they’ve got to borrow money, live outside their means, and gamble on sneaking into an economic party where nepotists are the host.

If worth was rewarded and Paris Hilton was jettisoned and sucking cocks for rocks like she should/would be if from a poor family, Capitalism would be the shit. But it’s unacceptable that people are expendable, and the planet also.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Who has ever said that the Earth gives a shit? However, I am pretty sure your future ancestors might if it turns out we could have prevented further damage by simply acknowledging that we do have an impact on our environment. Since when before recently in human history have we populated the planet to this degree and increased air pollution in some cities to hazardous levels?[/quote]

What the hell is a “future ancestor”?

The arrogance lies in thinking that man can affect the earth’s balance.

Now we can clean up the streams, treat our sewage, and pick up the trash - but none of that has any affect on the earth. I’m not against doing those things we need to do to make our respective parts of the world look pretty and noce - but there is dick you can do to have any real affect on the earth. Except maybe quit letting all these old people live so long.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Who has ever said that the Earth gives a shit? However, I am pretty sure your future ancestors might if it turns out we could have prevented further damage by simply acknowledging that we do have an impact on our environment. Since when before recently in human history have we populated the planet to this degree and increased air pollution in some cities to hazardous levels?

What the hell is a “future ancestor”?

The arrogance lies in thinking that man can affect the earth’s balance.

Now we can clean up the streams, treat our sewage, and pick up the trash - but none of that has any affect on the earth. I’m not against doing those things we need to do to make our respective parts of the world look pretty and noce - but there is dick you can do to have any real affect on the earth. Except maybe quit letting all these old people live so long. [/quote]

Is my keyboard not typing in English? The flying rock in space will no doubt keep floating throughout eternity unless the sun explodes like in the beginning of Superman. However, OUR ability to continue to live on the fucking thing has a great potential to be royally screwed the fuck up by our own pollution and pestulence. The phrase “your future ancestors” refers to any “great to the 15th power” grandchildren you may have roaming the planet hundreds of years from now who will be cooking or freezing to death based on the very real possibility that the planet could become uninhabitable. If that future could be extended or avoided simply by us paying attention to our own fecal waste and where we drop it, only a fool would believe we can have no devestating effect on our own future.

get it?

The flying rock in space? It keeps turning.

The people who used to live on the rock? They be dead. Long fucking dead. They BE dead because dumbasses kept shitting where they sleep all while bragging to the skies above, “there is no way we can screw up the planet”.