New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

[ben_meyers]

From the U.S. Senate Committe on Environment and Public Works;

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Posted By Marc Morano – [e-mail] – 4:44 PM ET

Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

Warning PDF
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Anybody know what this is all about?

[wtmusic]

1. Most geophysicists work in the petroleum industry

Let's ask a climatologist.

[ben_meyers]

10. Schwartz isn't a geologist

He serves (since 2004) as chief scientist of the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program. His current research interest centers on the influence of energy related emissions on climate, with a focus on the role of atmospheric aerosols. Is Brookhaven a "republican" agency?

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/schwartz-bio.html

Are we to dismiss a study because it dosen't fit what we think we see with our own eyes? I've tried to understand the study and it's way over my pay grade, maybe it needs pictures of Polar Bears on a ice floe.

[phantom power]

12. What we are seeing here...

is a bunch of "interpretation" of these papers, by:

An astronomer
An ex-physics prof
An AEI hack

All published on an article written for the website of James Inhofe, senator and hard-core amateur climate change denier.

Their commentary completely ignores nonlinear responses, positive feedbacks, amplification of CO2-warming by atmospheric water vapor, etc.

And, yes, this assessment happens to fly completely in the face of all the reports documenting the unraveling of every major ecosystem, and, incidentally, the disappearance of our arctic ice-cap right before our eyes (I assume you've been following hatrack's posts this month on that).

[mike_c]

2. thanks-- I bookmarked for later reading....

I'm getting ready to turn in, but I'll try to get to the paper in a day or two.

[bananas]

3. Inhofe

Republicans: there is no global warning, and only nuclear energy can solve it.

[wtmusic]

4. This is "all about" Jimmy Inhofe keeping oil money flowing into OK

Notice the almost hysterical tone of denial?

[DLnyc]

5. smells very funny

1. "the Inhofe epw press blog": Inhofe = borderline insane global warming denier

2. Quotes in OP are comments ABOUT the peer-reviewed article, not FROM the article

3. Abstract of said article doesn[t seem to be saying anything like Inhofe's ravings -- rather, the abstract sounds (to me) like the article is about how much time lag there is likely to be between a CHANGE in CO2 production and changes in the climate.

[Kiouni]

6. Fine global warming isn't real

But the one thing I just can't understand is what harm would it do to clean up our act anyway? 1.8 trillion dollars?
Ok then we just shut down the war machine for a few weeks.

I can understand why there is a debate, the technical data is shaky, the core samples from Antarctica could be measured wrong.

Yada yada yada but in medicine (where i work) you treat your patient not the machine.

Look at Kilimanjaro and the ice shelves around the world. Look at Everest. Better yet go try and spend one whole day outside, you can't your die from heat stroke and its all made up. Farken morans.

They can post what ever study they want but its easy to see whats going on even without a degree from MIT.

[razzleberry]

8. if things are as easy as you claim ...

I would invite Europe to go first.
Europeans would seem to be more interested.

[skids]

18. The second reason for alternative energy is why R's fear it...

...it would be absolutely horrible if the masses had individual or even community owned sources of energy. That would make it nearly impossible to monopolize markets to control them.

Even without climate change as a factor, bringing control of energy into the hands of the small group or individual is a worthy goal, and will promote a free and open society. Well worth trillions of dollars in the long run.

Oh, and lest I forget to mention -- even were there to be no warming at all, we are still killing the oceans with CO2 because it makes them more acidic.

[Kiouni]

22. I read about an idea like that in

times it was not so community orientated but it was houses with solar panels and electric cars. The cars would store up power when brakes were applied or coasting and the house would store up power during the day. And the energy would be used or stored in the house. Any left over energy would go out into a grid for purchase. It seemed like a good idea. But is your idea municipal groups are is it more like neighborhoods banding together?

Oh and we need to keep poisoning the ocean because you can't over fish whats already dead!

[skids]

24. I lay no claim to having an "idea"...

...just the general and easily recognized fact that centralized systems are more vulnerable to both physical and economic threat. As to the cost/benefit of just how decentralized you want to get, that's up for the individual or group of individuals to decide.

[Goat or Panic]

7. They seem

to be saying "man made" global warming doesn't exist. It's accepted even by most conservatives that global warming itself does exist but they believe it's cyclical. I've heard this argument quite often on RW radio.

The purpose of this argument is to convince people that there is nothing that can be done to stop it, so carry on about your business and pay no attention to the "alarmists" like Al Gore. And most importantly, don't start regulating emissions, coal plants, energy consumption etc. And, God forbid, don't invest in alternative fuel sources.

Two problems:

1. No other country on the planet is required to believe this b.s. and new, cleaner and renewable energy sources are going to be harnessed/created by these other countries and we as a country will fall behind technologically.

2. New Orleans, Manhattan, Florida and the gulf states will be affected by global warming, man-made or not. What, if anything, are we going to do about protecting these, and other coastal areas? Nothing, it seems until it's too late.

[hatrack]

9. Ah! The Minority Page!

Now things are "making sense".

:silly:

[skids]

19. Snicker...

I fully anticipate opeing this thread later to see a "deleted reply" under your comment.

[phantom power]

11. I imagine that RealClimate will publish a review, soon.

[depakid]

23. They're working on it

An Insensitive Climate?

A paper by Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Laboratory accepted for publication in the AGU Journal of Geophysical Research is already getting quite a bit of attention in the blogosphere. It argues for a CO2-doubling climate sensitivity of about 1 degree C, markedly lower than just about any other published estimate, well below the low end of the range cited by recent scientific assessments (e.g. the IPCC AR4 report) and inconsistent with any number of other estimates.

Why are Schwartz's calculations wrong? The early scientific reviews suggest a couple of reasons: firstly, that modelling the climate as an AR(1) process with a single timescale is an over-simplification; secondly, that a similar analysis in a GCM with a known sensitivity would likely give incorrect results, and finally, that his estimate of the error bars on his calculation are very optimistic. We'll likely have a more thorough analysis of this soon…

http://www.realclimate.org/

[YankeyMCC]

13. So we should just ignore all those

"Faster than expected" reports. :eyes:

[phantom power]

14. Those are just games, we children are playing with ourselves.

:eyes:

[hatrack]

15. Pay no attention to that ranking member of the Environment Committee behind the curtain!

:silly:

[Viking12]

16. Climate Modeler James Annan picks Schwartz article apart piece-by-piece

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2007/08/schwartz-sensitivity-estimate.html

[ben_meyers]

17. Who is James Annan?

I read his blog, but find no info on his background. He says he is a scientist, what degree and from where. Is he considered an authority on climate anywhere? Does a non-peer reviewed, unpublished blog entry really refute the OP?

I don't dispute climate change at all. The only constant in the climate is that it is always changing. My question is what if anything do we have to do with it and what if anything can or should we do about it. What is the normal climate of the earth supposed to be?

[lakeguy]

20. you haven't presented any peer-reviewed data...

just a bunch of comments from people who aren't even in the field. here's my review of the paper:

this study puts all those GW denier theories to rest...absolutely buries them.

now, please post this as a new thread since it carries the same weight as your OP.

[bananas]

21. His web page is linked to from his blog

In the box at the top of his blog are several links,
"jame's work page" links to http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/
which has a list of pubs etc.

This box is in all caps at the top of his blog:

James' Empty Blog

If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the toes of giants

james' work page jules' work page personal page blog feed

globalchange mailing list This site is a member of: JapanBloggers Webring

[skids]

25. And so commenceth the debunking...

...though the debunking will be politely couched in academic-speak since the article is politely offered in an academic form:

An Insensitive Climate?:

A paper by Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Laboratory accepted for publication in the AGU Journal of Geophysical Research is already getting quite a bit of attention in the blogosphere. It argues for a CO2-doubling climate sensitivity of about 1 degree C, markedly lower than just about any other published estimate, well below the low end of the range cited by recent scientific assessments (e.g. the IPCC AR4 report) and inconsistent with any number of other estimates. Why are Schwartz's calculations wrong? The early scientific reviews suggest a couple of reasons: firstly, that modelling the climate as an AR(1) process with a single timescale is an over-simplification; secondly, that a similar analysis in a GCM with a known sensitivity would likely give incorrect results, and finally, that his estimate of the error bars on his calculation are very optimistic. We'll likely have a more thorough analysis of this soon.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/friday-roundup-2/