Your Help Debunking Latest Global Warming Misinformation Please

[Rage for Order]

My global warming denying brother in law sent me a link to this news story from "The Australian". It appears to be a right wing rag, but I'm not familiar with the paper so I can't say for sure. I googled "global warming nasa aqua" and only got a couple of hits. Here's the link, followed by some excerpts:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

"...There has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

snip

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."


edit: Has anyone else heard of this? I would think the IPCC would have taken this information, if it's accurate, into account when drawing up their conclusions, but this is the first I've heard of it.

[avenger64]

1. We can't stop global warming, it's been going on a long time ...

... before we were here. For the ups and downs, you might check out the (long) explanation from http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&Mytoken=FA810820-148C-4B3E-9B2B11EA384EB41267626254">this guy.

[fascisthunter]

2. Any One Denying Global Warming and Man's Role is a Liar

a hack, a nut case and a shill. Any order..... be my guest. I will not give any one arguing against the mountain of data out there the benefit of the doubt.

THE DEBATE IS OVER! It's time for ACTION!

[Rage for Order]

3. While I appreciate your passionate reply...

I'd like something a little more substantive to send back :) The linked article essentially says that the current climate models are wrong because the effects of increased CO2 have been calculated incorrectly.

[baldguy]

4. "The Australian" is a Rupert Murdoch paper. Ever hear of him?

[Rage for Order]

5. Yes. However, as I expressed earlier

I'm assuming there is information out there debunking the claims made in the article. I haven't been able to find it. I'd like to definitively disprove the allegations with a scientific rebuttal rather than attacking the messenger.

[stevedeshazer]

6. The term 'global warming', while accurate, does not explain the whole picture

A better term perhaps is 'climate change'.

No one denies that our planet has been growing warmer overall; most of the last ten years have been the warmest in recorded history.

However, that record only goes back a few hundred years. There is much evidence of the last Ice Age, when glaciers covered most of North America in that period. They've been retreating ever since.

This is a blink of an eye on geological terms.

But the predicted effect of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the increase in carbon dioxide levels, and the decreasing albedo of Earth due to melting snows would be ignored at our peril.

Note that every time it snows in Peoria, skeptics appear. It won't affect every locale in the same way.

[Rage for Order]

7. I personally prefer "climate change" vs. "global warming"

If for no other reason than to shut up the morons who, every time it snows, says "Boy, Al Gore must be on to something about global warming! It's 12 degrees outside! Ha ha!" :eyes:

[TexasBushwhacker]

8. Unless your bro lives in Australia, why would he ....

dig up a single article from a conservative rag down under? Besides, the main thing about "global warming" or "climate change" is the question of whether or not man's acticities (ie. burning fossil fuels) is contributing significantly. I say, WHO CARES?! There are loads of reasons to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and use greener alternatives. Less dependency on politically unstable and often unfriendly parts of the world. Cut down on air pollution. Develop green energy industries HERE IN THE US, etc. etc.

[BadgerKid]

9. What do you think of this?

I saw a seminar recently that had a slide similar to this. It basically tells you the relative contributions of sources contributing net energy to the atmosphere. The contribution from CO2 plus halocarbons (think: CFCs, which are now banned but still linger in the atmosphere) outweigh everything else combined. This contribution is attributable to human activity in the post-industrialization era. More background at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing



Edit: Another item I don't have a slide for is the following. There was a plot showing that atmospheric carbon was sort of steady in the post-WW2 era through the 1960's, and then it started to climb. The message I understood was that there seems to be a delay of perhaps 15-20 years before we start to see measurable effects. If true, that would suggest the worst is yet to come, even if we cut back drastically starting tomorrow, which we won't. :(

[Shoelace]

10. here's some scientific meat for you (lots of links)

Gristmill blog is a good source with lots of links, graphs that address the present state of media induced skeptic garbage on "global warming stopped in 1998." That link is here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329

Another great site that addresses this issue is here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

If you want to get down and dirty ala science itself, Tamino's "Open Mind" blog is one of the best but be forewarmed (pun intended), it's very technical which you might need in fighting the skeptics.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/

A lighter touch but with alot of good info can be found here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-and-the-posture-of-skepticism-bjorn-lomborg


Note: This winter has had record amounts of snowfall, etc. The skeptics have pounced on it like a bunch of vultures on roadkill. Wait until this summer and please to remind them that the poster child of global climate change (the right term) has always been and should be constantly brought up is: extreme weather!
That means that as the oceans warm, more precipitation means more snow, rain, floods, etc.
Another point worth mentioning that the person in question is a member of a right wing think tank in Australia and we all know by now how they play their cards. Good luck with your fight. I've been on it for 6 years now and it's not an easy thing given how they fry the science!

[greenman3610]

11. please read the following.

this should help clarify.
If you need more, email me. I'm at work right now and unable to
be more complete.




http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/may/may07.html


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". 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 is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.
Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.


http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/02/media-enable-denier-spin-i-a-sort-of-cold-january-doesnt-mean-climate-stopped-warming/

As NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies explains, “The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.” What about 2007? NASA explains “2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century” (NOAA puts the 2007 ranking slightly lower, at a close fifth). NASA’s James Hansen explains:
“As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases.”



First, while January 2008 was not especially warm compared to recent years and only 0.18°C (+0.32°F) warmer than the 1961-1990 mean, January 2007 just happened to be the warmest January in recorded history, a full 0.83°C (1.49°F) warmer than the mean. That means the difference between January 2007 and January 2008 was anomalously large, over a full degree Fahrenheit. This made for a factoid that was interesting from a weather/ meteorological perspective, but totally irrelevant from a climate science perspective.
You can call this a twelve-month long drop if you inclined to such meaningless hype, but only a disinformer would say this drop is “large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years.” Even the meteorologist who uncovered the original weather factoid disavowed that statement and posted:
There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything.