| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| Key argument for global warming critics evaporates (D@mn those who believe otherwise) |
| 2005-08-12 |
| For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening. Among other arguments, but who's counting? Now, according to three new studies published in the journal Science, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses. Wait'll you get a load of their analyses (see below)! The atmosphere is indeed warming, not cooling as the data previously showed. Opinion as fact, eh? While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, ... (especially in urban, asphalted, concreted, no tree areas, but I digress) ... satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling. Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, ... (horrors! We must study it again until we get the results I want! Jeeves, fetch me my Standard Gov't Grant Application form...we need to study this more!) ... or something was wrong with the data. "But most people had to conclude, based on the fact that there were both satellite and balloon observations, that it really wasn't warming up," said Steven Sherwood, a geologists at Yale University and lead author of one of the studies. Oops! (Oh, you snarky, sarcastic "reporter" you!) Sherwood examined weather balloons known as radiosondes, which are capable of making direct measurements of atmospheric temperatures. For the past 40 years, radiosonde temperature data have been collected from around the world twice each day, once during the day and once at night. But while nighttime radiosonde measurements were consistent with climate models and theories showing a general warming trend, daytime measurements actually showed the atmosphere to be cooling since the 1970's. Which baffled my mind, as the sun's shining on us during the day. But that was before I read their analysis below. I'm enlightened now! Sherwood explains these discrepancies by pointing out that the older radiosonde instruments used in the 1970's were not as well shielded from sunlight as more recent models. What this means as that older radiosondes showed warmer temperature readings during the day because they were warmed by sunlight. So, wouldn't this show "warming" even back during the 70's? And, yet, the trend was that it was cooling. So, to sum it up class, these radiosondes were exposed to sunlight, heated up all because of the sun, and yet, the trend was that these monitors showed cooling during the day. And, oh yeah, it's Bush's fault. Ya know, he's tied to Halliburton, who runs the sun. Why can't they look at this data (sun warming up monitors) and look into other explanations, like, oh, the increase in sun's activities/solar flairs as of late. But, I'm just a dumb, red-state engineer, whadda I know? "It's like being outside on a hot day—it feels hotter when you are standing in the direct sun than when you are standing in the shade," Sherwood said. Genius, pure genius! Nowadays, radiosondes are better insulated against the effects of sunlight, but if analyzed together with the old data—which showed temperatures that were actually warmer than they really were—the overall effect looked like the troposphere was cooling. Wha? Higher temps somehow showed cooling? I don't know. Again, here the details are important. If the measurements were 2-3 degrees higher due to the sun, wouldn't that show the troposphere is cooler than we thought? And, again, it's all in the TREND. Even if each day's reading was high, if the trend is going down, that's good news (if you assume the error was pretty much consistent each day). The discrepancy between surface and atmospheric measurements has been used by for years by skeptics who dispute claims of global warming. |
| Posted by:BA |
| #17 In the short term if there were true global warming the British Isles would tend to get colder, theroreticaly. What would happen is the polar ice cap melts and the resultant colder water and increased iceburgs would flow into the Gulf Stream which now keeps the British Isles warmer than one would expect because of how far north they are. Ultimately, if the warming trend lasted long enough, the increased warming of the earth's surface and the increased warming of the oceans would offset thid effect. This assumes the Gulf Stream would not change. Herein lies the rub. The systems are so complex as to approach caos so any predictions are really guesses. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-08-12 21:30 |
| #16 colder? yes in a macro sense™ |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-12 18:16 |
| #15 So... my beer isn't really colder, it just seems that way 'cuz the day is hotter? |
| Posted by: Hyper 2005-08-12 17:45 |
| #14 Yeah, I'm afraid I'll have to agree with liberalhawk. My post here. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2005-08-12 17:01 |
| #13 for years ive seen the bit about the cooling in the atmosphere shown as the basis for denying the models showing Green house gas based warmed. The guy in Huntsville has been about the most notable scientists ive seen quoted against global warming. But you can deny this is important all you want. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2005-08-12 15:37 |
| #12 The sun, Frank, always the sun... even at night. I'm like a morning glory, except not so pretty when opened, nor so shriveled and crinkly-looking when closed. Just like that. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-12 15:18 |
| #11 Good point, Phil. In fact, I think that was specifically discussed here some months ago (Our cleaning up of the air is actually leading to warmer surface temps.). |
| Posted by: BA 2005-08-12 14:51 |
| #10 Atmospheric cooling and surface warming is easily explained. A reduction in particulates in the atmosphere due in part to clean air laws means sunshine that previously was intercepted by particles and as a result warmed the atmosphere is now reaching the earth's surface and warming it. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-08-12 13:31 |
| #9 which way are you facing, PD? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-12 12:22 |
| #8 I read an interview this morning with the scientist who is famous for predicting the number and strength of hurricanes (but not their movement). It's in Discover Magazine, but not on-line yet, and I'm not about to type the whole thing! His conclusion: Globe is NOT warming, but his NOAA funds were cut off, he suspects by Gore and the other eco-nazis when he refused to climb on the "Global Warming" bandwagon. See, it's all GORE's fault! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-08-12 12:21 |
| #7 Sorry, .com - can't help you. California is already to your left, in more ways than one... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-08-12 12:13 |
| #6 If everyone will just move to my Left, we can get that wobble cranked up again. The 4° tilt is a "good thing" - the wobble is a "bad thing". I hope that clarifies things. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-12 11:57 |
| #5 That Mars is warming provides more proof of the insidious nature of greenhouse gases. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-08-12 11:29 |
| #4 Good points, Steve. What I was trying (albeit, very sarcastically) to point out. Even if it is warming, we are not 100% to blame. In fact, I personally doubt if we're 30% to blame. But you try to speak that in those circles and you'll get shouted down quicker than you can say "Just another opinion." |
| Posted by: BA 2005-08-12 11:18 |
| #3 Evidence from physical and biological systems indicates that the Earth is currently in a warming phase. Nothing new here. Not long ago, geologically speaking, my current residence was under a half mile or so of ice. Long before that, the arctic was rather tropical. Things change. Where the debate ( and the chicken-little eco-hysteria ) comes in is over the causes and implications of the facts. Why is it happening and what if anything should or can we do about it. This part gets rather complicated since we are dealing with chaotic, non-linear systems and they just don't respond in ways that we consider 'common-sense'. A small change in an input can cause a huge change in an output. The straw that broke the camels back is a folksy illustration. An example of how complicated climate can be is a theory by a geologist at Michigan State back in the '80s. He figured that global warming could cause an ice age. Sounds silly, right? How can warming cause cooling? Consider that warming means more water in the atmosphere. More water vapor means more clouds. Clouds reflect heat before it reaches the ground. Things get colder. How a scenario like this actually plays out all depends on the numbers and relationships. Remember we are talking non-linear systems. Personally, after my first winter in the north in a decade, I'm ready for a little global warming and if I have to burn a pile of truck tires in the driveway to make it happen, so be it. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-08-12 11:09 |
| #2 The Earth's wobble on its axis is also significantly decreasing, as is its magnetic field, both obviously caused by acid rain and overpopulation. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-08-12 11:00 |
| #1 Once again, the fallacy of trying to interpret 4.5 billion years of climate change by just looking at the last 30 years. The earth does wobble on its axis every 26,000 years, the climate changes because of sun exposure. The sun warms and cools every few thousand years and causes the earth's climate to change with it. The earth has been warming continuously since the end of the last ice age some 120,000 years ago, the earth did not have ice caps from 120 million BC to 65 million BC, and yet the climate Nazis are screaming because of an average .5 degree C climate change. Asshats... |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-08-12 10:36 |