Print 57 comment(s) - last by OldSgtZ.. on Feb 20 at 5:40 PM

Even the best climate models are affected by uncertainty in how much aerosols contribute to global warming. That uncertainty could mean that emissions cuts could reduce warming -- or that it might continue to increase for a while, despite cuts. Those are the conclusions of a recent review published by a University of Washington grad student.  (Source: NOAA)
Researcher calls the conclusions of the UN's IPCC incomplete and flawed

Kyle Armour, a doctoral student in physics at the University of Washington is boldly challenging that certain assertions of the Nobel Prize-winning International Panel on Climate Change, in their current state, may be flawed.  He argues that the UN's suggestion that stopping aerosol emissions will stop warming is misleading [press release].  These conclusions are noteworthy, given the controversial state of warming research and legislation aimed to "stop" global warming.

At issue is various climatology models, collected from published research, that attempt to simulate the effects of changing global climate variables. These variables include changing the levels of an "aerosols" (atmospheric dust) like sea salt or soot from burning fossil fuels; or greenhouse gases (GHGs) like CO2 or methane.  The effects of these variables are dubbed "forcings" (aerosol forcing, GHG forcings, solar forcing, etc.).  Various forcings sum up to predict a net climate change and its contributors by approximate percentage.  

Models are typically fit to current data, but the narrow range that many climate variables have been constrained to in the modern era limits them.  They're also limited by how many variables and effects on those variables they consider.  Last, but not least, they're limited by how accurately and completely we can measure certain variables (e.g. total global aerosol levels).

In this case, Kyle Armour says that current models are flawed in that they fail to consider how high the uncertainty is regarding the amount that aerosols contribute to climate change.  

He says that the aerosols could contribute a lot to climate change, or only a little.  

In the "best case" scenario they would only contribute a little to net warming, thus they would not be masking the effects of GHG-related warming.  If all emissions of aerosols and GHGs stopped (a cessation of fossil fuel burning, and mammalian livestock farming, in short) the aerosols would quickly exit the atmosphere.  GHGs would remain for years at elevated levels, but the net result would be a slight decrease in temperatures by about half a degree Fahrenheit, given that the aerosols were the chief culprits.

In other words, the current temperature, which is about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-Industrial Revolution levels would dip to only 1.0 degrees Fahrenheit above that base level -- but wouldn’t return entirely for many years.

Society can obviously not just instantly cut emissions, Mr. Armour acknowledges, but he says that such a scenario would offer justification to emissions cuts.

However, it's also possible that aerosols offer a larger contribution and are masking the effects of GHGs.  In this case, even if emissions stopped, temperatures would continue to rise and likely reach 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-Industrial Revolution levels, as the GHGs would persist in the atmosphere.  Such a temperature increase would likely cause some of the more severe predicted climate change effects (though it could offer benefits as well).

In other words, Mr. Armour is arguing that uncertainty in the aerosol components of models may lead to the IPCC significantly underestimating the amount of warming that will occur under various scenarios.

Mr. Armour says that keeping this uncertainty in mind is critical and the IPCC needs to do a better job in doing so in its next report.  He states, "This is not an argument to say we should keep emitting aerosols. It is an argument that we should be smart in how we stop emitting. And it's a call to action because we know the warming we are committed to from what we have emitted already and the longer we keep emitting the worse it gets."

One interesting conclusion of the study not explored by Mr. Armour is the question of maximum forcing.  Clearly historically temperatures rose due to increased GHGs, but leveled off (reach equilibrium) or reversed as the global system dampened the warming effects.  (In other words the Earth remained habitable, if a bit hotter, and didn't become some sort of arid, barren fireball.)  This equilibrium may be reached by a number of mechanisms -- radiative heat loss into space/changes in ocean currents/changes in atmospheric water vapor, etc.  The question is what is the "maximum" reachable temperature?  

If Mr. Armour is correct and we may already be locked in to a large temperature rise, the question is whether we'll reach this maximum.  If so, the climate change will already be enacted.  While this will be unfortunate in some ways (population would have to shift, growing areas would shift, etc.) and fortunate in others, humanity would already be forced to adapt to the change.

If indeed a maximum with dampening is destined to be reached, stopping emissions would do little good (unless we can somehow remove a significant quantity of GHGs from the atmosphere, which does not seem currently feasible).  Thus the question of whether fossil fuel and farming emissions should be cut, and if so how much, largely rests on a data set that is largely unknown and uncertain.  Mr. Armour's key conclusion is in noting this, and in noting that the IPCC needs to do a better job informing policy makers (politicians) of this uncertainty.

Mr. Armour's work has been published [abstract] in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

primary driver of climate
By kattanna on 2/16/2011 3:00:22 PM , Rating: 5
areosols..CO2.. etc cute.

i'll give you 1 guess whats the primary driver of global climate, and its not our thin little atmosphere.

also, it amazes me the sheer arrogance of some now who think that the worlds "perfect" climate was during the early 1800's.

also like jason was alluding too, during those times in our past when the planet as a whole was warmer, sometimes much warmer, its funny they call those periods climate optimums. periods of rampant and widespread fertility. yeah would be a shame to enter one of those..

RE: primary driver of climate
By marvdmartian on 2/16/2011 3:48:02 PM , Rating: 4
If I had to guess what the single biggest source of warming was, I would probably have to say that it's all the hot air coming out of Al Gore's mouth, when he's preaching about global, manmade climate change.......or whatever this week's punchy phrase happens to be! (eye roll)

RE: primary driver of climate
By Hiawa23 on 2/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: primary driver of climate
By drycrust3 on 2/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: primary driver of climate
By Hiawa23 on 2/17/2011 10:37:36 AM , Rating: 3
Great points, if there is a God, & he is like the believers say then there is nothing we can do. He controls everything, the weather, the oceans, what will happen to us & this planet is going to happen regardless. Personally, I don't think prayers do anything, other than give humans some false sense like there some spirit protecting us. I think everything that happens happens because it's supposed to happen, whether you say 1000 prayers or no prayers, but as far as the planet heating & cooling, although, I try to do my part by limiting my footprint, I seriously doubt there is much we can do to change global warming that will make any difference in the near future, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I am not bashing those who believe, I respect religious beliefs, I just don't have any, as I feel the good & the bad that is supposed to happen to me in my life is going to happen to me, whether I say a prayer or not. If I offended anyone please forgive me. My parentes raised me to be a productive, college educated, contributing member of society, & that's all the prayers I need.

RE: primary driver of climate
By phxfreddy on 2/19/11, Rating: -1
RE: primary driver of climate
By gamerk2 on 2/17/2011 9:40:56 AM , Rating: 2
1: No one disagrees there is a natrual cycle at work. Many factors, right down to plate tectonics can play a role in global temperatures due to changes in weather patterns [which themselves are only understood in the planets current configuration]. That does NOT preclude outside factors from interacting. EG: Its currently hypothesised most of the O2 in the atmosphere was created by algea and other primitive plant life, which had a significant effect on the atmosphere over time. How is 100 years of dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere any different then early plant life dumping just as much O2 into the atmosphere? And I note, we went from 0% O2 concentration to over 20%...

2: Climate change would likely happen at an accelerated pace over time, due to various factors:
a: White reflects, black absorbs. Less sea ice reflects less heat into the atmosphere, warming the planet farther. [The "albedo" effect if you will]
b: CO2 traps more heat then it blocks out [causing an increase in temperature over time, even if levels stabalize]

3: No one is really sure what the exact results of climate change are. At least a few modles predicted a la nina effect in the US [which, coincidentally, we are currently in the middle of], which could have a localized cooling effect. Likewise, no one really has a clue what weather patterns would be like for any specific change, due to all the factors involved. Its even theoretically possible that a warming effect on the planet could change weather in such a way as to cause a not cooling effect; no one really knows.

4: Climite models have two limitations: Precision and speed. First, weather patterns can turn out completely differently by chaning a staring variable by as little as the 20th decimal point, which is beyond our capacity to measure. Secondly, if we inputted ALL the data we knew, you would never be able to actually compute the results due to speed limitations. These two reasons are why even short-term weather forcasts are near impossible to model with any degree of accuracy [Hurricanes and other storms being the primary examples of this behavior].

Its almost certain we are directly contributing to the current warming trend; to what degree is open for some debate.

And before someone points out all the snow we've been having, I do note that warmer temperatures lead to the air holding more precipitation...

RE: primary driver of climate
By wookie1 on 2/17/2011 11:13:32 AM , Rating: 3
Studies have recently shown that the amount of sea ice is not so important. Yes, more heat is absorbed in the summer due to ice not reflecting it out, but also during winter there is less ice to prevent the heat from being released again. posted an excerpt from the following paper:

“Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice”

S. Tietsche, D. Notz, J. H. Jungclaus, and J. Marotzke
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2010GL045698, 2011


Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice

S. Tietsche, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

D. Notz, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

J. H. Jungclaus, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

J. Marotzke, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

RE: primary driver of climate
By wookie1 on 2/17/2011 11:29:09 AM , Rating: 4
"Its almost certain we are directly contributing to the current warming trend; to what degree is open for some debate."

This may be hard to argue against (as there is no measureable hypothesis to test), but raises some questions:

How much of our precious resources should we spend trying to eliminate the "human footprint" on the earth?

Why is this footprint something that should be eliminated? Don't all species of life on earth have some impact on it?

If we can't determine how much humans may be contributing, how would we be able to determine any sort of cost/benefit for any actions we may think about taking? Should humanity return to starvation and subsistence farming or hunting/gathering even if this prevents an immeasureable impact like 0.0001C temperature rise?

Do you think that some warming and/or CO2 increase is dominated by negative impacts to the earth, or humans, or other life on earth? We would likely have increased crop yields, requiring less land to support the same population, along with other benefits. Global cooling or the next ice age is what humanity should be more worried about.

Why is this a more worrisome problem than others that humans face, like world hunger, diseases, asteroid or comet impacts, etc? Especially since we know that there are large populations of hungry people around the world, but we have little certainty about our impact on climate and our ability to control it.

I don't see any reason to hand over money, freedom, and liberty to beauracracies in order to combat a problem that can't even be supported by any data other than the output of models designed to show that there will be devastating warming caused by humans. If carbon is the bogeyman, government control of your every activity or inactivity can be justified. If you protest, then you must be some planet-hating right wingnut (and possibly a racist as well).

RE: primary driver of climate
By kattanna on 2/17/2011 12:13:41 PM , Rating: 5
Why is this a more worrisome problem than others that humans face

we have little certainty about our impact on climate and our ability to control it

because undefinable fears are best to extend political control over a population

RE: primary driver of climate
By rikulus on 2/16/2011 4:17:58 PM , Rating: 1
Primary driver: the Sun. But you really think our "thin little atmosphere" isn't responsible for the climate we experience? Ever taken a f*ing science class? Sorry to be harsh, it's just amazing how stupid some of the statements made on this site are, and it really makes me sad.

Without our "thin little atmosphere", then we would have the same climate as the moon, right? Just driven by the sun. Average high and low daily temperatures on the moon: 107C and -153C. Maybe you don't know Celsius, so that's 225°F and -243°F. Still think the atmosphere doesn't count?

And it doesn't matter if the world's "perfect" climate wasn't in the early 1800's. Global temperatures are rising, there is no debate about that. Sea levels increase as the water expands due to temperature change and as non-floating ice melts. Billions of people live near sea level, and it is going to cost an incredible amount of money to move or protect them. It's not about the Earth becoming a dried up raisin, it's about $$. The cost to stop using fossil fuels (which is easier to quantify, and nobody wants to voluntarily pay) vs the cost of global warming effects (which are harder to quantify, could be many times worse, and we'll have no choice but to pay... well actually, the next generations will have no choice but to pay, which doesn't seem to bother anybody.)

RE: primary driver of climate
By kattanna on 2/16/2011 4:50:52 PM , Rating: 5
Primary driver: the Sun

as the external source, of course.

but i was implying a more terrestrial item, IE the worlds oceans. THATS what drives the worlds climate. the atmosphere is more of an insulating planet.

Ever taken a f*ing science class?

LOL probably far more then you my friend. but thanks for asking instead of jumping to conclusions.

Sorry to be harsh, it's just amazing how stupid some of the statements made on this site are, and it really makes me sad.

and it seems your part of the problem. once again thanks for playing the "jump to wild half arsed conclusions game"

Global temperatures are rising, there is no debate about that

for the most part, correct. though there is some concern about just how proper some of the records are and all the adjustments that keep being made to them.

also, there is debate about whats the primary driver of the change. While the increased levels of CO2 certainly do play a part, its a small part, and gets to be a smaller part of any increase as concentrations rise.

the next generations will have no choice but to pay, which doesn't seem to bother anybody

ahh, yes. and we get to the apocalyptic statements!!

The cost to stop using fossil fuels (which is easier to quantify, and nobody wants to voluntarily pay)

thats not true. there are many, and more everyday who would love to switch off fossil fuels for our electrical energy needs, but there's a loud and vocal group preventing us from doing that...the environmentalists. They have blocked, and continue to block, the US from switching over to cleaner forms of energy, IE nuclear. They also block our ability to recycle our existing waste, which is really odd from a group that loves to recycle everything else, isnt it?

RE: primary driver of climate
By rikulus on 2/16/2011 5:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I did jump to a conclusion which set me off there, so for that I apologize, one does hear some crazy things on here. Oceans do drive the weather and mediate the climate, but when talking about long term climate change, we are changing properties of the atmosphere that affect it's insulating properties, but the ocean's properties aren't changing. So, the atmosphere is still the primary driver of change. (I'm talking about the oceans ability to absorb and release heat, not absorb CO2, which is really talking about the atmosphere, in terms of climate.)

That wasn't meant to be apocolyptic, just an observation about how a certain large generation treats finite resources and national deficits.

And we can compare science courses any time you'd like. :) actually, you seem like a person that would be nice to have a decent conversation with.

RE: primary driver of climate
By gamerk2 on 2/17/2011 9:48:33 AM , Rating: 2
but the ocean's properties aren't changing.

Incorrect. CO2 would be trapped via chemical reactions for some time, simmilar to how early O2 would have been trapped via reactions with Iron located in the worlds oceans. Only when that oceans ability to contain O2 was exhaused did oxegyn appear in the atmosphere in significant amounts, and you should expect a simmilar behavior with Co2.

RE: primary driver of climate
By kattanna on 2/17/2011 11:05:30 AM , Rating: 2
Oceans do drive the weather and mediate the climate, but when talking about long term climate change, we are changing properties of the atmosphere that affect it's insulating properties, but the ocean's properties aren't changing. So, the atmosphere is still the primary driver of change

actually i see it in reverse. the atmosphere drives the day to day weather, while the oceans drive the long term climate. let me give you some examples of what i mean.

the UK should actually be a much colder place then it is, but because of ocean currents, warmer waters flow into the area transporting heat that has a long term effect on its climate. short term variations in the atmosphere gives it varying weather patterns, but if the ocean currents changed, that would effect its long term overall climate.

same thing with the poles. we didnt have polar ice caps until north and south america joined and closed off the ocean currents that flowed from the pacific to the atlantic.

its all about the heat, IMO. and the oceans can store large amounts of it for long periods of time and move it around very efficiently, while the atmosphere is a poor container of heat.

RE: primary driver of climate
By rikulus on 2/16/2011 5:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and from my peerspective, the strongest group keeping us on fossil fuels give chants of "drill baby drill", and those aren't environmentalists.

RE: primary driver of climate
By walk2k on 2/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: primary driver of climate
RE: primary driver of climate
By walk2k on 2/16/2011 5:28:12 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah it's amazing how many expert scientists with advanced degrees in Climatology on the internet LOL

Anyway pretty sure this article is only talking about aerosols not greenhouse gasses.

RE: primary driver of climate
By zozzlhandler on 2/16/2011 8:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
The sea levels may or may not rise. They are certainly not rising as predicted. I have very little faith in any of the predictions made by anyone - I suspect we simply do not know enough to predict, and that our measurements have too high an error margin to e useful in prediction.

RE: primary driver of climate
By Dr of crap on 2/17/2011 10:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
Since you seem like an educated person - what about pre-1800 temps?
We do not know what the "prefect climate" was. Or if there was / is a period of time that the warming cooling cycle stopped and became the perfect weather condition. We have nothing to base that on.

And as you say the almighty dollar will rule. So if it means we need to spend more dollars to NOT add to the warming of the planet with the things we do everyday - it will not happen.
How are you to police the entire world?
Will you stop burning gas and oil and wood and live like Tarzan??
I think I can safely say no you would not!
So I'll burn natural gas to keep my house warm, and I'll commute to work in my gas burning car.
And I don't think you'll find too many people that will GIVE UP their lifestyle so that future people will not have to be over heated. They might say they will, but if you follow them home it will be a different story. Remember the dollar rules. And if they have to spend more it won't happen!

RE: primary driver of climate
By Hare on 2/17/2011 2:36:22 AM , Rating: 2
periods of rampant and widespread fertility. yeah would be a shame to enter one of those..

For who? I'm sure many people living in the north would like to grow grapes and enjoy warmer weather but I doubt e.g. people near the Sahara would enjoy even harsher weather and expanding deserts. The Earth is a huge ecosystem and some would gain while others would lose. People tend to look at their own geographical area and give less weight to others.

RE: primary driver of climate
By kattanna on 2/17/2011 11:40:00 AM , Rating: 2
but I doubt e.g. people near the Sahara would enjoy even harsher weather and expanding deserts

thats hard to say. but we do know that 10,000 years ago north africa was actually a fertile paradise. we have even found the ancient river bed. so whose to say which way it will go.

its entirely possible that the american southwest desert area could grow and north africa become a fertile land again.

also remember that temps change most at the poles and very little near the equator during any period of change, positive or negative.

RE: primary driver of climate
By arazok on 2/17/2011 9:24:02 AM , Rating: 3
What amazes me is that nobody can have a realistic discussion about what to do about it. Even if we put in cap and trade, carbon taxes, etc – emissions will not go down. So let’s be frank:

#1 – We just aren’t going to reduce emissions. It’s impossible. Nobody is willing to give up all the benefits of using fossil fuels, and if we reduce our use of it in 1st world countries, it only makes it cheaper for poor countries to use. Unless the US begins bombing any country that dares to dig an oil well, man will burn every last drop of oil in the earth.

#2 – If you want to ignore #1 and you really want to try to limit emissions, the easiest and most effective way to do this is to reduce the population – particularly in the industrialized world. You can’t grow the population and reduce emissions. If the leaders of the G8 ever come out and announce that they are going to reorganize their economies around stable/shrinking populations and cut off immigration, then you know they are taking climate change seriously. Until they do that, everything they say and do about climate change is a lie.

If climate change is real, it’s going to happen. Period. We might as well just adapt and deal with it.

RE: primary driver of climate
By AnnihilatorX on 2/17/2011 7:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
We need alternate cheap energy sources, e.g. hydrogen economy, nuclear and even fusion.

Imagine the breakthroughs it will bring if the US didn't spend a 500 billion dollars in Iraq, but put all the funding into the ITER

RE: primary driver of climate
By AnnihilatorX on 2/17/2011 6:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
during those times in our past when the planet as a whole was warmer, sometimes much warmer, its funny they call those periods climate optimums. periods of rampant and widespread fertility. yeah would be a shame to enter one of those..

Yes but it's not the absolute temperature, rather the rate of change that's the problem. Evolution or adaptation takes time.

It's easy for animals to adapt when they weren't constrainted by location and have centuries and many generations to migrate and find new land, in prehistoric times.

Try to do the same in an human dominant Earth, where the species called Homo Saipens clusters in population density of a few thousands per sq. metres in metropolises and cities mostly near to the sea.

Misleading Title
By Amedean on 2/16/2011 3:05:28 PM , Rating: 1
Modern journalism, all bark little bite. In case you are not aware, green house gasses are part of the emissions problem. Reading the title seems to produce a logical fallacy of false dichotomy. No doubt feeding from the controversy derived from plumbers and people who stayed in a "Holiday Inn Express" and claim to know the definite answer of the fictitious nature of global warming. This article is based from a thesis of an aspiring student and making headlines like this is as poor nature in line with watching Fox News.

RE: Misleading Title
By docawolff on 2/16/2011 4:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The "climate change skeptics'" argument boils down to: Because we don't know everything about climate change, we therefore know nothing about climate change. This is the same argument put forth by Big Tobacco which allowed them decades of profitable business after they had data in hand that proved a link between smoking and lung cancer and heart disease. It is pretty much a classic strategy, and depends on P. T. Barnum's statement of birth rate and gullibility.

Need we point out that a thesis is not a peer-reviewed article?

RE: Misleading Title
By wookie1 on 2/16/2011 6:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
There are many unknowns in how the earth's climate system works. The CAGW scenario requires a positive-feedback multiplier on the normal greenhouse effect of CO2 to get any results above ~1C per doubling of CO2 concentration. It is assumed that clouds cause this positive-feedback by trapping more heat (water vapor of course is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2), but the problem is that some clouds also reflect more incoming radiation back into space.

The total effects of these clouds is not understood. Also, other natural processes affect cloud formation. Small changes in cloud cover and composition can have a pretty large effect on radiation trapped or reflected away. All of this is unknown, though. Clouds may have a negative-feedback effect, which would offset increases from other "forcings". Since the earth has had higher concentrations of CO2 in the past with both warmer and cooler temperatures than at the present, this seems likely.

Finally, these models that are used to argue the CAGW scenario have failed to even get the climate right for the last decade (statistical analysis at How they could be expected to be right in 100 years or more after falling down in less than 10 years is not clear to me.

SO, yes we have all of these warming scenarios coming out of the models, but no reason to have any faith in the models. Why should I throw tons of money at a problem that 1) might not actually exist, 2) if it exists, is completely uncontrollable by humans, 3) if some warming were to happen, could be beneficial to mankind (larger temperate regions, fewer deaths from cold, etc).

For extra credit, please tell us what the correct or optimal temperature of the earth should be. The average temperature now? End of the 20th century? 1850? Why?

RE: Misleading Title
By Nfarce on 2/16/2011 7:19:12 PM , Rating: 4
Never mind the fact that we can't even get a consistent temperature reading standard out there. Temp sensors placed in freaking PARKING LOTS? Please:

And regarding having faith in computer modeling as establishing "fact" I'd also submit the NOAA's track record of the past five years of Atlantic basin hurricane forecasting post-Katrina (since Katrina was supposedly a super-hurricane cause by man-made global warming) and more were on the way in the next several seasons:

2006: Forecast as "very active." Was "below average" at the end.
2007: Forecast as "very active." Was "below average" at the end.
2008: Forecast as "very active." Was "below average" at the end.
2009: Forecast as "average." NOAA had to reduce forecast mid-season and was "below average" at the end.
2010: Forecast as "very active." Was "below normal" at the end.

And to think some people and politicians want to push forward job-killing and tax hell of Cap & Trade all because of model-driven data on alleged man-made global warming. Tell ya what. Let's get the modeling accuracy basics like regional hurricane forecasting down before attempting to model the entire planet and a cause for a raise (or lowering) of average temperatures.

RE: Misleading Title
By walk2k on 2/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: Misleading Title
By Nfarce on 2/16/2011 10:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
Are you going to debate the FACTS of the blog posted? Are you going to debate the FAILURES of computer modeling (the other point)? Or are you just going to drool on your keyboard like we all know you do best? Oh wait...

RE: Misleading Title
By wookie1 on 2/17/2011 11:06:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'd also recommend where the contributors (volunteers around the country) have surveyed and documented the USHCN weather stations around the country. In addition to the UHI effect, many of these weather stations are in the middle of parking lots (like the University of Arizona), next to BBQ grills, on rooftops (and sometimes next to the big A/C unit on the roof), between runways at major international airports, etc. To say that temperature can be measured by all of these stations with the accuracy needed seems far-fetched.

Also, these temperatures are adjusted prior to being reported by GISS. You may think that each month's adjustments are for that month only, but it turns out that the entire historic record is changed each month. So the temperature for any particular day in the past is dependent on what date you look at the data. Part of the adjustments are supposed to be to compensate for UHI, but some stations in the middle of large cities are adjusted warmer! Not sure how you would adjust a city station up to fix readings that would be too warm due to UHI?

Satellite measurements may be more immune to these issues, but the length of the record is only something like 30 years, so too short when oceanic cycles like AMO and PDO are ~30 years.

RE: Misleading Title
By walk2k on 2/16/2011 8:09:08 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry but over 97% of climate scientists believe global warming is real.. sorry if we believe them over some Faux News mouthpieces for the oil cartels.

RE: Misleading Title
By someguy123 on 2/16/2011 10:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
Normally I'd agree with you if it wasn't for Harold Lewis resigning due to lack of transparency and corruption within the global warming research community.

RE: Misleading Title
By Nfarce on 2/16/2011 10:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's called supporting an argument (or in this case movement) for continuing grants - that's our taxpayer dollars for simpletons. Of course, the easiest thing to do is follow what the politicians do. Moonbats can shove their fascist draconian Cap & Trade up the bunghole with a red hot global warming poker.

RE: Misleading Title
By thurston on 2/16/2011 5:47:42 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know if you have noticed this or not but most of Jason Mick's articles would be right at home on Fox News.

RE: Misleading Title
By Nfarce on 2/16/2011 7:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well I sure wouldn't expect to see opposing views of AGW on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Orlando Sentinel, The LA Times, and all of those other 'fair and balanced' "news" outlets.

RE: Misleading Title
By chagrinnin on 2/16/2011 7:28:22 PM , Rating: 3
That's where Jon Stewart comes in.

RE: Misleading Title
By walk2k on 2/16/2011 8:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly reality has a liberal bias.

RE: Misleading Title
By Nfarce on 2/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: Misleading Title
By YashBudini on 2/20/2011 12:49:37 PM , Rating: 2

Doesn't get any more fair and balanced than that.

or that it might continue to increase for a while
By zorxd on 2/16/2011 4:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
"or that it might continue to increase for a while"
The most important part of the citation and yet Dailytech didn't notice. For a while doesn't mean forever.

By chagrinnin on 2/16/2011 7:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
For a while doesn't mean forever.

Dailytech: We'll get back to you on that, a while. :P

By toyotabedzrock on 2/18/2011 12:58:21 AM , Rating: 2
He is a student, and is not a climatologist.

By roykahn on 2/18/2011 4:06:39 AM , Rating: 1
When practically all reputable climatologists believe in anthropological climate change and a few scientists and researches don't, it is reported by the media that there's a balance of opinion. It is reported that we do not need to change our habits. We do not need to threaten the profits of oil and coal companies and other industries that rely on them. Just keep our consumption habits the same so that the economy can continue expanding and everything will be ok, right? We are a doomed species.

Even if warming ceased now...
By IcePickFreak on 2/16/2011 5:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
...the BS sensationalist media articles would continue

By Ratinator on 2/16/2011 5:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
Next on News 11:
Anti-global warming advocates are in an uproar after it is found out that current climate modelling systems contained a portion of code that continously increased the earth's warming trend. The code was found after a model was presented in which all emissions were cut to zero and the earth continued to warm at a consistent rate.

More on this after this commercial break.

heres my theory
By RedemptionAD on 2/16/2011 7:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
It is means to get hotter to a point then the atmosphere has sort of a built in release valve gases escape at that point and temperature is regulated globally. With industrial stuff going on all we do is quicken the cycle.

By tpurves on 2/17/2011 8:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
Please never use the unit "Fahrenheit" in a scientific article. What's wrong with you?

By zephyrprime on 2/17/2011 11:33:01 AM , Rating: 2
This is just a theory with little backing about a relatively arcane component of global warming theory. This is hardly worth publishing on DailyTech.

By wookie1 on 2/17/2011 11:43:16 AM , Rating: 2
The models used to support the claims of this article are based on an assumption that CO2 residence time in the atmoshpere is very long, hundreds or thousands of years. Other research suggests that this is much too long, that 16 years is about the upper limit. An excerpt of a research paper found at

In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor. The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa. Correspondingly, Dr. Essenhigh concludes that the politically driven target of capture and sequestration of carbon from combustion sources would be a major and pointless waste of physical and financial resources.

What's the real answer? Thousands of years or a couple of decades? I'm not sure, maybe it's neither. Why would I agree to toss a ton of money and give up freedom to fight a problem when all there is to support it is a computer model that likely has a bunch of incorrect assumptions built into it? The science is NOT settled. The debate is NOT over.

By jiminmpls on 2/17/2011 8:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
The first paragraph if this article demonstrates that the author is absolutely clueless about global warming. Aerosols have a COOLING impact, not warming.

This was clearly stated in the referenced press release, too.

Atmosphere Scrubbers anyone?
By OldSgtZ on 2/20/2011 5:40:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, it's time for mankind to rule the Earth absolutley. We need to remove large mountain chains that disrupt air flow such as the Andes, Mount Washington, and Mount Everest. We need to raise the lowest places on earth such as Death Valley. And when those minor feats of accomplishments have been made, then we build enormous 2 mile tall structures that take in the bad air and give us back a good mixture of nitrogen and oxygen to make us all live longer. We shall call them Atmosphere Scrubbers, and they can attach the Space Elevator to each of them...... And the best part, we will also create global employment and truly become a Global Society ruled by the U.N.

What does this have to do with Tech?
By Chaser on 2/16/11, Rating: 0
By chagrinnin on 2/16/2011 7:26:05 PM , Rating: 1
This article applies to the "Daily" part of Dailytech. Some people believe we're running out of "daily's",...and we're to blame!? :P

By Lerianis on 2/18/2011 7:33:33 PM , Rating: 1
Since the mid-1800's. So, I seriously doubt that the world is 'still warming' or if it is/was even warming at all.

As I keep on pointing out: adjust the calendar for 30 days of additional due to leap years, and the temperatures NORMALIZE in almost all areas.

Normalize meaning that the temperatures have only 'increased' a fraction of a degree and in some cases, have decreased a fraction of a degree.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki