Print 104 comment(s) - last by ekv.. on Jan 28 at 4:00 AM

Is Antarctica warming or cooling? Either way it proves global warming, according to climate modelers.

In the 1990s, predictions of a greenhouse-warmed Antarctic abounded. As time passed, though, problems surfaced. Research paper after paper indicated that, other than the tiny Antarctica peninsula, the continent was in fact cooling -- and had been doing so for many decades.

Skeptics pointed to this as a flaw in global warming theory. Not so fast, cried the climate modelers. They quickly spun a number of possible explanations, including ozone holes, ocean currents, and terrain that cut off Antarctica from the world's warming. As the certainty in the cooling trend grew, so did their statements, until they eventually began stating that they had predicted a cooling trend all along.

As the folks at RealClimate put it, "Doesn't this contradict [global warming]? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict… and have predicted for the past quarter century."

Cooling was thus cast as proof of global warming, not refutation. The media dutifully shifted their cameras from penguins to polar bears. The world was safe for Kyoto again.

But now a new paper has appeared, saying that Antarctica is warming after all. Written by Eric Steig and Drew Shindell, the paper purports to prove that past evidence of cooling was incorrect. But doesn't that contradict the models? Not if one can again rewrite history.

Speaking at a news conference today, Steig says, "We now see warming is taking place [in] accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases."

In 2004, Shindell had something very different to say. That year he authored a paper that stated, "Surface temperatures [had] decreased significantly over most of Antarctica," Shindell added, "This cooling is consistent with circulation changes". He dedicated the rest of the paper to demonstrating that climate modeling "reproduces the vertical structure and seasonality of observed [cooling] trends."

Today, Shindell says, "It’s extremely difficult to think of any physical way that you could have increasing greenhouse gases not lead to warming at the Antarctic continent.". One can only wonder if he kept a straight face.

Even the New York Times is playing along, saying that cooling "ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models". Memories are short.

The real story here isn't Antarctica. It's the willingness to rationalize model results to fit any and all scenarios. To the modelers, their results are consistent with. . . well, everything. Whether warmer or colder, flood or drought, more storms or less -- it's all proof that global warming is real and happening now.

This, of course, isn't real science. A true theory require something called falsifiability -- a set of conditions under which it can be disproven. So far, this is something the modelers have failed to give. It allows them to maintain a facade of unflappable certainty-- but it isn't science.

Among researchers who work with actual climate data, skepticism is climbing. The modelers at least remain faithful. But as of now, their predictions are rather like the gypsy fortune teller who tells you, "You will live a long life -- unless you die young."

Comments     Threshold

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

Plausible deniability
By Screwballl on 1/22/2009 11:50:43 AM , Rating: 5
... or also called displaced responsibility. Failure to take responsibility for reporting the facts, instead only reporting the flawed information that gets you more money from more sheep willing to believe that MMGW is real.

In the end it is a bunch of talking heads (without a thinking brain) looking at the numbers they want, and anything that points to the opposite is ignored, simply to further their agenda. If the fact shows that plants are absorbing more CO2 now than 10 years ago, they ignore it and only show the flawed and incomplete statistics of man releasing more CO2.

Face it, the reality and FACT is that our planet and other planets around the universe go through normal heating and cooling trends on their own. The planets such as ours also have natural mechanisms that work to balance any changes, such as plants that grow faster and larger because they soak up more CO2.

Look at coastal areas by the Pacific or Atlantic. On the left coast we have massive redwoods that soak up massive amounts of CO2... yet the coastal saltwater should be reducing the CO2 absorption thus not allowing these trees to grow to the size they are, not increasing their CO2 absorption. The effects of both sodium chloride and CO2 on oxygen binding by component II of the hemoglobin from Artemia Franciscana have been determined that Sodium chloride decreases both the oxygen affinity and cooperativity: the Hill coefficient decreases from 2.4 to 1.7 in the presence of 0.5 M NaCl at pH 7.5, 20°C. In contrast, CO2 increases both the oxygen affinity and cooperativity. The effects of both agents are small and increase with the degree of oxygenation.
As CO2 increases, this means that the salt included in the air bonding with the increased CO2 in the atmosphere speeds up the growth and health of plants along coastal areas. Soaking up the CO2 faster means release of the Oxygen much faster as well thus reducing any impact of man made CO2 released. This means those redwoods will grow faster and larger than before, and it means the Everglades in Florida will grow faster and thicker than before. Also means faster, larger and healthier crop production in Florida and other coastal states.

Nature adjusts itself regardless if any compound, including CO2, increases or decreases. Man may be putting out more chemicals but nature always cleans itself up and adjusts accordingly.

RE: Plausible deniability
By Grabo on 1/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Plausible deniability
By masher2 on 1/22/2009 12:45:14 PM , Rating: 5
> ""The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century"

If the theory of CO2 causing climate change is so basic, you might ask yourself why Arrhenius wrote several research papers in the 19th century and even a book-- and still failed to convince any of his colleagues. Why it wasn't until the 1960s, in fact, that anyone believed CO2 could affect climate, and even to the late 1970s, most believed that cooling could predominate warming. Why even today, many atmospheric physicists still don't subscribe to alarmism. Hint, the two basic problems revolve around "saturation" and "spectral overlap".

And for the record, yes: CO2 does cause the earth to warm. That's not what the debate is about at all. The base warming from CO2 is very low (about 0.5C/per doubling). The question is positive and negative feedbacks, and how large they may be.

RE: Plausible deniability
By Grabo on 1/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: Plausible deniability
By WTFiSJuiCE on 1/23/2009 2:18:04 AM , Rating: 2
At this point, NASA will say anything in hopes of not seeing their budget diced to pieces.

RE: Plausible deniability
By PlasmaBomb on 1/24/2009 1:29:23 PM , Rating: 5
Current state-of-the-art climate models

The problem is that current state-of-the-art climate models can't model their way out of a (biodegradable) paper bag...

RE: Plausible deniability
By ekv on 1/28/2009 2:56:47 AM , Rating: 2
Am ignoring the "Hint" because it makes you sound like Mr. Eckart ... Check out


I have a bit of a problem with your Climate_sensitivity link since it references IPCC.

I'm sure most people here have read about IPCC's "hockey stick" but Orson Card bears repeating every now and then.

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

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