Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming by Ghoulman

This is all part and parcel to your previous lie. I never claimed that there was conclusive proof. In fact, with a search of this thread you can see that I never used the word “proof” to describe the evidence either way in any post I made in this thread. This is something you made up. It’s either a figment of your imagination or a lie.

But to address your scientific method argument. If you knew anything about the scientific method then you would know that your assumption that science can only disprove is a not actually an axiom of the scientific method at all, but itself a theory called falsificationism. It is itself an unreasonable practice, as it fails to recognize that one cannot necessarily disprove something either. The observations used to disprove something are as likely to be found in error as those used to prove something. So strictly speaking falsificationsim is a fraud, because science can’t disprove anything either. Science can only draw upon the data. It can only make conclusion based on data that is available. Science cannot logically talk in terms of strictly proving or disproving anything, it can only talk in terms of conclusive data or inconclusive data. That is to say, can we reasonably draw a conclusion from the data. We can’t necessarily prove or disprove that conclusion, we can only say that a particularly conclusion can be drawn from the data. If that data is contradictory, as in the case of global warming data, then we must be careful about drawing any conclusion, lest we allow our science to become sectarian. In that case, we can only say that the data is inconclusive.

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Also, if you work on computer models, you'd know that they predict a range. Insisting that models predict exactly what will happen tomorrow- or ten years from now- would eliminate using all of our economic models, actuarial tables, and medical models. Take Social Security, for example- only the most pessimistic projection predicts that Social Security is going "broke", nonetheless Bush plans his crisis response to that projection.

Another good reason to find the evidence as put forth by the IPCC et al as inconclusive.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
As far as GCMs, they all predict warming, differing only by how much and when. And the earth is indeed, warming. So the models are at least accurate to predict the trend.

Well the earth is probably warming. The mean surface temperature trend is not strong enough to be considered a fact just yet, but certainly the earth is probably warming. And the models are able to predict mean surface temperature. However a GCM that accurately predicts mean surface temperature will not accurately predict atmosphere temperatures or oceans temperatures. They only work for certain sets of data. Either the observations are wrong, or the models are wrong, but certainly one of them is wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Of course, you COULD say that the measurements are all bogus, but then you'd be irrelevant again, AND self-contradictory.

Well this is your party line, but there’s nothing irrelevant or contradictory about skepticism in science. When your ideas become irrelevant to science is when you start dismissing half the evidence to prop up an ideological or sectarian view.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 10:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Not so, Finn. The reason why I brought that up is called "hypothesis testing". I was hoping to take this discussion into more- er- relevant territory. Usually, you set up a hypothesis (based on suggestive data and a proposed mechanism) then set about to disprove it. Especially if you are dealing with a hypothesis that requires a lot of data to demonstrate, you avoid the problem of error by looking at things like confidence intervals and so forth.

I actually didn't say that you have conclusive DISproof of the whole concept of global warming, I was just pointing out the fact that for you to demand conclusive proof is scientifically impossible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:15 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
I’m a little skeptical of this sudden need to recalculate the satellite data, because it reeks of a desire to find numbers that support the simulation

The problem is that though people talk about 'calibration', it is really an uncalibrated measurement. They can calibrate the sensors (before launch), but they can't take tropospheric temperatures for the relevant geography and use that to calibrate the raw radiance signal coming from the same area. It is a 'first principles' measurement based on constants and corrections, rather than a truly calibrated measurement.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not so, Finn. The reason why I brought that up is called "hypothesis testing". I was hoping to take this discussion into more- er- relevant territory. Usually, you set up a hypothesis (based on suggestive data and a proposed mechanism) then set about to disprove it. Especially if you are dealing with a hypothesis that requires a lot of data to demonstrate, you avoid the problem of error by looking at things like confidence intervals and so forth.

Yes, based on the evidence. You don’t avoid the problem of error, entirely. A confidence interval is only as good as the data provided. If the data is wrong, then it doesn’t matter how much statistical confidence you have in it. However, if you would like to move this discussion in a different direction, perhaps a mathematical one, then I would be interested in reading your opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I actually didn't say that you have conclusive DISproof of the whole concept of global warming, I was just pointing out the fact that for you to demand conclusive proof is scientifically impossible.

In general, I agree. But I never made such a claim and for you to imply that I did is disingenuous.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The problem is that though people talk about 'calibration', it is really an uncalibrated measurement. They can calibrate the sensors (before launch), but they can't take tropospheric temperatures for the relevant geography and use that to calibrate the raw radiance signal coming from the same area. It is a 'first principles' measurement based on constants and corrections, rather than a truly calibrated measurement.

That's true. Calibration errors have been observed in the satellite data.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 21, 2005 7:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Finn: You started this game with the insinuations that I lied about my career from the beginning of this discussion.

Actually:

Quote:
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 06:16 Although rue’s ‘fact’ finding mission of the opposing argument may have primarily been an attempt to prop up her own position

Followed by:

Quote:
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 17:50 Finn, If I recall correctly, at one point you claimed to have access to Top Secret US Intelligence on covert ops in S. America. More recently you claimed to be a scientist. So tell me, are you 'intelligence', or a scientist?

When YOU take swipes, expect something back.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 21, 2005 8:10 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,
I did try to parse your argument, but it contradicted itself in a baroque pattern of circles.
Here is one brief example: You use crippled and short-term r-s/sat data (which you nevertheless support) plus robust surface temperature data (which you denigrate) to disprove a GCM (which you vehemently oppose), while also at the same time arguing that surface temperature data is meaningless b/c they don't correlate to sat data according to the GCM.
Another brief example: you claim that 'looking' at the hockey stick you can tell that warming and CO2 are not related, at the sme time you claim that GCMs that DO relate temps to CO2 (as well as vocanic events, solar input and other climate drivers) are bogus, but that the hockey stick is not accurate anyway, even tho it 'shows' CO2 and temps are not related.
Perhaps you could come up with a concise statement of your position so we could discuss the topic rationally.
Otherwise, I do agree with SignyM: it is the self-contradictory and (my opinion) essentially dishonest nature of your postings by which you put yourself the category "irrelevant".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 21, 2005 9:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Finn: You started this game with the insinuations that I lied about my career from the beginning of this discussion.

Actually:
Quote:
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 06:16 Although rue’s ‘fact’ finding mission of the opposing argument may have primarily been an attempt to prop up her own position

Followed by:
Quote:
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 17:50 Finn, If I recall correctly, at one point you claimed to have access to Top Secret US Intelligence on covert ops in S. America. More recently you claimed to be a scientist. So tell me, are you 'intelligence', or a scientist?

When YOU take swipes, expect something back.

That’s very amusing, but clearly the facts say otherwise.

First of all let’s look at what I actually said and not what you took out of context:

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Although rue’s ‘fact’ finding mission of the opposing argument may have primarily been an attempt to prop up her own position, I still applaud her for at least attempting to check the other side, and in the process she has apparently learned something.

So conveniently you ignored half of what I said. You seem to have a knack with ignoring half the evidence, don’t you?

Now let’s look at what you actually said.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I was curious enough about the whole issue to look for global warming naysayers.

First I found the Leipzig Declaration. It looked impressive enough, though the list is outdated (last updated in 1997). Out of curiosity, I looked for publications of the 'scientist' signatories (not the TV weathermen who also signed) to get a feel for their area of expertise and their forum for scietific publishing. Nearly all of those listed are found only in reference to aformentioned Declaration, which appears to be their only contribution to climate study. Many, sadly, have since passed on. Out of the entire list, I could find only three who had any publications listed on the internet. Only one was significantly geared to large-scale (though not global) climate. None appear to be researchers in the field.

I could have saved myself the effort if I had simply checked out this site:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Glo
bal_Climate_Change
Quote:
When journalist David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times investigated the Leipzig Declaration, however, he discovered that most of its signers have not dealt with climate issues at all and none of them is an acknowledged leading expert. A journalist with the Danish Broadcasting Company attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who did admit signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an expert on flying insects.

You examined the other side of the argument, what you referred to as “global warming naysayers.” And you concluded that since you couldn’t find publications of the scientists that you examined on the internet, it must then mean that some journalist from the St. Petersburg Times who disagreed with them must be correct. Why scientists necessarily have to publish their works on the internet to be valid science? I don’t know. What a Journalist actually knows about this science that would make his opinion necessarily trump the opinion of several scientists? I don’t know. But what is clear is that your interpretation of the evidence was apparently intended to prop up your own position, not give fair presentation of the so called “global warming naysayers.” You claimed to have examined the other side of the argument, but really your whole argument is based on the opinion of David Oliger, a journalist, who out of sheer luck, I guess, happened to prop up your position. What a coincidence!

So my response was not a “swipe,” but an observation and a fair one.

Now your response to me then was to insinuate that I was lying about my career. You can’t possibly know anything about my career, so your speculation is pure ad hominem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 21, 2005 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I did try to parse your argument, but it contradicted itself in a baroque pattern of circles.
Here is one brief example: You use crippled and short-term r-s/sat data (which you nevertheless support) plus robust surface temperature data (which you denigrate) to disprove a GCM (which you vehemently oppose), while also at the same time arguing that surface temperature data is meaningless b/c they don't correlate to sat data according to the GCM.

1. There’s nothing “robust” about the surface temperature data compared to the satellite data. For instance, the surface temperature data on average has an error of about 0.2C, the satellite data, on the other hand, has an error of about 0.05C. Furthermore, things like the heat island theory cast further doubt on the accuracy of the surface temperature measurements. So your description of the robustness of the data would seem to be intended to favor one over the other without valid scientific reasoning.

2. I do vehemently oppose the use of GCMs to support policy.

3. I have never argued that the surface temperature measurement is meaningless. Never! You’re in error or you made it up. In fact, I’ve not contended any data was meaningless. What I have said is that if a model of the climate can only predict one set of data associated with the climate, then the best you can say is that it is an incomplete model.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Another brief example: you claim that 'looking' at the hockey stick you can tell that warming and CO2 are not related, at the sme time you claim that GCMs that DO relate temps to CO2 (as well as vocanic events, solar input and other climate drivers) are bogus, but that the hockey stick is not accurate anyway, even tho it 'shows' CO2 and temps are not related.

(1) I never claimed that that analysis came from the ‘hockey stick’ data. In fact, I specifically pointed to the mean surface temperature measurements. How you or why you decided that I got that from Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ data is beyond me.

(2) I think you are confusing the ‘hockey stick’ and the mean global temperature data, and thus you are confusing two different debates.

The conclusion drawn from the ‘hockey stick’ data is that the mean global temperature is unique. That is to say that global mean temperatures have remained constant for a thousand years and then suddenly jump up in just this last century. This data is refuted by (a) other analyses of the proxy data that show much more variation over the last thousand years, and (b) historical evidence independent of the global warming debate that suggests (and has suggested for a long time) that global mean temperature may have varied widely giving rise to what has been called the ‘Medieval Warming Period’ and the ‘Little Iceage.’

Secondly, the mean global temperature is based on surface temperature measurements. And it is this temperature data that he GCMs either predict or are tuned to predict. And the extent of relation between this temperature data and the Carbon Dioxide concentration data is simply that they are both increasing. There is no indication they have increased at the same rate. I don’t doubt that some correlation may exist, but I do question whether the observed increase in Carbon Dioxide completely describes the observed increase in temperature.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Perhaps you could come up with a concise statement of your position so we could discuss the topic rationally.
Otherwise, I do agree with SignyM: it is the self-contradictory and (my opinion) essentially dishonest nature of your postings by which you put yourself the category "irrelevant".

I don’t see anything self-contradictory about my opinion. If these examples you’ve provided are any indication then what I see is an attempt to prop up certain data (i.e. the claimed ‘robustness’ of the MGT), a general misunderstanding of what I have said and a misunderstanding of the data (i.e. confusing the ‘hockey stick’ with MGT.)

So you are welcome to hold the opinion that my postings are irrelevant or dishonest. But that only further demonstrates to me the sectarian nature of your opinions. You obviously have your opinions about the issue, and that’s fine, but my feeling is that your opinions are more ideological then scientific. The only way to draw the conclusion that the earth is experiencing a catastrophic, anthropogenic and historically unique increase in mean global temperature is to dismiss half the data, which you have done fervidly.

Frankly, rue, I don’t see how we can continue this discussion in any rational way, since doing so would require you to accept more then just half the data. Based on the degree of misunderstanding and confusion presented in your examples of your interpretation of my opinion, I am not confident that anything I’ve said has been listened to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 21, 2005 3:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

SigmaNunki
Quote:
Your insistence of requiring conclusive proof is a clear indicator that you have no clue how science actually works. You should work on that.

I laughed out loud. Thanks.

I am to please

I found the below link at realclimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

Quite funny http://biggav.blogspot.com/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-latest-hockey-stic
k.html
"
Most climate change denial is normally left to nuts posting on the internet...
"

These are some things that Finn should really read and the latter contains some pics that Finn should really look at.

At any rate, my workload just skyrocketed again. So, I'm forced to contribute when/what I can, when I can *sigh*

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 21, 2005 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quite funny http://biggav.blogspot.com/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-latest-hockey-stic
k.html
"
Most climate change denial is normally left to nuts posting on the internet...
"

What’s even funnier is that that was posted on the internet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 22, 2005 5:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SigmaNunki

Well, if you can't take it easy, I hope things go swimmingly at least.

I too am busy. For me, I'm working on a few things and so making only incremental progress on anything. I would really like to get just one thing done. On the plus side, in my experience, it's far far better than working on an assembly line, my all time selection for jobs that will drive you mad.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 24, 2005 1:03 PM

STARGAZER7

I saw this guy on TV, talking about the effects of global warming. Its as if this is some huge breakthrough. I mean just look at any factory with its smoke and you know that ain't good. Wonder if this "discovery" will make any difference...

"Hmmmm...upgrades" -Neo (Matrix: Reloaded)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 24, 2005 6:58 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer7:
I mean just look at any factory with its smoke and you know that ain't good.

Tell that to the unemployed steelworkers in CLeveland and Youngstown, or unemployed textile workers in Pennsylvania, or unemployed autoworkers in Michigan.

The only thing worse then a factory with its smoke is one without its smoke.

And as for global warming, let these so-called experts come to Cleveland in December or January to have the global get togethers. They can debate global warming in 3ft. snow drifts with their hands wrapped around a cup of coffee for warmth rather then sipping bottled water around the pool in Rio during the "summer" months.

The science is questionable. The solution (Kyoto) punishes developed nations while giving a pass to low tech developers such as Mexico and China. Given a choice I think most Americans would rather have a paycheck then a another clean air tax that keeps the local factories closed while moving the jobs to nations with no wage, health, safety, or enviromental standards.

So to recap. Smoking factories

, good. Unemployment, bad.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 25, 2005 5:28 PM

@Hero:
Care to state something that you haven't stated before? Care to state something that hasn't been thrown out already?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2005 9:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And relating to Finn's comment above, the latest Analog has a blurb from Jeff Kooistra about a book titled "Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible", by James P Hogan. It goes after many of the "Everybody Knows" subjects from Darwinism to global warming. Should be an interesting read as well.

I finally came across this book a few weeks ago. I finished reading it last week. It is interesting. It does a good job of presenting some of the cracks in the theories we have come to think of as indisputable, and some of the less then scientific practices that are sometimes employed to maintain that illusion. A little technical in areas, but not too bad. I’d write a synopsis if anyone is interested.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 2, 2005 9:40 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Speaking of interesting reading, Crichton's State of Fear is featured by John Stossel. I despise Stossel's crudely unintelligent reporting in general, so don't take this as an endorsement of Stossel's views.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Stossel20050401.shtml

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 2:45 AM

I was considering getting Crichton’s new book. I’ve heard from several sources that it has some good information in it. I hope it does the trick of shifting popular opinion away from this superstitious speculation about global warming, or at least helps to balance it out a little bit. I’ve also heard that it’s not a very enjoyable read, but then I didn’t check the source either, and it’s quite possible that some people will want to dissuade people from reading the book. I don’t do a lot of light reading anymore, but I’m interested enough that I might just purchase this book. Though probably not in hardcover so it will be a couple of months.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 6:44 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@Hero:
Care to state something that you haven't stated before? Care to state something that hasn't been thrown out already?

Its April and 15 inches of snow fell in Cleveland last weekend. In other words a normal healthy spring in NE Ohio.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 5:46 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Some scientists believe the snow cap of Mount Kilimanjaro will be gone in two decades. Researchers say the ice fields on Africa's highest mountain shrank by 80 percent in the past century.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20031222/

Two years later:

Quote:
Kilimanjaro's trademark snowy cap, at 5,895 metres (19,340ft), is now all but gone - 15 years before scientists predicted it would melt through global warming.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1437549,00.html

And

Quote:
WASHINGTON, March 30, 2005 — A landmark study released today reveals that approximately 60 percent of the ecosystem services that support life on Earth – such as fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water regulation, and the regulation of regional climate, natural hazards and pests – are being degraded or used unsustainably. Scientists warn that the harmful consequences of this degradation could grow significantly worse in the next 50 years.
Conducted by 1,300 experts from 95 countries, the report specifically states that the ongoing degradation of ecosystem services is a road block to the Millennium Development Goals agreed to by the world leaders at the United Nations in 2000.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES /EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/0,,contentMDK:20419328~menuPK:208943~pagePK:146736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:226301,00.html

From which do you prefer to get your reality - a book of fiction or bona fide science?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 6:33 PM

Oh good. Another unsubstantiated unquantifiable claim of “proof” of the end of the world. Maybe the Larsen B Ice shelf speculation got old?

Bona fide science? More like sensationalism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 3:55 PM

More than bonafide sensationalism, it's just plain falsehood perpetuated by a media-feeding frenzy - this from folks who claim to not follow the media-sensationalism and follow good research practices...

Those pictures of the snow field melting and receding are taken at various times at different seasons following the natural recession of the snow field due to a naturally occuring trend in the local environment and not specifically linked to any global warming trends. In fact, the local atmosphere around Killamanjaro has been following a noticeable cooling trend and the rate of recession have slowed. In March 2004, Dr. Georg Kaser and an international team of experts in tropical weather, mountain glaciers and paleoclimatologists published a report in the International Journal of Climatology.

Their finding is that the local climate changes since 1850's resulted in a reduction of available atmospheric moisture in the vicinity. Without local moisture, the glacier does not get replenished from seasonal changes from the equatorial sun.

Nasa satallite measurements of the temperature history shows decline since records began in 1979

So, they also concluded that the glacier is here to stay if the local trend holds up.

“One of the endlessly fascinating aspects of modern journalism is the absolute lack of critical insight tendered towards environmental scares,” said Pat Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. “A cursory inspection of (Kilimanjaro) data shows that Kilimanjaro’s glaciers would be dying even if Homo sapiens were still just hanging around the trees of the Rift Valley, a few hundred miles to the West.

“From 1953 through 1976, 21 percent of the original (ice cap) area was uncovered. This was during a period of global cooling--yes, cooling--of 0.13º F,” said Michaels. “Around Kilimanjaro, satellite data show a cooling of 0.40º F since 1979 Still, Kilimanjaro’s glaciers continued to shrink.”

Added Michaels, “Kilimanjaro turns out to be just another snow job, precipitated by a journalistic community that has lost its desire for critical factual investigation when it comes to our globe’s environment.”

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 4:28 PM

Jasonzzz gets a star.

The accepted theory of Kilimanjaro’s increased snow cap recession is more local deforestation then global warming. That of course won’t stop the Kyoto advocates from pushing images of Kilimanjaro as “proof” of eminent death by CO2 created by western nations.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 11:10 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quick question. Has anyone heard about global dimming? The first time I heard the phrase was when I stumbled across this transcript from a BBC programme ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml ). I was surprised because I thought I had a decent layman's knowledge of the terms involved in the global climate change discussion but this was a new one for me. From a cursory read, global dimming means we are getting less sunlight than in decades past. I'm not quite sure where to put this but some of the anecdotes and research cited in the transcript were interesting (although the first story they lead off with - rise in temperature throughout US following grounding of airplanes after September 11, 2001 - isn't brought back up until much later in the program. It worked for me, that was the hook that got me reading the thing.).

Just wondering if anyone else had come across this term before.

And if there's any there there, maybe we shouldn't be developing more efficient means of solar power generation

.

* hat tip to Kevin Drum for the link

** editted to add: On a more global note... I'm just curious about where people stand on the following question: Do you think we, as a species, are affecting global climate?

---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2005 2:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Since you didn't post a link, I went and looked up your 'data'. It ultimately comes from the greening earth society:

Quote:
The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageI
D=499

Quote:
Dr. Lonnie G. Thompson, the Ohio State University glaciologist whose work first focused attention on Kilimanjaro's fading ice, said he saw ample evidence that melting was eating away at what remained.

His specialty is extracting cylinders of layered, ancient ice from tropical glaciers, and when his team drilled into one of the mountain's ice fields in 2000, water flooded out of the hole. In the resulting cores, shallow layers contained elongated bubbles — strong evidence of melting and refreezing — while deeper layers had none.

"This all suggests that what we are seeing at least in the last 20 years or so is different," Dr. Thompson said. He believes the mountain may be close to a threshold at which melting will become the dominant force eroding the ice. "The balance of evidence says something bigger is going on in the system," he said.

You didn't care to address the other study presented to the Royal Society regarding earth's resources.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2005 4:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Quick question. Has anyone heard about global dimming?

. . .

** editted to add: On a more global note... I'm just curious about where people stand on the following question: Do you think we, as a species, are affecting global climate?

I’ve always thought of it as referring to increased aerosol in the atmosphere. The cooling effect of aerosols has been used as a source of criticism for the GCMs and their overall lack of negative feedback predictions. The presence of aerosols in the atmosphere is one of things that we have a difficult time accounting for in the models. Aerosols are a source of negative forcing in the climate; thereby they act as the complete opposite of greenhouse gases. This isn’t necessarily something new. Aerosols have been a part of the climate equations from the beginning, though the media rarely mentions them.

The global dimming phenomenon is something that has only recently been reported. I’ll admit a certain ignorance of it myself. Unlike most greenhouse gases, aerosols tend to be short lived and I was under the impression that recent policies would have diminished the concentration of sulfates in the atmosphere. So it is puzzling then that aerosols are being blamed for what seems to be a continuous reduction in solar intensity. Perhaps the concentration of sulfates has not been reduced, or sources of natural aerosols have increased. I’m not sure.

One example of how aerosols may have influenced or may be influencing the climate was presented in this thread. One of the theories is that increased concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere caused a decrease in mean solar radiation and therefore represents a negative feedback source for mean global temperature that early on eclipsed the overall positive feedback caused by greenhouse gasses. This is one of the proposed reasons for the decrease in mean global temperature in the 60s and 70s, and why the rates of mean global temperature and the mean carbon dioxide concentration measurements don’t correlate well. (You know, that “anomaly” that all the global warming advocates were trying to dismiss.) Some have suggested that the aerosols are “masking” the effect of greenhouse gasses. That’s true, but it’s always been true. The two have always played diametric rolls in the climate, probably long before the DNA of proto-humans was mixing around in dinosaur-dung eating rodents.

It’s a nice theory, but the effect of aerosols in the atmosphere is still not widely understood. There are other theories that explain the lack of correlation that have nothing to do with aerosols; solar cycles for instance. And if increasing concentrations of aerosols are to blame for a decrease in mean solar intensity then why does their effect on mean temperature seem to have been so brief? So like most of the issues of global warming, it is still quite an open debate.

As for your second question: the answer is yes, I think we are affecting global climate. For me, and I think most scientists, the question has never been are we affecting global climate, but rather to what degree.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 7, 2005 5:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
You know, that “anomaly” that all the global warming advocates were trying to dismiss.

No anomaly:

Quote:
The following graph shows modeled natural, anthropogenic and total global warming, and compares them against actual measures. The model, which runs from about 1860 to 2000, is accurate in calculating temperatures:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig12-7.htm

Re global warming and dimming, here's a piece from NASA:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2004/20040520170
17.html

and from NOAA

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_aero.html

Some aerosols (ammonium sulfate) can reflect light back into space while others (soot) absorb it and re-emit it as heat into the atmosphere.

Another factor is residence time, which can be as short as a few minutes to as long as a few years, depending on particle size, ability to attract water, and which atmospheric level it inhabits (among other factors).

So, to create two pictures:

The fine particulate matter material ejected into the stratosphere by Mt Pinatubo was primarily in the form of sulfur oxides, which over time became sulfates, then combined with ammonium (to form salt), which reflected light back into space. They cooled the earth for roughly two years. Though they are highly attractive to water, it took a while for them to rain out because they were in a dry atmospheric level.

The fine carbon particles (less than PM2.5) created by burning carbon-fuel have a residence in the troposphere of one week to several months. They repel water until they age, and so do not wash out well. They absorb light rather than reflect it (and are therefore black), and re-emit the energy as heat. Consequently they warm the air. They also melt the snow they settle on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 8, 2005 5:38 AM

hmmm... you can get the report published in the
International Journal of Climatology... Wasn't that difficult to locate stuff by Georg Kaser
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/kaser2004.pdf

So, the report doesn't come from and isn't sponsored by GES, but it's hardly difficult to believe that GES would endorse it at least.
Still, you aren't going to give up washing, sleeping, and eating just b/c you've seen Charles Manson (or anyone else that you dislike based purely on the face of things) doing the same, are you?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Since you didn't post a link, I went and looked up your 'data'. It ultimately comes from the greening earth society:
Quote:
The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageI
D=499

Quote:
Dr. Lonnie G. Thompson, the Ohio State University glaciologist whose work first focused attention on Kilimanjaro's fading ice, said he saw ample evidence that melting was eating away at what remained.

I don't think anyone is disputing that the icefields there are receding, but what is the cause? do we know? what does the data show?

Did you get a chance to read thru the paper by Dr. Thompson that you quoted out of context?
http://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/tanzania/pubs/thompson_etal_2002sci.p
df

He drilled 6 cores, 2 each in 3 different fields, in one of the drills at one particular field FWG, the evident water did gurgle out. But if had read the entire report, you would have known that this field is only a few 100 years old. In fact, the report establishes that there is a history of recession and build up due to droughts and dry climates through its history.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:

His specialty is extracting cylinders of layered, ancient ice from tropical glaciers, and when his team drilled into one of the mountain's ice fields in 2000, water flooded out of the hole. In the resulting cores, shallow layers contained elongated bubbles — strong evidence of melting and refreezing — while deeper layers had none.

"This all suggests that what we are seeing at least in the last 20 years or so is different," Dr. Thompson said. He believes the mountain may be close to a threshold at which melting will become the dominant force eroding the ice. "The balance of evidence says something bigger is going on in the system," he said.

You didn't care to address the other study presented to the Royal Society regarding earth's resources.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 8, 2005 5:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The following graph shows modeled natural, anthropogenic and total global warming, and compares them against actual measures. The model, which runs from about 1860 to 2000, is accurate in calculating temperatures:

It may be accurate in predicting mean global ground temperatures. Not that this has anything to do with my point or the “anomaly.”

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 8, 2005 4:27 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Read many papers.

It's not that the one paper that was cited came directly from GES. The collection of one-sided data did, however. A larger search of the topic yields a better balance of information.

Glacier edges do show more variability, but the overall loss of glacier can't be explained that way. Some say that glacier loss is due to lower moisture. To explain the undeniable melting some say it is due to soot deposition or to orientation (snowfields face south). All say that glacier loss (reduced deposition and increased melting) on Mt Kilimonjaro is ultimately due to global warming.

But there is a wrinkle. Did you also look up the studies of Mt Kenya (nearby) where shadowed snowfields also show signs of recent melting (specifically, not just overall retreat)?

No response to the environmental degradation study reported to the Royal Society? Finn, was that you who pooh-poohed 'doomsday' scenarios? What do you think of that study?

Anyway, I gotta go. Catch you all later.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 8, 2005 6:26 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Of course the ultimate doomsday scenario is the onset of another ice age after global warming melts the northern ice cap and shuts down the ocean conveyor.

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_joyce_
keigwin.html

link added after original posting

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 8, 2005 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No response to the environmental degradation study reported to the Royal Society? Finn, was that you who pooh-poohed 'doomsday' scenarios? What do you think of that study?

Yeah, that was probably me. I pooh-pooh all ‘doomsday’ scenarios, because (1) they’re sensationalism and (2) they aren’t helpful. Crazy tree-hugging hippies crying, “It’s the end of the world!” have about as much credibility as crazy fundamentalists crying, “It’s the end of the world.” Someone has been claiming that the world is going to end for the last 5000 years. Hasn’t ended yet. It might someday, but fixating on it is not constructive. In the end, nations have destroyed themselves by fixating on and reacting to fanatical fears, while many of those ‘doomsday’ scenarios remain largely speculative. There are certainly plenty of environmental problems that need attending, but we are far more at risk of shooting ourselves in the foot then we are from global warming or dimming or whatever the media is fixating on these days.

As far as the study itself is concerned, I’ll be happy to read it, time permitting.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 8, 2005 11:01 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Thanks Finn and Rue. I'll go back to lurking on this thread since things quickly get way too scientific for me (as an engineer, I just want to figure out what to DO

).

Oh, and the reason I asked that last pretty simple question, Finn, was to try and establish some commonality. I got the impression that other posters would've either answered no or just don't care. It helps me better interpret posts now that I know you're coming from a position of one of degrees of importance.

---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 9, 2005 10:14 AM

Only had time for a quick skim. So, I only have time for a quick one.

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

Quick question. Has anyone heard about global dimming?

Yes, but it's my understanding that this is currently being looked into and as of yet, we don't really know. Basically, current research.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

Also,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=110

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:

Do you think we, as a species, are affecting global climate?

Yes. But, to what degree is debatable. Which I gather is the reason why this thread is so long.

It's also possible (although I don't think so), that if we do nothing, that this change is only temporary (on a greater time scale) that our change will be balanced in time.

Some of the problems are people that don't really understand that spread mis-information, etc. Unfortunatly these people are quite numerous and loud. Also, people that listen to these people don't understand that confidence != understanding.

ie Crichton
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

At any rate, that's all I have time for right now. Back to finals *sigh*

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2005 10:09 AM

Hey,

Disclaimer begins********
For the record, I have been skeptical of the Global warming issue as a whole. Not really that
it is happening, but:

1. Rather how much Man has to do with it.

2. How resilient is the natural enviroment to compensating for it.

3. How much is due to natural swings caused by
natural events that we do not understand.

My postition is "who gives a shit". Whether
global warming is real or an alarmist fantasy, it
does'nt matter. We are not doing nearly enough to
stop man made pollution of all types. Yes, a good
deal has been done since the sixties on (alas, which I do remember) to curb rampant wholesale pollution of the enviroment (at least in select countries like the US), but it is'nt enough.

We absolutely have to get the world economy/industry away from a petroleum base and onto a clean source of energy. ASAP.

Disclaimer ends**************

That said, I found this article very interesting.
Please don't flame me as partisan. I am only the
messenger.

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2005 7:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

From the first page:
1) Department of Economics
2) "a well-known study..."

Given that this paper was written April 4, 2005 and it seemingly doesn't acknowledge the numerous other papers confirming the curve by various other methods, etc. I choose to stop reading at the abstract.

Perhaps someone with more time than me will read and give a summary. As given the above and the fact that I'm in the midst of exams, I cannot spare the time for this.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 4:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

From the first page:
1) Department of Economics
2) "a well-known study..."

Given that this paper was written April 4, 2005 and it seemingly doesn't acknowledge the numerous other papers confirming the curve by various other methods, etc. I choose to stop reading at the abstract.

Perhaps someone with more time than me will read and give a summary. As given the above and the fact that I'm in the midst of exams, I cannot spare the time for this.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Well then, you did not choose wisely.

This paper is NOT from an economist purporting
himself to be an expert on Global Climate Study,
but an economist who is well versed in Statistical Analysis, and the building of Statistically sound computer models.

Perhaps you should have gotten past the abstract,
and read the meat of the paper before you arbitrarily toss it out.

That is after all, what scientific
objectivivity is all about. Don't you agree?

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 6:56 AM

Please don't take this post as me being an

I'm in a rush and don't have time to "pretty it up."

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:

Well then, you did not choose wisely.

This paper is NOT from an economist purporting
himself to be an expert on Global Climate Study,
but an economist who is well versed in Statistical Analysis, and the building of Statistically sound computer models.

Perhaps you should have gotten past the abstract,
and read the meat of the paper before you arbitrarily toss it out.

That is after all, what scientific
objectivivity is all about. Don't you agree?

I'll quote myself:
"""
2) "a well-known study..."

Given that this paper was written April 4, 2005 and it seemingly doesn't acknowledge the numerous other papers confirming the curve by various other methods, etc. I choose to stop reading at the abstract.

As given the above and the fact that I'm in the midst of exams
"""
"a" study. There are far more than just one.

By the abstract, it only considers one of Manns papers, which is scientifically ridiculous given that there are far more than just this one study. ie At this point in time,attacking one of the papers is insufficient to cause any harm to the ideas contained therein.

By the abstract. it only finds holes in Mann's method (apparently), but refuses to acknowledge (again), that there are other papers using different methods that have come to the same conclusion.

I'm in the midst of crunch time. Thus I don't have time for reading things that are clearly irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. ie Even if everything this guy says is true, it doesn't do a thing to discredit the curve given the above facts.

Now if someone wanted to isolate Manns paper and discuss just it, then I would read and discuss. But, we aren't discussing just Mann, we are discussing the whole.

So, unless you find papers that attempt to discredit the whole or individual papers that attempt to discredit all/most papers individually that end up with the curve, then this conversation ends here and this paper is interestingly moot. (note: I'm not being sarcasitic here. I would read the paper if I had the time.)

So, read posts before you spout off next time.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:27 AM

Edited post after rereading Sigs response.

Actually, the Mann Hockey Stick, is the referenced
paper/graph seen in other enviromental papers and
presentations. Even you rely quite heavily on it.
There are many other studies/graphs that do not
show the hockey stick, but they are rarely seen.
Please read the entire paper before you jump to
any conclusions about validity. As I said, I only
posted the link because I thought it was interesting. (please re-read my Disclaimer in my
original post

AnyWho, Here's the Cliff notes version:

The Gist of the whole paper is that the Algorithm that
"Mann Et al" used was seriously flawed. It was made in
such a way that even if you used randomly computer generated numbers
for your data, the Mann Algorithim would produce a "HockeyStick" graph
99 times out of a hundred.

In fact, the algorithm is "Tuned" to do just that. The data set that Mann
used was also selected to ensure that the Hockey Stick appeared.

Apparently, the whole reason this came up, was that when the Mann report
(AKA "Hockey Stick" report) came out, McIntyre and McKitrick tried to
reproduce it, but could not (others had the same problem). So they
started looking into why that was.

I found it to be an interesting read.....

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 17, 2005 2:32 PM

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2005 6:34 AM

Umm,
Don't give a damn about what?

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2005 8:23 AM

Exactly... you got it.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

email his holiness at benedictxvi@vatican.va

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 18, 2005 9:28 AM

Aahhhh, I see.

Why worry about nothing.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:38 AM

Did'nt realize that FINN MAC CUMHAL had already
posted some info on the McKitrick report back on
his Feb 4 2005 post.

He did'nt mention the Monte Carlo test on the
Man algorithm though. That might have come out
later.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2005 2:04 PM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
The scientists (yes, science is real!) have been agreeing on Global Warming for years, it's the White House and thier cronies who have failed to give a rat's tiny pink arse.

Its April 24, and I again call upon the international scientific community to journey to Cleveland to help me shovel the 10 inches of snow that has gathered on my driveway since Saturday afternoon.

Or maybe their too busy applying for research grants to look out the window. Here's a study I conducted. Sometimes its cold, sometimes its warm. Sometimes it rains, sometimes it don't. Sometimes the wind blows, sometimes it don't. Sometimes its cludy, sometimes its sunny, sometimes its dark, sometimes its light, sometimes ice falls from the heavens, and sometimes water evaporates back up. This happens everywhere, all the time, to some degree or another. There, now were's my grant?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 24, 2005 6:50 PM

Hero, in all seriousness fuck off.

You have had nothing to offer this discussion at the beginning and you still don't now.

So, stop acting like a troll and go away until you have something to add that's relevant.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 29, 2005 8:47 PM

ALECIRVING

Well, I have one simple response here:

Better safe than sorry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 7, 2005 8:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/ AR2005042801586.html?sub=AR

Quote:
washingtonpost.com
Data From Space, Oceans Validate Global Warming Timeline

Associated Press
Friday, April 29, 2005; A13

NEW YORK, April 28 -- Climate scientists armed with new data from the ocean depths and from space satellites have found that Earth is absorbing much more heat than it is giving off, which they say validates computer projections of global warming.

Lead scientist James E. Hansen, a prominent NASA climatologist, described the findings on the out-of-balance energy exchange as a "smoking gun" that should dispel doubts about forecasts of climate change.

Hansen's team, reporting Thursday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow.

If carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions instead continue to grow, as expected, things could spin "out of our control," especially as ocean levels rise from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the researchers said. International experts predict a 10-degree leap in such a worst-case scenario.

The NASA-led researchers were able to measure Earth's energy imbalance because of more precise ocean readings collected by 1,800 technology-packed floats deployed in seas worldwide beginning in 2000, in an international monitoring effort called Argo. Their measurements are supplemented by better satellite gauging of ocean levels, which rise both from meltwater and as the sea warms and expands.

With this data, the scientists calculated the oceans' heat content and the global energy imbalance. They found that for every square meter of surface area, the planet is absorbing almost one watt more of the sun's energy than it is radiating back to space as heat -- a historically large imbalance. Such absorbed energy will steadily warm the atmosphere.

The 0.85-watt figure corresponds well with the energy imbalance predicted by the researchers' supercomputer simulations of climate change, the report said.

Those computer models factor in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane and other gases -- produced by automobiles and more esoteric sources, such as pig farms. Those gases keep heat from escaping into space. Significantly, greenhouse emissions have increased at a rate consistent with the detected energy imbalance, the researchers said.

"There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming," said Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University's Earth Institute. "This energy imbalance is the 'smoking gun' that we have been looking for."

Fourteen other specialists from NASA, Columbia and the Energy Department co-authored the study.

Klaus Hasselmann, a leading German climatologist, praised the Hansen report for its innovative work. "This is valuable additional supporting evidence" of man-made climate change, he said.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 7, 2005 8:32 PM