By Tony Hake
A new peer-reviewed study calls into question the so-called ‘consensus’ on the causes of global warming by saying that “Nature, not man, responsible for recent global warming.â€Â The new study authored by three Australian scientists and published in the Journal of Geophysical Research says that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) accounts for the vast majority of temperature variability.
Authored by Chris de Freitas (University of Auckland in New Zealand), John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), the new study is sure to cause waves among those debating the causes of global warming. Completely contrary to the mainstream media’s portrayal of climate change, the study says, “little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.â€
Lead author de Freitas said in a press release, “The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely.”
Dan:
I think I’m ahead of the curve on this one. I posted this story in the last thread. Though I found it at climatedepot.com but the one at the Examiner is much prettier!
Unfortunately Bob Cook is held in low esteem by the AGW true believers. No one in the AGW “community” will want to believe this, even though it is a peer-reviewed study.
I predict it will be met with the same additude that the study on the effect of cosmic rays has on cloud formation was. Their response will be chirping crickets.
You will not see this on the “Nightly News.” Wonder why??
Paul:
That’s because it’s not news……… it’s blaspheme!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Neil – Yeah. I’ve gotten a bit behind. We were kind of swamped with the SOS lawsuit. Not surprised you beat me to the punch on that story. Here’s another preview from the comments for you: Post coming up about the Climate Realists Symposium to take place August 19th. Sponsored by MN Free Market Institute. Minnesota Majority /Global Climate Scam and Minnesotans For Global Warming will have booths there. Details coming soon. Should be an informative and good time.
Dan:
I understand. I did not know about the SoS lawsuit. I just read the story on the MN majority website.
Wasn’t it the MN supreme court that ruled in Franken’s favor?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I guess when you have more votes, that means you win… dunno, just a theory. Anyway, here’s a bit of news:
The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun’s activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study.
The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. But new research firmly rejects that argument.
The research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The work is the first to assess the combined impact on global temperature of four factors: human influences such as CO2 and aerosol emissions; heating from the sun; volcanic activity and the El Niño southern oscillation, the phenomenon by which the Pacific Ocean flips between warmer and cooler states every few years.
The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lean and Rind’s research also sheds light on the extreme average temperature in 1998. The paper confirms that the temperature spike that year was caused primarily by a very strong El Niño episode. A future episode could be expected to create a spike of equivalent magnitude on top of an even higher baseline, thus shattering the 1998 record.
The study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world is entering a new El Niño warm spell. This suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Lean and Rind’s paper suggests. A particularly hot autumn and winter could add to the pressure on policy makers to reach a meaningful deal at December’s climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen.
Bob Henson, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, said: “To claim that global temperatures have cooled since 1998 and therefore that man-made climate change isn’t happening is a bit like saying spring has gone away when you have a mild week after a scorching Easter.”
Rob:
Bravo!
Finally, a story about AGW!
Did you notice that they now have been forced to admit that there has been a cooling trend since 1998? I think this is facinating. Why? Because up until very recently, they have been saying that the temperatures have been rising, and the warming had very little to do with the Sun.
Now they are saying that the Sun plays a much larger role, and when it wakes up again, wer’e in deep do do. 150% of the IPCC projections!!!
It sounds to me that they are trying to save face, and are grasping at straws.
Also, I bet you a dollar that this study you posted is based on… drum roll please…… Computer model projections!!!!!
And you already know what I think about computer models.
Oh, I wanted to coment on this as well.
From Rob’s post:
“The study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world is entering a new El Niño warm spell. This suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Lean and Rind’s paper suggests.”
So I guess this time next year the oceans will be boiled off!?!?!?!?
We have a year to see if this is going to happen, or if it is just another peice of propaganda to help get cap & trade passed.
Neil, Kudo’s to you and Dan. I needed that!!! Good response.
Rob:
“I guess when you have more votes, that means you win… dunno, just a theory.”
That’s all well and good, in and of itself. But, it is something entirely different when the votes contain dead people, convicted felons, and other such irregularities.
But who cares, right? As long as Democrats get elected.
ACORN: Bringing Chicago stlye politics to the rest of the nation!!!!
Another thing from Rob’s post:
“The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.”
Yet according to this study:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml
“Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.”
Now, we have established that I am not a scientist, but these studies seem to be contradicting each other. 0.07% is not, in my non-scientist opinion, enough variability to make any large differance one way or the other.
So, then, let’s get back to what the new study that is the original topic of this post says:
“Temperatures were found to have lagged ENSO events by approximately seven months consistently. De Freitas said, “We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century.”
This study really does not address AGW directly. It does give us a better understanding of climate variability that was not previousely understood, and tells us that with stronger El’ Nino events we can expect higher temperatures. It strongly suggests that temperatures in the past that have been blamed on AGW, were more likely caused by ENSO events than they were by AGW.
But, back to the Sun. So, Rob’s post claims that when the Sun becomes active again, the AGW effect may be 150% greater than the IPCC prjections. The other study I found says that solar variability is only 0.07%.
What both of these studies completely ignore is the correlation in the variability of cloud formation from cosmic ray flux.
I know, that is not settled science. But my point with all of this is just that. None of this is settled science, and the debate rages on.
Which is in stark contrast to the comment made by Al Gore these many years ago “The science is settled, and the debate is over”.
Coincidentally, that is the one comment that actually got me interested in this subject, because I thought it was BS. And what do ya know, turns out I was right!!!!!!!!
If .07% of something is nothing to worry about, I can’t imagine how anyone can seriously call themselves a scientist when they believe .038% of our atmosphere is causing global warming. Actually, it is only the human contribution, or about .015% that they are really concerned with. Does Algore and his merry band of Gorons even know how this?
Lone Wolf:
Right on!!!! Thanks.
Let’s file this one under “things are looking up”!
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2213/Climate-Revolt-Worlds-Largest-Science-Group-Startled-By-Outpouring-of-Scientists-Rejecting-ManMade-Climate-Fears-Clamor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed
“An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.â€
I saw something in the story in my last post that I liked so much, I am incorporating it into my pen name. CCD for “climate change denier”
After careful consideration I have decided that CCD does not actually fit. Only because I do not deny that the climate is changing, as it has constantly done for millions of years.
So I will add AGWD to my pen name instead. Henceforth I shall be known as Neil F. Anthropogenic Global Warming Denier.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2165/Climate-Fear-Promoters-Attempt-to-Explain-Record-Cold-and-Snow-Global-warming-made-it-less-cool
“The year 2009 is proving to be a yet another very inconvenient year for the promoters of man-made global warming fears. As the “year without a summer†continues, the U.S. in July alone has broken over 3000 cold temperature records, and global temps have fallen .74F since Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth†was released in 2006.”