Jul 22 2008

NASA Discovers 70% Of Global Climate Due To Pacific Ocean Oscillations – Not CO2

Published by at 3:52 pm under All General Discussions,Global Warming

Well, well. Congress learned something shattering today, which will have the Church of Al Gore/IPCC running in fear of their lost credibility. It has been scientifically demonstrated that 70% of the Global Warming in the last century (and cooling in the last decade) is due to the Pacific Ocean Oscillations, not CO2:

One necessary result of low climate sensitivity is that the radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions in the last century is not nearly enough to explain the upward trend of 0.7 deg. C in the last 100 years. This raises the question of whether there are natural processes at work which have caused most of that warming.

On this issue, it can be shown with a simple climate model that small cloud fluctuations assumed to occur with two modes of natural climate variability — the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon (Southern Oscillation), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation — can explain 70% of the warming trend since 1900, as well as the nature of that trend: warming until the 1940s, no warming until the 1970s, and resumed warming since then.

The gentlemen making this claim is the lead investigator one of NASA’s flagship Earth Observing Observatories (H/T Ice Cap). I have the honor of working on this mission on the periphery (Aqua), it is operated out of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD.

I posted on some of these effects yesterday. What this means is no matter how much you change your CO2 footprint, how much you try to be CO2 green, no matter how much liberal governments tax you – you cannot save the planet from its natural cycles. Remember, the draconian actions being proposed by the Church of Al Gore/IPCC, which will run into the tens of trillions of dollars and cripple the world economies, is only meant to reduce today’s CO2 levels by a fraction.

Say they reduced the CO2 25%. Say the CO2 is the driver for the remaining 30% of Global Warming (which it cannot be, but let’s just be only half as ridiculous as the IPCC), then all that effort would only impact 7.5% of the forces driving the global climate. The other 92.5% would roll on, impervious to the effort. And since CO2 is not 100% of the remaining 30% of the equation (more like 10%), a more realistic expectation is that all the suffering that would go into dropping CO2 levels by 25% would result in a less than 1% change in the forces driving our climate.

In other words, you might as well light a match to all that money because it would have no effect, you would be throwing it away on a fool’s errand.

Must be the week to bust myths, because this means all those efforts to drive down CO2 emissions are a scientifically proven waste of time. I see a lot of Green turning to Red here soon (from the embarrassment of being so wrong).

Update: I like this part of the testimony where the Priests from the Church of Al Gore/IPCC did not even bother to look at this results:

While other researchers need to further explore and validate my claims, I am heartened by the fact that my recent presentation of these results to an audience of approximately 40 weather and climate researchers at the University of Colorado in Boulder last week (on July 17, 2008) led to no substantial objections to either the data I presented, nor to my interpretation of those data.

And, curiously, despite its importance to climate modeling activities, no one from Dr. Kevin Trenberth’s facility, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), bothered to drive four miles down the road to attend my seminar, even though it was advertised at NCAR.

Now isn’t that a piece of work?

Update: And for those still thinking the world is melting here are some interesting pictures comparing the Arctic Snow-Ice levels from this week, last year and the year before. Clearly we see that there is significantly more snow and ice at the North Pole than in 2007 (click to go to larger original).

Of the 3 years 2006 had the most snow/ice cover, 2007 the least. 2008 looks to be closer to 2006 given how little ocean in the clear north of Russia. But 2006 had thinner coverage in these areas (thin shown by red) than 2008 (thick shown by purple). So it would seem the sky is not falling – yet.

18 responses so far

18 Responses to “NASA Discovers 70% Of Global Climate Due To Pacific Ocean Oscillations – Not CO2”

  1. pjo says:

    Lies! Lies! All Lies! NCAR Bob (formerly known as Baghdad Bob) was unavailable for comment, so I decided to fill in.

  2. pjo says:

    Most of the changes take place on the Soviet Side, what gives?

  3. Ray_in_Aus says:

    I’m not up to date on this stuff, so I have no idea if anyone has complied a list of other scares throughout history.

    The only one I can think of, is the old prediction in England where they did some scientific projections and then made a proclamation that went something like this :

    “If we don’t do something about the horses, the streets of London will be 10 feet deep in horse manure by 1900″.

    Ray

  4. VA Voter says:

    Over the course of history their have to be some examples of societies that ended up destroying themselves over trying to reverse some natural phenomenon.

    A good history buff (of which I am not) could find one that most closely resembles global warming and we could use their name to brand the Global Warmists. In addition to Church of Al Gore/IPCC , of course.

  5. hey norm says:

    “…you cannot save the planet from its natural cycles…” of course not. but you can save the natural cycles from accelerated influence by man. obviously trying to reverse natural cycles would be just as bad as accelerating them. the point that seems completely lost on you deniers is minimizing or, ideally, eliminating mans influence. maybe you will figure that out one day.
    “…which will run into the tens of trillions of dollars and cripple the world economies…” oooooh the melodrama. oooooh the hyperbole.
    question: given the million$ that big oil has funneled to deniers, why can’t any of you produce peer-reviewed science backing up your claims?

  6. dailybayonet says:

    hey norm,
    since you asked, here’s a link to over 50 peer-reviewed papers that challenge the ‘settled science’ of the global warming hoax.

    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23406

    enjoy :)

  7. [...] 23, 2008 NASA says that rises in temperature are not due to CO2. Instead, it’s the Pacific Ocean’s fault: What this means is no matter how much you change your CO2 footprint, how much you try to be CO2 [...]

  8. Captain Willy says:

    Ray_in_Aus, how can you forget the HELL of Y2K? Don’t you remember? The airplanes that spontaneously crashed, the elevators plunged 100 storeys? Don’t you even remember the global recession that followed?

    And on December 31, 1999, those of us who work in the software industry were wondering what the hell everyone was talking about.

  9. Morgan Mghee says:

    Each and every lone scientist and the people/companies/groups behind them that take these data and re-configures them without subjecting them to review will also be dealt with at the hands of the possible new ruling regarding false and misleading statements about global warming. Recently Don Easterbrook took a report from JPL NASA and re-worded it to his liking, reporting and blogging to all that it shows global cooling. That is not what the scientists behind the research concluded:

    Important information from the source article (NASA):

    The image also shows that this La Niña is occurring within the context of a larger climate event, the early stages of a cool phase of the basin-wide Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a long-term fluctuation of the Pacific Ocean that waxes and wanes between cool and warm phases approximately every five to 20 years. In the cool phase, higher than normal sea-surface heights caused by warm water form a horseshoe pattern that connects the north, west and southern Pacific, with cool water in the middle. During most of the 1980s and 1990s, the Pacific was locked in the oscillation’s warm phase, during which these warm and cool regions are reversed. For an explanation of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and its present state, see: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ and http://www.esr.org/pdo_index.html .

    “This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”

    Sea surface temperature satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also clearly show a cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation pattern, as seen at: http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gi … . The shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, with its widespread Pacific Ocean temperature changes, will have significant implications for global climate. It can affect Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, marine ecosystems and global land temperature patterns.

    “The comings and goings of El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are part of a longer, ongoing change in global climate,” said Josh Willis, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Sea level rise and global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. “In fact,” said Willis, “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”
    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008

    It’s important to look beyond the headlines.

  10. AJStrata says:

    Morgan,

    Who are you kidding? I quoted the scientist, I have a degree in science and I work for NASA. The IPCC is the one who has twisted their results to create a myth. And now, every week, data comes in proving them wrong.

    CO2 is not the culprit.

  11. Ray_in_Aus says:

    Captain Willy wrote:

    Ray_in_Aus, how can you forget the HELL of Y2K? Don’t you remember? The airplanes that spontaneously crashed, the elevators plunged 100 storeys? Don’t you even remember the global recession that followed?

    And on December 31, 1999, those of us who work in the software industry were wondering what the hell everyone was talking about.

    Yeah, that was ok for you guys because you knew how to move your computer clocks forward to see what happened – but what about the rest of us?

    Ray

  12. [...] Climate Change Model That Works One that actually can reflect conditions – and its from NASA too [...]

  13. Neo says:

    For those who didn’t read the report, you can’t miss this part at the beginning …

    1. White House Involvement in the Reporting of Agency Employees’ Work
    On the subject of the Administration’s involvement in policy-relevant scientific work performed by government employees in the EPA, NASA, and other agencies, I can provide some perspective based upon my previous experiences as a NASA employee. For example, during the Clinton-Gore Administration I was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony. Since it was well known that I am skeptical of the view that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are mostly responsible for global warming, I assumed that this advice was to help protect Vice President Gore’s agenda on the subject.

  14. [...] Strata-sphere posted testimony about a week ago that was delivered in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on July 22 by Roy Spencer, one of the world’s leading climatologists and US Science Team Leader on NASA’s Aqua satellite instrumentation. Proponents of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change (AGW) hate Dr. Spencer, since he doesn’t agree that humans are at the root of it. [...]

  15. [...] seems that most of the Global Warming IS NOT driven by man, as one real NASA Scientist noted to Congress this year. The very important discovery that 70% of the Global Warming was due to natural forces should have [...]

  16. [...] of NASA not attached to the Church of Al Gore/IPCC – which still does real science – noted that 70% of the Global Climate is independent of Green House Gases, out of which CO2 is only a small fraction of Green House Gas mix (water vapor is by far the [...]

  17. [...] to smear Dr Spencer’s reputation at the end of the video: . New reports consider that the oceans could be responsible for 70% of any warming, which is a problem if you’ve been blaming CO2.  More here and here. The scare-mongering [...]