Apr 10 2009
NASA Admits Artic Global Warming Not CO2 Driven
When the Chicken Little Priests of the Church of Al Gore/IPCC scream the sky is falling without CO2 Cap & Trade energy taxes, it is helpful to note that NASA’s data doesn’t support their claims. Especially now. First off, realize CO2 is only a tiny fraction of the so called IR Radiative Green House Gas (IRRGHG) Effect (a myth in itself). Of the gases that are supposed to trap IR radiation from the ground (the IRRGHG theory) CO2 is a 3% of the total.
It is important to understand that the human produced portion of that 3% is a small fraction of the total again. For arguments sake lets say the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is one third – or 33%. Then one third (a conservatively high estimate – but it makes the math easier for liberals) of 3% means CO2 produced by humanity can only be 1% of the total (and mythical)  IRRGHG Effect. If you eliminated human generated CO2, 99% of the natural drivers in the atmosphere would still be in place!Â
It gets even more ridiculous. The enormously expensive Cap & Trade taxes, which will cripple the world economy, is only planning on reducing CO2 production by 20%. 20% of 1% is 0.2%. The Cap & Trade theft on humanity will leave 99.8% of the IRRGHG untouched. A 20% reduction in human CO2 production translates into a 0.2% impact on the still unproven IR Radiative Green House Gas theories that have yet to produce any correlation between reality and their end-of-the-world predictions. It gets even more crazy.
Now NASA has come out (in fact the same group within NASA that hosts one of the High Priests of the Church of Al Gore, James Hansen) and discovered the human effect on Arctic warming is even more negligible than this. In their results, that 1% of the IRRGHG that could possibly be attributed to human CO2 production is actually half as much – because half the Arctic warming is due to aerosols, not water or CO2:
Since the 1890s, surface temperatures on Earth have risen faster in the Arctic than in other regions of the world. Usually, discussions on global warming tend to focus on greenhouse gases as the culprit for the trend. But new NASA research suggests about half the atmospheric warming measured in the Arctic is due to airborne particles called aerosols.
…
The research team, led by climate scientist Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies used a computer model to investigate how sensitive different regional climates are to changes in levels of carbon dioxide, ozone, and aerosols.
They found that Earth’s middle and high latitudes are particularly responsive to changes in aerosol levels. The model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 % or more of the warming measured in the Arctic since 1976.
Word of caution, this is another one of those unproven theoretical models. But this one shows that reducing human produced CO2 by 20% will have no effect on Arctic ‘warming’ because this portion of the  atmospheric CO2 – at best – is only .2% of the IRRGHG effect. Under this scenario the human generating CO2’s possible role is being cut in half, to 0.1%.
This is why this is a big joke. But it also shows me something else. The paper notes humans produce aerosols. Yeah, but there are other sources of aerosols in the arctic – enormous ones:
Volcanoes have a significant effect on the global environment. In the long term, they affect the gaseous composition of the atmosphere by emitting gases from the interior of the Earth and play a key role in the evolution of the Earth’s atmosphere and climate. Variations in the output of volcanoes can cause variations of climate on a variety of time scales. It has been demonstrated that a sufficiently violent eruption can cause a measurable change in the Earth’s climate with a time scale of a few years. The magnitude of the temperature change depends on the amount of sulfur that is injected into the stratosphere, among other factors. The sulfur gases are oxidized to sulfuric acid aerosols in the stratosphere, where they may reside for a year or more before being flushed out by sedimentation and the fluid motions of the stratosphere.
There has been a lot of volcanic activity in the Arctic recently (see here and here). Lots of aerosols could have made it into the air. So human produced CO2 can only account for a maximum 0.1% of the warming in the Arctic given this data. How much effect does human produced aerosols have?
Great news as usual from you, however it is irrelevant ’cause it don’t fit the tune. bHo has decided so all else dosen’t matter…
Twill be that way until WE fire the #astard in a few years…
I saw this article earlier, and I thought of what you’d say.
If find it deliciously ironic that this study comes out of NASA/GISS, which I believe is the same place that Jim Hansen works.
Which points up the dangers of messing with Momma Nature by way of intentional climate modification.
AJ, I really enjoyed the article and I followed the link to read more. Unfortunately, when I got there I found that Watts Up With That? had snagged a large part of Nancy Atkinson’s work without linking or providing decent attribution. He did mention her name and Universe Today, but it took a Google search and about 20 minutes of tracking to find the article he cribbed from.
The main reason I took the time to track down the original article was because I have gotten interested in the whole issue of fair use, attribution and new media linking to old media sources. This is not even old media. This was a blogger (Watt) swiping content from another blogger.
I think your link was a standard attribution attempt. Unfortunately, your source was a plagiarist. At least that is the conclusion I am forced to. Maybe it was innocent, but why would a blogger type in a vague attribution instead of putting in a link? Especially when a glance at his other articles shows he knows how to do that?
Anyhow, that’s my soap box speech for internet ethics. Again, I am not pointing a finger at you, but at the blogger you linked to. I like the articles you’ve been putting out on science issues.
“The model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 % or more of the warming measured in the Arctic since 1976.”
Yeah, another paper recently said that 70 percent of Atlantic warming is caused by a reduction in dust and volcanic ash. So now we are at 115%. Another “50%” of “global warming” is accounted for by “adjustments” to the temperature records … so now we are at 165%.
But in any case, here we sit today. In March of 2009 we are within 2/10 of a degree of the average temperature from 1901 to 2000. In other words, all the warming that occurred in the 1990’s is gone. The Pacific Ocean is still losing heat. Approximately 30% of all the heat gained in the 20th century is now gone … radiated into space.
Some 70% of ocean level rise during the 20th century was due to thermal expansion as temperatures warmed from the Little Ice Age. Note that thermal expansion isn’t just due to surface temperatures, it is due to warming of the ocean through its entire depth. We saw about 200 years of colder temperatures during the LIA which would have caused the oceans to cool at all depths. As the climate recovers, it takes a LONG time for the oceans to warm back up. We have only begun recovering from LIA temperatures at around the start of the 1900’s. (last minimum of the LIA was at around 1850). The oceans had two hundred years to cool down and have so far had only one hundred years to recover. But temperatures have started cooling again on the surface. You will notice that at the same time, sea level rise stopped in 2006. An array of thousands of ocean floats confirm no ocean warming since 2004. We might still get some rise as the deep ocean on the abyssal plains (where we have no temperature measurements) continues to recover from the LIA but at this point it appears that cooling of the upper ocean is compensating for that resulting in no net thermal expansion of the ocean.
The notion that human activity or CO2 is in any way contributing to something harmful is simply a fantasy designed to extract cash for people’s research careers and to facilitate global redistribution of wealth by forcing industrial production to move to less developed areas. Current regulations do not reduce CO2 globally, they simply regulate who can emit with places like Brazil, China, and India completely unregulated.
Dave, agreed that it would have been better if he would have had the link provided. But before criticizing Watt too harshly, it would be better to determine whether or not he had permission to repost. It is possible, universe today is not that widely read and Nancy (like many writers) may have agreed in order to increase exposure to her work. Increasing exposure to the original material is one of the tests which indicates fair use.
I’m not saying that’s the case, but it’s certainly a possibility. And yes, the fair use argument would be much, much stronger if he had included the link to the original.
Also, Nancy Atkinson’s work is simply a rewrite of the NASA press release, which is the original source of the graphics which all of the blogs (Universe, Wattsupwiththat, and Stratasphere) have used.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
I’m not intending to denigrate anyone here, especially not Ms. Adkinson. She linked to the original source, and it would be better if everyone was more careful with their attributions. But I don’t think it’s fair to call this plagiarism, especially since her name is prominently featured on anthony watt’s blog. He made an oversight in leaving off the link, but I’m sure if you e-mail him he’ll add it to the post, since I very much doubt the oversight was intentional.
WWS,
Good points. Maybe I was unfair to Watts, maybe not. A couple of points I’d like to raise:
My first point is that as big media continues to fly a failing business model, they are looking around for justification to ask government to step in on their side. I believe it would not be too difficult to convince some of our current crop of minders to drop a set of restrictive regulations on us under the guise of protecting intellectual property. A movement to tighten up our own procedures would go a long way to shutting down such an argument.
Second, I think the “new media” has the potential to gain a much more broadly influential voice, as old media collapses. In order to do that, new media has to be seen as credible. I cannot begin to count the number of times I have been involved in discussions with people who do not spend a lot of time reading on the web, but who are otherwise intelligent if confused (evidenced by their liberal leanings). The normal reaction among non-netizens to information that didn’t make the old media’s play list seems to be, “Oh, you read it on a blog!”, followed by an obvious disconnect from the discussion as they realized they were dealing with right wing craziness instead of sanctioned facts.
The point is, following good senior English principles and citing original sources is a lot more convincing to a broad audience than incestuous linking to other discussions. The original source may still be accessible if you dig it out, but most people are not going to take the time to dig. I like to know the original source in those discussions. That way, I can answer the question, “Where did you see that? I didn’t see that in the paper,” with “NASA press release”, or “London Times” or whatever. Amongst us out here on the internet, citing reputable blogs is usually good enough. But that doesn’t extend to the wider world, which demands more conventional substantiation.
Anyhow, that’s my soap box for today. Thanks for listening.
I’ve linked to your investigating and research with a quotation from Discerning Science – Global Warming – Atmosphere
PS I believe pre historic man solved the Global Warming problem by throwing their global warming alarmist into a volcano — ending the problem for centuries.
We have to solve our Global Warming Problem by getting our politicians realize the error in their beliefs. I don’t think it’s possible to throw all of them into a volcano. A huge public relations program is necessary to turn around world opinion. Where do we start? Articles like this one need to be on the front pages of every newspaper and on the nightly news shows.
Is it cooling is it warming, doesn’t make any difference because there is nothing we can do about either. Its truely a phoney debate driven by those with various political agendas. I see numbers from the left and numbers from the right. When will the masses see the truth—probably never. Bluntly the masses are not well informed, but even if they were the facts put forth are too confusing for even the most informed to digest. Science has made great progress in the last hundred years, even with that process all the best minds in the world cannot say with any certainity which leaf will fall first from the mighty oak on an autumn. And yet these people tell us they can somehow predict or control global warming or cooling. Its seems at times it not the masses that are dumb , but rather the leaders of the scientific community.