most stupid climate change story of year award, page-76

  1. 174 Posts.
    Sabretoothed,

    This is about the 10th time I've seen this article posted on this forum, and if it is what you are are basing your skepticism on then your skepticism is unfounded.

    I'll try and address a couple of points quickly:

    "Jennifer Marohasy is a biologist, the director of the Australian Environment Foundation and a senior fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs which has received funding from fossil fuel and energy companies."

    Of course it doesn't prove anything, but it is interesting to keep in mind. The IPA website shows their agenda pretty clearly. Now, on to the facts.

    "No, actually there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing, but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last ten years."

    This is wrong. See any chart of global temperatures of the last 10 years. Sure, if you take the peak from 1998 and an arbitrary trough in 2005 then you could make the case that temperature is falling. But you'd be wrong.

    "What all the climate models suggest is that when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite...and the first time this data has been able to be collected is 2002 so we've got a little bit of data now, it's actually showing just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're actually getting a negative rather than a positive feedback"

    Firstly, she makes it sound as if negative feedback means cooling. It doesn't, it implies stability at some arbitrary higher temperature, which is hardly comforting.

    Secondly, here's the reponse to this type of spin, from the original researchers:

    "NY Times, March 23, 2004
    To the Editor:

    Your March 18 news article "Study Disputes Idea on Global Warming" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/18/science/18WARM.html gives the impression that our research goes against the consensus scientific view that global warming is a serious concern. While our research does suggest that climate models are somewhat overestimating 21st-century warming, our work does not argue against the seriousness of the problem.

    The predicted global warming over the 21st century is so large (up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit), and the potential effects so serious, that slight overestimates of this warming make little difference — just as reducing the size of a firing squad from 10 shooters to nine makes little difference to the person being executed. Our research should provide no comfort to those arguing against policies to combat global warming.
    ANDREW E. DESSLER
    KEN MINSCHWANER
    College Park, Md., March 20, 2004"

    http://users.erols.com/iri/EnewsApril5,2004.htm#4

 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.