• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

New Study on Global Warming

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Not the news I'd want to here but it is what it is.



Odds That Global Warming Is Due to Nature?

An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation in the earth’s climate, according to a new study by McGill University physics professor Shaun Lovejoy.

The study, published online April 6 in the journal Climate Dynamics, represents a new approach to the question of whether global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Rather than using complex computer models to estimate the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions, Lovejoy examines historical data to assess the competing hypothesis: that warming over the past century is due to natural long-term variations in temperature.

“This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” Lovejoy says. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”

Lovejoy’s study applies statistical methodology to determine the probability that global warming since 1880 is due to natural variability. His conclusion: the natural-warming hypothesis may be ruled out “with confidence levels great than 99%, and most likely greater than 99.9%.”

To assess the natural variability before much human interference, the new study uses “multi-proxy climate reconstructions” developed by scientists in recent years to estimate historical temperatures, as well as fluctuation-analysis techniques from nonlinear geophysics. The climate reconstructions take into account a variety of gauges found in nature, such as tree rings, ice cores, and lake sediments. And the fluctuation-analysis techniques make it possible to understand the temperature variations over wide ranges of time scales.

For the industrial era, Lovejoy’s analysis uses carbon-dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man-made climate influences – a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says. “This allows the new approach to implicitly include the cooling effects of particulate pollution that are still poorly quantified in computer models,” he adds.

While his new study makes no use of the huge computer models commonly used by scientists to estimate the magnitude of future climate change, Lovejoy’s findings effectively complement those of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he says. His study predicts, with 95% confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius. That range is more precise than – but in line with — the IPCC’s prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.

“We’ve had a fluctuation in average temperature that’s just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius,” Lovejoy says. “This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.

“While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can’t generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one – the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other.”

Reprinted from McGill University.
http://tek-tips.nethawk.net/odds-that-global-warming-is-due-to-nature/
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Can someone post what this would equate to in Fahrenheit?

would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius.
 

bczoom

Super Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Can someone post what this would equate to in Fahrenheit?

would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius.
My quick calculation is double it and round down. That's 5-8 degrees F.

Unless I'm reading the article wrong, I see a whole bunch of things that don't seem right in his analysis and conclusion.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I do like your article better than the one I posted Bamby. :thumb:
And I agree with the Greenpeace co-founder that warmer temps would benefit us all. Heck, I might be able to boat 9 months out of the year instead of 6. :D
 

Danang Sailor

nullius in verba
GOLD Site Supporter
It seems certain that we have had something to do with keeping global temperatures warmer than they otherwise
would have been by now; according to all geo-climactic records, we're nearly 4000 years overdue for a major ice age.
However, this study does not seem to take into account phenomena such as the Little Ice Age which lasted some 300
years (1550-1850) and coincided with the Maunder Minimum. A natural diminishing of solar output lead to severe
winters over the northern hemisphere, even though we were polluting the atmosphere with tons of smoke, soot, and CO2.

If we "clean up our act" like the greenies demand, the most likely result will in fact be that overdue ice age!

 

300 H and H

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
Like all of those who insitst that we are changing the climate, they NEVER talk about the source of heat in our solar system. That would be the Sun. We know for instance it is THE energy source for all of our planet. With out it we would be an frozen at -250K or so... We know lots about thw Sun as well, like it's output changes over time. So why isn't this part of the doomsdayers equations?

I think there are other variables here as well. Many temp recording siites that were in the country are now surrounded by suburban sprawl.. The heat sink effect of this increases the readings by a few degree's... Is this being taken into account?

As far as the staticstical study it is centered around C02 levels and that it is assumed to be a green house gas. I question this as NASA has 20 years of data that shows other wise.. I think it was crafted to support the UN climate change models, and not by accident either.

Regards, kirk
 

brazospete

New member
Do the words Peak oil ,Y2K,12/12/2012, the great oil crisis of was it 71 or 72not to mention swine flu EPIDEMICS when the gov bought hundreds of millions of Tamiflu from Donald Rumsfeld? I may have missed a few non crisis crisis's. Hi !! everybody just a note to inform you that I remain and JESUS is still my King! I am still myself happily casting pearls every whichaway.
 
Top