Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

No Global warming by NOAA

  1. Dec 7, 2008 #1
    Officially there is no global warming

    (NOAA ,October 8, 2008, National Weather Service
    JetStream - Online School for Weather)

    http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm [Broken]

    It has been thought that an increase in carbon dioxide will lead to global warming. While carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the past 100 years, there is no evidence that it is causing an increase in global temperatures.

    In 1997, NASA reported global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites revealed no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. In fact, the trend appeared to be a decrease in actual temperature. In 2007, NASA data showed that one-half of the ten warmest years occurred in the 1930's with 1934 (tied with 2006) as the warmest years on record. (NASA data October 23, 2007 from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt [Broken])

    The 1930s through the 1950s were clearly warmer than the 1960s and 1970s. If carbon dioxide had been the cause then the warmest years would have understandably been in the most recent years. But that is not the case.

    The largest differences in the satellite temperature data were not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño.

    The behavior of the atmosphere is extremely complex. Therefore, discovering the validity of global warming is complex as well. How much effect will the increase in carbon dioxide will have is unclear or even if we recognize the effects of any increase.

    El Niño is a consequence, not a cause, and in that web page the reference to Venus is absolutely inappropriate and misleading.
    Yes, the clime is always changing, as always.

    Lets talk about other models?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 7, 2008 #2
    Do you remember the dinosaurs?
    HUGE, requiring an habitat RICH in LIVE, rich in CO2 and warmer weather?
    Nowadays the live is little (Lilliputian), CO2 starving.
    Today, if we want bigger vegetable life we have to administer artificially CO2, as we really do.
    The global trend from distant past to the present day is the opposite of Global Warming.
    The future will be colder with CO2 famine.
    Oh don’t claim about the theory of the past ‘Frozen Earth’. This model is not supported by evidence.
    Geologists and geologic evidence are stronger against the theoretical model of ‘Frozen Earth’.
    The glaciations are just variations on the details.
  4. Dec 7, 2008 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, let's first talk about everything that's wrong with that page you've quoted. Honestly, I'm quite shocked by it. It looks like some hacker got through and snuck in a little propaganda piece.

    Lower "atmosphere"? What exactly is that? The lower troposphere or mid-troposphere or the stratosphere? The surface temperatures would be expected to correlate strongest with the lower troposphere data, not with the lower stratosphere, where a cooling trend is expected.


    Second, why talk about the trend until 1997 when we are in 2008? Could it be because the UAH analysis in 1997 is now known to have errors in it that have since been corrected? Currently, the UAH analysis of the lower troposheric temperature record from 1978 to 2008 shows a warming trend of +0.13C/decade.

    Source: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt (trends at page bottom)

    If this is talking about lower troposphere, it is nonsense. If it's about the lower stratosphere it is at least factually correct, but nevertheless misleading: the Earth's surface is at least 20km below the Stratosphere, and there are satellite records for much lower altitudes (like the mid troposphere and the lower troposphere).

    I thought we were talking about Global temperatures, but without the merest mention of it, the author switches to a discussion about US temperatures (as does the link provided to the GISS data). Since when did the US (accounting for less than 2% of the Earth's surface area) become equivalent to the globe? The unwitting reader thinks this is still about Global temperatures, but the author instead uses data from US temperatures to make the case for cooling. That's just plain deception.

    Now, if you do look at Global temperatures, then NASA data shows this:
    Source: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/earth_temp.html

    Another deception here.

    Why compare the 30s and 40s with the 60s and 70s, instead of with the most recent decade? The 70s are clearly not "in the most recent years."

    Could it be because 1940 lies near the peak of a multi-decadal oscillation, while 1970 lies near the bottom of that oscillation? Well, they most certainly do. So, it is hardly surprising that the 40s could be warmer than the 70s. The next peak in the oscillation is near 2000, and the 40s were certainly not warmer than the 90s or the 2000s.

    Here's a picture showing the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation over the last 150 years:


    Image created from NOAA data.

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Correlation/amon.us.long.data [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  5. Dec 7, 2008 #4
    The web page I’ve pointed http://www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/jetstream/atmos/ll_gas.htm [Broken] is a TURN in the official trend.
    It was revised on October 8, 2008, and its contents are a notorious patch over the previous contents.
    A page for OFFICIAL education revised so recently is more pertinent than years of documents that anyone can advocate to the opposite cause.
    They cannot simply erase all the millions of pages already written.
    They have to start by changing some OFFICIAL page.
    And we have to get used to this shift in the direction.
    Science is not a static issue (it never was) and nowadays it is politically biased. If you are shocked with the contents is not my problem.
    You can confirm with the authorities that are responsible for the site.
    The actual contents of that page, in my perspective, are somewhat incorrect, but I do not comment that.
    What I stress, according to the OFFICIAL source, is that now we are allowed to speak in other terms.
    Let’s do it here.
    You use NOAA data, but if you search the net you will easily find a lot of issues that concerns the validity and credibility of those data.
    This post is to talk about ‘NO Global Warming’. Can we?
    Why the word ‘SUN’ is not present in the whole page we are reading?
    The tricky SUN gave us a much colder 2008 then anyone was expecting.
    Just find the official USA site about SUN and read about.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  6. Dec 7, 2008 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What can be said about "NO Global Warming"? Your OP seemed to present a case against GW. If this is to be a discussion or debate about the validity of GW, then both sides must be allowed to speek; the case for and the case against.

    If it's not a discussion about the validity of GW, then what is it about? What "other models" did you want to talk about?
  7. Dec 8, 2008 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think the statements on the page linked in the OP warrant for a verification. In the mean time, I lock this thread.

    (as heldervelez proposed, we are checking with NOAA)
  8. Dec 8, 2008 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ok, I re-opened the thread. I didn't get any reply, but at least the page can be reached from the official NOAA site:

    On http://www.noaa.gov you go to:

    NOAA Organizations

    Then on National weather service

    Down under, on Jetstream (in the column Education/Outreach)

    Then on (left band) "Lesson plan overview"

    and there in "the atmosphere", number 10: "it's a gas, man"

    So the page seems not to be a hoax.
  9. Dec 8, 2008 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I see that you have chosen to not directly address any of the errors and deceptions that I pointed out. Would you?

    Also, I'm curious how you happened to find this page.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  10. Dec 8, 2008 #9
    here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/...se-in-total-disagreement-with-nasa-satellite/ I found a review of recent issues about NOAA data.
    Also here [PLAIN]http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/16/latest-noaa-press-release-in-total-disagreement-with-nasa-satellite/[/URL] [Broken]
    I found that web page by chance.
    I am not a climatologist. Instead of talking about data records with problems I’d like to hear about new models.
    Look for the SUN factor, the long past record climate data (dinosaurs era, for ex.).
    Look for the geological evidence on the past hot earth against the theoretical model of ‘Frozen Earth’.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  11. Dec 9, 2008 #10
    http://ambio.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1579%2F0044-7447-37.sp14.483&ct=1 [Broken] may be interesting too,

    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  12. Dec 9, 2008 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I have to say that I find the "educative experience" on that page totally strange. In as much as it even does something (after all, the heat capacity of the gas is minuscule as compared to that of the bottle and the water and everything), it would only demonstrate some spectral properties of CO2. There would be no "greenhouse" effect in the bottle due to the CO2. You could just as well add some black ink to the water, and that would work much better.
  13. Dec 9, 2008 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Concerning the lower stratospheric cooling, this is usually seen as a proof for CO2-induced global warming. The simple explanation is that as more IR radiation is withhelt by the lower troposphere, less of it reaches the stratosphere so this one cools.

    Now, the problem is that there is indeed a cooling trend of the lower stratosphere since there are reliable satellite observations of this (1979), but that the overall "linear fit" which gives a downward slope is not a continuous trend, but actually comes about because of a few dramatic steps, and that in between there is rather a small "rise" (recovery ?).

    Another element which plays a role in the lower stratosphere is that it is influenced by the ozone concentration: less there is ozone, less radiation is absorbed in the ozone bands. As we know that there has been an ozone depletion, this also influences the tendency.

    When we look at the data http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
    (look at the TLS plot 3/4 down the page), then we see indeed that there is an overall "cooling" trend of -0.33 K per decade, but that this comes about in steps related to volcanic eruptions which give first a rise, and then a dramatic fall in lower stratospheric temperatures.

    However, when one looks at the "pieces of data" in between these steps, there is no discernable continuous "cooling" tendency (it rather looks flat, or even slightly rising).

    So the "stratospheric cooling" is quite a complicated phenomenon, and the overall "straight line fit" is a bit a cheap argument.
    People are still investigating what is the exact dynamics of that temperature:

    So stratospheric cooling is not simple, and it is not even clear whether it is cooling right now.
  14. Dec 9, 2008 #13
    I agree with your comment. Thats why I said that the page appears to be a 'patch' over the previous content and it is not properly done.

    In the post #9 I've intended to make a link to this revue

    As I'm not an expert in clime it's hard to me to discuss data reliability, credibility of sources and so on.

    I saw that web page when I was looking for other subject. I am only reporting what is there.

    Of course I have an opinion as anyone is entitled to have, more or less an informed one.

    I read in the past the report made by a young girl that is called Ponder the Maunder http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html that poses a lot of questions.

    The SUN this year of 2008 gave us too little power compared with the expected in previsions.

    The Artic and Antarctic cores are in fact growing in ice content (recent sattelit mesures)

    I think that also ice cores have shown that CO2 grow up only after temperature grow up.

    But the more important is that we must look back to ancient weather to find the real global trend. I'm convinced that in the past the Earth was hotter.

    Of course the air polution is not good to clime stabylity.
    Of course there is a need to save natural resources to use in the future.

    The fact that USA did not signed Kyoto protocol and the fact that the White House as a new guy and the need to redirect funds from some issue to other more important issues could be the cause for the change in the contents of that web page.

    We have to broaden our perspective and listenning in a lot of directions, not only the 'official' or 'funded' currents of research.
    If we dont do that we can miss a lot of important ideas or evidence.
    We can not be blind. It costs money to everyone.

    But I have to leave the discussion of this issue to others with more expertise.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  15. Dec 9, 2008 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Informed by what? Experts that work in the field, or blogs written by lay-people?

    For instance, where did you get this - see quote below - information from?
    The plots below show the actual Arctic ice cover from satellite data.

    Source: M. C. Serreze et al, Science, v315, p1533 (2007) [http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5818/1533 [Broken]]

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  16. Dec 10, 2008 #15
    In fact in this moment I can’t find the web page were is shown the actual positive net mass balance of ice over Antarctic and Greenland (not the all Arctic as I've written in the post). There exists a positive overall net mass balance with thickening in the interior and thinning in the periphery.

    But this recent dissertation about Ice Sheets
    Found at:
    http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04092007-174614/unrestricted/dissertation.pdf [Broken]

    is clear in relation to Greenland :
    pag 58 (70 pdf) Map of GreenLand and enlarged detail of the positions of measuring stations
    pag 66 (78 pdf) Mass balance between 1995 to 2005 by station
    pag. 67 (79 pdf) Graph of Mass balance with accumulation and ablation detail
    it clearly shows a net mass balance largely positive on West Greenland
    pag 112 (124 pdf) Conclusions on MODELING MASS BALANCE ON ICE SHEETS
    models PDD and SNTHERM were put to test against real data
    pag 114 (126 pdf) SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK
    Finally, this dissertation takes a critical look at melt modeling on the Greenland Ice Sheet.Several models were assessed, including the statistical Positive Degree-Day (PDD) model, a numerical model called SNTHERM, and a new analytical model, SOSIM, developed as part of this research. The assumptions of the PDD model were tested and found to be tenuous at best, despite the popularity of the model and its overall performance in the study area. SNTHERM was unable to adequately model snow melt over a cold ice surface, so a third model was developed. The new model, SOSIM, performed better than the other models tested, but its heavier data requirements limit its utility and in many cases the simpler PDD model would suffice

    beeing so, when I compare these results with data and graphs from http://www.eoearth.org/article/Glaciers_and_ice_sheets_in_the_Arctic
    section Projected changes
    As they do not fit, makes me wonder about the model capability to project changes
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  17. Dec 10, 2008 #16
    We are talking about two different things ‘Arctic sea ice cover’ and ‘Net mass balance of ice over Arctic and Antarctic ice cores’
  18. Dec 10, 2008 #17
    in another way
    The Ice Caps are Growing By David J. Ameling
    This means since 1999 to the present the Earth's rate of rotation has increased. There are two possible (but not mutually exclusive) causes for this. 1. Some of the Earth's mass has moved closer to the Earth's axis of rotation similar to a spinning skater bringing his arms closer to his sides, and thus spinning faster.
    (the other possible cause is only a small EMF effect)
  19. Dec 10, 2008 #18
    Thanks for the link, actually during periods of warming, one would expect that, the summit of the ice sheet gets warmer, hence the amount of water vaper can increase. There can be a lot more snow at -20C than at -40C, which are normal temperatures for the Greenland Ice sheet summits.

    Why it's warming over there is a different story of course.
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2008
  20. Dec 10, 2008 #19
    In fact the very idea of "global warming" is deceptive, and if valid, is more so in the Northern hemisphere than in the Southern. The Southern hemisphere has different conditions to measure, (for instances the predominence of land in the north, sea in the south). In this modern "optimum" the Northern H. has warmed more than the Southern by everyones measurments
    As a geologist it is very evident that in former eons there were periods much warmer and much colder.
    Yes, the general trend, subtracting the extremes, has been a steady gentle warming since the last glacial, but that is the pattern of all interglacials. Most of the warming of our present interglacial is believed to have happened in the first third of the period with resultant sea level rise and general warming. As interglacials are understood this is the norm.

    The point is that dispite the studies of Mann, Hansen, and others, unless we are totally wrong in our evaluation of paleo-climates, greenhouse gases have only a small part to play on the stage of climate. Granted the effect of greenhouse gas is a necessary part of our livable world, but the effect of negative feedback have strong constraining effects on control and argue against a tipping point or runaway warming.

    It seems obvious to me that we are in one of the many warming cycles we have had in the past, and sooner or later we will once again enter a cooling period. The debate is on about if we are doing that at present, and if this is just another optimum followed by a minimum or if this is the cusp of this interglacial and the beginning of the next glacial.

    Statements about consensus or "settled science" are foolish at best, since science is never settled and consensus also means everyone could be wrong, as as happened many times in the past. "Consensus" science is stagnent, and produces little. Most breakthroughs in historic science have been made by those who thought outside the box. Something consensus science prohibits.

    I must agree with heldervelz, who is I suspect, like me much more impressed with observational data than with model projections.
    As I understand it, the consensus model requires positive feedback in excess of 1, which in my experience leads to unstable run-away systems.....one which the climate clearly has never experienced.

    In my opinion the climate is a self balancing system, always attempting, but never succeeding, to achieve an energy balance. This indicates a self correcting process of negative and positive feedbacks of less than 1.

    Adressing the CO2 agrument in terms of AGW must include the facts that CO2 does not care where it comes from, and acts in the same way no matter its source. It must also take into account that we have very good evidence that CO2 has been much higher in other times....far higher than all the fossile fuel known reserves could acheive even if we were to release it all at once.
    This alone should give pause to anyone reading or hearing that we only have a few years to correct what will become a catastrophe.

    In terms of paleo-geolgy and paleo-climatology..... prove it has happened before and then we can discuss if it will happen again. Until then, IMO, it remains in the realm of social political discussion and not in science.

    We do not know enough about most of the complex systems that makeup our climate to base life changing economic stratagy on. It is pretty obvious that we know more about what the "cure" will cause and cost, than we do about the possible problem we face.

    My personal opinion, as can be deduced from the above, is that; yes we have contributed to the levels of CO2, but no, we have no data that shows it has anymore than a small and transitory effect on climate, some of it perhaps benificial.
    Nothing unusual has happened in the last century that hasn't happened many times before without human aid. Just as we havn't caused anything unusual, we can not create anything unusual.
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2008
  21. Dec 11, 2008 #20


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Curious. I am having trouble matching those monthly artic ice extents from Serreze with this NSIDC data published at the Univ of Ill. The NSIDC twenty year graph never shows maximum ice area greater than 14.5, 15 million sq km, where as the Serreze March graphs (peak month?) show many years greater the 16 million sq km.

    Attached Files:

  22. Dec 11, 2008 #21
    The history of atmospheric CO2 http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.jpg
    Shows a general global trend of declining, aproching the limiar of life survival,
    About 300My ago life (and us) was endangered, and no explanation to such a low CO2 value at that time.
    Do you know what is the level bellow what we can say life is CO2 starving or extinguishing?
    Biology has some numbers calculated.
    It scares me to know that there are some guys trying to trap CO2.
    Do we have to pay to become extinguished?
    CO2 is the most rare gas in the atmosphere, more rare than Argon.
    60 Mys ago life was Huge, clima was good.
    now life is liliputian, clima is colder.
    Tens of years are nothing, nothing, nothing in the geological timescale.
    Wont we stop talking on the details? We dont understand the general drivers of clima but pretend to model the picodetail.
  23. Dec 11, 2008 #22
    I agree, prove there is really a problem then work on the response to it.
    Until then I will do my best to release as much trapped carbon as possible in hopes of increasing the tillable acres of the world and help stave off the starvation that is sure to follow what I believe will be the next 60 years of cooling.
    Even in the hottest of year in our life time, 1998, there were nearly 10 times more deaths attributed to cold than to heat.
    In thirty years this global warming BS will be as laughable as as the alarming predictions of those scared of global cooling in the 70's. The ironic thing is that the cooling, if you recall, had a simple cause in the minds of the alarmists....fossile fuel burning. Hum........ is there a common factor here?
  24. Dec 11, 2008 #23


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Any statement of fact needs to be backed up by a credible source.
  25. Dec 11, 2008 #24


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's indeed an interesting remark :confused:

    That said, their lowest numbers also go below the ~ 6 million square kilometer (although that's less of a contradiction, given that the Serreze graphs are only for certain months).
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2008
  26. Dec 12, 2008 #25
    Mr. latecommer refered 10x more deaths? I bet that number is underestimated
    In Portugal a mid-latitude country, official number of 2001-2006 found at pag. 65 (66 pdf)
    here http://www.ine.pt/ngt_server/attachfileu.jsp?look_parentBoui=16223900&att_display=n&att_download=y
    Mortalidade por meses
    Em 2006, em média, faleceram por dia 279 indivíduos

    residentes em Portugal. Contudo, o número de óbitos
    flutua ao longo do ano e tende a atingir valores mais
    elevados nos meses de Inverno (317 óbitos diários, em
    média, entre 1 de Dezembro de 2005 e 31 de Março de
    2006) e mais reduzidos nos meses de Verão (258 pessoas
    faleceram em cada dia, em média,entre 1 de Junho e 30
    de Setembro de 2006)

    It means :
    Monthly mortality (2006)
    In 2006, on average, each day 279 individuals dieded, ...,
    maximum 320 daily during winter (Dec,Jan,Feb,Mar) (317 is error, it is not a leap year)
    inbetween 261 daily warm weather (Apr, May,Out,Nov)
    minimum 258 daily during summer (Jun, Jul, Aug,Sep)

    Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
    10052 9260 9337 8057 8053 7330 8774 7957 7414 7824 7888 10044

    hot make us live more. deadly cold.
    in countries with severe weather it will be worst.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook