Blast from the Past

With the recent revelations that soot is a major contributor to global warming, I thought I would re-post this blast from the past (March 2011). I am reasonably sure that the science community has now explained away 100% of global warming based on factors other than CO2. I don't know what happens when 130% of global warming can be explained by ingredients other than CO2 since the Mayan Calendar has expired....perhaps we start to cool.

"I Should have been dead five years ago"

I was reading this post over at No Trick Zone about a new study that indicates that half of recent Arctic warming is directly attributable to soot. In reading I came upon a paragraph which strangly reminded me of something a biology teacher told our class way back in Junior High (now called Middle School for some reason). The paragraph which took me down memory lane was this:

And another important factor in warming from 1980 – 1998 (there has been no warming since 1998) are the oceanic oscillations, which were in their warm phase from 1980 – 1998. That doesn’t leave much room left for CO2. Call it the incredible shrinking CO2 warming effect.

 The particular teacher, his name escapes me, was actually a PE teacher who additionally taught biology as an elective course, which makes his lecture even more ironic and not at all political correct. Of course this was back in the late sixties and PC was just beginning to rear it's ugly head. Anyway what this PE/Biology educator explained to us disinterested hooligans was this, (I paraphrase. it was a long time ago):

"Modern science tells us that for every cigarette you smoke you shorten your life by the amount of time it takes to smoke it. They say that for every adult drink you consume you additionally shorten your life span by a few minutes depending on the quantity you drink. Certain foods you eat, most of which I enjoy, will additionally shorten your life span. I have done the calculations and have determined that I should have been dead five years ago"

Of course the statement was met with a great deal of laughter and cheer being as most of us were at the very beginning of our experimentation phase of life for these and many other mind altering life threatening substances.

Which brings me back to global warming. I thought wouldn't it be interesting if someone would go through the scientific literature for the past decade or so and see exactly how much global warming could be explained by factors other than CO2. Could it be possible that there exist enough scientific literature, peer reviewed of course. to show that in fact global warming has been or is in the process of being wiped away  by the scientific literature the juggernaut of modern climate science is generating.

As strange as this may seem being that all those thermometers allegedly point in the other direction, the religion science of global warming in order to explain away so many contradictions and to create as much fear as possible may in fact have talked their way out of their own theory.

I have neither the expertise or the discipline to search all this out but I did take a little time to investigate the possibility that science, slowly but surely is scientifically destroying at least the alarmist version of global warming.

As an example I will simply point to my last post about the advancing forest taking over the tundra. Somewhat tongue in cheek I wondered:

Which brings up an interesting thought, will these advancing green monsters be able to keep up with mankind's insatiable appetite for demon fossil fuels? In fact have the wizards of modeling projections factored in these new marauding forest into any of their scenarios of doom and gloom?

As it turns out at least some studies have been done on increased vegetation caused by CO2 and global warming negating global warming. The folks over at World Climate Report
point the way in an article appropriately titled "CO2-induced Vegetation Growth Slows Global Warming"   What makes this even more delicious is that it is done by NASA and NOAA Scientist partially using the same models they use to fry us.

A new study has identified a negative feedback between carbon dioxide-enhanced vegetative growth and global warming—the denser that vegetation becomes, the greater the cooling influence it has on any global temperature rise. The enhanced vegetation doesn’t offset all of the projected warming, but a sizeable chunk of it—13% globally, 20% over land areas, and more than 50% over the eastern United States. And this negative feedback is not included in current climate models.

A research team of scientists from NOAA, NASA, and the University of Maryland, led by Lahouari Bounoua set out to study how changing vegetation characteristics induced both directly by enhanced atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (recall that CO2 is a plant fertilizer) as well as by climate changes that are favorable for plant growth (increased temperature and/or precipitation) may feedback on the projected climate changes. The authors note that there has been some previous work on this topic, but that their current work (just published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters) uses a different modeling approach and includes plant responses not included in earlier studies.

 So there you go 13% of projected Global Warming gone in one fell swoop, cha ching. And we don't even know if they included the marauding forest of the great North country in their study.

But 13% is just chicken feed compared to what the experts admittedly can't explain (emphasis mine):

"Missing" heat may affect future climate change

April 15, 2010

BOULDER—Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, according to a “Perspectives” article in this week’s issue of Science. Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) warn in the new study that satellite sensors, ocean floats, and other instruments are inadequate to track this “missing” heat, which may be building up in the deep oceans or elsewhere in the climate system.

“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author. “The reprieve we’ve had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.”

The authors suggest that last year’s rapid onset of El Niño, the periodic event in which upper ocean waters across much of the tropical Pacific Ocean become significantly warmer, may be one way in which the solar energy has reappeared.

So the heat that is supposed to be there, well it just ain't. But don't worry or do worry it'll be back you just wait and see. By the way the El Nino is gone, just like it always does. As far as this hide and seek heat other reputable scientist say that explanation is well ...just bunk
(emphasis in the original)

Trenberth’s [and co-author, NCAR scientist John Fasullo], however, are grasping for an explanation other than the actual real world implication of the absence of this heat.  

• First, if the heat was being sequestered deeper in the ocean (lower than about 700m), than we would have seen it transit through the upper ocean where the data coverage has been good since at least 2005. The other reservoirs where heat could be stored are closely monitored as well (e.g. continental ice) as well as being relatively small in comparison with the ocean.
• Second, the melting of glaciers and continental ice can be only a very small component of the heat change (e.g. see Table 1 in Levitus et al 2001 “Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s climate system”.  Science).

Thus, a large amount heat (measured as Joules) does not appear to be stored anywhere; it just is not there.

So here we have another 50%, not of future heat, but heat that should already be here, 50% plus 13% equals 63% ...cha ching.

I know, I know what you're thinking. If the scientist admit that the heat their models predicted are actually 50% less than called for, then the heating necessary to grow all those new plants in the other study won't happen.

Unless of course the heat which is hiding in the deep sea like some ancient sea monster surfaces from the depths as Kevin of NCAR warns and smites Mother Earth. Then Mother Earth shall retaliate with more vegetation and marauding forest to combat the fire breathing Leviathan from the depths of the Sea.

Interesting isn't it, how such a major admission from Kevin of NCAR, he of IPCC and climategate fame should simply be ignored in the relentless narrative of global warming. If alarmist scientist admit that 50% of the projected heating just isn't there, though it may be hanging out in the Marianna Trench,  why does the rest of the scientific community continue to spit out model driven research papers as if those model projections were actually happening?

Even the study on increased vegetation due to global warming is based on the modeled projections of global warming which Kevin of NCAR admits is ...well LOST. Perhaps there is an island somewhere with mystical powers keeping our marooned Joules captive.

This of course means our marauding forest are at the very least, on hold. It also means that nearly every study being done based upon those models that are off by "roughly half" are not only assumptions based upon an assumption, which they have always been. They are in fact assumptions based upon a provably and admittedly wrong assumption.

Ah climate science what have you wrought. But you do make for good comedy.

I am reasonably certain that by now my former PE/Biology teacher has passed on, hopefully many years past when the scientist of that time projected he should. It is now only a matter of time and the real world intrusion on climate science's fable before we laugh at their inability to see that life and reality are not projections of mathematical formulas entered into computers by obsessed ideologues. Rather a wonderfully complicated evolving universe unfettered by the silly constraints imposed on it by egotistical scientist. If not for them this theory would have been dead, years ago.

'Professing to be wise, they became fools'