Yet another prediction using nothing but models. Do these guys actually collect real data? I'm beginning to wonder as it appears that everything they do is based on a model which they are able to manipulate.

Reply: Real data is collected, then it is modeled. The models save a lot of time and money in coming up with possible answers.

So basically, this is in direct contrast to the prediction of the IPCC/AR4 model.
And this could be important for SH climate since the acceleration (westerly jet in the SH troposphere is accelerating on the poleward side) directly affects:

- the surface temperatures
- the extent of sea ice
- the variability of storm tracks
- the location of arid regions
- the strength of the wind-driven oceanic circulation
- the exchange of CO2 and heat between atmosphere and ocean

In the original report, it indicates that the model shows that ozone hole recovery will increase global warming in that region, so by man helping to decrease the ozone hole man is even causing more global warming. Law of Unintended Consequences.

Apparently, more work needs to be done on the climate models and we need to be a little skeptical of the IPCC report, before we implement drastic global warming �solutions� that may have the opposite effect.

Southern Ocean SST increased 0.15 deg C from the late 1960s to the mid 80s. Prior to that, 1854 to 1960S, it was relatively flat. Since the early 1990s, it has been dropping like a rock and is now lower than levels in the 1950s and 1960s. The timing coincides nicely. And, with luck, Southern Ocean SSTs will continue to pull down mid-latitude Southern Hemisphere SSTs.

Brett, I've got a graph of ERSST.v2 data of the Southern Ocean and mid-latitude SH SST that would reinforce this, but it's a tinypic link. Is there any way your filter could be adjusted to allow tinypics, while still blocking the trash you don't want? Or is there another picture posting website that makes its way past your filters?

Reply: We cannot adjust it since we do not host it. I will look for it in the Junk Bob and post it myself.

From USA Today:

A new study finds that natural variations in how clouds form could actually be causing temperature changes, rather than the other way around, and could also lead to overestimates of how sensitive the Earth's climate is to greenhouse gas emissions.

"Since the cloud changes could conceivably be caused by known long-term modes of climate variability, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or El Ni�o and La Ni�a, some, or even most, of the global warming seen in the last century could simply be due to natural fluctuations in the climate system," says lead author Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama-Huntsville.

"This is because stratospheric ozone has not been considered a major player in the climate system."
Another Columbia University group, with the overarching goal behind their research is to achieve environmental sustainability…” getting in on the great green gravy grant train of AGW.
One interesting note of interest in this article is the conflict between what they are saying and what Dr, Hanson’s minions have said earlier this year. Hansenonian temperature readings have been adjusted to say that Antarctica is getting warmer. This study says closing of the ozone hole will reverse the weather in the Southern hemisphere and warm up Antarctica! So which way are the temps going to go up or down? (In this computer age can’t somebody on the AGW side get their stories straight?) It probably doesn’t matter because all weather and temps in any direction have probably been definitely linked to or maybe caused by AGW.
Climate studies is too young a field to even think they can predict 10 years into the future much less fifty or a hundred years. This field just doesn’t know enough or have an accurate baseline for predictions much less a coherent idea of what actually drives climate.(and CO2 continues to look less and less like the Devil.)

Just what other discoveries and climate system modulators don’t we yet know about much less understand?

How about we start with basic science research collecting and using real data and establishing a legitimate baseline first before we just waste money and resources!

It sounds like a (disingenuous) way to wiggle out of the overstated predicitions of the AGW mantra. This way the AGW modellers can say they were blindsided by an unforeseen event ... and furthemore that the closing of the ozone hole is proof that man can affect the climate (in this case by the reduction of cfc emissions).

Thus acknowledging a change in the direction of GW without actually stating they can't predict the climate, while being able to continue arguing 'man overpowers mother nature' with a straight face.

So, if this is true, then isn't the opposite true as well? I.e., that the ozone hole has exacerbated climate change (warming) in the 80s-90s?

the ozone hole is not a hole...ozone thinning is a cyclic natural phenomenon...it is not recovering because of the cfc ban...the cfc scam was an earlier version of the AGW SCAM...before that was the acid rain scam...followed by the ethanol scam...invoking AGW into a future predicting variable ozone climate model will do what?...concluding paragraph says it all "more research needs to be conducted to validate our computer invented claims that the antarctic will boil over because of ozone recovery"...these dudes havent one ounce of credability or conscience...first we hated the ozone hole, now we hate a perceived abundance of it...and guess what, they admit they dont have a clue whats going on, didnt know what was going on in the first models of the AGW scam, but now, with more taxpayer money they will figure it all out? you have got to be kidding me...all this hysteria and taxpayer skimming brought to you courtesy of yet another, computer generated fairytale...

Yet another possibility. It seems more and more scenarios lean towards cooler weather but out of all of these how many will you here reported on the liberal news {a.k.a N.B.C, A.B.C, C.B.S, CNN, etc,etc..} the answer will be none because they are there to raise the Gore power and try to brainwash as many airheads as possible, thats why they only show and tell one view. At one time I thought the ozone hole was something expanding, irreversable and it was told as such, why, to scare. Why, for the power of the left, there only method of support.

Brett, above you wrote: Real data is collected, then it is modeled. The models save alot of time and money coming up with possible answers. Couldn't you virtually use the models to come up with every scenario possible? Just wondering.

Brett,

You said, Real data is collected, then it is modeled.

However, from the article, they say, Observations in the last few years indicate that ozone depletion has largely halted and is expected to fully reverse. As a consequence, the new study finds, the Southern Hemisphere climate change may also reverse.

This indicates to me that although they have collected data showing slowing, if not a complete halt to the ozone depletion, there is no data showing a reversal of the trend. (Reply: The reversal is related to the ozone hole closing. It is not even close to closing yet, so current data will not tell you much.)Therefore, my original statement stands. This is a model (with no calibration) that has been used as a basis for another model. They then used this model to come up with this major announcement.

Another reason why I don't trust the AGW crowd. (Reply: How do you know that this particular group of researchers are part of the "AGW crowd.?" I did not see AGW mentioned in the article.) Their consistent overuse of models.

I think Bob Tisdale has the scent. Southern Ocean receives nearly 7% more irradiance than NH, all other factors being equal. Eighty Five percent of irradiance falls between the Tropics.

The oceans heat capacity is greater than land.

Dr. Spencer's F-test on the Mauna Loa CO2 curve indicates one CO2 fluence is responsible for the seasonal signal and the long-term trend:

Southern Ocean heating.

Go Bob.

Here is an interesting article on ozone depletion. According to this 2001 article "Bromine is approximately 40-100 times more effective, atom for atom, at destroying ozone than chlorine. For instance, Br coupled reactions are responsible for 30 to 50% of the total ozone loss in the polar vortex." The article also states that "The largest source of bromine to the stratosphere is methyl bromide (CH3Br)." Approximately 58% of the methyl bromide emitted to the atmosphere is from natural sources, the remainder supposedly being anthropogenic.

Naturally-occurring bromoform, methyl chloride, methyl iodide, and chloroform also are major contributers to atmospheric organohalide concentrations. In fact, these naturally-occurring compounds were found to be the major contributer to near-surface ozone depletion. Hence, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to transport the compounds into the upper atmosphere via strong updrafts.

What this all boils down to is that there is a fairly good chance that the dreaded ozone depletion over the Antarctic is dominantly a naturally-occurring phenomenon and this study fails to this into account.

Mary:
Here is a direct quote from the IPCC. This is a summary from SAFEGUARDING THE OZONE LAYER."Observations and Model calculations suggest that the global average has now approximately stabilized. Although considerable variability of ozone is expected from year to year, including in polar regions where depletion is largest, the ozone layer is expected to begin to recover in coming decades due to declining ODS concentrations, assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol. There are several brochures from the IPCC, and below is the place where you can get them for free. Your right about the replacements of Halo-carbons as they will also be a strong radiative forcing as GHGs. But the good news is that they have a shorter life span than CO2, and even the IPCC concludes that the scenarios could change as other chemicals like ammonia and other technological processes will become available. So even the IPCC can adapt to the latest findings. And then you have to take it with a grain of salt. Now that I think about it someday they may find a way to make CO2, C and O2.
KIPP

https://www.gcrio.org/orders/login.php

Their is a tendency for people ( scientists and university PR depts are people) to exaggerate the importance & originality of their work. The conclusions of Dr Polvani hold little surprise to the climate science community, despite the wording in the news release. The issues have long been recognized -

"Also human-caused depletion of stratospheric ozone, a greenhouse gas, has reduced warming over most of Antarctica. This ozone depletion and CO2 increase have cooled the stratosphere, increased zonal winds around Antarctica, and thus warmed the Antarctic Peninsula while limiting warming of most of the Antarctic continent (Thompson and Solomon, 2002; Shindell and Schmidt, 2004). "
- - James Hansen, testimony to Iowa Utility Board. '07

and
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2004/2004_Shindell_Schmidt.pdf

We see the effects of a healing Antarctic ozone hole were examined several years ago.

They have not been overlooked, the way this blog's coterie of confusionists overlook the reality and risk of global warming.

Thanks, Brett. Here's the link to the graph.
http://i25.tinypic.com/2we9jli.jpg
To reinforce what I wrote earlier: Southern Ocean SST increased 0.15 deg C from the late 1960s to the mid 80s. Prior to that, 1854 to 1960S, it was relatively flat. Since the early 1990s, it has been dropping like a rock and is now lower than levels in the 1950s and 1960s. The timing coincides nicely with the ozone problem/correction, though I have yet to run a graph comparing ozone hole area and Southern Ocean SST.

Looking again at the SST data, with luck, Southern Ocean SSTs will continue to pull down mid-latitude Southern Hemisphere SSTs.

Thanks again.

About the source: There's all sorts of valuable information hidden away on the NOAA NOMADS. I finally figured out how to retrieve the time series data for Smith and Reynolds SST (actually, I found the instructions) and I'm working on about a dozen posts for my blogspot that I'll post as a group once they're done. I've been studying climate change as a layman for more than 15 years, but some of the SST data just blew me away.

Brett:
I think what you mean by the article title is that since the global ozone is back in place, it would mean less warming in areas that reflect sunlight and the infrared spectrum back through the atmosphere and into space. It is correct that the IPCC never considered ozone. What they did say is this. "Ammonia and those Hydrocarbons used as halocarbon substitutes have atmospheric lifetimes ranging from days to months, and the direct and indirect radiative forcings with there use as substitutes are very likely to have a negligible effect on global climate. HFCs,CFCs, and halons, already in the atmosphere, will exist decades, to centuries,in their lifetimes as a radiative gas. It depends on which HFC or HCFC you are talking about.There are many different ones. All break down eventually from oxygen. AGW,is the problem. The ice, she melts.
KIPP

I think first it was that we were going to freeze to death. Then it was the ozone hole that was going to end it for all of us. I remember the acid rain scare because I did a speech about it when I was in college. I had first hand experience having seen the results of acid rain on the trees at the summit of Mt. Mitchell, NC. It is significant at that elevation.

While I appreciate the efforts of many of the environmental groups, finding balance regarding man 's place on the planet seems to be at the crux of climate change. The environmental activists and their followers seem to loathe the idea that man exists at all and is thus screwing up what would be a perfect world. It really is easy to put all the blame on man if you believe that man has the power to right the evils that cause global change which at this point there is no proof of. The problem with this POV is that even though man is a slob and does screw with nature by our very existence, the size of populations today make it impossible for man to live on this planet in such a manner as to leave barely a footprint.

It is the technology today that is driving this climate change debate, but then technology is not friendly to the environment either. As an example, how many fab structures need to be built to produce wafers and then how long do these facilities last? As I recall, 5 years maybe and then the technology that went into building that facility is considered too antiquated and thus more fabs houses are constructed leaving the old ones obsolete. Maybe that industry is more environmentally friendly than when I worked in it some years ago.

It would be interesting to compare personnel involved with the Montreal Protocol, with people working for the IPCC.
Bet there is plenty of overlap in those two pools.
Mug shots might be appropriate.

A little off topic...

I've long thought the Associated Press would hype anything that's supposedly evidence for AGW and the direness of its consequences. Apparently, I was correct. Here, by way of the CBS News website, is an AP story titled Today's Quakes Deadlier Than In Past that claims climate change has caused a five-fold increase in seismic activity.

The author is a crackpot, the "journal" is edited by the author, himself, and the associated university is phony. Good job, AP and CBS News. At least Steve Bloom hasn't gotten around to cutting-and-pasting the entire article onto this blog.

You know, this would be funny if it weren't so darned hilarious.

(I suspect the story will soon vanish from the CBS website.)

I agree with Mary that we have to do more work refining climate models (and rest assured, that work goes on every day). For all the talk on this forum about failures of science to be able to predict weather accurately, we are doing better than we were without science. The same is true for climate. As far as Mary's concern that we should be cautious about implementing "solutions" to global warming for fear of doing unintended harm, do we have a similar fear about the vast experiment we are conducting on the planet by injecting billions of tons of gases into the atmosphere that are known to increase solar heat retention; changing land use patterns that release carbon and change albedo; etc? My guess for the majority of the group in this echo chamber the answer is "No".

Actually, Brett, their article is full of references to global warming (aka, climate change) such as ...may significantly affect climate change in the Southern Hemisphere, and therefore, the global climate...; and ...the new study finds, the Southern Hemisphere climate change may also reverse...; and "Our results suggest that stratospheric ozone is important for the Southern Hemisphere climate change, and ought to be more carefully considered in the next set of IPCC model integrations,"...; and ...chemistry-climate models used for the 2006 Ozone Assessment, however, predict that the Antarctic ozone hole will achieve full recovery in the second half of this century, and that this may have profound impacts on the surface winds and, likely, on other aspects of the Earth's climate, including surface temperatures, locations of storm tracks, extent of dry zones, amount of sea ice, and ocean circulation...; and ...the tropospheric winds in the Southern Hemisphere have been accelerating closer to the planet's pole as a result of increasing greenhouse gases and decreasing ozone...; and ...potentially reversing the direction of climate change in that hemisphere... ;and ...shows significant effects on the global climate...; and ...to fully understand how complete ozone recovery will impact the planet's changing climate...; and finally ...interactions between a recovering ozone hole, increasing greenhouse gases, ocean currents, and other components of the climate system must still be explored in order to better understand how the Earth's climate will change in the future.

Sounds to me as though they have bought into the AGW theory.

Reply: Maybe, but I still do not see references to "man-made" global warming. Global warming in general, yes.

Brett,

Reply: How do you know that this particular group of researchers are part of the "AGW crowd.?" I did not see AGW mentioned in the article.)

Not mentioned in the article but if you go to their website their goal is:
“The overarching goal behind the research of the Earth Institute is to achieve environmental sustainability in the context of a world of environmental challenges—from rapid population growth and climate change....”

When they say Climate Change that the context is AGW!
Climate change is the new buzzword for AGW as they just got tired of so many people laughing at them and are trying to cover every base.

Reply: I was just focusing on the study.

Kipp

“ Now that I think about it someday they may find a way to make CO2, C and O2.”

It has already been done. The invention is called photosynthesis. The process while chemical is organic and works extremely well converting sunlight into energy storing chemical compounds and making oxygen.
Just what part about science including biology don’t the AGW zealots understand???
Let's all hold hands sing Kum-ba Ya and walk off into the fog of our mind numbing ignorance!

As far as Mary's concern that we should be cautious about implementing "solutions" to global warming for fear of doing unintended harm:

I believe, or at least hope, most of us here would agree with some version of these next statements:
# Global climate prediction, to say nothing of possible human influence on it (whether via effects on ozone, CO2 release, methane release, or whatever) is very complex and difficult, if not impossible, to accurately and definitely predict -- an imperfect science and art, but better than 50 years ago (pre NASA pre supercomputer, etc).
# There are some data and many projections from these (albeit imperfect and all subject, as are all experiments and studies subject to some criticism)from which respectable and in many cases sources with professional training and credentials have projected significant and undesirable warming and many have concluded it is these past and projected changes have human causal elements such as CO2 pivotal in them.
These projections all contain "tipping point" elements of various types and estimated dates, beyond which, and speculated human intervention would be useless.
# There are also some data and studies, and advocates, though fewer, suggesting either the possibility that there is no significant warming, others that there is but human activity is not a significant factor in it.
# There is the empirical reality of things such as the Larson sheet sliding into the ocean, the Northwest Passage opening, actual increases in ocean depth (low laying islands with significant ocean encroachment), permafrost reduction in certain areas greater than any records, etc.

#Finally, we have that some of the projections made by these uncertain warming models and advocates (glacier migrations, etc) have already happened and notably that the projections which _have_ happened turned out to be conservative (e.g., Larson sheet was expected to move slower than it did.)

So what we have is (A) arguably an uncertain theory saying that we're facing catastrophic warming and that changes in human behavior could prevent the worst of them if implemented promptly on a significant scale. And (B) another class of competing one saying "natural changes -- no significant human influence" and or "harmless changes" or in some cases "wait and see."

So we are in a position of as a society having to place a bet on A or B (unless our heads are completely in the sand and we're paying no attention).

When I place a bet, particularly an uncertain and important one, I suggest we assess the possible consequences of the bet being right and it being wrong and consider _both_ the results of winning or losing the bet before deciding which bet to place. So we've got a matrix of four squares:

In A1: If we bet on A (make significant economic and lifestyle changes based on it) and it turns out we are right to do so in best case we are patting ourselves on the back at having averted catastrophe at reasonable cost. In worst the changes me make are insufficient and we at least know we tried.

In A2: (We bet on A -- make significant economic and other changes and it turns out we didn't really need to, it was the wrong bet). In best case the changes we make turn out to be beneficent anyway (we've implemented massive non-oil energy sources that free us from dependence on oil from unreliable regimes and work economically, created large numbers of valuable jobs, have transit we like better, etc). In worst case we have damaged our economy seriously and seriously inconvenienced many citizens.

In B1 box: (We bet on B and it turns out to be the correct bet -- we just wait and see and make no changes to mitigate possible climate change). In best case we save ourselves from serious economic damage and inconvenience (and pat ourselves on the back for our prudent judgment and can tell others 'we told you so') but gain nothing else.
In there worst case of being right to bet on B we lose the chance to use this issue, which turned out to be false, as leverage to free ourselves from the problem of dependence on overseas petroleum sources and a global finite supply of the same, which at some point will confront us.

In B2 Box: (We bet on B and it turns out to be the wrong bet -- global climate catastrophically changes past some tipping point and opportunities for human mitigation are completely lost). In worst case any human survivors in 2060 are living in hellish conditions and cursing us for our poor betting ability. In best case we're suffering economic and lifestyle cost far in excess of what it would have cost us to be proactive earlier.

So looking at BOTH the possible consequences (both the win and lose possibilities) of going with betting on A vs. B in the face of uncertainty, it seems, at least to me and some others, prudent to place our bets with theory A and start taking action on the assumption it may be correct. The win/lose payoffs on B look most imprudent and unattractive to me.

In simple street language:
If we make serious and significant economic damage by acting as if we should and can mitigate climate change (and it turns our we didn�t' have to) the best comes out of that mistake is benefit. At worst serious damage which is recoverable (even a major depression can be recovered from.)

If we fail to make significant changes in response to projected catastrophic climate change and it turns out our "go slowly and wait" idea was a mistake and we should have done more and sooner, the results would be non-recoverable.

In short -- arguing about the fine points of statistics, ice-sheet depth, sunspots' influence on weather, etc -- while something I love, as a scientist, to do may be satisfying and an opportunity to improve our critical thinking, etc, but it may be fiddling while Rome burns.

Why not, for example, agree that regardless of climate change reality and possible human role in it, it would benefit us for sure to get off dependence on overseas oil, having to compete with China and India for increasingly costly oil (a supply/demand picture that will surely get worse -- oil at $136 per barrel today -- and depleting and finite global oil, and work cooperatively, rather than as naysayers, on that as something both climate doomsayers and most climate sceptics can probably agree is a worthwhile and at least somewhat pressing priority.

Alex

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't get too excited about studies until the results have been validated and repeated by independent researchers. This is why I have so little faith in computer models. A 50-year projection of climate change can't truly be validated through another computer model. The real world data must be collected and compared to the model's projections for decades, (perhaps for the entire 50-year period) before the model can be considered validated.

Brett,

Maybe, but I still do not see references to "man-made" global warming. Global warming in general, yes.

From my last post and the article:

...the tropospheric winds in the Southern Hemisphere have been accelerating closer to the planet's pole as a result of increasing greenhouse gases and decreasing ozone... and ...interactions between a recovering ozone hole, increasing greenhouse gases, ocean currents, and other components of the climate system must still be explored in order to better understand how the Earth's climate will change in the future.

Would not the increasing greenhouse gas reference imply an AGW component to their analysis or do they have to explicitly refer to AGW to qualify? Reply: Could be naturally occurring (forest fires, newly exposed carbon that was trapped in arctic soils, forest dieoff (loss of carbon sinks)= more atm. greenhouse gas concentration, warmer ocean waters)

TED:
Hate to bring you back from your fog,numbing mentality but the earth has had enough CO2 and
now it is in the ocean, melting the arctic in the
atmosphere and is part of the water cycle. When they found young oxygen and old fossil fuel in water molecules they were able to measure the effects of CO2 which is a driver in the process of global warming. What is so funny about Global Warming that makes you think that many scientists who have dedicated their lives, from the beginning of the last century, where chasing a fools gold. This idea didn't start with Dr. Hansen, or Al Gore. What is cum-ba ya, some sort of insult to people that believe in AGW. Why don't you tell me why the Earth is warming, instead of cheap shots, and grade school references to photosynthesis. "ALthough chemical is organic". They are not mutually exclusive. This synthesis is not the magic bullet I was talking about. We now need a process that can separate CO2 before it reaches the atmosphere, since some of the biomass that you refer to is dead. I care about mother Earth, and not about personal prejudices,and angry rhetoric.Talk science.
KIPP

Kipp,

You keep saying this:

" When they found young oxygen and old fossil fuel in water molecules they were able to measure the effects of CO2 which is a driver in the process of global warming"

but what does it mean.

Also, what does this mean:

"melting the arctic in the
atmosphere "

How much arctic is in the atmosphere?

Brett,

Could be naturally occurring (forest fires, newly exposed carbon that was trapped in arctic soils, forest dieoff (loss of carbon sinks)= more atm. greenhouse gas concentration, warmer ocean waters)

Are you saying that the unprecedented increase in greenhouse gases are the result of natural processes? Reply: yes, my guess is that a portion (I do not know how much) of the increase is related to natural factors.)

(Oh, btw, the expected increase in atmospheric water vapor due to positive feedbacks is apparently not happening. I guess the models need tweaking.)The resident AGWer's that comment here seem to think that these increases are pretty much anthropogenic, or so I thought.

Alex,

What you fail to appreciate is that choosing option A will, without question, lead to increased human suffering and deaths. NO, this is not an exaggeration. The global economy runs on oil. No way around this. There are no viable alternatives at this time which means that the only way for mankind to meet the demands of the AGW agenda would be to cut back on our economic output. Guess what happens when we cut back on our economic output? Fewer people have jobs, fewer people can afford bare necessities, people have less money to give for outreach programs, etc. There are real and tangible consequences to any decision that limits our ability to provide for ourselves. Consequences that you totally ignore.

The REAL question is: Do we make drastic behavioral changes and limit the ability for world economies to function based on an, as yet, unprovable and wholly unsubstantiated guess? My answer: Not on your life or on the lives of those who you would condemn to a lesser existence.

VEETS:
Funny:ha ha. Yes the arctic is in the atmosphere haven't you seen it. It's next to Venus! What atmosphere does Venus have.CO2.
Water Vapour is the largest greenhouse gas and spent fossil fuel(BURNT) and young oxygen has been found in water molecules in the Atmosphere, is up in the sky. In the sea. And on the Earth. Sarcasm is a weapon of the weak.The permafrost is melting, which will release methane. That is a nasty greenhouse gas. But you can play in the bubbles if you wish. Methane can be found in your sink, hydrates, wetlands,termites,and of course the oceans. Not in the atmosphere. What has your contribution been for the blog today,nothing.
Contribute something so that others may learn.
KIPP

I see the earthquake/global warming story has vanished from the CBS news website, as I suspected it would.

What a weird story that was. Here are the opening paragraphs:

(AP) New research compiled by Australian scientist Dr. Tom Chalko shows that global seismic activity on Earth is now five times more energetic than it was just 20 years ago.

The research proves that destructive ability of earthquakes on Earth increases alarmingly fast and that this trend is set to continue, unless the problem of "global warming" is comprehensively and urgently addressed.

The analysis of more than 386,000 earthquakes between 1973 and 2007 recorded on the US Geological Survey database proved that the global annual energy of earthquakes on Earth began increasing very fast since 1990.

It's so poorly written and over-the-top, that it's hard to believe it was meant to be taken seriously. Was the CBS website hacked? Is the CBS science editor hitting the bottle? Is my calender wrong, and it's really April First? I hope to find out the story behind this story.

So, Paul (2:34 pm), you fell hook, line and sinker for that screw-up by Anthony Watts. Why am I not surprised?

BTW, the next time you seem someone claiming to have found a cart-overturning revelation in the *NCEP reanalysis data* (of all places), you can indeed rest assured that an error has been made.

How humiliating for both you and Watts.

ADAM
i dont know about the rest of the dudes here, but you can include me in a group that says those billions, trillions, gadzillions of gases have little to no effect on climate...am i concerned about the environment? yes...do i fear co2 meltdown?...no, because when you look at the science behind AGW, fear goes away...its that simple, and i am tired of the implication that the echo in this chamber doesnt care...in fact, dude, that echo you here is going to get louder because alot more folks care/waking-up-to the pain and suffering AGW fear is all about...fear doesnt echo near as loud as the silence of good science...

Brett, I'm very surprised that at this late date you're not clear on how much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities.

The short answer? All of it. See the linked article for the details.

Reply: How would they really know that for sure. Too many variables involved. I don't think anyone really knows the real answer. I am sure a majority of the increase in CO2 is from man-made activities, but not all of it. Maybe I am wrong, but that's my feeling.

Brett had a post last Oct 31 about ozone's effect on warming. Only 17 comments, but interesting debate about whether the ozone hole was man-made or not. Check archives.

Steve Bloom,

The chart Watts was reading was labled "up to 300m," when it should have been labled, "down to 300m." His mistake was understandable. Bloggers corrected it. He admitted it, and left the post out there for all to see.

Please compare this to the news story about the warming-caused earthquakes, which just vanished, with no admission by the media that a mistake was made.

But I don't feel it is so bad to make a mistake. Both sides are bound to do it, because both sides are human. I suppose making mistakes is what you call "humiliating," but, (after cringing a bit,) we get over it. We learn and grow.

What really gets me raving is when people make mistakes on purpose, falisfying data and promoting propaganda. But I'd better not go there, right now. Too early in the day to rave.

I noted your request in another thread that I list the back-log of studies I'm trying to catch up on. Can't do it right away. Both my milking goats had triplets, and goats have only two teats to feed their kids with. (I know; too much information; but I just want you to know I listen to you even when I can't respond.)

Isn't it funny how people on both sides insinuate the other side is being funded by the "Bad Guys?" I sure could use some big oil money. Heck with that; even milk money would be good.

Kipp

Smart tactic, defending something that makes no sense with something even more confusing, itneresting tactic, but if you are going to take into account what I have contributed to the board, well then, you could at least try and make sense with your posts.

My contribution is calling you on your rampant stating of young oxygen with old carbon or whatever. To the lay reader, it may sound relevant, and it could be. But up until this point, you have not made it relevant. So my contribution, I guess, is trying to get you to actually contribute something.

Because this rant:

"VEETS:
Funny:ha ha. Yes the arctic is in the atmosphere haven't you seen it. It's next to Venus! What atmosphere does Venus have.CO2.
Water Vapour is the largest greenhouse gas and spent fossil fuel(BURNT) and young oxygen has been found in water molecules in the Atmosphere, is up in the sky. In the sea. And on the Earth. Sarcasm is a weapon of the weak.The permafrost is melting, which will release methane. That is a nasty greenhouse gas. But you can play in the bubbles if you wish. Methane can be found in your sink, hydrates, wetlands,termites,and of course the oceans. Not in the atmosphere. What has your contribution been for the blog today,nothing.
Contribute something so that others may learn."

was jsut a straw man that you somehow brought back to CO2 in a horribly irrelevant way. I question things that I don't understand, and right now, I am questioning your use of this young oxygen thing. YOu must think it is very important, as you have referenced it numerous times.

Please stop with the cheap tactics, and explain it, I am not going to let you off the hook until I get a cut and dry explanation of the relevancy of that young oxygen think you keep talking about. Quit changing the subject to methane and to Venus. Quit using the alarmist rhetoric and simply answer the question.

bloom,

So, Paul (2:34 pm), you fell hook, line and sinker for that screw-up by Anthony Watts. Why am I not surprised?

Nice try, bloom, I must admit that I should look at graph labels instead of taking them at face value. Screwed up! Enjoying your moment of glory? Hope so, since the rest of the AGW argument is falling apart. I do enjoy reading your condescending and self-inflating comments though. They provide seconds of joy for me while perusing the threads. Keep up the good work!!

Kipp,

I know Veets already asked but you never gave an answer, What exactly is "young oxygen"?

ADAMANT:
What does a mission to Venus offer! Venus is similar to Earth. It has relatively the same mass, and while it's orbit is somewhat closer to the sun, because of the cloud cover,Venus would otherwise be -42C. Because of the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, the surface is 467C. The atmosphere is CO2. This is the reason for It's strong greenhouse gas, and proof of what CO2 is doing to the Earth. The opacity to IR in our atmosphere to greenhouse gases, causes warming. The energy of the IR is transferred to CO2 molecules causing them to tumble faster, and this transfers to other gases in the atmosphere by collisions. Then they move faster, and this is called warming! Have a good weekend!
KIPP

Pepper,

I know Veets already asked but you never gave an answer, What exactly is "young oxygen"?

I doubt if Kipp will answer. However, I would suspect that "young oxygen" is oxygen that is formed in stars. According to this website from Cornell Nuclear fusion in stars converts hydrogen into helium in all stars. In stars less massive than the Sun, this is the only reaction that takes place. In stars more massive than the Sun (but less massive than about 8 solar masses), further reactions that convert helium to carbon and oxygen take place in successive stages of stellar evolution. In the very massive stars, the reaction chain continues to produce elements like silicon up to iron.

And there you have an explanation for "young oxygen". Most oxygen on earth is probably very, very old as for oxygen to be in our solar system, the sun must have been a second generation star (formed from the remains of a much larger star).

I know Veets already asked but you never gave an answer, What exactly is "young oxygen"?

"Young Oxygen" is the stable isotope of Oxgyen that has an atomic mass of 18. Two other stable isotopes occur naturally in the atmosphere of the Earth, with atomic masses of 16 and 17. Water molecules containing the lighter isotope 16 are slightly more likely to evaporate and then fall as precipitation. Such molecules therefore have a slightly lower amount of isotope 18 than air or seawater.

Isotopic fractionation applied to water in this way is called "Rayleigh fractionation", and is used extensively by climatologists.

Paul and Veets owe Kipp an apology.

VEETS: Young OXYGEN by photosynthesis, has not been on the planet when fossil fuels were.
Scientists can now date both oxygen, and burnt fossil fuel by dating approximately the time of CO2 made by dating it. Since they found this in water vapour recently they know that CO2 is in the water vapour, and can approximate the human effect on GHGs. Why don't you post this on Google again. I like the Noteriety.Look at new physics information, if you want to learn and don't want to cry wolf and go ballistic. You still don't offer any new science so this is my last post to you. Good luck.Your teacher, KIPP

Pepper,

Didn't you know? "Young Oxygen" is younger than "Old Oxygen"

LOL for the rest of the weekend

Pepper: By analyzing the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen atoms making up atmospheric CO2, in a process similar to carbon dating, scientists can and have detected a human "fingerprint." What they have found via the isotope signatures can be thought of as "old" carbon, which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with "young" oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So present day combustion of fossilized hydrocarbon deposits (natural gas, coal, and oil) is definitely the source of the CO2 currently accumulating -- just as common sense tells us.
Pepper, a dogs name!
Kipp

Mr. Franklin,

Please provide a link to back up your claim about "young oxygen". Also, point out where I am wrong in regards to origins of oxygen. Where else is elemental oxygen manufactured?

Kipp,

Please provide some links for you age-dating techniques.

thanks

Kipp got that stuff about old carbon and young carbon from "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic", a series by Cody Beck. Here is an example of that exact paragraph, word for word.

http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/06/21/how-to-talk-to-a-climate-skeptic/

Mary,

I can think of one flaw in that argument just from reading the abstract. If the ocean is a sink for anthropogenically produced CO2, what would prevent the same CO2 from being released back into the atmosphere as the oceans warmed?

An afterthought. Their entire case is based on the premise that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of any warming. Since that is not the case, who cares?

Thanks for that link Mary. Due to the fact that many of his posts are virtually incoherent most people here are aware that Kipp simply pulls comments (read plagiarizes) from one place or another to form his statements. It is nice to see that verified.

Kipp,
It is admirable that you are making an effort to educate yourself but it is best to cite sources when you copy the work product of another person. I realize that your (bad) role models, Hansen, Gore, et.al. are able to get away with manipulation of data, half truths and propaganda but that sort of thing doesn't go over nearly as well in an open debate setting. You should be aware of the fact that Hansen, Gore, Steve Bloom, Dennis Hinka et.al. know all too well that they cannot prove their assertions, which explains their refusal to debate a skeptical, and equally knowledgeable counterpart (admittedly not me) in an open forum. You would do well to take a cue from them and refrain from making unequivocal statements until such time as your beliefs are proven correct by sound science (in all likelihood never) :)

Please provide a link to back up your claim about "young oxygen". Also, point out where I am wrong in regards to origins of oxygen. Where else is elemental oxygen manufactured?

I submitted a reply, but since it contained a link it was of course marked as spam.

Anyone who wishes can find it themselves, enter "Rayleigh fractionation" (including the quotes) as a search string in Google and look at the hits.

Ben,

I submitted a reply, but since it contained a link it was of course marked as spam.

That was convenient. I've never had a problem with links in my posts. Try embedding them.

Isotopic fractionation does not create new elemental oxygen. Therefore, all oxygen on earth is older than the sun, since the sun is not hot enough to create oxygen (only helium). So, there is really no such thing as "young oxygen" as far as the earth is concerned.

That was convenient. I've never had a problem with links in my posts. Try embedding them.

This exchange, Mr. Moderator, exemplifies the impact of the woefully inadequate and incompetent technology choices imposed by Accuweather.

Why would I owe Kipp an apology. He is rambling about something that he does not explain to make him self sound like he knows about it, when in fact he is copy and pasting. IN other words. It his knowledge of this "young oxygen" is very low on Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning. He used it as mere buzz words to make him sound better.

He constantly talked about it, but never qualified it. I am not stupid enough to fall for that, so I called him on it, and he ends up copying and pasting pretty much because he cannot apply it himself.

I can talk say Young Oxygen too, but I could not explain it to anyone or use it practically.