Error in Weather Balloons may have hidden Global Warming

[captain swoop]

What the title says

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4152576.stm

edit title

[Meteora]

Interesting.

I like the thread title - it sounds so Okie. :) (Yes, I know, the last letter was clipped because the line was a tiny bit too long....)

[publiusr]

So its okay to question results in the past but not that of fear-peddlers of today?

[dgruss23]

This article touches on the dispute about the weather balloon measurements which suggested less warming than the ground measurements. If right then it simply verifies the warming implied by surface measurements. But it takes the standard approach when it comes to implications - if any warming can be identified, then of course CO2 must be responsible. I'm still waiting (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=391461#391461) for the "overwhelming" evidence that humans are causing the planet's climate to warm. Anybody? I'm amazed that there is so much consensus. We had that discussion in January and nobody has been able to provide the overwhelming evidence that humans are responsible for the warming observed during the last 30 years?

[Eoanthropus Dawsoni]

This article touches on the dispute about the weather balloon measurements which suggested less warming than the ground measurements. If right then it simply verifies the warming implied by surface measurements. But it takes the standard approach when it comes to implications - if any warming can be identified, then of course CO2 must be responsible. I'm still waiting (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=391461#391461) for the "overwhelming" evidence that humans are causing the planet's climate to warm. Anybody? I'm amazed that there is so much consensus. We had that discussion in January and nobody has been able to provide the overwhelming evidence that humans are responsible for the warming observed during the last 30 years?

CO2 is 0.01% of our atmosphere. And nature is responsible for somewhere around 97% of the CO2. That tiny little bit of CO2 that we are pouring into the air sure must be doing a lot of damage if it is to be the cause of Global Warming.

Of course the Earth is warming, we are still recovering from the last Ice Age.

[bobjohnston]

Interesting comments by Roy Spencer on these papers:

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=312

[Glom]

Just remember that the troposphere is supposed to be warming in advance of the surface. Even with these new figures, it is still lagging, unless of course we start accepting that the urban heat island effect has not been fully factored. So while there is convergence qualitatively, quantitatively the disparity still exists. Remember of course that the climate is too complex to be fully described by one temperature figure. Spatially, there is great disparity such as the cooling of the Antarctic and the failure of the Arctic to warm significantly, which should all be warming much more quickly than anywhere else.

Here (http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2005/Aug.%2013.htm) we have some discussion of the matter.

There was also mention that if this can be used to validate models, it only validates the least dramatic ones, thus putting a hamper on global warming scare stories. Of course, it is a standard tactic to use whatever sense of validation of the mild models and as excuse to quote the predictions of the mellowdramatic models. I think that's what they call a sleight of hand.

So, it seems that we have had warming, although what we have so far is not a particularly detailed picture of this complex system rather a simplification (the devil is always in the details). But the disparity still exists (not to mention the rest of the stuff). What has happened here is that a flagrant contradiction that would have collapsed any less politically enforced theory has changed into a contradiction that casts doubt on the theory.

[tracer]

CO2 is 0.01% of our atmosphere.
According to the Wikipedia entry for Carbon Dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide), as of 2004, the Earth's atmosphere is about 0.038% by volume (380 µL/L or ppmv) or 0.053% by weight CO2.

That same entry claims that historical atmospheric CO2 levels, as evidenced by Antarctic ice cores, were around 260–280µL/L over the last 10,000 years, although some studies have claimed atmospheric CO2 levels during that period were as high as 300 µL/L. Since the current levels are 380 µL/L, that represents an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels of at least 25% in modern times.

[Glom]

There have been concerns raised about the prospect of carbon dioxide depletion in ice cores resulting in a lower than actual figure for historic carbon dioxide.

[Taks]

95% of the greenhouse effect is attributed to water vapor, further reducing the impact of human activity...

taks

[publiusr]

They actually use kerosene in the process of drilling--and use power tools running off generators.

There is your CO2 in the cores..

[teddyv]

They actually use kerosene in the process of drilling--and use power tools running off generators.

There is your CO2 in the cores..

Really, or are you joking? I never been involved in ice core drilling, but in regular core drilling no exhaust/fuel goes down the hole. I don't think exhaust from the engine can somehow get absorbed in an ice core.

[publiusr]

Their is going to be some kind of heavy equipment around the site--even if the tools themselves are electric. Just breathing on cores might change the result--with human breath having CO2.

[Taks]

I never been involved in ice core drilling, but in regular core drilling no exhaust/fuel goes down the hole. I don't think exhaust from the engine can somehow get absorbed in an ice core.
kerosene prevents the hole from freezing back over after the bit passes through... it's a nasty mess, and probably the primary reason they don't drill into lake vostock to check out the "life" that may exist under the ice (they are close, but not all the way).

taks