Published: Wednesday, Dec. 5 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
From NASA's website:Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors
to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling
study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the
atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.The study, conducted by Andrew
Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified
the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared
radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such
as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as
providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be
unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect.
The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.
Continued from NASA's website:A companion study led by GISS co-author
Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of
Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of
the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent,
and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is
the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon
dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect.
By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the
radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.The decade just ended was the warmest on record, and this current year is on
track to be the warmest ever. That sounds to me like warming is still going on.
This is one of those letters that makes me slap my palm to my forehead.Scientific understanding of the link between atmospheric CO2 and temperature
goes back to the 1860's.Atmospheric CO2 is today at the highest
level in the last several hundred thousand years, and climbing fast. Isotopic
analysis of atmospheric CO2 proves the increase comes from combustion of fossil
fuels.The claim that there has been no warming in the past 16 years
and therefore global warming isn't real is completely false, and is based
on an egregiously dishonest interpretation of historical temperature data.
It's the same as observing that because a 12 year old isn't
significantly taller a week after his birthday than he was a week before his
birthday that humans don't get taller as they mature.If you get
your "news" about global warming primarily from right wing blogs and AM
radio I can see how you'd think global warming isn't real.If, however, you get your science news from actual professional science
journals, you'll get an accurate, fact-based, and completely different
education on the subject.
Go watch "Chasing Ice." Although I harbor some doubts that even that
compelling documentary about the accelerating worldwide meltdown of glaciers
would sway the author, who seems firmly entrenched in the global climate change
deniers' little camp.
Mr. Thompson,It is nearly impossible for me to reconcile your
statements with reality. You say you have been following the science for
decades yet you make statements so easily shown to be false (or at least half
truths that obscure the real truth). Sorry.
Bottom line: On October 13, 2012, the Daily Mail posted an article crediting the
UK Met Office with saying that global warming stopped 16 years ago. The article
went viral this week. One day later, however, the UK Met Office disavowed the
Daily Mail article, saying it did not say global warming had stopped and was not
contacted by the article’s author. According to the UK Met Office and tens
of thousands of other scientists worldwide, global temperatures are still
rising.-earthskyUK Met also stated that the graph used in the Daily
Mail was not theirs, as claimed by Daily Mail. Maybe you need to
follow these things just a bit closer.
Completely false. 2000 to 2010 was the hottest decade in recorded history. That
I figured out what's wrong.It's called "selective
listening".This is common with people who only get their information
from one or 2 very biased sources -- Try changing the channel ! --
only Rush Limbaugh and some at FauxNews along with other college-drop-outs are
denying Global Warming is real.FYI - Rush Limbaugh denies tobacco
causes cancer and lung disease, does that still mean 60 years of Science is
wrong and the Media is disconnected as well?!
And people like this letter writer wonder why they lost the election???The sky is round, we aren't the center of the universe, the sun
doesn't revolve around us, the earth is older than 5,000 years, and the
climate is definitely changing because of man. It's not really
disputable. Their persistence in denying will all but guarantee more
losses in future elections.
The disconnect isn't between science and media. But hey, that's OK. As
long as we can maintain deniability, an illusion such as it is, we can indulge
our inner lazy and not do a thing about it. That's the utah armchair
Saw an interesting study by Simply Statistics, showing how Fox News abuses
statistics to bend the truth. Fascinating, all the things you can prove when you
change the baseline or axis on charts or change the scale to make a decrease
look like an increase.Oh, and the earth is flat.
To the auther: Please list 5 sources that support your claim.
Gullibility is alive and well in Utah.
If there was ever a reason for the Senate to ratify the UN treaty to protect
those with disabilities it is this letter.
To "Kalindra" here are some sources:"Greenhouse effect
is a myth, say scientists" UK Daily Mail"Greenhouse effect
is a myth, say scientists" from Cambridge Chronical"1930s
photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today" UK Register"New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"
Forbes"Past warming shows gaps in climate knowledge - study"
Reuters"Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again" WSJ"The sun shines some light on global warming orthodoxy" National
Post"The Great Global Warming Fizzle" WSJ"Painting by numbers: NASA's peculiar thermometer" UK Register"Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming
Theory" American Thinker"Global Warming: Scientists'
Best Predictions May Be Wrong" Science DailyOk liberals, are
those sufficient to determine that climate change is a natural thing, or at best
man has little to do with it. Do you also see that the climate models are
wrong, and have yet to give accurate results?
No link? You have got to be kidding! Ice cores, which date back tens of
thousands of years show the that cooling and warming fluxuations coincide with
CO2 levels. I suggest you go see "Chasing Ice" about a photographer, who
was a global warming skeptic. The real disconnect is between science
and conservative media.
Blah blah, but these same people just know that Obama was born in Kenya, tax
cuts increase revenue and that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear bomb hidden
somewhere.They knew all that without proof or consensus but now need
the last few scientists employed by the oil companies to agree with the 99.99%
that don't work for Big Oil that see the link in burning fossil fuel and
climate change. When will a consensus be necessary for their own tin
foil hat theories?
To "nonceleb" you are falling for the trap. There is a difference
between believing in climate change and believing in man made climate change.I have not heard of any credible scientist that says that the global
climate is not changing. The dispute is what is causing the change. It is man
caused or a natural cycle?The interesting thing about the two
viewpoints is that the people who believe that climate change is natural believe
that the climate should change, while the people who believe that man is the
cause of the climate change want it to remain constant (contrary to past
RedShirt,You're quoting opinion pieces and the right wing echo
chamber of denialist talking points - all of which have been thoroughly refuted
by actual climate science. Are Forbes, The Daily Mail or the WSJ climate
science journals? Not remotely.But, you do quote an article from
Science Daily. Good for you. Did you bother to actually read the entire article?
Is there _anything_ in the article that resembled the authors saying "and
therefore anthropogenic global warming is not happening"? Nope.Moreover, here's what the article's primary author, Dr. Gerald
Dickens, said in a 2009 TV interview on the subject of his research, "As far
global warming, that is just a huge problem. I can give you my own personal
opinions. I think it’s going to take a radical view of a change in
lifestyle, as well as new technologies. And it’s really going to take a
combination of both."Next time you cite scientists'
research as evidence that global warming isn't man-made or siginificant, I
challenge you to actually email the authors and ask them if whatever
they're saying translates into "I don't believe in global
warming." Let us know their response.
To "Screwdriver" when are the liberals going to realize that scientific
studies are not deemed true by a consensus, but are determined true or at least
mostly true once they meet a 95% confidence interval for their models?If a consensus was all that was needed, then using your logic, the Earth is
flat, the sun revolves around the sun, the speed of sound could not be broken,
man cannot fly, tectonic plates do not exist, women are less capable than men,
non-whites are inferior to whites, washing your hands is irrelevant to spreading
illness, etc...The ironic thing is that by declaring a consensus,
you inhibit actual discovery because you scare the scientists away from
disproving the consensus."In questions of science the authority
of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual"
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments