PDA

View Full Version : New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism


DBruleU
07-28-2011, 11:06 AM
Interesting new data. W*gs...have at it...

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/lVX4HlYeGwNqydXw0i8HVA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MjE4O2NyPTE7Y3c9MzAwO2R4PTA7ZH k9MDtmaT11bGNyb3A7aD0xMzk7cT04NTt3PTE5MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/forbes.com/300x218.jpg

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

cutthemdown
07-28-2011, 11:11 AM
Ohhhh boy the liberal greeny wackos will not like this. NASA just a fly by night operation anyways! They don't even have a space shuttle anymore.

alkemical
07-28-2011, 11:29 AM
Of course there's more going out...there's a hole in the ozone layer.

;)

TailgateNut
07-28-2011, 11:33 AM
Ohhhh boy the liberal greeny wackos will not like this. NASA just a fly by night operation anyways! They don't even have a space shuttle anymore.


actually they are a 'no-fly" operation!:yayaya:......and may be in serious need of funding something/anything to keep their fat asses fed!

barryr
07-28-2011, 11:46 AM
"Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer..."

I'll save the global alarmists the trouble: He's not a real scientist.

alkemical
07-28-2011, 11:58 AM
So does this mean HAARP is altering the weather?

cutthemdown
07-28-2011, 01:27 PM
remember this guy?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-07-28-polar-bear-scientist-investigation_n.htm

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues." But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general's office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
On Thursday, Ruch's watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett's behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have "actively persecuted" him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.
Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press.
The complaint seeks Monnett's reinstatement along with a public apology from the agency and inspector general. It also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out in accordance with policy. The complaint also says that investigators took Monnett's computer hard drive, notebooks and other unspecified items from him, which have not been returned.
A BOEMRE spokeswoman declined to comment on an "ongoing internal investigation." Ruch said BOEMRE has barred Monnett from talking to reporters.
Documents provided by Ruch's group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology; presentations also were given at scientific gatherings.

cutthemdown
07-28-2011, 01:27 PM
What it really means is we are wasting tons of money worrying about co2.

Rigs11
07-28-2011, 02:47 PM
the artic is melting at a rate of 46,000 square miles every 24hrs. nothing to see here righties.

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/record-arctic-sea-ice-melt-1769/

W*GS
07-28-2011, 02:56 PM
Nice op-ed piece from Forbes that you cut-n-paste.

I'll read the article. I'll let the experts decide if Spencer's claims hold up under skeptical scrutiny.

Given Spencer's track record, though, I don't believe that AGW is now dead, despite what the denier blogosphere is saying (again).

underrated29
07-28-2011, 03:07 PM
what that article does not say though is that the earth is getting warmer not colder. It also states that the findings are not as severe as whatever computer models they were comparing to showed, but it still did not say it was not evident. Just not as severe.

W*GS
07-28-2011, 03:12 PM
On the other hand, ol' Roy does like to <a href="http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/">play with his toy models</a>, usually in a *post hoc* fashion...

cutthemdown
07-28-2011, 03:12 PM
So Wiggs your saying you don't like the guy who heads the study, or co heads it? How would someone stupid in science get in charge of a 10 yr study using some high tech NASA sattelite? Also I imagine others will be reviewing this right? If this device measures the heat planet letting off, would it not be easy to review that?

W*GS
07-28-2011, 03:30 PM
So Wiggs your saying you don't like the guy who heads the study, or co heads it?

Whether or not I like him is irrelevant - what matters is whether or not his science claims stand up. So far, they have not.

How would someone stupid in science get in charge of a 10 yr study using some high tech NASA sattelite?

I didn't call Spencer stupid. I call into question his science claims, which, if you read his <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf">article</a> (PDF) carefully, seems to rely on one of his rather-shaky simple models.

Also I imagine others will be reviewing this right?

Well, yes.

If this device measures the heat planet letting off, would it not be easy to review that?

That's not quite Spencer's claim.

El Minion
07-28-2011, 05:20 PM
Roy Spencer is your deniers goto guy, he's also a creationist (http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/08/faith-based-evolution.html)

Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast (http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html)


Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
Date: 28 July 2011 Time: 07:14 PM ET


<table style="width: 1px;" border="0"><tbody><tr><td>http://i.livescience.com/images/i/18459/i02/cloud-cover-climate.jpg?1311895357</td> </tr><tr> <td style="margin-top: 10px; border: 1px solid lightgray; padding: 10px;"> Scientists have shown that as the planet warms water vapor, and thus clouds, will increase, trapping even more heat. One scientist, however, suggests random events drive clouds, which then drive warming.
CREDIT: Nicolle Rager Fuller, National Science Foundation
View full size image (javascript:void(0);)
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> New research suggesting that cloud cover, not carbon dioxide, causes global warming is getting buzz in climate skeptic circles. But mainstream climate scientists dismissed the research as unrealistic and politically motivated.

"It is not newsworthy," Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.

The study, published July 26 in the open-access online journal Remote Sensing, got public attention when a writer for The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank that promotes climate change skepticism (http://www.livescience.com/11372-top-10-craziest-environmental-ideas.html), wrote for Forbes magazine that the study disproved the global warming worries of climate change "alarmists." (http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html) However, mainstream climate scientists say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor correct. The paper's author, University of Alabama, Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, is a climate change skeptic and controversial figure within the climate research community.

<script type="text/javascript"> function google_ad_request_done(google_ads){ var s = ''; var i; if(google_ads.length == 0){ return; } s += '' for(i = 0; i < google_ads.length; ++i){ s += '' + google_ads.line1 + ' (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/' + google_ads[i].url + ') ' + google_ads[i].visible_url + ' (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/' + google_ads[i].url + ')
' + google_ads[i].line2 + ' ' + google_ads[i].line3 + '

'; } s += 'Ads by Google (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/'+ google_info.feedback_url +')
' if (google_ads[0].bidtype == "CPC") { google_adnum = google_adnum + google_ads.length; } document.write(s); return; } google_ad_client = 'pub-1894578950532504'; google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '3'; google_ad_type = 'text_html'; google_feedback = 'on'; google_skip = google_adnum; </script> <script src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"></script>
"He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer's new study.

Cloud chaos

Spencer's research hinges on the role of clouds in climate change. Mainstream climate researchers agree that climate change happens when carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun in the atmosphere, much in the same way that a windshield traps solar heat in a car on a sunny afternoon. As the planet warms, a side effect is more water vapor in the atmosphere. This water vapor, known to most of us as clouds, traps more heat, creating a viscous loop. [Earth in Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points (http://www.livescience.com/13032-earth-7-tipping-points-climate-change.html)]

Spencer sees it differently. He thinks that the whole cycle starts with the clouds. In other words, random increases in cloud cover cause climate warming. The cloud changes are caused by "chaos in the climate system," Spencer told LiveScience.

In the new paper, Spencer looked at satellite data from 2000 to 2010 to compare cloud cover and surface temperatures. Using a simple model, he linked the two, finding, he said, that clouds drive warming. His comparisons of his data with six Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models showed, he said, that the models are too sensitive (meaning some variables, such as warming, increase at the slightest change in other factors) and that carbon dioxide is not likely to cause much warming at all. [Image Gallery: Curious Clouds (http://www.livescience.com/11256-curious-clouds.html)]

Disagreements

However, no climate scientist contacted by LiveScience agreed.

The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. "What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear."

Other researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an "unrealistic" model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the temperatures observed by the satellites. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results being real, as opposed to chance fluctuations unrelated to the other variables in the experiment.

"I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Several researchers expressed frustration that the study was attracting media attention.

"If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime," Schmidt said. "Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record (http://www.livescience.com/5871-drilling-ice-earth-future.html)."

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a "gray science."

Politics and science

The science of Spencer's work proved inextricable from the political debate surrounding global warming (http://www.livescience.com/13851-climate-change-understanding-falls-political-lines.html). The paper was mostly unnoticed in the public sphere until the Forbes blogger declared it "extremely important."

Dessler, the A&M climatologist said that he doubted the research would shift the political debate around global warming.

"It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science," Dessler said. "It's essentially a debate over the role of government," surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation.

Spencer himself is up front about the politics surrounding his work. In July, he wrote on his blog that his job "has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism," and said he viewed his role as protecting "the interests of the taxpayer." When asked why his work failed to gain mainstream acceptance, Spencer cited funding as a motivation for climate change researchers to find problems with the environment.

[I]You can follow LiveScience (http://www.livescience.com/) senior writer Stephanie Pappas on Twitter @sipappas (http://twitter.com/#%21/sipappas). Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience (http://twitter.com/#%21/livescience) and on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/#%21/livescience).

peacepipe
07-28-2011, 05:49 PM
Interesting new data. W*gs...have at it...

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/lVX4HlYeGwNqydXw0i8HVA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MjE4O2NyPTE7Y3c9MzAwO2R4PTA7ZH k9MDtmaT11bGNyb3A7aD0xMzk7cT04NTt3PTE5MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/forbes.com/300x218.jpg

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

wow, I love how the word "alarmist" is so freely used. a forbes article written to promote a right-wing ideology. also the the heartland institute is by no means an independent org.

elsid13
07-28-2011, 06:02 PM
I love how this works. The script is: It's not happening, It's not happening, **** it's happening and why didn't the government do something about it. ****, the government is ineffective that why you limit the size of government and depend on the private sector.

DenverBrit
07-28-2011, 07:00 PM
NASA data, without the 'creationist' spin.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

Arkie
07-28-2011, 08:03 PM
the artic is melting at a rate of 46,000 square miles every 24hrs. nothing to see here righties.

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/record-arctic-sea-ice-melt-1769/

Yikes! At that rate the entire earth's surface would melt in 10 years if it were covered in ice.

W*GS
07-29-2011, 03:06 PM
One of the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback">first shots</a> at Spencer's paper, and it's a direct hit.

Spider
07-29-2011, 06:13 PM
A creationist
......and these bedwetters are eating it up

cutthemdown
07-30-2011, 01:12 AM
One of the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback">first shots</a> at Spencer's paper, and it's a direct hit.

I read both papers, its like I understand what they are writing but I have to be honest, I don't understand. It's ****ing goobligook. If you have a degree in this stuff then have at it. I am so firmly in the I don't give a **** camp nothing could wedge me out except the ocean crashing over my house from sea level rise.

I'm still waiting for the graph that shows how when we all cut co2 it will save the planet. Don't care, don't care, don't care. I did my part for co2 by not having kids. Hell just think how much co2 one snot nosed brat put out in his lifetime. I'm done, see you all when hell freezes over, oh wait it won't ever freeze over now. Too much ****ing co2 and bull**** in the air.

W*GS
09-02-2011, 09:02 AM
The editor-in-chief of the journal (Remote Sensing) that published this piece of crap paper by Spencer and Braswell has resigned:

<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002">Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” </a>by Spencer and Braswell, Remote Sens. 2011, 3(8), 1603-1613
Wolfgang Wagner
Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vienna University of Technology (TU Wien), Gusshausstrasse 27-29, A-1040 Vienna, Austria
Received: 1 September 2011 / Accepted: 2 September 2011 / Published: 2 September 2011
Download PDF Full-Text [93 KB, uploaded 2 September 2011 14:03 CET]
Abstract: Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing. [...]

El Guapo
09-02-2011, 09:13 AM
So in other words, global warming isn't humans fault. It's a natural cycle of the planet.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-02-2011, 10:25 AM
NASA data, without the 'creationist' spin.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

Oooops! Ha!

W*GS
09-02-2011, 01:22 PM
So in other words, global warming isn't humans fault. It's a natural cycle of the planet.

Nope.

epicSocialism4tw
09-02-2011, 05:42 PM
The editor-in-chief of the journal (Remote Sensing) that published this piece of crap paper by Spencer and Braswell has resigned:

And yet those clowns who doctored their data are still working, eh?

Ha!

The truth isn't afraid of counteropinions.

W*GS
09-02-2011, 06:57 PM
And yet those clowns who doctored their data are still working, eh?

There was no data doctoring. But go ahead and believe the anti-science BS that your ideology loves so much. Nature will have the last laugh.

The truth isn't afraid of counteropinions.

Science isn't based on opinion, it's based on fact - two things completely over your head - science and facts.

Arkie
09-02-2011, 08:37 PM
So in other words, global warming isn't humans fault. It's a natural cycle of the planet.

Its a climate cycle. Humans have an impact, but nothing significant or that can be controlled.

baja
09-02-2011, 08:41 PM
Its a climate cycle. Humans have an impact, but nothing significant or that can be controlled.

Global warming is one of many tools of the new world order folks.

baja
09-02-2011, 08:42 PM
They are the eugenics people you know the ones that vow to reduce the world population by 80%.

underrated29
09-02-2011, 09:37 PM
They are the eugenics people you know the ones that vow to reduce the world population by 80%.

Raider fans?

baja
09-02-2011, 09:39 PM
Raider fans?

They are the ones that they make sure are armed so as to do the early dirty work.


.....and spread the fear that leads to control.

Bronco Yoda
09-02-2011, 09:53 PM
.

baja
09-02-2011, 10:24 PM
.


You had to edit a period???

epicSocialism4tw
09-02-2011, 10:34 PM
There was no data doctoring. But go ahead and believe the anti-science BS that your ideology loves so much. Nature will have the last laugh.

Science isn't based on opinion, it's based on fact - two things completely over your head - science and facts.

Nature is what it is. There is no laugh.

You are so wrapped up in advocating for your salary that you have lost sight of what science is...if you ever knew what it was in the first place.

Science is not a political ideology like you want it to be.

baja
09-02-2011, 10:44 PM
http://inyourface.ocregister.com/files/2009/11/al-gore-450-x-592-081009-89750872.jpg

W*GS
09-03-2011, 01:20 AM
Its a climate cycle. Humans have an impact, but nothing significant or that can be controlled.

It's quite significant, and why the fatalism?

W*GS
09-03-2011, 01:21 AM
(Al Gore)

Doesn't matter if you trust him or not.

Manmade climate change doesn't depend on Al Gore's existence.

Pseudofool
09-03-2011, 01:25 AM
The abstract of the actual paper, basically, he doesn't conclude anything but the inability to conclude! Awesome!

Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains
the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is
largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,
probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and
likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite
and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While
the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of
lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we
find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy
in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that
atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due
primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in
satellite radiative budget observations. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

W*GS
09-03-2011, 01:26 AM
Nature is what it is. There is no laugh.

So when are you going to concede that we're mucking with the environment? Or do you believe that nothing we do can change things in any way?

That's just ancient "we can't alter God's creation" BS.

You are so wrapped up in advocating for your salary that you have lost sight of what science is...if you ever knew what it was in the first place.

How am I advocating anything by reporting the facts? Why are you advocating dismissing the facts?

Science is not a political ideology like you want it to be.

Tell that to your denier allies. You and they base your "science" on a dogma, not reality.

As per usual, your attempt to attack the "other side" ends up being an attack on your own beliefs.

W*GS
09-03-2011, 01:28 AM
Global warming is one of many tools of the new world order folks.

No, it's not.

But thanks for the lunatic view.

W*GS
09-03-2011, 01:32 AM
The abstract of the actual paper, basically, he doesn't conclude anything but the inability to conclude! Awesome!

Two things in the abstract that somehow escape deniers - "internal radiative forcing" (WTF?) and "simple forcing-feedback model" - deniers think all models are wrong and evil, and, as it turns out, Spencer's model can be made to do just about anything. He gets his results by his model becoming unphysical.

Pseudofool
09-03-2011, 01:57 AM
Two things in the abstract that somehow escape deniers - "internal radiative forcing" (WTF?) and "simple forcing-feedback model" - deniers think all models are wrong and evil, and, as it turns out, Spencer's model can be made to do just about anything. He gets his results by his model becoming unphysical.It's a bunch of gobbly-gook (there's a caveat or an abstraction in every single sentence!); the shame of academia is that it's discourse is so pedantic that it can disguise any polemic as objectivity and appear like scholarly sense at first blush.

mhgaffney
09-03-2011, 03:09 AM
No question heat escapes quickly into space. This is no surprise.

Each night -- the dark side of the planet -- drops 10-30 degrees in a matter of hours.

Yet -- despite this - something is melting the polar ice and most glaciers. It stands to reason that human activities are partly responsible.

mhgaffney
09-03-2011, 03:11 AM
No of course I do not trust Gore.

Even so -- he made a good point about Greenland. No one has ever explained why Greenland has an ice cap.

If climate change continues and causes it to break up -- the result will be catastrophic for Europe and the east coast of N America

W*GS
09-05-2011, 01:24 PM
No one has ever explained why Greenland has an ice cap.

Sigh. It gets more snow in winter than melts in summer, so eventually the snow compacts and turns to ice.

The Greenland ice sheet wasn't created by space aliens or some other ****.

baja
09-05-2011, 01:43 PM
Sigh. It gets more snow in winter than melts in summer, so eventually the snow compacts and turns to ice.

The Greenland ice sheet wasn't created by space aliens or some other ****.

Actually Greenland is where people from Maine put their snow after shoveling their driveways.

Rohirrim
09-06-2011, 06:37 AM
If a volcano pumps a bunch of **** into the sky, it can affect the climate.

If seven billion human beings pump **** into the sky, it has no effect.

Oh, and the first man was made from dust and the first woman was made from dustman's rib.

underrated29
09-06-2011, 09:18 AM
No question heat escapes quickly into space. This is no surprise.

Each night -- the dark side of the planet -- drops 10-30 degrees in a matter of hours.

Yet -- despite this - something is melting the polar ice and most glaciers. It stands to reason that human activities are partly responsible.




Holy C**k and balls!!!

I am in 100% agreement with you but what is so amazing about this is this is a first for so many things. Us agreeing, you not providing deranged theory as to why, you putting down a lucid comment that makes sense. I think hell just froze over!


wait- does that mean then that we are now going to go through global cooling?LOL

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-07-2011, 09:56 PM
If a volcano pumps a bunch of **** into the sky, it can affect the climate.

If seven billion human beings pump **** into the sky, it has no effect.

Oh, and the first man was made from dust and the first woman was made from dustman's rib.

Ha!

Did those quotes come from a book whose authorship is attributed to someone's imaginary playmate, or from the abridged edition of "The Best Science Exxon Can Buy?"