New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[huevonkiller]

Mook I already acknowledged "climate change" as reality. They simply can't provide the historical context I have. There is no wiggle room at all for your position, you can't even do anything about it.

Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a

previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this

cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the

earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.

Global Warming is based off 50 year computer models, this is a fact. Almost all this "research" only goes back to 1856 at best, mine doesn't. A real disadvantage.

Edit- with all due respect. I like going after the media real hard, but no one here in particular. Also, yeah the meteorologist thing was just prior knowledge from a Senator I heard. No biggie either way. :O

 

[maxiep]

For those who believe that human activity is a significant cause of global warming, exactly what would you advocate we do to reduce that impact? Please be specific.

 

[bluefrog]

The article is pretty crap-tastic, Denny. It is inflammatory and biased which is more likely to gain people's attentions than the actual study. I think you see more interested in the claims of the study than the credibility of the authors so I'll help steer the debate in that direction.

First, In 1896 (before Al Gore’s father was born) Dr. Svente Arrhenius puplished a paper called ”On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”

It demonstrates quite conclusively the causation connection between in a quantitative fashion. Dr. Arrhenius shows that for each two fold increase in carbon dioxide, the average temperature of the earth’s surface will increase a few degrees. Since then, the concentration of carbon dioxide has in fact increased and the mean temperature of the surface of the earth has increased in pretty much the way Dr. Arrhenius said it would. Thus was born the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC)

So the starting point is that ACC is actually occurring.

Second, the authors the assume that ACC Change is real and occurring. The very first sentence in the abstract says:

The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.

The authors are trying develop a model that will accurately match observed changes with projected changes. So far no one has succeeded. The authors are merely attempting to where the difference between the models and reality are occurring.

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

In other words, the current ability of both ground based and space based remote sensors cannot adequately measure signals generated by “radiative feedback”, i.e. the signals are *masked*.

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.

So the problem is NOT with the ACC but the ability of current remote sensors to measure “radiative feedback” which is shown by the appropriate analysis (lag regression analysis).

Rather than some fatal flaw in the ACC, this is an excellent example of how scientist make a hypothesis to explain data (in this case in the form of a model), test it, and when the data does not match the projections, attempt to understand the differences. This is how science is suppose to work

 

[Denny Crane]

Mook,

The meteorologists around here are generally pretty accurate for 1-7 day forecasts, even accounting for microclimates. But they're not infallible. A high pressure system they predict will come onshore at 3:00 sometimes does at 4:00. There's a lot of chaos involved that their very precise models can't possibly account for. Going out beyond a week and the error is huge.

Longer term models that the alarmists use are so inaccurate that they don't produce accurate results given measured data and known measured results.

If you've been following the news, there was a huge scandal in Europe because the scientists were deliberately manipulating the instrument data so their models would produce alarming results. The Mann hockey stick graph has been discredited, Al Gore has been revising his PowerPoint presentation, etc.

You can add the founder of the Weather Channel to the list of skeptics, btw.

 

[blazerboy30]

97% of scientists recently polled in a recent survey of 1370 climate researchers concluded climate change is real.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...elmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1

Find me a single major scientific organization that believes global climate change is a hoax and I'll start listening. None do. The fact is that every major scientific body that has voiced an opinion on the subject has sided with the general consensus of climatologists.

If 97% of geologists predicted Oregon was going to fall into the ocean in the next decade, people would be heading for the hills. Because the threat is more diffuse (spread over a wider time frame and over larger geography) the science is somehow "inconclusive." The science isn't that inconclusive (well, science always has room for improvement. That's the beauty of science.) It's the politics that's inconclusive.

You're changing the debate. Most people will agree with the idea that climate change is real.

The science is absolutely inconclusive. They can't make an accurate predictions with their models.

This article suggests that nobody actually knows how much of an effect it has / will have. So playing Chicken Little over highly inaccurate models seems a little absurd.

 

[Ed O]

I'm in the camp that we contribute to global warming, but I don't think it's very much, like pissing in the ocean. Furthermore, it's not worth crippling our economy by raising the cost of energy when China, Russia and India are belching out massive amounts of greenhouse gases.

I agree with this... and:

-- I'm a technological optimist; I think there's a good chance that if we keep going full-steam ahead, we'll be able to undo damage more rapidly than we currently can. Sort of like pushing on the gas while we work on a brake pedal, rather than letting off the gas and hoping to slow down.

-- I'm not sure that climate change is that huge of a deal. There would be winners and there would be losers, but that's the way that the world is right now and the way that it always has been.

Ed O.

 

[Rodolfo]

fuck there goes my beachfront property in nevada, i was gonna flip houseboats too

haha, nice.

 

[barfo]

Is that the best you can do?

Of course it's an attack. See post #21. I forgot to mention guys who've contributed to the IPCC reports.

We are going in circles here. In post #21 you claim, with no evidence presented, that it was an attack. I question whether it was an attack, and you point me to post #21.

I suggest you just think it is an attack because you don't like the data.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

We are going in circles here. In post #21 you claim, with no evidence presented, that it was an attack. I question whether it was an attack, and you point me to post #21.

I suggest you just think it is an attack because you don't like the data.

barfo

post #21 suggests guys who run NASA climate satellite programs and MIT climate professors and IPCC contributors can't possibly lack credibility. Unless the intent is to impeach the persons vs. really questioning their qualifications.

 

[barfo]

post #21 suggests guys who run NASA climate satellite programs and MIT climate professors and IPCC contributors can't possibly lack credibility. Unless the intent is to impeach the persons vs. really questioning their qualifications.

Please provide a quote from the article where it says that such people lack credibility.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Please provide a quote from the article where it says that such people lack credibility.

barfo

"As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates."

 

[barfo]

"As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates."

How is that an attack? Sounds to me like a statement of fact, and a pretty interesting one to boot.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

How is that an attack? Sounds to me like a statement of fact, and a pretty interesting one to boot.

barfo

Publication rates has nothing to do with expertise.

Do you think there are brilliant chemists at Dow Chemical company who don't publish in scientific journals?

 

[barfo]

Publication rates has nothing to do with expertise.

There is some truth in that (which the authors of the paper point out). However, that doesn't make it an attack. It simply means it isn't the whole truth, which the authors no doubt would agree with.

barfo

 

[Paine Tablet]

There would be winners and there would be losers, but that's the way that the world is right now and the way that it always has been.

Ed O.

Kind of like all human caused atrocity. It's happened in the past so it should be allowed to continue to happen.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

So lets see if I understand all of this...

Humankind can intentionally or unintentionally change our environment but we could never intentionally or unintentionally change our climate.

Or in other words we can dam a river but we can't damn the planet.

 

[maxiep]

So lets see if I understand all of this...

Humankind can intentionally or unintentionally change our environment but we could never intentionally or unintentionally change our climate.

Or in other words we can dam a river but we can't damn the planet.

The climate is a lot bigger than the environments we try to control.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The climate is a lot bigger than the environments we try to control.

See, you agree!

Only god can change a climate.

 

[barfo]

This is kind of neato, too. Shocking!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ced-on-leave/2011/07/28/gIQALNfPeI_story.html

APNewsBreak: Alaska researcher who documented polar bears demise in Arctic is placed on leave

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, July 28, 4:00 PM

JUNEAU, Alaska — Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.

Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.

The federal agency where he works told him he’s being investigated for “integrity issues,” but a watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear.

The group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a complaint on his behalf Thursday with the agency, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Investigators have not yet told Monnett of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group’s executive director.

A BOEMRE spokeswoman, Melissa Schwartz, said there was an “ongoing internal investigation” but declined to get into specifics.

Apparently not.

We are limited in what we can say about a pending investigation, but I can assure you that the decision had nothing to do with his scientific work, or anything relating to a five-year old journal article, as advocacy groups and the news media have incorrectly speculated.

Link.

barfo

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Apparently not.

Link.

barfo

Right, sure, and the Clintons didn't kill those guys connected to Whitewater. :MARIS61:

Saying clouds cause global warming is like saying cancer causes cell phones.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

clearly the warming global climate has changed the delicate ecosystem food chains to the point where

 

[PapaG]

97% of scientists recently polled in a recent survey of 1370 climate researchers concluded climate change is real.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...elmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1

I wonder what 3% of those researchers are doing with their time. It's a historical fact that the climate changes over time. Montana and Wyoming used to be tropical in climate, and we've had Ice Ages that lasted for hundreds of years.

I'm not sure how 97% of any group agreeing that the climate changes refutes the notion that man-made global warming is largely based on flimsy science, but maybe that's just me.

 

[MARIS61]

If you understand global warming theories, the enormous compilation of facts supporting them, and the actual mechanics of global warming, it's clear this author does not.

The point he pretends to make is meaningless. Other than indicating that the hole in the ozone is enlarging even more rapidly than predicted, which supports most "alarmist" theories, it indicates little else of longterm importance.

 

[PapaG]

If you understand global warming theories, the enormous compilation of facts supporting them, and the actual mechanics of global warming, it's clear this author does not.

The point he pretends to make is meaningless. Other than indicating that the hole in the ozone is enlarging even more rapidly than predicted, which supports most "alarmist" theories, it indicates little else of longterm importance.

You wrote this to get a laugh, right? Here's an anecdote for you. The first 5 years after I moved back to Oregon and had a condo in Bend, there was literally no snow in the town. Starting about 7 years ago, snow started to stick. Now, I can count on at least two or three weekends of heavy snow in Bend, and it sticks for much of the winter at our condo.

I'm not sure what it means, but I do know that CO2 output is going up each year, and it's getting colder where I live.

 

[MARIS61]

This is kind of neato, too. Shocking!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ced-on-leave/2011/07/28/gIQALNfPeI_story.html

APNewsBreak: Alaska researcher who documented polar bears demise in Arctic is placed on leave

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, July 28, 4:00 PM

JUNEAU, Alaska — Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.

Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.

The federal agency where he works told him he’s being investigated for “integrity issues,” but a watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear.

The group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a complaint on his behalf Thursday with the agency, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Investigators have not yet told Monnett of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group’s executive director.

A BOEMRE spokeswoman, Melissa Schwartz, said there was an “ongoing internal investigation” but declined to get into specifics.

BOEMRE is the oil industry's government lapdog. We (the taxpayers) pay them to lie to us.

OF COURSE they want to publicly smear this guy to get the Faux snooze crowd yelling, but they can't refute the international scientific community's findings which support his.

 

[MARIS61]

You wrote this to get a laugh, right? Here's an anecdote for you. The first 5 years after I moved back to Oregon and had a condo in Bend, there was literally no snow in the town. Starting about 7 years ago, snow started to stick. Now, I can count on at least two or three weekends of heavy snow in Bend, and it sticks for much of the winter at our condo.

I'm not sure what it means, but I do know that CO2 output is going up each year, and it's getting colder where I live.

Global warming does not mean everyone gets tropical weather. It causes cold snaps and blizzards and floods and rainstorms also. For every action there is a reaction...

I've lived here 9 years and Bend has had plenty of snow all 9 of those years. About 3 years ago we had a huge snowload, for a long, long time. Locals say only 1992 was bigger. None in between were comparable. Generally speaking, warmer weather means more snow, not less. Our coldest winters have been our dryest.

Surprisingly (to me) the last decade has shown Beautiful Central Oregon is indeed changing drastically due to a gradual warming trend. US geologists have predicted the eventual (by 2050 or sooner) wholesale replacement of Jack Pines here by coniferous varieties from the wetter side of the state such as Douglas Fir, Blue Spruce, Hemlock...I've noticed the change and welcome the diversity.

This is due to the much longer, much wetter springs we have been having due to El Nino and Global Warming. The Jack Pines like a cold dry spring, but get crowded out by other species when it's warmer. They predict by 2020 (9 years from now) Jack Pines will not be replacing themselves at a sustainable rate and will eventually be crowded out of existence in this region.

 

[MARIS61]

Here's the bigger picture:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/29/AR2010062904860.html

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/07/31/18686516.php

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/07/suspended-polar-bear-researcher.html?ref=hp


BOEMRE Director responds to speculation about polar bear scientist’s suspension

July 31, 2011 by offshoreenergy


AlaskaDispatch.com posted an email message that was sent by BOEMRE Director Michael Bromwich to Alaska Region employees. The message responds to press reports and speculation about the suspension of a polar bear scientist.


We are limited in what we can say about a pending investigation, but I can assure you that the decision had nothing to do with his scientific work, or anything relating to a five-year old journal article, as advocacy groups and the news media have incorrectly speculated. Nor is this a “witch hunt” to suppress the work of our many scientists and discourage them from speaking the truth. Quite the contrary. In this case, it was the result of new information on a separate subject brought to our attention very recently.


http://www.qr77.com/News/World/article.aspx?id=297209

 

[jlprk]

The news is out. This man is D.B. Cooper. They found a fingerprint. He's been hiding in Alaska as a scientist.

 

[STOMP]

For those who believe that human activity is a significant cause of global warming, exactly what would you advocate we do to reduce that impact? Please be specific.

cutting down beef consumption is something we can do individually though I still eat it every now and then. I also try to buy food that was produced locally whenever I've the choice in part because of the lower fuel used in getting it to market

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger

STOMP

 

[blazerboy30]

cutting down beef consumption is something we can do individually though I still eat it every now and then. I also try to buy food that was produced locally whenever I've the choice in part because of the lower fuel used in getting it to market

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger

STOMP

If Earth was experiencing a cooling down period, would you start eating more beef and non-local food?