nail in the coffin for climate changers?

[Doc Savage Fan]

Then we modify theories and future models to fit the new data.

scientists != zealots

Then I must assume you're talking about Dr. James Hansen....if so, I agree.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What's this...the models suck? I'm so surprised to hear this since the science is settled and all....oh well, back to the drawing board.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

BTW, the so called claimagate accusation has been investigated and the scientists cleared of any wrong doing, this news was out for more than a year now:

Link:
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-07/...ard-acton-intergovernmental-panel?_s=PM:WORLD

How much was Muir Russell paid to conduct this review?

 

[Schadenfroh]

I have the PDF but have no place to upload it.

No need for the entire article, people only read the abstract and conclusion, unless one is trying to replicate their results.

Trying to find the source of the story. There's a link in the OP's link, but the site seems not to be answering.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

Google's cache to the rescue!

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...t=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en&source=www.google.com

Abstract:

The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remainsthe largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective islargely 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 andlikely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satelliteand coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. Whilethe satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction oflower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, wefind that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancyin terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded thatatmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, dueprimarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback insatellite radiative budget observations

Conclusion:

We have shown clear evidence from the CERES instrument that global temperature variationsduring 2000–2010 were largely radiatively forced. Lag regression analysis supports the interpretationthat net radiative gain (loss) precedes, and radiative loss (gain) follows temperature maxima (minima).This behavior is also seen in the IPCC AR4 climate models. A simple forcing-feedback model shows that this is the behavior expected from radiatively forcedtemperature changes, and it is consistent with energy conservation considerations. In such cases it isdifficult to estimate a feedback parameter through current regression techniques. In contrast, predominately non-radiatively forced temperature changes would allow a relativelyaccurate diagnosis of the feedback parameter at zero time lag using regression since most radiativevariability would be due to feedback. Unfortunately, this appears not to be the situation in either thesatellite observations or the coupled climate models.Yet, as seen in Figure 2, we are still faced with a rather large discrepancy in the time-laggedregression coefficients between the radiative signatures displayed by the real climate system in satellitedata versus the climate models. While this discrepancy is nominally in the direction of lower climatesensitivity of the real climate system, there are a variety of parameters other than feedback affectingthe lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult. These include theamount of non-radiative versus radiative forcing, how periodic the temperature and radiative balancevariations are, the depth of the mixed layer, etc., all of which preclude any quantitative estimate of howlarge the feedback difference is. More recent work which attempts to minimize non-feedbackinfluences [14] might well provide more accurate feedback estimates than previous studies.Finally, since much of the temperature variability during 2000–2010 was due to ENSO [9], weconclude that ENSO-related temperature variations are partly radiatively forced. We hypothesize thatchanges in the coupled ocean-atmosphere circulation during the El Niño and La Niña phases of ENSOcause differing changes in cloud cover, which then modulate the radiative balance of the climatesystem. As seen in Figure 3(b) for the ocean-only data, the signature of radiative forcing is strongerover the oceans than in the global average, suggesting a primarily oceanic origin.What this might (or might not) imply regarding the ultimate causes of the El Niño and La Niñaphenomena is not relevant to our central point, though: that the presence of time varying radiativeforcing in satellite radiative flux measurements corrupts the diagnosis of radiative feedback.

 

[irishScott]

I have the PDF but have no place to upload it.

http://www.filedropper.com/

 

[Throckmorton]

LOL. Suddenly articles with 11 uses of the word "alarmist" are being presented as news by Forbes and Yahoo.

 

[Schadenfroh]

LOL. Suddenly articles with 11 uses of the word "alarmist" are being presented as news by Forbes and Yahoo.

I prefer the "believer" and "denier" terms of AT P&N.

 

[Throckmorton]

No need for the entire article, people only read the abstract and conclusion, unless one is trying to replicate their results.



Google's cache to the rescue!

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...t=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en&source=www.google.com

Abstract:


Conclusion:

If there ever was a case for PhD students being required to take more writing classes, this is it.

 

[woolfe9999]

How about addressing the article at its source, as opposed to vilifying a biased messenger?

Who here is qualified to address the science? Probably not a single one of us on P&N. Maybe a few people with a general scientific background could hazard a semi-educated opinion. The rest of us have nothing to go on but the credibility of the source. Besides Forbes and the Heartland Institute, who are interpreting the study for us, the principle author of the study, Dr. Roy Spenser, has held this opinion, or variations of it, for about 10 years. He was in the minority camp of denialist (or "skeptical" if you prefer) scientists long before this study. No one disputes that there are a small number of climate scientists who do not adhere to the mainstream view. If their observations have merit, they will eventually become mainstream thinking over time. Until then, we have nothing to go on but to recognize where the current consensus lies. Anyone who thinks we can have a meaningful discussion about the thousands of scientific studies conducted on global change here on P&N is an arrogant fool.

This happens every time a skeptic writes an article or publishes a study. It's the "last nail in the coffin," says the layperson ideologue who has no idea what any of it means and hasn't even bothered to read or digest the opposing view.

 

[woolfe9999]

double post

 

[Atreus21]

Who here is qualified to address the science? Probably not a single one of us on P&N. Maybe a few people with a general scientific background could hazard a semi-educated opinion. The rest of us have nothing to go on but the credibility of the source.

Besides Forbes and the Heartland Institute, who are interpreting the study for us, the principle author of the study, Dr. Roy Spenser, has held this opinion, or variations of it, for about 10 years. He was in the minority camp of denialist (or "skeptical" if you prefer) scientists long before this study. No one disputes that there are a small number of climate scientists who do not adhere to the mainstream view. If their observations have merit, they will eventually become mainstream thinking over time. Until then, we have nothing to go on but to recognize where the current consensus lies. Anyone who thinks we can have a meaningful discussion about the thousands of scientific studies conducted on global change here on P&N is an arrogant fool. As is anyone who wants to selectively champion one study in a vast sea of studies because it supports a conclusion that is ideologically convenient.

I maintain that the consensus argument is only invoked precisely for its ideological convenience, so that studies just such as this can be derided as against the consensus, and conveniently dismissed.

If this study is reflecting what is factually true, then what difference does a consensus make?

I suppose it's not that simple. (not sarcasm. being honest.)

 

[Throckmorton]

They can't use the satellite data to determine how much temperature change is due to radiative forcing and how much is due to feedback because of the random effects of clouds. It sounds like the Forbes rightwing shill read this, thought he understood, then ran off and wrote his paper about "alarmist climate models" with a big gleeful grin on his face.

 

[Throckmorton]

I maintain that the consensus argument is only invoked precisely for its ideological convenience, so that studies just such as this can be derided as against the consensus, and conveniently dismissed.

If this study is reflecting what is factually true, then what difference does a consensus make?

I suppose it's not that simple. (not sarcasm. being honest.)

Here's a hint: What the study says is not what Forbes says it says. There's nothing to deride you ignoramus.

 

[PokerGuy]

Until then, we have nothing to go on but to recognize where the current consensus lies.

Studies like this don't really change the "consensus", it just shows that at least some of what the "consensus" is built on is wrong, and it shows that making sweeping policies based on said consensus is foolish at best.

 

[PokerGuy]

Here's a hint: What the study says is not what Forbes says it says.

Uh, yes, it does. I have no idea if the actual research backing the study (or the study itself) is legit or not, but the forbes article reflects the study's conclusions.

 

[Atreus21]

Here's a hint: What the study says is not what Forbes says it says. There's nothing to deride you ignoramus.

Counterhint: Don't be a dick.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's a hint: What the study says is not what Forbes says it says. There's nothing to deride you ignoramus.

Compare and contrast please for those of us that don't see what you find so obvious. Thanks.

 

[monovillage]

Just in case people are thinking this is a new debate about global warming, here's a nice article about the debate on climate by Thomas Jefferson and Noah Webster back in 1787-1810 along with some other interesting history.

"Concerned about the destructive effects of this warming trend, Jefferson noted how “an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold” in the spring has been “very fatal to fruits.” "

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/26/americas-first-global-warming-debate/

 

[zinfamous]

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


What now climate changers? Doctor more data to counter?

the language in that "article" is nearly as bad as yours.

 

[boomerang]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idKceFvO7AM&feature=player_embedded

One hour long.

A synopsis in the link below.

Green agenda has parallels with excesses of communism

"Twenty years ago we still felt threatened by the remnants of communism. This is really over," Klaus said.

"I feel threatened now, not by global warming -- I don't see any -- (but) by the global warming doctrine, which I consider a new dangerous attempt to control and mastermind my life and our lives, in the name of controlling the climate or temperature."

Klaus, 70, who has twice been elected as Czech President and is its former prime minister, is one of the most important figures in post-communist Europe. His experiences under totalitarian rule have made him exquisitely alert to the erosion of democratic freedoms.

He said environmentalists had been arguing for decades that we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, using various farcical ploys from the exhaustion of natural resources to the threat of "imminent mass poverty and starvation for billions".

Those same environmentalists shamelessly talk now about dangerous global warming.

"They don't care about resources or poverty or pollution.

"They hate us, the humans. They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them.

"I used to live in a similar world called communism. And I know it led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced."

Global warming alarmists "want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore ...what is in danger is freedom, not the climate".

He described the parallels he sees between the loss of freedom under communism and the new global warming doctrine.

Under communism, "politics dictated the economics and dictated life. Our main ambition during the dark communist days was to change that and create an autonomous society and autonomous economic system with only a marginal role played by politics ... I am sorry to discover now politics dictates the economics again. And the global warming debate is the same story (in which) politicians dictate the issue".

He said because of his experience of communism, "maybe I am over-sensitive. I am afraid that some of the people who spend their lives in a free society don't appreciate sufficiently all the issues connected with freedom.

"So my over-sensitivity is like an alarm clock warning about the potential development, which I am really afraid of."

 

[sandorski]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idKceFvO7AM&feature=player_embedded

One hour long.

A synopsis in the link below.

Green agenda has parallels with excesses of communism

Looks like a less entertaining spew than Glenn Becks nonsense. I'll pass.

 

[First]

How about addressing the article at its source, as opposed to vilifying a biased messenger?

Someone other than a partisan hack will have to interpret the data for me as I'm not a climate change scientist.

 

[werepossum]

Someone other than a partisan hack will have to interpret the data for me as I'm not a climate change scientist.

Being a climate change scientist is not required. The only requirement is that you believe with all your heart that, although their models don't work, their conclusions are sacred dogma beyond all reproach.

 

[First]

Being a climate change scientist is not required. The only requirement is that you believe with all your heart that, although their models don't work, their conclusions are sacred dogma beyond all reproach.

No, you need to be a scientist.

 

[trenchfoot]

Preventing bad things from happening is always a better thing to do, as the alternative is to try to do something after it's too late.

What's so wrong about instituting as much "preventive maintenance" as possible on the part of how humans are affecting climate change? Oh yeah, now I recall the corporate-paid-for-answer: "It gets in the way of maximizing short term profit".

Yeah, that makes more sense.