• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

nail in the coffin for climate changers?

lolx, ever wonder why Denialist threads have become a rarity?

Hint: Probably because even the kooks got tired of being pwnt.
 
Obviously the writer is biased, but leave that aside and the data NASA has gathered should force Global Warmers to redo their models to fit the data and acknowledge their past predictions were wrong.

It also is another example of how little we really know about climate and why we should not spend tens of trillions of dollars restructring our economies simply on the results of an incomplete climate model.
 
sandorski said:
lolx, ever wonder why Denialist threads have become a rarity?

Hint: Probably because even the kooks got tired of being pwnt.
Click to expand...

Always fun for a good laugh though. Thanks IceBerg.

Now we have the EcoKookKooks

Where is hellokeith when you need a good laugh? This will have to do.

Funny nails they make now-a-days for coffins! Did the writer of the piece, James M Taylor, senior fellow for environmental policy at the HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, American public policy think tank, make the nails you speak of IceBerg? LMMFAO
 
Last edited:
For all the people smugly claiming that the scientific method backs them, I see a surprising amount of jumping to conclusions going on.

Source link is till inoperative, but found a blog which goes into further detail:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra satellite.

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MovingTarget said:
This. Scientific method FTW! :thumbsup:

Somehow this won't convince the deniers though.
Click to expand...
LOL I too suspect that more evidence that the CAGW church's favored theories are completely wrong won't convince deniers that CAGW is actually happening. One's brain must be mostly stem to find that illogical.

It's amazingly apparent that the Earth was designed with, or miraculously happens to have, exquisite feed-back loops to maintain a life-friendly environment. I have zero qualms that Earth is turning into Venus because of white people. I'm more worried about the effects of acidification on already stressed marine and some aquatic ecosystems. Unfortunately most people don't really care about mass extinctions, certainly not enough to transfer power to the Marxists who fled the collapse of the red revolution for the green revolution, so the CAGW movement is all about the death of the planet. It's hard to get people concerned about a fox after the chickens once you've repeatedly called it a wolf after their children.
 
first, forbes are not exactly an unbiased source. It's business oriented and pro-republican, anti-climate protection. This is more like fox news type of 'fair and balanced'. The repeated use of the label 'alarmist global warming theory' or 'alarmist computer models' are enough to show its an opinion piece more than an unbiased scientific evaluation of the topic of global warming. More often than not, these biased 'news' tends to ignore all data that goes against their wanted position and just mention the data that supports their own position. I wouldn't trust these articles that's heavily republican or democrat leaning.

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
 
Atreus21 said:
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
Click to expand...

Here's the abstract:

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.
Click to expand...
 
nyker96 said:
first, forbes are not exactly an unbiased source. It's business oriented and pro-republican, anti-climate protection. This is more like fox news type of 'fair and balanced'. The repeated use of the label 'alarmist global warming theory' or 'alarmist computer models' are enough to show its an opinion piece more than an unbiased scientific evaluation of the topic of global warming. More often than not, these biased 'news' tends to ignore all data that goes against their wanted position and just mention the data that supports their own position. I wouldn't trust these articles that's heavily republican or democrat leaning.

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
Click to expand...

Not just Forbes, James M Taylor who is senior fellow for environmental policy at the HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, American public policy think tank that also gets paid by the likes of Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms. The same think tank that takes hundreds of thousands from Exxon and other "global warming skeptics" to conclude what you want them to conclude. Nail in the coffin indeed if we are talking about smoking cigarettes. LMAO
 
These are so easy to discredit. The fact the author uses the word alarmist an amazing 15 times in such a short article is the first dead giveaway. The biggest giveaway is the part where it says he works for The Heartland Institute, which features a rolling collection of historical figures on their home page that includes Hayek, Mises, Jefferson and Ayn Rand. They describe themselves as the following:

"Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."

ROFL.
 
First said:
These are so easy to discredit. The fact the author uses the word alarmist an amazing 15 times in such a short article is the first dead giveaway. The biggest giveaway is the part where it says he works for The Heartland Institute, which features a rolling collection of historical figures on their home page that includes Hayek, Mises, Jefferson and Ayn Rand. They describe themselves as the following:

"Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies."

ROFL.
Click to expand...

How about addressing the article at its source, as opposed to vilifying a biased messenger?
 
Kind of hard when the link to: "reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing" aren't working. Never heard of this peer-reviewed science journal before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top