New Satellite Data Smashes Anthropogenic Global Warming Myth

reply to post by spyder550


Nice try, but the article originates from the University of Alabama.

Read the University of Alabama press release here.

reply to post by mnemeth1



This is already shown you may have overlooked it -- this is not heartland article spun it is stating Heartland BLACK AND WHITE scientist -- dont know yet -- I dont get my science from the likes of Beck and Malkin - they are idiots, and if I accept their science I am perceived as an idiot too - and that is not generally the case.

“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.”

So going to the real source is not quite as definitive as going to the people grinding an agenda. The right wing just sucks this stuff up

reply to post by spyder550


I have no idea who Blackj and White are, but this study was done by Spencer, R.W. and Braswell, W.D.

Fixed that -- now if you will compare the study and the reporting by the "think tank with and agenda" -- you will find that they don't exactly say the same thing -- Spencer is trying hard to hang on to his credibility.

You do know that Spencer is a creationist. A body of knowledge known worldwide for its' rigid pursuit of science.

Even more fun facts - these guys have been shopping this paper since 2008 and it was finally published a year ago by an information for money publisher

The more you research this stuff the funner it gets

And frankly for the added snark -- I cant find anything on Braswell -- he is not cutting a wide swath. And frankly the only path Spence seems to be cutting is as THE goto boy for evangelical deniers.

Even more fun -- Spencer sits the board of this bastion of right wing anti science rhetoric.
It is clearer why he had to shop the paper about.

Before the industrial age in London.
the river tames use’t to freeze so much.
that they built markets on it for more than 2 months.
and they drove horse and carriage on it.
this was every year.
now! you dont even get much ice in the water.
look up, ( river tames freeze ).
Yes it is just as cold as it use’t to be.
I will go scatting on the tames this winter!

Originally posted by mnemeth1

They are saying any model that uses forcing and feedback mechanisms is nothing more than wild speculation.

So absoutely nothing to do with whether or not human activity is causing global warming Making this thread title at the best deliberately misleading.

reply to post by buddha


Not entirely accurate.

The Thames has frozen over so rarely that they even have the years listed.

Here is a list of years the Thames has frozen from 1400 to 1900 (long before the industrial age):
1408, 1435, 1506, 1514, 1537, 1565, 1595, 1608, 1621, 1635, 1649, 1655, 1663, 1666, 1677, 1684, 1695, 1709, 1716, 1740, (1768), 1776, (1785), 1788, 1795, and 1814.

The two that are in brackets are when it froze over...more or less .

That all being said, one of the biggest contributors to the Thames freezing is no closely monitored and stopped before it can start.

The River Thames used to be broader and shallower than it is currently. A broader and shallower river is aslo a slower flowing river, which makes freezing far easier.

Also the old London Bridge used to help create ice damning, which is an excellent way to start freezing the top over. (Ice damning does not stop water flow, it just stops the surface ice and allows it to build into a solid surface. It also allows the ice to become stronger as it is exposed to cooler temps for longer periods.)

OK, I have no position on who or what is changing the climate. Whatever moves it, moves it.

I think some folks get so wrapped around the axle on this one, they miss the bigger consequences. The climate does change and it does not take much to seriously effect us.

This has astonished me for some time. A one degree average temperature change is so much more than your thermometer moving from 85 to 86. But most people do not grasp that. Hell, scientists who spend their whole life studying climate still have not peeled the whole onion on the matter.

Of all the -gates in this world, this one sorely misses the point.

The Global Warming Drinking Game

Read the article closely, and each time you see the word "alarmist", take a drink.

By the time you get to the end of the article, you not only won't know any more about the climate, you'll probably need medical attention.

Skepticism is a valuable tool, but a little less "alarmism" on both sides of this political debate masquerading as scientific debate would be a lot more constructive than the tedious circular arguments that characterize the extremes, pro or con.

Or at least, that's my own "alarming" observation. YMMV.

Why do all the same people who refuse to believe anything the government and MSM tells them suddenly embrace those same entities when it comes to information about global warming? Surely we can all agree that you cannot take ANYTHING at face value these days. Don't believe the hype, this is just another form of fear mongering that's being forced on us to make us think that we need to be more dependent upon the government to save us from ourselves. Come on people, this is ATS! Deny ignorance!

reply to post by mnemeth1


Yeeeeah.

Another day, another supposed "nail in the coffin" of the AGW "myth".

I love how - in the right-wing-denyosphere - every hour the house of cards is apparently collapsing, the greatest fraud ever known to man has just been exposed, it's now officially game over for global warming, and blah blah blah and so on and so forth...


Meanwhile - back in reality - the actual science behind AGW has undergone (and withstood) proper scientific scrutiny for almost 200 years, the case has only gotten stronger and stronger, and the predictions have been PROVEN highly accurate (if not underestimated) by real world observations.


But none of that matters in the deny-o-sphere of course.


All that matters in the deny-o-sphere is cherry-picking any minor and otherwise unsubstantiated claim that supports your predisposed ideological bias - and then declaring it the AUTHORITATIVE truth that trounces everything else, because...because......because - this guy James Taylor writing about it in Forbes said so!


I mean really, how dense can people be to not see right through this political trash?

1. James Taylor is a "senior fellow" for the Heartland Institute, one of the most notorious Exxon-funded, ideologically-motivated, propaganda-dispensing lobbyist groups out there. They also claim that the idea that smoking causes cancer is a myth just like global warming. Read their Sourcewatch page.
2. He's writing for Forbes. Some skeptics really need to take their own advice and actually follow the money for once.
3. The headline is nothing but sensationalist bull# that is NOT AT ALL indicative of what the report he's referencing ACTUALLY SAYS:

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.

So basically here we have a paper that conducted some studies with models, and concluded that modelling is difficult, and that therefore somehow means all the other models are wrong and these ones are right now.


Incidentally, this paper was deliberately written to refute this study from 2010, which agreed there's a lot of uncertainty in feedbacks, but otherwise found real observations showed basically the complete opposite conclusions:

Estimates of Earth's climate sensitivity are uncertain, largely because of uncertainty in the long-term cloud feedback. I estimated the magnitude of the cloud feedback in response to short-term climate variations by analyzing the top-of-atmosphere radiation budget from March 2000 to February 2010. Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback had a magnitude of 0.54 T 0.74 (2s) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely positive. A small negative feedback is possible, but one large enough to cancel the climate’s positive feedbacks is not supported by these observations.

So at best it's a he-said, she-said.


But let's just believe Roy Spencer, because according to the denialists any scientist promoting AGW is CLEARLY politically-motivated.

Spencer meanwhile is the PERFECT model of non-political, unbiased scientific reasoning. Don't worry about the fact that he's a creationist, or that he just recently described his job on his own webpage in the following way:

I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.

That's pure unadulterated science right there


And if that ain't the final nail in the AGW coffin, I don't know what is...

I see a lot of bluster over the Forbes article and nothing that actually attacks the paper the article was predicated on.

Keep on huffing and puffing.

The truth always wins in the end.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I see a lot of bluster over the Forbes article and nothing that actually attacks the paper the article was predicated on.

That's because the paper doesn't say anything substantial or conclusive in the first place - so what's to attack?

Keep on huffing and puffing.

The truth always wins in the end.

Yeah, I wish that were true. The fundamental science behind AGW is so basic that even 10 year olds get it:




But clearly the amount of people who ignore all this, and fall straight for the huffing and puffing of Forbes articles says much more about what wins in the fight between real science and spin.

Originally posted by mc_squared
That's because the paper doesn't say anything substantial or conclusive in the first place - so what's to attack?

LOL

Yeah, because invalidating all pre-existing climate models through emperical research isn't "substantial".

btw, that article now has nearly a million likes on facebook.

reply to post by chocise

It's right before your eyes yet you chose to live in denial.

I find it very telling that AGW advocates are quick to call temperatures or storms that don't fit their models as "weather," but when they can twist the same facts and patterns ro fit the models, it is "climate change."

The hypocrisy would be laughable if it weren't a direct threat to development and growth.

The undeniable facts are that polar ice and glaciers are NOT diminshing as predicted; current temperature measurements are not consistent with the AGW models, and the "proxies" used in support of the entire AGW religion are flawed and based upon unproven and manipulated assumptions.

True environmentalist should focus on things that matter NOW and that we CAN change, like water use and conservation, reforestation, and improved land mangement. (Except none of those require massive transfers of wealth.)

jw

reply to post by ShogunAssassins

You might also look at other things James Tayler has done.

Why? He didn't write the article. Since the MSM are so locked-into the AGW orthodoxy, why would you expect any of them to report a scientific paper that defies their foregone conclusions and dispels the progressive myth?


The article speaks for itself, regardless of who reported it or where the story was first published.
You could always look for yourself, but the truth doesn't fit the AGW agenda, does it?

Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613; doi:10.3390/rs3081603
Remote Sensing ISSN 2072-4292
www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Article
On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance

Roy W. Spencer * and William D. Braswell
ESSC-UAH, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Cramer Hall, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA;
E-Mail: [email protected]
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected];
Tel.: +1-256-961-7960; Fax: +1-256-961-7751.

Received: 24 May 2011; in revised form: 13 July 2011 / Accepted: 15 July 2011 /
Published: 25 July 2011

www.mdpi.com...

The Forbes story accurately reports the fact that pro-AGW climate models are based on false assumptions and flawed input - garbage in, garbage out.

If your own climate gods hadn't proven that the AGW premise is based largelly upon the "we don't know what else it could be, so it must be us" hypothesis, there'd be an end to the debate. As it is, AGW faithful are quick to jump on false "support" and just as eager to ignore anything that contradicts their closed-minded interpretations of manipulated data.

jw

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by mc_squared
That's because the paper doesn't say anything substantial or conclusive in the first place - so what's to attack?

LOL

Yeah, because invalidating all pre-existing climate models through emperical research isn't "substantial".

btw, that article now has nearly a million likes on facebook.

Wow facebook you say! That definitely settles the science then.


(Or...it just, you know - proves my point about the vapid popularity of sock puppet spin over real science).






But besides - do you have any idea what that paper even did to "invalidate" the science?


They MODELLED the climate over the last 10 years.

They then decided that because their models FOR 10 YEARS had a hard time differentiating feedbacks from internal forcings that means there must be no feedbacks.


This is garbage logic for a number of reasons:

1. It's a total reach to begin with.

2. Most positive AGW feedbacks - like ice-albedo, permafrost melt, water vapor, etc take many decades (not one) to produce distinct (attributable) results. Sampling one decade is just a convenient way to lose the signal in the noise.

3. The lack of feedbacks doesn't even invalidate man-made global warming. Even without feedbacks the radiative forcing of CO2 alone will still raise the temperature of the planet higher than it is now. This can be proven mathematically and even the skeptics agree on this simple fact.

3. The whole skeptic argument against AGW, perpetuated by people like Roy Spencer, is predicated on the existence of negative feedbacks that are supposed to cancel out global warming. So in arguing against the significant contribution of feedbacks in general all the guy did was in fact debunk himself. The only science he invalidated was actually his own lol.




But hey, you go ahead and ignore all those gaping holes in the logic and just hang your hat on facebook hits - because that's what really matters.

reply to post by mc_squared

The fundamental science behind AGW is so basic that even 10 year olds get it:
Youtube Video: Climate change in a jar

1. the Earth is not a jar, it radiates into space.

2. only a 10-year old's lack of insight would cause anyone to be so gullible as to believe that men are capable of globally altering the Earth's climate.

Man's influence is so insignificant as to be laughable. The biomass of ants, plankton and algae, among other living things, dwarf that of homo sapiens. Our contribution to global climate will disappear as quickly as we do.

It is pure hubris to believe that we have a lasting effect upon anything other than ourselves and our neighbors.

jw

Physics are physics jdub. A jar radiates into space just as much as the Earth does. Just by making that statement you are making it clear you don't understand the difference between convection and radiation. That little mistake alone makes you completely unqualified to rap about pretty much ANYTHING else to do with global warming, but you go ahead and preach on like you have the slightest clue what you're even talking about.

I really am not going to bother trying to debate science with people who have shown time and time again a blatant bias towards ideology over facts.

It is absolutely pointless trying to reason with scientifically illiterate right-wing ideologues on this stuff because logic always takes a distant backseat to stubborn ingrained backwards belief systems, no matter what.

So I'll just let jdub here continue spouting off more ignorant, hypcritical political nonsense while leaving you guys with this juicy article that really sums up global warming "skepticism" in a nutshell:


Conservative, white men more likely to be climate change sceptics, study shows

So you get all these stars and flags for posting news that's already been posted, and is on the front page...that doesn't make much sense. Anyway, I never bought into the global warming, and generally didn't pay attention to the fear-mongering in any way; I watched a documentary a little while ago showing that the Earth was actually hotter thousands/millions of years ago than it is now. But, fortunately this data can put an end to the "controversy" once and for all.