Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45

Thread: Global Warming Doomsters' Theories Wrong, Says NASA Study

  1. #1

    Global Warming Doomsters' Theories Wrong, Says NASA Study

    "Global warming proponents can catch up on the sleep they lost worrying about the planet getting hotter with each passing day. A NASA study which analyzes satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011, published in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing, reports that Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than global warming proponents' computer models have predicted.

    The data also supports prior studies which suggested that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap is far lesser than what has been claimed by the global warming doomsters.

    The discrepancy between the model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming has given rise to heated debates for more than two decades.

    "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Dr. Roy Spencer, study co-author and principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, said in a press release. "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. "At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained," Spencer said.

    When applied to long-term climate change, the research suggests 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.

    Numerous decisive factors, including clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and different time lags make it impossible to accurately identify which piece of Earth's changing climate is a feedback from man-made 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."

    The research team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in 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."

    Source:
    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/1891...llite-date.htm

  2. #2
    That study suggests a slower rate of warming, that's all.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Pound Town
    Posts
    7,856
    why are white people scared of warm weather?

    Honorary African American
    grandmaster instructor of Wombat Combat The Lost Art of Anal Destruction™®LLC .
    Senior Business Director at TEAM ASSHAMMER consulting services ™®LLC

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Taixuquan99 View Post
    That study suggests a slower rate of warming, that's all.
    yeah thats what i was gonna say... in no way shape or form does any of the study say that warming is not a man made threat to this planet...

    and not all prponents of GW say the same things.... some say were dead in a few years, they are fear mongers... other more sensible scientists will be honest and say that its hard to predict at the moment, but one thing is very clear, we are warming...

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by bawang View Post
    why are white people scared of warm weather?
    coz white folks have no melanin, the fear of combustion is deep...


    besides, chinese and japanese seem to be the only ones willing to wear face visors and dust masks... white skin means sophistication, doncha know... them tanned cats aint nothin but the help...


    i didnt know that till about a year ago, that most asian cultures consider whiter skin to be a sign of wealth... makes sense tho, if you can afford to have somebody follow you with a sun umbrella then you must have some cash... and of course the rich are the most sophisticated people, obviously... poor people are just there to build and fix things and carry gear...

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Syn7 View Post
    but one thing is very clear, we are warming...
    I agree, you can't argue with data (unless you're a liberal).

    But the argument is over whether its caused by man or just a natural cycle. I'll go to my grave saying it's a natural cycle. After all, some of the same global warming fearmongers now were screaming about the coming man made ice age in the 70s-early 80s. When someone makes predictions that are dead wrong I choose to not take any of their future predictions seriously.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NW Arkansas
    Posts
    1,392
    Quote Originally Posted by BJJ-Blue View Post
    I agree, you can't argue with data (unless you're a liberal).

    But the argument is over whether its caused by man or just a natural cycle. I'll go to my grave saying it's a natural cycle. After all, some of the same global warming fearmongers now were screaming about the coming man made ice age in the 70s-early 80s. When someone makes predictions that are dead wrong I choose to not take any of their future predictions seriously.
    QFT.

    Obviously dumping all these gasses into the atmosphere isn't helping, but Earth has been going through these cycles forever. Hence the ice ages and floods.

    This **** happens on a regular basis(at least in Her years). I think it's funny that people are arrogant enough to think they can do anything about it other than stop helping.
    It is better to have less thunder in the mouth and more lightning in the hand. - Apache Proverb

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    766

    Global Warming err, cooling?

    This whole global warming thing just never set right with me. For millions of years our world has been on a regular schedule of 90,000 years of ice age, and 10,000 years of interglacial. We are at the end of and a little beyond the 10,000 years of the interglacial so it just makes sense that we should be entering the next 90,000 years of ice age any time now.

    A few years ago I remember reading about a few hundred emails from climate scientists and UN members being leaked which showed an error in the temperature readings. This study below would seem to corroborate this.

    I'm not saying this is the end all beat all nail in the coffin proof against global warming but it sure isn't looking good for those who want to tax your carbon output.

    What I will say is that we need to work on our stewardship of this planet and clean up our messes, but what we are currently doing may not be causing any warming at all.

    Here's a link to the full report. http://www.principia-scientific.org/...overnment.html


    BREAKING: NEW CLIMATE DATA RIGGING SCANDAL ROCKS US GOVERNMENT

    Written by John O'Sullivan

    A newly-uncovered and monumental calculating error in official US government climate data shows beyond doubt that climate scientists unjustifiably added on a whopping one degree of phantom warming to the official "raw" temperature record. Skeptics believe the discovery may trigger the biggest of all “climate con” scandals in Congress and sound the death knell on American climate policy.

    Independent data analyst, Steven Goddard, today (January 19, 2014) released his telling study of the officially adjusted and “****genized” US temperature records relied upon by NASA, NOAA, USHCN and scientists around the world to “prove” our climate has been warming dangerously.

    Goddard reports, “I spent the evening comparing graphs…and hit the NOAA motherlode.” His diligent research exposed the real reason why there is a startling disparity between the “raw” thermometer readings, as reported by measuring stations, and the “adjusted” temperatures, those that appear in official charts and government reports. In effect, the adjustments to the “raw” thermometer measurements made by the climate scientists “turns a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” says the astonished Goddard.

    Goddard’s plain-as-day evidence not only proves the officially-claimed one-degree increase in temperatures is entirely fictitious, it also discredits the reliability of any assertion by such agencies to possess a reliable and robust temperature record.

    Goddard continues: "I discovered a huge error in their adjustments between V1 and V2. This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999, but they didn’t in the US graph."

  9. #9
    I used up all my GW debating energy with SJ the other day. Lately I have a very low tolerance for this whole topic.

    I'll just throw out one quick statement. I didn't fact check the article. Honestly, I didn't even finish it. But let's just remember who John O'Sullivan is, who he works for and what his goals are. He's a talking head. Professional spin doctor. These aren't the people we need to be listening to when it comes to this kind of stuff. Same goes for the left counterpart. Between the left and right propaganda professionals, it's no wonder so many people don't know what to think.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    766
    Quote Originally Posted by Syn7 View Post
    I used up all my GW debating energy with SJ the other day. Lately I have a very low tolerance for this whole topic.

    I'll just throw out one quick statement. I didn't fact check the article. Honestly, I didn't even finish it. But let's just remember who John O'Sullivan is, who he works for and what his goals are. He's a talking head. Professional spin doctor. These aren't the people we need to be listening to when it comes to this kind of stuff. Same goes for the left counterpart. Between the left and right propaganda professionals, it's no wonder so many people don't know what to think.

    No worries! I didn't post this to debate anything. I'm right, everybody else is wrong. Ha!

    Seriously, I totally understand. It's getting kind of old, but this was current news and I thought it was interesting so I threw it out there.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Corner of somewhere and where am I
    Posts
    1,322
    Denialists complain that the raw data is wrong and that scientists aren't accounting for urban heating. Scientists show they accounted for urban heating and reveal the pooled data sets accounting for urban heating. Now denialists are *****ing because pooled data doesn't match raw data? No f'n ****.... These people are ridiculous.

    When you have to start trying to destroy a finding by nitpicking into which data set to use (while cherry picking yourself along the way), that's the sure sign of a bunk argument.

    People need to learn how models are made and how they are used. No data set is perfect. It doesn't matter how appropriate your sampling may be, there will always be some bias in the results because sampling methods all favor certain observations. That's why you utilize multiple sources (in this case multiple methods of temperature recording) and synthesize those findings. Pooled data reduces overall variance, basic stats.

    Here's the problem, and what people need to realize. The model isn't a prediction. The model isn't even meant to fit nature. Nature isn't the experiment. The model is the experiment. From that experiment, you find out what parameters do what. Models aren't meant to predict temp change. Models induce a change (temp, survival, predator/prey, baseball outcomes, you name it) and then reduce to find what limiting random variable most causes that change.

    Only after the fact, after a natural temperature phenomenon occurs, do they get the opportunity to see which of the thousands of models came closest. And if the parameters of that model approximated the current state of predictor variables (CO2 emissions, solar input, etc.).

    The only argument that is valid now (valid in the sense that true premises do not result in false conclusions; though this doesn't mean its sound), is the argument that when scientists do make climate predictions, their evidence is all correlation (because while you can run regression on the parameters, you can't causally link a simulation to reality; though you can then go into reality and see what's going on based on modeled clues). And people that don't understand experimental design like to throw that out the window because it doesn't equal causation. But that's ignorant. The greatest biological discovery in human existence, evolution, is evidenced by multiple points of converging correlation.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCo KungFu View Post
    Denialists complain that the raw data is wrong and that scientists aren't accounting for urban heating. Scientists show they accounted for urban heating and reveal the pooled data sets accounting for urban heating. Now denialists are *****ing because pooled data doesn't match raw data? No f'n ****.... These people are ridiculous.
    The problem isn't a lack of accounting for urban heat islands. The problem is using 100 to 150 years of data and pretending that it is representative of the "typical" climate. The problem is when you attribute a warming, which is very minor by historical standards, completely to the industrial revolution, you must discount the entire history of climate change. Far more severe climate change. You pretty much have to throw out the entire history of earth, pre 1850. You can't even account for the little ice age if you follow the narrative...it's absurd.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    This is 100% TCMA principle. It may be used in non-TCMA also. Since I did learn it from TCMA, I have to say it's TCMA principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    We should not use "TCMA is more than combat" as excuse for not "evolving".

    You can have Kung Fu in cooking, it really has nothing to do with fighting!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    766
    Denialists complain that the raw data is wrong and that scientists aren't accounting for urban heating.
    I could be wrong here, but I thought this article was about the raw data being correct but was altered to account for whatever. When whatever was found to be wrong they went back and instead of correcting the whatever, they corrected the raw data again but lower, which created a total of 1 degree of warmth. The original raw temperature data is what is showing 90 years of cooling yes?

    BTW, I'm not a denialist or a nialist or any other type of ist. Personally, I can't tell the difference between last year or 25 years ago and when I look at the average temps daily, weekly or monthly they all seem pretty darn consistent. I basically live most of my life outside and in multiple states, so I feel like I have a pretty good read on the weather and what I read is normal.

    Please help me understand all this mumbo jismo.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Corner of somewhere and where am I
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenBrain View Post
    I could be wrong here, but I thought this article was about the raw data being correct but was altered to account for whatever. When whatever was found to be wrong they went back and instead of correcting the whatever, they corrected the raw data again but lower, which created a total of 1 degree of warmth. The original raw temperature data is what is showing 90 years of cooling yes?
    I don't know where people are getting this, "1 degree" of heating, from this article posted. Even the graphs he's using to argue against climate science, the largest swing is only about 0.4 degrees. The average is relatively constant across both the graphs. And frankly, I don't care what the hell line he wants to draw across his graph. If he can't supply at the very least a slope, its garbage as far as I'm concerned.

    One of the big differences in V1 and V2 is how urban heating is accounted for. V1 the data had to be corrected. V2 accounted for it within the model. There's a number of other differences as well, but urban heat islands has been one of the major denialist talking points for years now.

    The problem with this particular article in question, his data sets are correct, but his arguments are flawed. Rather than using the totality of the data, "Steve Goddard" cherry picks which sets best make his case. Its rather dishonest, when the scientists are pooling all data (through multiple time scales), and then "he" chooses from all that data, the few points that seek to make his argument.

    In this case, he's attacking a US data set. To note, this is only related to US, not the world. The issue is in how this correction was applied. And for that I can't give an answer since I haven't (and frankly don't have the qualifications) to sift through the algorithms. But there was a massive change in the way these models were computed when the V2 hit. New algorithms typically follow new technology. Hence why the math is often updated to include the new instrumentation. As to why corrections weren't made in the same way prior to 2000; your answer would probably be in that arena. Look into any changes in sensory methods. Chances are the differences are due to the inability to apply the new algorithmic correction to the older data, or inability to apply it in the same way, due to differences in sampling and what raw data (or what volume) was available to pump into the simulations. This isn't a problem endemic to climate.

    Other than that (and this is a bit of an ad hominem admittedly), "Steve Goddard" is a pseudonym for an anonymous blogger who has been corrected a number of times due to faulty math, is a known Obama birther, and has been so unethical in his postings that "he" has been blocked even from other climate denialist groups. When you're own people think you're a loon, what does that say? "He" has been known to forge trend lines, often "drawing" them into doc rather than actually calculating trends. And since "he" has shown an inability to correctly calculate an area equation, I don't really have much confidence in his recreation of the model's corrections, and even less on his analysis of said corrections. But at least this time, he used the actual raw data, even if only part of it.

    Anyways, if you really want to get into the guts of all this, this is a good place to start. It explains the differences in the versions, why there are new versions, etc. It also references all the pubs from which the algorithms are built.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

    As to the rest, what is going on here is that now the general public is being brought into a debate that has been going on in science for, well around 80 years. Long before computers, people were "modelling" with pen and paper. There has always been a rift in those that model, and those that think its not scientifically sound. 30 years ago this debate was over optimality models in biology. And the most often used argument is the same that is being applied here. When the model doesn't fit reality, the data being put in is being "corrected" to change the trend. And if the point of the model was to predict the future, they'd be right. But as I said, that's not what models do. They decipher parameters. Its a way of hypothesis testing an input on a time scale that isn't possible to test in the real world (because we don't have 100 years to sit around and measure carbon loads and temp, etc.). The model itself is the experiment. When a climatologist makes a prediction, the prediction is based off those models. But the model itself, is not making the prediction. That's the important part. Because of this notion that "80% of the models are wrong." Well yeah, of course they are. They were not created to be "right." They were created to test an interaction. To do that you have to manipulate the system. And its hard for the general public to get this idea when a large part of the scientific community (mainly older generations to be honest) don't understand this themselves.

    To put it another way; you're trying to fabricate a water pump out of scrap you have in your shop. You have a design. But you don't want to waste all your material on a design that might not work. So you take some of the trash metal, and you build small bits of the important parts. Not the housing and mess, but the parts that have functional operation, to see if it does what it needs to do. Does it have the right pressure to get the water up against gravity? Etc. Each of those little experiments were models. You take what you learned and then built the full scale pump. That's your prediction. The little pieces didn't predict the final product, you did based on how those little pieces performed each trial.
    Last edited by SoCo KungFu; 01-24-2014 at 11:40 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    766
    Thank you SoCo!!!

    Towards the end of your reply I was actually grinning. I like the way you cut through the BS. The truth is, as bright as I think I am, I just don't fully grasp all that is involved with the science of climatology. I look outside, I predict the weather. I open an app or tune into a radar loop and I understand a little bit more. Your explanation has furthered my understanding of how data can be manipulated towards one biased viewpoint or another. ***deep bow***

    I'm still not sure if we are warming or cooling, or if it even matters, but at least now I know a little bit more about the process.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •