Global Warming Doomsters' Theories Wrong, Says NASA Study

[BJJ-Blue]

"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

[Taixuquan99]

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

[bawang]

why are white people scared of warm weather?

[Syn7]

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...

[Syn7]

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...

[BJJ-Blue]

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.

[JamesC]

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.

[mawali]

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.

Based on the report I see nothing to note "global warming fearmongering" since there is no data to suggest that depsite evidence to the contrary of changes in climate conditions that would wreak havoc on the populations.
The simplest strategy is to suggest planning, budgeting and emergency management procedures. For those people who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, and that is the 45/55 divide, that is alot of people who worship ignorance as their G*d. Whether it is called cooling or warming, there is a high level of cognitive dissonance in those tea party people (and their main affiliates) and their freinds. What must happen before they believe in truth?

The facts are obvious.
a. No planning or emergency management leads to mass casualties.
b. Then disease, high mortality, etc from lack of above
c. No water, facilities, etc.
d. I wonder what they call California's water woes at the moment. I am looking at persistance over time as opposed to this one event? Will it change.
e. What do they call Polar Warming, which appears to create this extreme Vortex as is happenning.
f. At least the Carlyle Group, the Water Capitalist will sell water cheaply to their brethren. BTW Carlyle Group gave us Snowden and NSA is such a fine specimen of a private organization, the mantra of the tea party Americans,
g. ALEC and Heritage Strategy. Just add the word American to any group name and you have it made.

[Scott R. Brown]

Many, or most, of us intelligent ones, who live in California are not worrying about the drought. We have droughts all the time. We always recover in miraculous ways within one to two years. It has been raining for the past week now and more rain is in the forecast as it is.

They have had these drought scares my whole life and we are fine.

Life happens to everyone, when things get tough, you change behavior to accommodate the new circumstances. Humans do not change until they have to, when they have to, they do, and innovations happen.

Nothing is as big a deal as worriers make them!

[GoldenBrain]

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."

[Syn7]

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.

[GoldenBrain]

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.

[SoCo KungFu]

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.

[Kellen Bassette]

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.