New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hey some of has to work to pay for the welfare of the bums.

Try this link. It is a pretty good size pdf but if you still are unable on how to click links correctly I can later when done working copy and paste the whole pdf page by page here. Also I did a google and way more than Forbes has published this. Not many Socialist leaning publications but a lot of regular ones have.

http://www.mdpi.com/...92/3/8/1603/pdf

So, does this mean you accept Global Warming as real? Because this study talks about anthropogenic climate change, which specifically means the warming of the planet from human activity. So, if you don't believe in the scientific theory of Global Warming, this study is useless to you. If you now believe in it, then to recognize the validity of this study, you'd have to accept that human activity is warming the planet.

Here's the abstract of the report:

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.

This study doesn't dispute that human activity is warming the planet. What it does is address the uncertainties of future projections. Here's what one must accept in order to even consider this study: that human activity is definitely warming the planet. That is a departure from your consistent stance that Global Warming is bunk or junk science as you so often put it.

What's amusing is here you've taken an Op-Ed piece written from a guy (James Taylor) whose political organization, the Heartland Institute, has fought against the science behind tobacco smoke and is now fighting against the science of Global Warming, as some sort of factual dismissal of the Global Warming. You don't seem to understand the very study that James Taylor has editorialized for you, but rather you simply accept his opinion because you believe it supports your denial of Global Warming. Where's the critical thinking in that?

[luckytxn 2,264]

Sometimes it felt like that.

+1

Biochem/Orgo.

I do not believe their conclusions are necessarily wrong. They don't even really conflict with GW data. You have to be mindful of who to believe when reading bunk politicos trying to pull a fast one on their readership.

Well awesome. I was a Chemist for 15 years in the petroleum industry. The last 3 as a regional vice president over all labs in the Gulf coast and Venezuela. I was trying for a Physics degree but my company who was paying for my school insisted that I switch to Chemistry. I understand the workings of science also and used to do a lot of work for the National institute of standards and technology. Try dealing with that Federal agency.

I read the report. It was a report on what was found out by using instruments that NASA had. It showed the real results and not what the computer projections said it should be.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I do not believe their conclusions are necessarily wrong. They don't even really conflict with GW data. You have to be mindful of who to believe when reading bunk politicos trying to pull a fast one on their readership.

The only things that is known conclusively, is that whatever scientists conclude today will change tomorrow. One scary thought as humanity may very well be destined to become "D" cells: Within the next decade or two, computers will reach the computational ability to exceed human intellect. The next generation of computers will have self initializing programming. The current generation of heuristic learning artificial intelligence has already begun. Computers now can look at data and make independent associations. Our technology will soon exceed even our brightest minds ability to comprehend it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

More good news that the world has been saved! I am sure the GW people will be thrilled to hear this.

[luckytxn 2,264]

The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains

the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.

This part that you so helpfully brought out said that no such thing. It said that it is uncertain on what may be future anthropogenic change. The study is only reporting on what the actual findings showed when they made the observations. The computer models said during the time in question that the levels would be elevated and they weren't when they did the measurements. If anything it shows that we can't rely on computer model projections. For sure we can't bring a theory and say that it is now a science. You are one of the ones that touted NASA's abilities I remember last year when we were discussing this yet again. So now are you questioning them?

[luckytxn 2,264]

The only things that is known conclusively, is that whatever scientists conclude today will change tomorrow. One scary thought as humanity may very well be destined to become "D" cells: Within the next decade or two, computers will reach the computational ability to exceed human intellect. The next generation of computers will have self initializing programming. The current generation of heuristic learning artificial intelligence has already begun. Computers now can look at data and make independent associations. Our technology will soon exceed even our brightest minds ability to comprehend it.

Sure and then type in as a input, "piss off" and then see what the thing does.

As it stands the computer models are as good as the info put in. Right now humans input data and receive a model projection.

More good news that the world has been saved! I am sure the GW people will be thrilled to hear this.

No they will now go and say that we have gone too far the other way and we must stop and revert back.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That we even have these kinds of silly discussions while nations, states and cities around the world are not only working on preparing for the warming of the planet, but are investing in ways to reduce energy consumption as well as transfer to more sustainable energy, is turning to the absurd. It's almost identical to the sheep who bought into the tobacco industries propaganda that cigarette smoke is not harmful. Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, this report doesn't dispute it and the world is doing something about it, with or without the denialists who want to bury their heads in the sand instead of being part of the solution. Eventually, the denialists will dwindle down as more and more people's lives are disrupted from the rapid warming of the planet. If you want to continue thinking that it's all just a conspiracy or hoax, go for it. The planet doesn't need you to accept Climate Change for it to be real or for the rest of the world to do something about it. Too bad for you.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[웃 910]

Well awesome. I was a Chemist for 15 years in the petroleum industry. The last 3 as a regional vice president over all labs in the Gulf coast and Venezuela. I was trying for a Physics degree but my company who was paying for my school insisted that I switch to Chemistry. I understand the workings of science also and used to do a lot of work for the National institute of standards and technology. Try dealing with that Federal agency.

I read the report. It was a report on what was found out by using instruments that NASA had. It showed the real results and not what the computer projections said it should be.

You are the vice president over all petroleum industry labs in Venezuela!!! Sweet. I always thought you were a truck driver

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains

the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.

This part that you so helpfully brought out said that no such thing. It said that it is uncertain on what may be future anthropogenic change. The study is only reporting on what the actual findings showed when they made the observations. The computer models said during the time in question that the levels would be elevated and they weren't when they did the measurements. If anything it shows that we can't rely on computer model projections. For sure we can't bring a theory and say that it is now a science. You are one of the ones that touted NASA's abilities I remember last year when we were discussing this yet again. So now are you questioning them?

What??? Do you even notice your own editorialization of the above sentence? Good Lord.

Let's take a look:

From the report: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains

the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.

Your editorialized version: It said that it is uncertain on what may be future anthropogenic change.

Notice what is missing? Either you're deliberately being smug and disregarding the above statement's clarity or your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Either you're deliberately being smug and disregarding the above statement's clarity or your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

Don't try and do science, Steven: It doesn't suit you. Both statements are saying the same thing.

[luckytxn 2,264]

That we even have these kinds of silly discussions while nations, states and cities around the world are not only working on preparing for the warming of the planet, but are investing in ways to reduce energy consumption as well as transfer to more sustainable energy, is turning to the absurd. It's almost identical to the sheep who bought into the tobacco industries propaganda that cigarette smoke is not harmful. Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, this report doesn't dispute it and the world is doing something about it, with or without the denialists who want to bury their heads in the sand instead of being part of the solution. Eventually, the denialists will dwindle down as more and more people's lives are disrupted from the rapid warming of the planet. If you want to continue thinking that it's all just a conspiracy or hoax, go for it. The planet doesn't need you to accept Climate Change for it to be real or for the rest of the world to do something about it. Too bad for you.

It is not proven and you can say it till you are blue in the face but there is no concrete proof. Now I agree that we should try to lessen our pollution. We have to do it smartly though and not try to force us into it to our detriment. If we allow ourselves going down this path then we must insist a level playing field with the rest of the world. Right now we are sending our jobs away to places they don't care. We should force them to abide by our rules by means short of war.

Sorry Steven but the deception has to stop. I will agree that we can try to do tests and even pay some of our hard earned money on research but no more falsifying data, ignoring contrary data, and any deceptions period. A real science does not need to do these things but welcome all voices.

Right now they are trying to enforce a whole new industry and wrench our money and livelihoods away because it has turned out to be a great way to control the citizenry. It has also enabled a great way to funnel money and power to industries and Fed agencies.

[웃 910]

Don't try and do science, Steven: It doesn't suit you. Both statements are saying the same thing.

From the report: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains

the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.

LuckyTxn's editorialized version: It said that it* is uncertain on what may be future anthropogenic change.

*The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imablance

*What Luckytxn left out...

Edited July 29, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[luckytxn 2,264]

What??? Do you even notice your own editorialization of the above sentence? Good Lord.

Let's take a look:

From the report: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains

the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.

Your editorialized version: It said that it is uncertain on what may be future anthropogenic change.

Notice what is missing? Either you're deliberately being smug and disregarding the above statement's clarity or your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

One more time..

Projections of future Anthropogenic climate change. There is an uncertainty to the sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radioactive imbalance.

The report was about what was found by actual observations and found to be different than what the models said they should be.The report even said how the model projections could be improved for future use.

It is uncertain as it should be. Now since you want to just throw insults when I am engaging then I will post a few more reports that showed falsification of GW.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Naming the principal contributor to the uncertainty in a climate model does not change the fact that uncertainty is present in the model. Next question is whether or not there is agreement to the range of that uncertainty. From the study cited in the OP, it appears that previous model skewed the data beyond any reasonable level of confidence given that actual measurements lie outside theoretical predictions.