New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism

[luckytxn 2,264]

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...

Now read my other post.

What sensitivity? What imposed radiative imbalance? Why does it make PROJECTIONS of future anthropogenic change uncertain. The projections are future computer models. They are trying to give the science a cue on how to make better computer models in the future. This is good of them to do. It never said that GW was or is manmade.

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.

Bingo. We have a winner.

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

Bill and Luckytxn - you guys are amusing. Here you have a peer-reviewed scientific report that doesn't support your view that Global Warming is bunk, yet you reference it as legitimate because you think it somehow supports your position that Global Warming isn't real.

So which of the following positions do you now adhere to?

1. Global Warming is not real.

2. Global Warming is real, but it's not caused by human activity.

3. Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, but it is impossible to predict future projections of how much warmer the planet will get.

4. Anthropogenic Climate Change is real, is measurable, and predicting future projections, although impossible to do with any real pinpoint accuracy do to the numerous variables, is an important and necessary part of the science on Global Warming.

If your answer is 1 or 2, then this report is meaningless to you. It doesn't support your position at all.

If your answer is 3, then you didn't really understand the report. From the conclusion of the report:

We have shown clear evidence from the CERES instrument that global temperature variations

during 2000–2010 were largely radiatively forced. Lag regression analysis supports the interpretation

that net radiative gain (loss) precedes, and radiative loss (gain) follows temperature maxima (minima).

This behavior is also seen in the IPCC AR4 climate models.

A simple forcing-feedback model shows that this is the behavior expected from radiatively forced

temperature changes, and it is consistent with energy conservation considerations. In such cases it is

difficult to estimate a feedback parameter through current regression techniques.

If you're not familiar with the IPCC AR4 climate models, feel free to look them over (assuming that your position is number 3 above). Also with the CERES instrument - that's NASA. Read NASA's conclusions on Climate Change.

But really, here's the crux of this whole thread - you found an Op-Ed piece written by a guy who belongs to an organization who tried to dispel the science behind the harmful effects of cigarette smoke, who referred to a report but editorialized it, twisting it to mean something that it doesn't say at all, and you bought it, hook, line and sinker because it fits in your denialism viewpoint that Global Warming isn't real ....or at least, so you thought. But hey, if you are now accepting these peer-reviewed scientific studies on climate change, I'd recommend you start reading more of them. I have a feeling that you won't though, because the moment you discover any of them stating that Global Warming is real, you'll simply dismiss them as bunk or junk science. There's no critical thinking involved in that. It's simply following a conspiracy theory, where you only accept whatever perceived evidence fits your theory and reject everything else. Elvis truly is alive and well.

Edited July 29, 2011 by DFH

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

And if you're interested in hearing from one of the CERES scientists from NASA, read this:

The outside temperature, a sweltering 93 degrees didn't mean we have proof that the Earth is getting warmer.

The evidence, according to Bruce Wielicki, lies in the decades of climate records that are revealing how humans are "driving our system a thousand times faster than it's ever been driven before."

More than 200 NASA employees, interns and guests put their work aside Tuesday to listen to Bruce Wielicki, senior Earth scientist in the Science Directorate at NASA Langley, discuss climate change at at the Pearl Young Theater.

"We call it global warming, but it is best to call it climate change because everything is changing--not just temperature," Wielicki explained.

It is important to note that climate change is different from changes in weather.

Wielicki explained that weather is the day-to-day fluctuation of temperatures and other atmospheric conditions. Considerable fluctuation can occur within a single day. For example, Tuesday's high was 93 degrees, yet the low was 72 degrees. Not only do people expect that level of variation, they also understand that it is nearly impossible to predict the exact temperature for a specific time of day.

Climate, on the other hand, is the long-term average of weather. Wielicki explained that averaging temperatures for a longer period of time and for more places results in less temperature fluctuation, making climate easier to predict than weather. The variation in temperature is so small that tenths of a degree matter significantly when monitoring changes in climate.

So, why is Earth's climate changing?

Wielicki said carbon dioxide is one of the major driving forces behind climate change. It acts as a blanket and traps radiation, or heat, in the atmosphere.

The average American adds around 50,000 pounds of carbon dioxide into the environment per year, Wielicki told his audience. And it remains in the atmosphere for hundreds, even thousands, of years.

According to Wielicki, even if humans stopped putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere today, the lingering emissions would continue to warm Earth for many years to come.

He expects the effects of a warming Earth to be far-reaching, and Hampton Roads to have drastic changes.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_wielicki2011.html

[luckytxn 2,264]

This is why we are doomed because of people like this. It is a shame that anyone will deny the fraud and still believe in this travesty but yet as Barnum said there is one born every minute.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This is why we are doomed because of people like this. It is a shame that anyone will deny the fraud and still believe in this travesty but yet as Barnum said there is one born every minute.

What is even more humorous and arrogant, is the idea that anything humans could do, or not do, could possibly influence naturally occurring cycles and periodic events more than marginally.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[Zero Sum 305]

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.

Interesting change of careers, I'd say!

I think the workings of science, as a research scientist until I was recruited by the Dark Side of the Force, need to be considered in direct, simplified concepts in order for more people to comprehend things correctly. I'll take a look at the posts after this one I'm responding to... but I suspect there is some degree of ignorance as to the methodologies and the error that signals power of analysis in statistics in the lay interpretations of the science of GW. I'll try to point those mistakes out to you if I see them.

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.

Yes. Science revises its precepts as observational data becomes more complete and as the relationships controlling observable phenomena become more understood. It is a pity that as the science advances, so does a segment of human ignorance in its mechanisms. Exemplified here from time to time.

[luckytxn 2,264]

What is even more humorous and arrogant, is the idea that anything humans could do, or not do, could possibly influence naturally occurring cycles and periodic events more than marginally.

For sure. I agree. It wasn't that long ago that we had glaciers covering pretty much the whole North American continent. In fact it has been proven that it has many many times in a cycle. Maybe they think the dinosaurs were all barbecuing daily or something. I shouldn't be stunned but the ones commenting seem somewhat intelligent.

[Zero Sum 305]

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.

There are mountains more evidence supporting the man-made effect on natural climate change than there is evidence that declares it all to be a natural phenomenon.

The political aspect that should be relevant is that policy informed by science, if it is to be reliable, should always follow the predominant scientific view of its day. Even if that science is faulty- which in this particular case is not. Perfect its not, nothing is. Playing politics away from that science while claiming scientific integrity through actual non-science and unaccepted science is not responsible science policy.

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.

Such uncertainty begins to be measurable by new modeling.

How was it those 'real, actual observations' were made again? Think about this.

Falsification is not the same as uncertainty.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Interesting change of careers, I'd say!

I think the workings of science, as a research scientist until I was recruited by the Dark Side of the Force, need to be considered in direct, simplified concepts in order for more people to comprehend things correctly. I'll take a look at the posts after this one I'm responding to... but I suspect there is some degree of ignorance as to the methodologies and the error that signals power of analysis in statistics in the lay interpretations of the science of GW. I'll try to point those mistakes out to you if I see them.

Yes. Science revises its precepts as observational data becomes more complete and as the relationships controlling observable phenomena become more understood. It is a pity that as the science advances, so does a segment of human ignorance in its mechanisms. Exemplified here from time to time.

Don't bother. You could never see a mistake in anything you looked at.

[Zero Sum 305]

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.

Present in the model and usually given in the results as an error range when based on real input data ranges, as all reputable science tends to do in reporting data.

Modeling data tends to take into consideration within its programming such error.

Furthermore, actual measurements rely on measurement devices with internal error do they not?

The previous model(s) seem skewed to you beyond acceptable intervals of confidence yet you do not define such levels. Could it be observer bias on your part to attempt to discredit something you do not have knowledge of?

[Zero Sum 305]

This is why we are doomed because of people like this. It is a shame that anyone will deny the fraud and still believe in this travesty but yet as Barnum said there is one born every minute.

PT Barnum would have you read the actual paper again and say what the principal points of the paper were, named by the authors themselves... not being coy with you on this... but you can't present something as proof of your position and then disagree with its central hypothesis and mechanism, and conclusions.

[Zero Sum 305]

What is even more humorous and arrogant, is the idea that anything humans could do, or not do, could possibly influence naturally occurring cycles and periodic events more than marginally.

I've come across this 'arrogant' logic before and it doesn't really impact much the real events unfolding in the environment. We impact the water cycle. We impact the carbon cycle. We impact the nitrogen cycle. We impact the world's ecosystems.

Sometimes artificial marginal additions to a naturally fluctuating system is more than sufficient to modify its cycles. Any scientist would notice this.

Don't bother. You could never see a mistake in anything you looked at.

That hurt my feelings.

Focus on what I'm telling you instead of taking cheapshots. Trying to help you understand what you propose to prove your preconceived notions of science, whereas the proof itself contradicts your notions.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I've come across this 'arrogant' logic before and it doesn't really impact much the real events unfolding in the environment. We impact the water cycle. We impact the carbon cycle. We impact the nitrogen cycle. We impact the world's ecosystems.

Sometimes artificial marginal additions to a naturally fluctuating system is more than sufficient to modify its cycles. Any scientist would notice this.

In some systems, we definitely have an impact, such as overfishing and land use. In other systems, not so much. Humans' total contribution to greenhouse gases can be eclipsed by a single volcanic eruption.

If you want to reduce the human footprint on the world, the simple solution is to make that foot smaller. Actively campaign to reduce human population. Sink the Japanese fishing fleet. Stop feeding starving people and paying them to breed. Let nature do its natural thing.

[Zero Sum 305]

In some systems, we definitely have an impact, such as overfishing and land use. In other systems, not so much. Humans' total contribution to greenhouse gases can be eclipsed by a single volcanic eruption.

If you want to reduce the human footprint on the world, the simple solution is to make that foot smaller. Actively campaign to reduce human population. Sink the Japanese fishing fleet. Stop feeding starving people and paying them to breed. Let nature do its natural thing.

If its a consumptive model you propose to eliminate pollution, you have to get the math right: go after and remove the ones that pollute the most. That pollution comes from over-consumption, so the starving are hardly contributing much in that regards.

As for individual systems, to each their own. You can have all the volcanoes pop their tops off in one day, and the human contribution would still exist. Lets not seek excuses to not look at things for what they are.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

As for individual systems, to each their own. You can have all the volcanoes pop their tops off in one day, and the human contribution would still exist. Lets not seek excuses to not look at things for what they are.

It's a matter of magnitude. Enough of this butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon #######. In some things, humans are barely audible over the background noise. In other things, we are not even noticeable. Humans like to think they matter as individuals and collectively. Taken in perspective, we don't. The planet will survive, or not, without us.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv