Why Isn't This Better Known Info?

Semantics.

"Global warming" is not debatable.

Tell that to the glaciers when they start advancing.

Funny! Because we can not really prove it either! All that's left is the debate and millions of Dollars put in different pockets.

Honestly "global warming" has not even a meaning. As long as days get over 40 deg C hot and -70 deg C cold we have more temperature change than a fixed value We are talking GLOBAL right? We are talking days and night, we are talking transient changes over which we put a statistical value. We are talking about which temperature exactly?

Whoa that was quick with the OT. Not even dry ink! Haha!

For anyone who is interested, there is a rebuttal (separated into three levels of complexity) and an extensive debate about this paper here:

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=80&&a=501

Gosh you scared me! I thought there really was something to it. But they are fighting about models and not what really happens.

So I guess the truth is still out there!

.

25 deg today a degree colder than last year!

Suggest to also read the rebuttal to the rebuttal:

Comments 1 to 50 out of 80:

1. Uncle Ben at 11:50 AM on 20 April, 2012I beg to differ.
   Spencer has simplified his argument and presents it better in his book "The great global warming blunder." I will counter only three of Trenbert's arguments: 1) how Spencer deduces that sensitivity has been exaggerated, not from models, but directly from satellite data; 2) what is a feedback; and 3) what purpose his simple model serves.
   1) Sensitivity may be calculated from measurements of radiative energy imbalance dH/dt and sea temperature anomaly dT, both averaged globally. A linear regression of the former vs the latter yields a slope that has been interpreted as the reciprocal of a sensitivity metric.
   The basis for this method is the assumption that there is not any other significant forcing on the temperature anomaly than the radiative imbalance. The data are considered to be samples of a linear relationship between only two variables plus a large amount of noise.
   If there were another significant forcing variable x unacknowledged in this process, there would be an error in this method. A change in dT caused by a change in dx would be mistakenly attributed to dH/dt, making dH/dt more powerful a factor than it really is. That is exaggerated sensitivity.
   Spencer has demonstrated the existence of such a variable. He has connected the data points in the plot described above in the order of their measurement. This converts a set of points into a trajectory. The trajectory typically consists of a repeated alternation between two forms: a messy, loopy curve and a remarkably straight line. That alone strongly suggests two kinds of process which alternate in strength.
   Spencer interprets this kind of trajectory as an alternation between the slow radiative process of warming the oceans upper layer and the rapid non-radiative process by which the upper layer creates clouds. Candidates for the non-radiativesources of the latter are ocean currents related to ENSO and PDO, which heat or cool the air and moisten or dry it. Clouds created by these sources vary over time in shielding power unpredictably, causing variation of their shading, which creates aradiative forcing. These clouds are not created by contemporaneous solar heatingand cooling.
   More than one forcing? That creates error. It is on the basis of this analysis that Spencer concludes that sensitivity has been exaggerated.
   2) Trenbert denies that the second process described above is a forcing. Spencer follows the convention of engineers saying that there is one dependent variable, T, in this system. Feedback is a temperature change caused by a temperature change. Everything else that affects temperature is forcing. Clouds are forcing in this nomenclature. But that is irrelevant. Call it what you will, it exaggerates sensitivity.
   3) Spencer's little model is not intended to model the atmosphere of the earth. It is a mini-model that shows that a system of a radiative forcing and a non-radiative forcing creates trajectories of the kind that can be seen in the satellite data, plotted with connections. It is a demonstration of the concept. It is especially useful in that it demonstrates how a simple system with given negative feedback can produce results that appear to involve positive feedback.

It comes with a bit of engineering answers!

What are you blathering about?

I can read, can you?

you make some good points. I'm a man of science I always want the hard data and toss out the opinions. both sides of the discussion seem to have claims of "NASA" at times during the debate, cite "NASA" or former employees of the agency to buttress the validity of their position. I'll stick with satellite data every time, they seem to have no interests in taxing or controlling the masses. the satellite in the article and many others like it should give current scientists better component data to plug into "modern" climate models that have been designed to predict likely outcomes verses the models from the 80 and 90's that seemed to be programmed to arrive at doomsday scenarios. we've been told by "leaders" (wow do I use that term lightly) that warming is a threat to National security and all future generations.stories like the link cast great doubt on not only the claimed urgency of the problems severity but it's actual man-made existence as well. thanks for your response. "green things" on this planet just love carbon, so do I

just give me facts and leave the garbage to the Chicken Little's to fret about.

You seem to have picked out the "facts" that you think support your position, as most have done.

I think you base your position on your political leanings (hysteria) and have left science out of the equation totally.

Most of the data is slanted one way or the other and we can all cherry pick it.

I have asthma. I rely on my lungs for my scientific proof. The sky may not be falling, but it's getting harder to breathe.

As Fredski said here, #30 "I'm a man of science I always want the hard data and toss out the opinions".

The difference is that I am always right!

And there are plenty of "iron clad" facts to support both sides.

file:///C:/Users/Stephen/Downloads/remotesensing-03-01603%20(4).pdf

Link is broken.

This webpage is not available

DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN

file:///C:/Users/Stephen/Downloads/remotesensing-03-01603%20(4).pdf

See the f.

This is because it is sitting on his hardrive! If you had access he had a BIG problem!

Here goes the link I think!

To support your comment, I forward an article, a Paper , really. Google : GWPF , Global Warminging Policy Foundation, # 18, by Indur M. Goklany. A wonderful presentatation of the benefits of CO2 , with a lot of science based info, and a really neat upbeat assessment of the current situation, the future, as well as where we have been. There is hope!

GA!

I was told at a very young age by a very wise man;

"An argument is simply the airing of a difference of opinion between two intelligent people thereby to find a solution to a problem that neither has a full grasp on."

The same man also said;

"There has never been a war or even a fist fight wherein either side admitted they were wrong."

I think the information gathered from satellites is still subject to the pressures of influence.
How do we really know what the data is?
We do not have the raw data to compile and analyze,nor would we have the resources to do it,so we rely on the results from others.
Very unscientific.
But the general public has no way of knowing the integrity of the information they are fed.
To paraphrase a saying from long ago: "I only know what I read in the funny papers."
And the papers are getting "funnier" all the time.
As Marx said: "It is not the people that vote that count,it is the people that count the votes that count."

Well Fredski, I am going with if they can't actually quote and refute then what is it they are talking about? "Alarmist Theories"? What theories? Who's theories? Are we talking the ones most reputable scientists are working off of? The ones that also include Ocean temps, ice packs, and the other contributing factors that go well beyond simple CO2 emissions or are we talking Cowspiracy level? It helps if they cite the study, report, data. Then use science to point by point refute it.

This read more like a blog entry.

"are we talking Cowspiracy level"

Probably? Maybe? Could be?

Or; Maybe Cowspiracy combined with Bullshipping?

Excellent statement!

Application of the Scientific Method is desperately needed in this arena.

Gees dude, ease up a bit or at least read my post. I was simply asking that they cite the data they claim to be refuting. Show me the figures! You know, basic scientific discourse.

As a rational, thinking human being I would like to form an opinion based on all available facts, not just the ones hand picked to back a specific, narrow, conjecture. Hence the reason I specifically cited "Cowspiracy" as an example of this pseudo-science.

I just wish we could get ALL AVAILABLE FACTS…That would be a good start, but when Scientists start cooking them to adjust to their theories (think Climate Gate), then I begin to get suspicious about what other "facts" I am being given.

Even the most seemingly damning evidence can be cooked/misappropriated/misreported/cherry picked.

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

"An important point to realise is that the emails involve a handful of scientists discussing a few pieces of climate data. Even without this data, there is still an overwhelming and consistent body of evidence, painstakingly compiled by independent scientific teams from institutions across the world.

What do they find? The planet is steadily accumulating heat. When you add up all the heat building in the oceans, land and atmosphere plus the energy required to melt glaciers and ice sheets, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 Gigawatts over the past 40 years (Murphy 2009). Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 Gigawatt, imagine over 190,000 power plants pouring their energy output directly into heating our land and oceans, melting ice and warming the air."

the 190,260 GW you say is heat accumulation, is that really heat being released by mankind? Is that the total heat input to Earth? Or did you mean to say this is heat not being dissipated?

I didn't.

I am merely the messenger, quoting the scholarly work presented.

Heck, all I know is it gets warmer every day when the sun comes up and cools off when it goes down.

Since neither side of the argument is winning, or convincing the other side, let me throw another curve ball. Everything seems to be faith based.

Here is the definitive guide to Global Warming:

1) The rate of overeating is proportional to the rate of production of fuel is proportional to the rate of food production (mainly in the fully developed and engaged world). This creates a positive feedback loop.

2) Global population has continued to rise. Additional parameter in the positive feedback loop.

3) Less souls are being converted to Christianity, and being saved, thus when these persons are deceased, more of them are hell-bound.

4) As these non-saved souls are routed to hell, they contribute their excess fat to the fires, and the combustion heat ΔH is released, along with whatever CO2 can be generated. The heat wells up through the earth, and produces more earthquake activity, plate slippage, and volcanic eruptions. This releases tremendous heat into the atmosphere.

5) As more and more fat, godless politicians add fuel to the fires, hell gets completely out of control, and the earth begins an exponential heat wave, except for one small thing.

6) As the earth and her atmosphere heat up, the infrared signature emissivity increases, overall heat emission signature increases, and along with that, less angels getting their wings means the space above Earth is less cluttered with reflective cirrus clouds, and angel feathers, so that more heat is radiated directly into outer space.

7) The situation assumes a new equilibrium as pestilence and plague affect the birth rate, production of the population, fuel, and food taper downward, and clamp the positive feedback loop. Eventually the fires of hell resume the "normal" ancestral burn rate, and all is well. People return to faith, and more souls begin to get their wings, thus more moderation of heat radiated to space, and the ensuing ice age is averted.

I hope Al Gore has a brain hemorrhage while attempting to make sense of my new, faith based theory of Climate Change.

Oops! Sorry to use that reference, Fred. Kudos, cheers, well wishes.

it's nothing

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,"

"suggest" ? 'confirm' or 'refute' might be more convincing. Not many meaty facts stated in the link and follow-ons.

I also hate when the word "suggest" is employed. It sounds more like a whisper in the ear, than the bold declaration of someone who has real data, unfortunate wording.

That's how scientists talk. They seldom use absolutes because they know they are just adding one more piece to a puzzle that has thousands of pieces, that their data may have been noisy, their analysis may have been incomplete, or that someone else has data that "suggests" the opposite.

In this case the paper was published in a journal that seldom has any papers on global warming, that the peer-review was not done by impartial scientists, and that the editor later said the paper should never have been published and took responsibility by resigning:

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

Wolfgang Wagner:

"The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously."

I had to click thru a number of links to find even that. With respect to Fredski, it isn't better known because there is nothing substantive to know in this 'news'. The entire reporting is veiled in such terms and ambiguity. I'm open to debate on most issues, but unless an article packs some facts there's not much to debate.

I could have had a V-8!

Al could use a 55 gallon drum

As a final resting place...?

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen , Norway
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north,
are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 93 years ago.
Hum, This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions.

Silly Rabbit! TWIDS are for kicks. Take two lumps (on the back of the head) and call me in the morning, just don't call me Sybil.

It was a local event that does not even show up on large area trends. Here's an analysis of that event:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100707124649/http://www.globalcoral.org/LONG%20TERM%20ARCTIC%20ICE%20TRENDS%20AND%20GLOBAL%20WARMING.1.pdf

I guess the current state of the Arctic is local as well given that the other side of the globe does not show the same trend. If we put the beginning of this century into the statistic of next century it will not show up either (If we do not want it too it never will).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/28/sea-ice-news-11/

http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm

Some reading.

This is the conclusion from the remarkably detailed and extensive actual data that clearly shows solid scientific evidence to support the conclusion (of the second link clipped into IdeaSmith's previous post):

Conclusion

Conclusion: The empirical data show that warming in recent decades is a northern hemisphere phenomenon - in particular an Arctic phenomenon -with no significant warming in the tropics or southern hemisphere.

It is not a global phenomenon

The graphics clearly demonstrate that the warming anomaly is limited primarily to the Northern Atlantic zone between Greenland and North America. The rest of the planet is clearly within the limits of error of NO WARMING. Message to the enviro-shills out there: stop lying and misrepresenting the actual data. Heck the IPCC cannot even admit that there ever was a warm cycle during the Middle Ages.

The web site you mention has many plots of data, some of them conflicting with others, showing that both the Northern and Southern hemispheres are warming, and the Northern hemisphere is warming more than the Southern, in most measures. No error bars are shown, so would you please explain why you think the Southern hemisphere is within the limits of error of "no warming"?

There is one cheap trick near the bottom of the web site. It shows lots of trends of global temperature, and then throws in one shot of a single snapshot of the world, in Feb, 2010, showing an unusually warm anomaly in the Arctic. You can't base anything on a single month, especially when the long term data shows increases in temperature all over the globe, with small decreases in small places in the Antarctic. But it looks good for the author's point.

Even if the Northern hemisphere were really the only one warming, we are still in serious trouble. Even if ONLY the Greenland glaciers and ice sheet were to melt, that would raise the sea level 20 feet, disrupt the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, and reduce the albedo in the Arctic, leading to more warming.

But the reality is that there is warming in the Southern hemisphere, too. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also being undermined by the unusually warm water below the surface, and if that melted it could raise the oceans by 10 to 16 feet by itself.

Two points:

(1) The warming on the Southern Hemisphere is minuscule compared to that of the one area between Newfoundland and Greenland. This average warming is well within the noticed variation of the non-averaged data, as I recall, and not only that, the models without anthropogenic contributions was able to cover this change. Thus, rather than say no warming, one could easily have said virtually none (since it is still practically invisible). Also the Western Antarctic ice is over a tectonic active zone, and this is the most likely root cause of warm water welling up under the ice.

(2) If the AMOC you mentioned shuts down, the oceans will generally not heat up, rather, they will cool down, and we will most likely be entering the next ice age. I am not a fan of causing either too much warming or the next ice age. The thing I am not seeing is what could possibly cause just the one area west of Greenland to be so much warmer than the historic average. Is something going on we are not accounting for at the bottom of the North Atlantic? Is there a giant caldera there we know nothing about, and it may be about to release a great load of heat?

Last I heard swimming ice when melting does not contribute to a change in sea level.

We are in trouble when there is ice rain. We are in trouble for a lot of things. And I even think that a sudden sea level change is possible for various reasons. So question is why have we not started abandoning coast towns, move into the mountains, do something else rather than tweaking our economic system?

Why???

I suspect that there is not really an interest to avoid disasters. There is just profound economic interests to spread fear and you are a carrier of this disease.

Wake up and make sure your family is secure. Beware mountains can fall, plains get flooded. Highlands have the best surviving chances (and the best Whisky).

Get there before it is too late!

So THAT's why the Busch beer commercial proudly exclaims: "Head for the Mountains."

Glub, glub, glub.

Don't let it dribble on your shirt, James,

That was not slobber, it was the sound of all the alarmists slowing sinking into the sunset, while I ride off on my pony. You guys are all a bunch of dodo heads.

?

So while it seems we both want the good to succeed we are still on the other side of the fence.

The "When it melts" question is the exact scaremongering that I am talking about.

When

If

Possible

So does it melt? If so how fast will it melt and what will it really mean for the sea level? You say change in sea level. Not very confident that it will rise?

Sea level change sounds like climate change, nothing to even qualify or quantify. Empty words!

Afraid of change we are. Why would we exclude the fossil fuel industry from those feelings.

But they are not driving the global warming scam. Thats for sure. They are on the receiving end for blame that they knew, that they are responsible.

I do not feel in inch threatened by them. In fact the fossil fuel industry has gotten us where we are right now. You and I are not living in poverty. And face it nobody is afraid of you. I feel sad for you that you so vehemently ignore that you are part of a scheme that is to spread fear. You are scared yourself.

You want the right thing, but if you look closely we are still doing more damage to this planet. It is not avoided by alarmist warming shouting. Rain forest still falls, water still gets polluted, people still suffer, there is wars, rape, bombings, endless stories of terror.
Do you really thing by admonishing CO2 you can stop this? Is the renewable energy industry so much better? Really? Will they stop war? Will they stop the rainforest being cut?

NO!

You are right in one thing, there might be a temporarily shift/push in economic activity. But only to the good for those on the pulling cord.

You are not saving Earth you just support a political scam to overthrow power with power.

Both are melting right now. When I say "when it melts" I mean that any meltwater that is released goes directly into the sea.

Consider that what you call scaremongering may be prudence and caution. At what point do you decide that we have messed with the atmosphere enough? It is like messing with the life support controls of your personal space station, without knowing what the controls do, and without having another place to move to. At what point do you decide to trust the people who say, "Don't mess with that!"

I agree completely the fossil fuel companies are not promoting global warming. And regarding blaming them, Exxon knew, and then decided to hide it and deny it, and fund lots of web sites denying it. I don't know if the Koch brothers actually believe one way or the other, but they are certainly funding propaganda denying it.

No need to feel sad for me, but thanks. I am scared of what's coming, but I don't think there is any way to avoid it. And we are still making it worse every day, but if we promote renewable energy we may avoid the really bad stuff.

The economic benefits are widespread and not just reserved for some imagined green elite. I'll list some of them them again. More jobs, less pollution, less mercury poisoning, less danger from frail coal ash dams, fewer deaths from accidents in coal mines, fewer wars in the Middle East, less terrorism, fewer refinery explosions, fewer oil spills, more reliable electrical grid, lower energy bills. I'm sure I've missed a few.

You're right that there are other bad things we can also try to avoid. Are you trying to help avoid or reduce those? If so, please continue, and accept my gratitude for your efforts. But, please don't try to discourage people from trying to avoid this one, because there are so many other benefits from reducing CO2 emission that even if global warming turns out to be a false alarm, we should be doing it anyway. If it turns out not be be a false alarm, we might still avoid the worst of it.

And btw you have been talking about:

.

But the reality is that there is warming in the Southern hemisphere, too. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also being undermined by the unusually warm water below the surface, and if that melted it could raise the oceans by 10 to 16 feet by itself.

.

Still mean to say that it was not floating ice you have been talking about?

I was unaware of the fact Warren Buffet is Republican. As for your economic theories, Kristal Nacht must have been a great idea.

Godwin was right.

Have you ever compared a map of the Hudson river when Henry sailed up it to a map of the Hudson today?

When you displace water by land fill (think of Battery Park City which is composed basically of the earth removed to build the World Trade Center) what happens to the water level?

The water level may rise, depending. I don't know what you are getting at. Could you just say it instead of asking questions?

Check out data for te ratr of sea rise at the end of the last glaciation.

Please make your point.

Are you saying the deep ocean conveyor belt currents have shut down, because if that is the case, we should all brace for impact with the end of the world as we know it. A new ice age is sure to follow quick on the heels of such an event.

The Bottom Line

The earth's climate (in contrast to the climate in current climate GCMs) is dominated by a strong net negative feedback. Climate sensitivity is on the order of 0.3°C, and such warming as may arise from increasing greenhouse gases will be indistinguishable from the fluctuations in climate that occur naturally from processes internal to the climate system itself.

The above is from this link:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

Hey alarmists: Instead of the positive feedback mechanism you bozos put in the model, the actual data shows a very sensitive (0.3 °C) NEGATIVE feedback system in the real data of observed LW (long wavelength) radiation to space. This acts as a clamp on global warming. What you need to realize is that your models are dead wrong, and Mother Nature has (and NASA satellites) have it dead right.

Not that any of this matters to brain dead politicians (all over the globe) who want to slave out the UN for their power grabbing, freedom quashing agendas. How do we stop them from carrying out this nefarious wiping out of Liberty? Easy. We shut down the UN, send all their diplomats home (their choice of freighter ship or body bag), and start over with sane leaders (if any can be found).

Do you mind telling us where you obtained this expertise, James? I see you like all kinds of aircraft and lawn equipment, you like Tesla, you like to tinker with stuff. You have interest in facilities management in what appears to be coal fired electric generation plants, although your direct experience is in water treatment. You went to a good school. Seriously, we have a lot in common. I like nothing better than to oppose a widely held view, but even I can't find a leg to stand on when it comes to analyzing the environmental damage caused by excessive extraction and combustion of fosillized organic fuels. I think we should slow down, what do you think?

I got what I have by being blessed of God with good genes, good parents, good food, shelter, and clothing. I got it from playing team sports in a small school. I got it from attending a Christian College (Mc Murry College, back then, now a University), then from a major research university (University of Utah). I got it from being a postdoctoral researcher at University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. I got it from playing Aces High II multi player WWII Sim game. I got it from studying my hero inventors from the past, Edison and Tesla. I got it from working in the crime labs of the Texas DPS. I got it from working in a nasty, dirty job at a small chemical company that uses Lignite to make drilling mud additives, and from staying at that job longer than the average bear that showed up from the city. I got it from working many years in electric power, not at a coal plant, but at Lubbock Power & Light, all of which is natural gas fired. I got it from competing in "Science Contest" in high school at the State Finalist level. I got it from listening to other engineers, from having a cousin that worked at NASA during the "golden" years, and from ordinary people with a hell of a lot more common sense than you and I put together.

I think the propaganda is getting harder to sort out from data. If NASA puts something out there that contradicts the government power, big government, big brother crowd, you can bet your arse that NASA is speaking the truth. When NASA says there is a negative feedback mechanism to climate change that is far more sensitive (0.3 C) than the (0.5 C) climate model positive feedback mechanism, and the negative feedback mechanism is based on actual SST measurements correlated with LW radiation back into space, that clearly shows 6-7 times the radiation levels the climate models predicted, then this lowers the so-called thermal equilibration point (actually the global mean steady-state point). In simple language: global warming, climate change is not happening (period)....at least not on any sort of critical or human-induced time scale.

I say, sit back, watch some football bowl games in the next couple of weeks, have a beer, enjoy some turkey, preferably ham, and eat lots of bacon. Enjoy youth and health while you have it, and remember to love your wife, and pass your genes (just not any stinking' thinking') to the next generation.

Here is how to turn the debate away from the hands of the Alinskyites to your control: Nail them with the lies in their own propaganda, and demand they fully document all purported data. Demand facts, and I promise that what you will receive in return is a shout down, emotion filled ranting, etc.

"Here is how to turn the debate away from the hands of the Alinskyites to your control: Nail them with the lies in their own propaganda, and demand they fully document all purported data. Demand facts, and I promise that what you will receive in return is a shout down, emotion filled ranting, etc."

Funny, that's exactly what I try to do with those who deny global warming is happening, with the same results.

That would be me looking at you looking at me looking at you looking at me.....

Hey are you looking at me? When NASA has clearly released hard data showing that the actual climate has a negative feedback system in place as per the input being temperature, and the output being LW radiation to space, (a key parameter in the climate model to show what is happening to the steady state, i.e. the model has a positive feedback mechanism with 0.5 C sensitivity to temperature) and this NASA data clearly shows emitted LW at approximately 7 times that predicted by the climate model, I must say, there is something fundamentally flawed with the construction of the model.

Please look, read, and think, maybe you will see what I am seeing.

You see something most people don't. That makes you special. I'm sure you will get the recognition you deserve. Maybe even your own recliner.

Sounds like I am being put out to pasture. Just remember the story about the old bull and the young bull. Can explain later if this story is unfamiliar to you.

I'm always happy to look at new data that may change my position on something. Can you give me a link to the NASA article you are talking about?

You say they have discovered a negative feedback system, but that doesn't imply the the obvious positive feedback systems are not valid anymore. Warming tundra really does produce more methane. That's a positive feedback effect. It is great if they have found a negative feedback effect to add to the overall system, but that makes it only one component of a very complex system.

Additional edit:

If you are referring to the article in the post, then please look at the other comments that have debunked it like 119. The ideas in the paper were already disproven before it was even published, the paper did not address any of the criticism that was raised before it was published, the journal accidentally chose all reviewers who were already biased against global warming, and the editor resigned as a result of his failure to catch the problem before it was published.

OK, I went and looked at post 132. Sorry I overlooked it before. You seem to be putting a very large amount of importance onto one paper, regardless of all the papers that have been published that disprove it. There is a summary and long discussion of it here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm

Here are the main points:

<start of clipping>

Lindzen and Choi tried to address some of the criticisms of their 2009 paper in a new version which they submitted in 2011 (LC11), after Lindzen himself went as far as to admit that their 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes...It was just embarrassing." However, LC11 did not address most of the main comments and contradictory results from their 2009 paper.

Lindzen and Choi first submitted LC11 to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) after adding some data from the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES).

PNAS editors sent LC11 out to four reviewers, who provided comments available here. Two of the reviewers were selected by Lindzen, and two others by the PNAS Board. All four reviewers were unanimous that while the subject matter of the paper was of sufficient general interest to warrant publication in PNAS, the paper was not of suitable quality, and its conclusions were not justified. Only one of the four reviewers felt that the procedures in the paper were adequately described.

As PNAS Reviewer 1 commented,

"The paper is based on...basic untested and fundamentally flawed assumptions about global climate sensitivity"

These remaining flaws in LC11 included:

• Assuming that that correlations observed in the tropics reflect global climate feedbacks.

• Focusing on short-term local tropical changes which might not be representative of equilibrium climate sensitivity, because for example the albedo feedback from melting ice at the poles is obviously not reflected in the tropics.

• Inadequately explaining methodology in the paper in sufficient detail to reproduce their analysis and results.

• Failing to explain the many contradictory results using the same or similar data (Trenberth, Chung, Murphy, and Dessler).

• Treating clouds as an internal initiator of climate change, as opposed to treating cloud changes solely as a climate feedback (as most climate scientists do) without any real justification for doing so.

As a result of these fundamental problems, PNAS rejected the paper, which Lindzen and Choi subsequently got published in a rather obscure Korean journal, the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science.

<end of clipping>

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/

This is just a visual presentation of the spectrum of LW radiation emitted, then re-absorbed and scattered in the atmosphere, for the most part. Interesting that the 10 micron wavelength appears to be more transparent than the 7 micron, 15, and 25 micron wavelengths. CO2 laser emits at 10.6 microns, so there can be gain of radiation absorbed at a shorter wavelength, then re-emitted at longer wavelength, even non-linear processes that may result in two photon absorption, with re-emission at a shorter wavelength. Not claiming any significance to this at all. Just mentioning.

In this discussion, the author mentioned something about "smoothing" the spectrum tells me he really does not understand molecular spectra at all. One does not do that, it is not noise he is seeing, it is the distinct absorption lines in gas phase for small poly-atomic (and perhaps diatomic) molecules. If one took his "smoothed" data, they would calculate entirely the wrong integral radiance in a band of wavelengths. This is why this whole topic can become intractable in a hurry.

I would sugest that everyone subscribe to the daily WattsUpWithThat website. It is free, and presents a plethora of data being worked on , by, many Scientists, including Deniers. Just not any Deniers, but Scientific folk who have the same , if not more, degrees in the Atmospheric sciences. Today's article ( 1 / 5 / 2015) mentions the Southern Ocean as a major CO2 contributor, just not in the way you may think.

Watts site is good for a laugh. These are not Scientific folk on this site, just rabid Neocon deniers who read a lot of BS from other rabid neocon deniers.We have a few around here, it seems.

http://wottsupwiththat.com/ is pretty funny, too, just in a way you might not expect..

Examples, please..Throwing rocks does nothing...

With all the rocks you chunk, good thing your office is in a bunker. I bet you would be a real hit at punkin' chunkin'.

What rocks are you referring to? Calling Watts a kook? Well ok then, guilty.

The way you say that makes it sound like it is happening now. It was an event that happened thousands of years ago. Is that your spin or his?

He manages to put a very persuasive spin on everything he posts. Like the article about soot and the surface melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet. One scientist said it happens every 150 years, and this one is right on schedule, and he plays that up. But if you look at the data, it turns out there were several between 750 AD and 1200 AD, and then one in 1889, and finally in 2012. It does not happen on a cycle. The one in 2012 was not "on schedule." It happens due to rare events, such as soot from forest fires, unusually high temperatures, and the jet stream being diverted, all of which are made worse by global warming.

Could it be that the localised Nothern hemisphere warming is because the jet stream is diverted? Just askin'!

Why is the Jet stream diverted?

Do not say due to warming. More scientific please. Any links for a lazy weatherman?

It goes the other way. The Jet Stream is diverted because as the northern hemisphere warms, there is a smaller difference in temperature between the Arctic and the Tropics, which results in larger meandering loops in the Jet Stream call Rossby Waves.

http://climatenexus.org/learn/planetary-systems/jet-stream

That is a better paper than the usual drivel. It closely matches what I was reading about climate change all the way back into the late 1980's that states clearly that it is so much a change in temperature, but a change in the energy state of the troposphere, leading to a higher tropopause boundary. This has the slowing effect on the jet stream westerly (west to east flow), and increases the meridian contribution (north-south etc.).

The result is that weather patterns in localized zones may be more persistent than was recorded in the past. In other words, worse droughts, worse flooding. It would seem we are observing such events, especially if these exceed known records dating back more than a few decades.

I guess we all better tuck our heads between our knees, and kiss our bees goodbye, since we are obviously all doomed. (tongue-in-cheek). My actual viewpoint on these changes: This is mother nature at her best, her finest hour, making a mid-course correction to the inputs in her system (including volcanic activity, mankind activity, etc.) At some point things will settle down, and go back to normal, although that could well be after we have left the planet for good. No tears, just saying, it could be because we leave on purpose (space, the final frontier), or because Mother decides we are too naughty to be allowed to breathe her air. Or just bad luck when a conundrum of events coincides to wipe us all out.

I would not let this make anyone miss their morning Cheerios and coffee. Advances in renewables and in proper applications of nuclear energy will provide a much lower carbon footprint (presuming that is the path we are forced to follow) in the near future. I read in just the last few days about new PV technologies that will absolutely make solar compete with the most efficient natural gas fired plants (now replacing coal, due to various reasons) within this decade. One new one put forth by a group at University of Illinois utilizes nanoscale bow-tie antennae to couple the incident light more efficiently to the tuned layers of the PV material where one layer can have a solar efficiency of up to 88% (that is 88% of that wavelength band being converted to electric energy), and the material has several band layers resulting in an overall efficiency of 66% conversion. A far cry from OT that only produced 8-10% efficiency.

Another one I read about (another research group) is using thermoelectric conversion of waste heat from CSPV, but coupled in a unique way so that a gain in efficiency of 6 times more than the previous thermoelectric method is achieved. Overall efficiency I think I recall on this one was in the high 20% range, and the technology is apparently very cost effective, compared to other PV, especially non-concentrated.

The reason I am keen on this is that peak power during summer refrigeration peak demand is what is needed. Solar energy plans match this demand in a unique way (most of the time), since higher temperatures are usually associated with the days that are less overcast. Buffering and storage of solar energy is key to production of a highly stable grid based upon this tech. There are recent gains in lead acid battery technology where an ultracapacitor is included within the battery components to allow deep or shallow cycling, and much improved operation with partial charge state. Also the rechargable aluminum battery research from Stanford University is highly appealing, much safer, less expensive than any Lithium ion tech. Furthermore, advances in sodium battery technology are being made recently that could offer even more light weight, high power density batteries, with far higher safety margins.

And don't forget the new molten salt nuclear reactors (yet to have one built, but the concept is so far ahead of the old reactor technology, there is no reason not to proceed: (1) can use spent nuclear fuel as fuel, (2)can also use non-enriched uranium, and (3) has a special safety feature no other design can boast, in the frozen salt plug dump feature, that will dump the reactor 100% sure in the event of power loss or other emergency where intention tripping of the core is required. All of the nuclear material is then dumped into a larger concrete containment where (1) neutron flux is lost, resulting in immediate shut-down of fission, and (2) the molten salt containing all the nuclear material cools off relatively quickly compared to other cores, and freezes to one solid mass, with a much lower radiation value than would be found in other designs. Hence, I vote two thumbs up and big kudos to the MIT graduate students who designed this.

Maybe perhaps that one reviewer is another one of you dodo heads.

I think there are two distinct groups in play on the deniers side.

One group flatly denies that the earth is warming. This group are fools.

One group denies that mankind's activities are the cause of the earth's warming. This we will not know, ever, because we will all be dead by the time definitive proof becomes available.

Beware Yellowstone, the great spoiler.

Good point regarding definitive proof. It took hundreds of years for Newton's laws of motion to be disproven and replaced by relativity. In the meantime, Newton's laws were a pretty good approximation of what was really happening.

Sure, we will not really understand the global climate thoroughly for a long time, but in the meantime, it looks like what is known is good enough to be able to see that trouble is coming, and probably why it is coming, and how to avoid making it even worse.

Even if global warming is due to some kind of completely unknown "natural" effect that nobody has ever thought of, pouring more CO2 into the atmosphere is like kicking the earth when it's down. You take a difficult situation and make it even more difficult.

It is not so much that Newton's Laws of Motion have ever been made obsolete by contrary proof. It is only that relativity presents another way to view gravitation, and corrections to mass and time at speeds (and accelerations) approaching the speed of light, also the inter-convertibility of matter and energy.

No one is kicking the earth while she is down. Gaia will be just fine after "we" are obsoleted by the next top species, whatever that is. Another thing to think about, most of the giant swings in climate change over the vast epochs of time had everything to do with some changes (that we have no control over) in a critical set of parameters that led to the change (heck we are not even sure we really know that the parameters were/are, much less how far they changed. We have ideas about them. 99.95% of time where the climate changed, mankind was not even a pimple on the horizon.

I didn't say Newton's laws were obsolete, but exactly the opposite. My point was they were a good enough approximation of the laws of motion to be very useful even if they were not actually "proven" to be true, even though Mercury behaved in ways as to "disprove" them. In the same way, we know enough about climate science to be aware that we may be causing a big problem, and we don't have to wait until some mythological process called "proof".

The fact that giant swings in climate occurred in the past (generally over thousands of years, or hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years) does not mean that mankind is not capable of causing another giant swing in a very short time. The fact that forest fires have been caused by lightning for eons does not mean that it is not possible for a man to start a forest fire.

I personally am not ready to call it quits and make way for the next big species. If all it takes is to stop using fossil fuels, it hardly seems like a big decision.

I doubt humans will die out, because we are extremely adaptable, more than any other species, in my opinion. But civilization may be destroyed by the rapidity of some of the changes that may happen. Gaia will be fine, in any case, and in a few million years all the big species that have gone extinct, or will be extinct soon, will be replaced by new ones, if the humans permit.

Let's see, Lyn---Major Ice age , per 10,000 years ago, then several minor ice ages--What happened in-between? What happened after? Well, I guess things warm up to get to equilibrium. Let us know the last REAL books regarding the Science, I mean something that includes words you may have to look up , in order to understand them. Not Websites, I mean actual books or papers...

The temperature of the Earth is showing a warming TREND since the end of the last glaciation 11-12000 years ago. The slope of the trend line while increasing is becoming lower.

If the trend starts becoming negative, we'll all have the outlook you have regarding Yellowstone.

so the sky isn't actually falling? great post on your part

Why thank you, Fredski! No, I am sure the sky will not fall, but it will go up and down, depending on updrafts and downdrafts.

Maybe it seems that given the media culture we have, any new mention of anything that could be a trend causes immediate panic and alarm. I am glad we as a culture are watching for "trends", and I am pretty encouraged by our species level of cooperation to work together in ways that can help those who are immediately in trouble when weather goes crazy, pollution gets out of control, crops fail, bees die off, etc. What I am really trying to say is that the only "crises" that make the news are the ones that fit in the agenda of mass media, the power grabbers, and the despots.

We still have not stopped the march of the fire ants. That is a real bonafide crisis. It is strictly back pages news, and really has nothing to do with the power elite agenda.

I don't see fire ants in my yard. Those who are worried about them must be over reacting, or at best, fail to understand them. Birds eat fire ants, I've read about it and seen them do it, therefore, I am not worried.

Without wading through the diatribes in the posting, the Forbes article is derived from the following, from which the Forbes rant is a bit of a reach:

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† Note added by the Publisher: This paper attracts great attention. Please refer to our policy regarding possibly controversial articles.* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.Received: 24 May 2011 / Revised: 13 July 2011 / Accepted: 15 July 2011 / Published: 25 July 2011 Download PDF [370 KB, uploaded 19 June 2014]

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.Keywords: climate; sensitivity; temperature; feedback; clouds; warming; CERES; models

In summary, it appears that a confounding factor may be the time horizon for the data sets, as well as the way the climate models are normalized around the aggregate "peak temperature". The magnitude (sensitivity) and skew of Spencer's data are relevant to model development and calibration. But the historic correlation of atmospheric carbon species with temperature epochs is increasingly well established from an ever broadening array of physical and bio indicators. It is a matter of numbers: How fast, when and second, third, etc. order consequences.

what posts are diatribe........besides yours?