New CO2 Orbiting Observatory Data looks nothing like the Super Computer Model

[IanC]

hat tip to asterism

Oct 1- Nov 11




not even close. (edit- go to 2:34 for Nov 1)


it is also interesting that CO2 hotspots seem to be present in tectonically active areas. NASA 8217 s new Orbiting Carbon Observatory shows potential tectonically-induced CO2 input from the ocean Watts Up With That

 

[Kosh]

And yet all this money spent on something that does NOT control climate..

 

[Old Rocks]

Real information from real scientists at the AGU conferance.




If that person has some real information, he will publish in a real peer reviewed scientific journal, not the equivelant of the Weekly Globe.

 

[IanC]

The old 'consistent with' excuse. They found CO2, so it was a success. Not really in the predicted places, or in the right amounts, but close enough for climate science.

 

[Old Rocks]

They found deviations from the models. As expected. And they found the CO2 coming from the expected places, then mixing in the atmosphere. Differances of only about 10 ppm high to low from place to place. And I saw no indications of tectonic sources for CO2 in the AGU presentation. Plenty of biomass and industrial sources which were blown around until well mixed. Overall, the models were in the ballpark, just lacking the detail that the satellite is now giving us. When that data is applied, and the next models made, they will be closer to reality, but still not exact. Too much chaos in the system for that.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, you consistently go with the dingbats at WUWT, none of which do real research, while ignoring the people who are doing the nuts and bolts of science. Why is that? What are you afraid of?

 

[Treeshepherd]

If that person has some real information, he will publish in a real peer reviewed scientific journal, not the equivelant of the Weekly Globe.

Climate scientists stay employed by convincing people that the CO2 situation is dire. They and their peers are so invested and dug in with AGW that 'peer reviewed'
is divorced from critical review. Confirmation bias.

And then there is the IPCC, administered by political appointees. 'Peer reviewed' there is like a peer review of the threat of floods at a convention of flood insurance salesmen.

I like Watts Up With That and Real Science. They offer alternative theories to what is happening with climate, which is ideally what a peer review should do. Science is not about being an acceptor or a denier. It's about asking questions.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

 

[IanC]

Ian, you consistently go with the dingbats at WUWT, none of which do real research, while ignoring the people who are doing the nuts and bolts of science. Why is that? What are you afraid of?

'what am I afraid of'? interesting question. I'll get back to it when I have time.

the short answer, in respect to analyzing climate science, is that I am afraid of being taken in by bloviating hack scientists that seem to be working to a preformed conclusion. the flip side is that I am afraid of missing out on interesting and new ways of looking at the data. I like and recognize smart people. McIntyre expresses the ideals of science more fully than just about anyone else out there. Willis is so smart that people have probably always considered him crazy because he is different. Hansen was once a great scientist, but he became an activist and lost his focus. Spencer, Mann and Jones are second rate. most of the climate scientists are either third rate, or hiding their light under a bushel to fit into the present paradigm.

 

[skookerasbil]

If that person has some real information, he will publish in a real peer reviewed scientific journal, not the equivelant of the Weekly Globe.

Climate scientists stay employed by convincing people that the CO2 situation is dire. They and their peers are so invested and dug in with AGW that 'peer reviewed'
is divorced from critical review. Confirmation bias.

And then there is the IPCC, administered by political appointees. 'Peer reviewed' there is like a peer review of the threat of floods at a convention of flood insurance salesmen.

I like Watts Up With That and Real Science. They offer alternative theories to what is happening with climate, which is ideally what a peer review should do. Science is not about being an acceptor or a denier. It's about asking questions.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

LMAO....."confirmation bias"!!!!

Indeed........the whole "peer review" process is rigged.

 

[Kosh]

Real information from real scientists at the AGU conferance.




If that person has some real information, he will publish in a real peer reviewed scientific journal, not the equivelant of the Weekly Globe.

More proof that this is a religion not based on science..

 

[Kosh]

And yet all this money spent on something that does NOT control climate..

All this time wasted on flap yap from someone that obviously doesn't know anything. Finish high school science and come back and talk.

Another looking in the mirror moment for the programmed AGW cult member..

 

[Kosh]

Ian, you consistently go with the dingbats at WUWT, none of which do real research, while ignoring the people who are doing the nuts and bolts of science. Why is that? What are you afraid of?

'what am I afraid of'? interesting question. I'll get back to it when I have time.

the short answer, in respect to analyzing climate science, is that I am afraid of being taken in by bloviating hack scientists that seem to be working to a preformed conclusion. the flip side is that I am afraid of missing out on interesting and new ways of looking at the data. I like and recognize smart people. McIntyre expresses the ideals of science more fully than just about anyone else out there. Willis is so smart that people have probably always considered him crazy because he is different. Hansen was once a great scientist, but he became an activist and lost his focus. Spencer, Mann and Jones are second rate. most of the climate scientists are either third rate, or hiding their light under a bushel to fit into the present paradigm.

No Hansen has always been a hack!

He used his activism to feed the AGW religion..

 

[FA_Q2]

They found deviations from the models. As expected. And they found the CO2 coming from the expected places, then mixing in the atmosphere. Differances of only about 10 ppm high to low from place to place. And I saw no indications of tectonic sources for CO2 in the AGU presentation. Plenty of biomass and industrial sources which were blown around until well mixed. Overall, the models were in the ballpark, just lacking the detail that the satellite is now giving us. When that data is applied, and the next models made, they will be closer to reality, but still not exact. Too much chaos in the system for that.

?

Looking at the predicted model, they were not in the ballpark at all. The entire concentration in the model was in the norther hemisphere with the southern hemisphere oceans seeing almost no elevated concentration and the big industrial nations having very very higher concentrations.

In the actual measured results we don't see that at all. The largest concentrations are over non-industrial areas SOUTH of the equator.

If anything, the predictive model was completely useless. Why the concentrations are different than the model suggest should be the topic here. If I understand the panel correctly, it was because of burning more than anything.

 

[Old Rocks]

Listen to the Goddamned lecture by the people that designed and built the satellite. What you are stating is totally wrong, and based on the two pictures in the OP, which are not related at all. That OP is a lie, known to the poster as such.

 

[FA_Q2]

Listen to the Goddamned lecture by the people that designed and built the satellite. What you are stating is totally wrong, and based on the two pictures in the OP, which are not related at all. That OP is a lie, known to the poster as such.

Well never mind then.
Are you always this vitriolic on this topic.

 

[Billy_Bob]

They found deviations from the models. As expected. And they found the CO2 coming from the expected places, then mixing in the atmosphere. Differances of only about 10 ppm high to low from place to place. And I saw no indications of tectonic sources for CO2 in the AGU presentation. Plenty of biomass and industrial sources which were blown around until well mixed. Overall, the models were in the ballpark, just lacking the detail that the satellite is now giving us. When that data is applied, and the next models made, they will be closer to reality, but still not exact. Too much chaos in the system for that.

?

Looking at the predicted model, they were not in the ballpark at all. The entire concentration in the model was in the norther hemisphere with the southern hemisphere oceans seeing almost no elevated concentration and the big industrial nations having very very higher concentrations.

In the actual measured results we don't see that at all. The largest concentrations are over non-industrial areas SOUTH of the equator.

If anything, the predictive model was completely useless. Why the concentrations are different than the model suggest should be the topic here. If I understand the panel correctly, it was because of burning more than anything.

The issue is Rain Forests and vegetation changes creating CO2 and dwarfing mans contribution by magnitudes of 100 times. Again the Model is laid waste as worthless.. Yet the alarmist want to seize your money and property for the GOOD OF ALL MAN KIND.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, you consistently go with the dingbats at WUWT, none of which do real research, while ignoring the people who are doing the nuts and bolts of science. Why is that? What are you afraid of?

'what am I afraid of'? interesting question. I'll get back to it when I have time.

the short answer, in respect to analyzing climate science, is that I am afraid of being taken in by bloviating hack scientists that seem to be working to a preformed conclusion. the flip side is that I am afraid of missing out on interesting and new ways of looking at the data. I like and recognize smart people. McIntyre expresses the ideals of science more fully than just about anyone else out there. Willis is so smart that people have probably always considered him crazy because he is different. Hansen was once a great scientist, but he became an activist and lost his focus. Spencer, Mann and Jones are second rate. most of the climate scientists are either third rate, or hiding their light under a bushel to fit into the present paradigm.

No Hansen has always been a hack!

He used his activism to feed the AGW religion..

James Hansen - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

James Edward Hansen (born March 29, 1941) is an American adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on a few occasions has led to his arrest.

After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. Hansen's development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate. In 2009 his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren, was published.[1] In 2012 he presented a 2012 TED Talk: Why I must speak out about climate change.[2]

From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

He currently directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute.[3] The program is working to continue to "connect the dots" from advancing basic climate science to promoting public awareness to advocating policy actions.

Early life and education[edit]
Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa to James Ivan Hansen and Gladys Ray Hansen.[4] He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at theGoddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[5]

A rather formidible resume of one of the most respected scientists in the world.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Listen to the Goddamned lecture by the people that designed and built the satellite. What you are stating is totally wrong, and based on the two pictures in the OP, which are not related at all. That OP is a lie, known to the poster as such.

Well never mind then.
Are you always this vitriolic on this topic.

Any time facts are involved he is vitriolic or is that Kookaid-aholic? The facts presented show that the model failed. He has a hard time when his religion is questioned.

 

[Old Rocks]

Listen to the Goddamned lecture by the people that designed and built the satellite. What you are stating is totally wrong, and based on the two pictures in the OP, which are not related at all. That OP is a lie, known to the poster as such.

Well never mind then.
Are you always this vitriolic on this topic.

Only when dealing with idiots. You see, you never bothered to listen to the people that designed and built that satellite. You just went with a lie without even checking it out. In my craft, that kind of idiot gets people killed, and I have no tolerance for them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ian, you consistently go with the dingbats at WUWT, none of which do real research, while ignoring the people who are doing the nuts and bolts of science. Why is that? What are you afraid of?

'what am I afraid of'? interesting question. I'll get back to it when I have time.

the short answer, in respect to analyzing climate science, is that I am afraid of being taken in by bloviating hack scientists that seem to be working to a preformed conclusion. the flip side is that I am afraid of missing out on interesting and new ways of looking at the data. I like and recognize smart people. McIntyre expresses the ideals of science more fully than just about anyone else out there. Willis is so smart that people have probably always considered him crazy because he is different. Hansen was once a great scientist, but he became an activist and lost his focus. Spencer, Mann and Jones are second rate. most of the climate scientists are either third rate, or hiding their light under a bushel to fit into the present paradigm.

No Hansen has always been a hack!

He used his activism to feed the AGW religion..

James Hansen - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

James Edward Hansen (born March 29, 1941) is an American adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on a few occasions has led to his arrest.

After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. Hansen's development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate. In 2009 his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren, was published.[1] In 2012 he presented a 2012 TED Talk: Why I must speak out about climate change.[2]

From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

He currently directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute.[3] The program is working to continue to "connect the dots" from advancing basic climate science to promoting public awareness to advocating policy actions.

Early life and education[edit]
Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa to James Ivan Hansen and Gladys Ray Hansen.[4] He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at theGoddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[5]

A rather formidible resume of one of the most respected scientists in the world.

Hansen is one of the most epic frauds on man kind. He and Mann are two very inseparable twins of fraud.