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

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

^ This is why the Cult needs to be deprogrammed

 

[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.

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.

You have no idea what I did. You simply and blindly attacked.

You know, over in the politics forum we call those partisan hacks. I don't listen to them over there either, what makes you think that your comments mean squat over here when that is a goto response?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This can only mean that the unadjusted satellite readings are....DENIERS!!!!!

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That's why it's more properly called PAL review rather than peer review.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

He's a hack. He's been proven wrong so many times it's difficult to count. Here's one of his greatest hits:

 

[Crick]

This model was created 27 years ago.

As climate scientist John Christy noted, "this demonstrates that the old NASA [globalclimate model] was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere." However, Dr. Christy did not investigate why the climate model was too sensitive. There are two main reasons for Hansen's overestimate:

1. Scenario B, which was the closest to reality, slightly overestimated how much the atmospheric greenhouse gases would increase. This isn't just carbon dioxide. It also includes methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
2. Hansen's climate model had a rather high climate sensitivity parameter. Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere.

If we take into account the lower atmospheric greenhouse gas increases, we can compare the observed versus projected global temperature warming rates, as shown in theAdvanced version of this rebuttal. To accurately predict the global warming of the past 22 years, Hansen's climate model would have needed a climate sensitivity of about 3.4°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is within the likely range of climate sensitivity valueslisted as 2-4.5°C by the IPCC for a doubling of CO2. It is even a bit higher than the most likely value currently widely accepted as 3°C.

In short, the main reason Hansen's 1988 warming projections were too high is that he used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity. His results are actually evidence that the trueclimate sensitivity parameter is within the range accepted by the IPCC.

And, Paddy, where are YOUR models? You know, the ones that make no use of AGW but match the last century perfectly. You folks have had decades to make one, but.... I don't see any. I don't see a single one. Why is that Paddy?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Give us a summary, why did the satellite get it so wrong?

 

[Crick]

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

That would explain why for their entire professional careers they were/are hired by far more intelligent people than ever hired you, earned far more professional respect within their fields than you will ever receive, given far more responsibility than with which you will ever be trusted and paid far more money than you will ever earn.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They can't figure out that forests are big generators of CO2?

Wow.

Just fucking amazing

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Its obvious from the satellite that mankind is NOT the main generator of CO2

 

[mamooth]

For mid-October, the models are OCO-2 are pretty close. Some diffs, but both models and satellite measurements will improve now.

"Ocean sources" is conspiracy nonsense. Ocean pH measurements preclude it. You'd have to think all the ocean pH measurements are fraudulent ... oh wait, that's exactly the new conspiracy theory that WUWT is pushing now.

Have fun in your fantasy conspiracy world, deniers. Nobody else pays it any attention.

 

[bripat9643]

This model was created 27 years ago.

Yeah, right. It would be 100% accurate if it was published yesterday, right?

And, Paddy, where are YOUR models? You know, the ones that make no use of AGW but match the last century perfectly. You folks have had decades to make one, but.... I don't see any. I don't see a single one. Why is that Paddy?

Why should I publish any models? I'm not making an grandiose claims about the climate, and I'm not demanding that the government spend $trillions to mitigate it.

 

[jc456]

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.

what is a conferance?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[jc456]

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.

and yet you have no experiment. Doesn't that seem just a bit hypocritical to make that statement and not present the actual experiment that proves a theory on CO2 increases and temperature? Don't ya think, just maybe if you really believe your own crap, that would be the very first thing to present? but I digress!!! hypocrit is all you are.

 

[jc456]

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

That would explain why for their entire professional careers they were/are hired by far more intelligent people than ever hired you, earned far more professional respect within their fields than you will ever receive, given far more responsibility than with which you will ever be trusted and paid far more money than you will ever earn.

proving that it is for the money.................................................

 

[jc456]

This model was created 27 years ago.

Yeah, right. It would be 100% accurate if it was published yesterday, right?

And, Paddy, where are YOUR models? You know, the ones that make no use of AGW but match the last century perfectly. You folks have had decades to make one, but.... I don't see any. I don't see a single one. Why is that Paddy?

Why should I publish any models? I'm not making an grandiose claims about the climate, and I'm not demanding that the government spend $trillions to mitigate it.

they forgot to hire the dude to alter the data set,.

 

[westwall]

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.

They did? According to the high priests the highest levels of CO2 concentration should be in the northern hemisphere. NOTHING they have predicted, has been accurate.

 

[westwall]

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?

They do the "nuts and bolts' and yet they can't do the simple math. How is it that whenever their "nuts and bolts" work is actually looked at...it's wrong?

How is that olfraud? You claim these are the best and brightest and every time they release something it is ripped to shreds in hours or days. Now they are simply to frightened to release anything at all.

 

[jc456]

This model was created 27 years ago.

As climate scientist John Christy noted, "this demonstrates that the old NASA [globalclimate model] was considerably more sensitive to GHGs than is the real atmosphere." However, Dr. Christy did not investigate why the climate model was too sensitive. There are two main reasons for Hansen's overestimate:

1. Scenario B, which was the closest to reality, slightly overestimated how much the atmospheric greenhouse gases would increase. This isn't just carbon dioxide. It also includes methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
2. Hansen's climate model had a rather high climate sensitivity parameter. Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere.

If we take into account the lower atmospheric greenhouse gas increases, we can compare the observed versus projected global temperature warming rates, as shown in theAdvanced version of this rebuttal. To accurately predict the global warming of the past 22 years, Hansen's climate model would have needed a climate sensitivity of about 3.4°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is within the likely range of climate sensitivity valueslisted as 2-4.5°C by the IPCC for a doubling of CO2. It is even a bit higher than the most likely value currently widely accepted as 3°C.

In short, the main reason Hansen's 1988 warming projections were too high is that he used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity. His results are actually evidence that the trueclimate sensitivity parameter is within the range accepted by the IPCC.

And, Paddy, where are YOUR models? You know, the ones that make no use of AGW but match the last century perfectly. You folks have had decades to make one, but.... I don't see any. I don't see a single one. Why is that Paddy?

and why is it we need models? We have no agenda. We spend most of our time taking observed data and pointing to the errorred models that your side continues to produce and show you the errors of your way. No fee needed, no political pull required. You're just LoSiNg and feel like if you do it then we all need to do it, Right?