New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism

[westwall]

the fact that we are allow more heat in is already bad

Ummm...how do we keep heat from getting in? Big umbrellas?

 

[daveman]

the fact that we are allow more heat in is already bad

Ummm...how do we keep heat from getting in? Big umbrellas?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Spencer believes in a failed "theory" of the green house effect. It's a proven fact that
1# that molecules can't heat the surface of the earth, as "if" they tried to readmit energy back towards the surface. The flow will be from cold to hot, which breaks the first and second law of thermal dynamics. A LAW!
2# Molecules can't transfer energy to another like molecule as a molecule of co2 has the same energy as another.

You people shown me that the greenhouse effect is a crock of shit and yet you're praising this guy that believes in a green house effect? The green house effect is a crock and the theory is based on the fact that some how the whole planet at all times is heated by the sun, but the truth is only half of it is. It also doesn't have twice the energy near the surface as is allowed into space. That is a fairly tale. A SICK JOKE!

So the reason that less energy is going into space is because of the sun is putting less energy into the system, which could become OLR. RIGHT?


Stop praising this lier and believer in a lie! This guy maybe a moderate, but a moderate kook is still a kook!

This guy is NOT even a skeptic as he believes in a failed idea that is impossible. He is a pie in the sky believer. Only difference is he doesn't yell it as loud.

 

[Si modo]

How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.

Like the other side's dispassionate assessment of the data? Really? You alarmist started this slippery slope back in the 70's making dire predictions based on models and not facts. You guys play loose and fast with (falsified) data and now you want some decorum?

Sciencific fraud of this magnitude would have completely and totally invalidated any arguement people were trying to propose:

1. Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth’s temperature;

2. Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);

3. Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;

4. Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.

You got a lot of nerve man.

I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!

The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?


That's the logic behind AGW.

....

There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.

 

[ScienceRocks]

"NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted"

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.

Yep, the article is biased. The data, however, proves that the Earth is losing more heat than climate models predict. That means that all the models that are predicated on the Earth retaining heat at a higher rate are actually wrong.

Maybe, because the very idea of the green house effect has been proven to be a crock of crap. Here is the math and the physics proving it. The DEBATE IS NOW OVER!!!! http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

You can't go against a law of physics!

 

[daveman]

Like the other side's dispassionate assessment of the data? Really? You alarmist started this slippery slope back in the 70's making dire predictions based on models and not facts. You guys play loose and fast with (falsified) data and now you want some decorum?

Sciencific fraud of this magnitude would have completely and totally invalidated any arguement people were trying to propose:

1. Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth’s temperature;

2. Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);

3. Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;

4. Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.

You got a lot of nerve man.

I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!

The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?


That's the logic behind AGW.

....

There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.

Yeah, but it's all they've got.

 

[Si modo]

I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!

The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?


That's the logic behind AGW.

....

There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.

Yeah, but it's all they've got.

And, it's not like Komrade hasn't been told about this fallacy before. That's why I call him a moron...or just a cultist tool...either is feasible.

Seriously, it is all they have.

 

[daveman]

There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.

Yeah, but it's all they've got.

And, it's not like Komrade hasn't been told about this fallacy before. That's why I call him a moron...or just a cultist tool...either is feasible.

Seriously, it is all they have.

And there they are, each and every one of them selfishly and irresponsibly exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere, hastening our eventual deaths.

 

[wirebender]

So the reason that less energy is going into space is because of the sun is putting less energy into the system, which could become OLR. RIGHT?

Don't forget that water vapor actually can absorb and store heat. The reason less energy is going into space than the models predict is that the models can't account for relative humidity across the globe. Tenberth can't find his missing heat because he has no clue that a fair amount of it is moving through the atmosphere trapped in water vapor. Of course it doesn't radiate down to earth, but it is still there.

Glad to see that you read the paper regarding the failure of current models to even attempt to model reality. Stands to reason that if you model a fantasy, the results that model will produce will reflect a fantasy doesn't it? I find it very interesting that if you model reality, a greenhouse effect is not necessary.

 

[wirebender]

I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!

Not so much nerve as tunnel vision. You simply can't see the data, and real world observations that prove your hypothesis wrong.

The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.

Really? Show me some of that documentation. I have been asking for months and no one seems to be able to provide it, or anything like it. Rocks produces a piece of scripture that doesn't even start to prove anything and the rest of the congregation is no more helpful. If this property is so well documented, you should have no problem providing some of it and if you can't provide it, then that fact should clue you in to one of the problems with your hypothesis.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

But nowhere near as high as at various times in history. Times in which we were in ice ages even. And the fact that CO2 concentrations are higher doesn't prove anything but CO2 concentrations are higher. That is not evidence that man is causing climate change.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

The trend has continued but the warming hasn't. CO2 concentrations keep rising but the heat doesn't. We have seen this before in paleohistory. CO2 doesn't drive the climate. It isn't even a back seat driver. CO2 is the fuzz on the carpet in the trunk as far as driving the climate goes.

That's the logic behind AGW. If you notice in the article, it doesn't say that energy isn't being trapped, just that the rate is slower than some expect. Well, that's really a go-hum conclusion, since AGW proponents aren't unanimous in their predictions of how fast warming is coming, anyway. Just that it's coming.

Water vapor traps energy, not CO2. The models don't account for water vapor. The models can't because relative humidity across the globe is to complex to model at this point in time. The heat being trapped is due to water vapor which isn't being modeled.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So the reason that less energy is going into space is because of the sun is putting less energy into the system, which could become OLR. RIGHT?

Don't forget that water vapor actually can absorb and store heat. The reason less energy is going into space than the models predict is that the models can't account for relative humidity across the globe. Tenberth can't find his missing heat because he has no clue that a fair amount of it is moving through the atmosphere trapped in water vapor. Of course it doesn't radiate down to earth, but it is still there.

Glad to see that you read the paper regarding the failure of current models to even attempt to model reality. Stands to reason that if you model a fantasy, the results that model will produce will reflect a fantasy doesn't it? I find it very interesting that if you model reality, a greenhouse effect is not necessary.

It just makes sense when it comes to the physics as it is backed up by sound physics that should be known by a phd in the field like Hansen, but there is no question it doesn't work. The "paper" made a very good case on the realities of the climate system and how the green house model just doesn't work within the reality...Lets just say it lays the blanket on the warmers to find away to get around the laws of thermal dynamics and everything else that doesn't fit, because they aren't really able to put up a strong case to why I should believe there case over the one presented to me by that page, and in fact that paper makes 100 times more sense than anything at skeptical science. I know old rocks and everyone else that's a warmer is going to say it's from a skeptic science institution, but that is the way science works??? The other side(skeptic side) put together a good case that makes sense and shows the weaknesses within the theory and shows how it couldn't work. That is how real science works as two sides argue over there idea's. Lets just say it is no wonder it was not accepted and there was so much arguments for so long.

Water vapor is a very important "gas" within our atmosphere and the main component within the internal weather system, its ability to store heat and release it is what makes weather possible.

In yes I'm a weather and geology nut and will likely keep watching the natural pattern of things and watch the paint dry with the sea ice!

 

[IanC]

How can you believe an article that's obviously biased? The fact that they use the word "alarmism" and "gaping hole" indicates an agenda rather than a dispassionate assessment of the data.

Yep, the article is biased. The data, however, proves that the Earth is losing more heat than climate models predict. That means that all the models that are predicated on the Earth retaining heat at a higher rate are actually wrong.

Maybe, because the very idea of the green house effect has been proven to be a crock of crap. Here is the math and the physics proving it. The DEBATE IS NOW OVER!!!! http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

You can't go against a law of physics!

interesting paper Matt, if a little hard to get through.

you should give it its own thread. a lot of the problems in the GW debate stem from the definitions of the problems and answers. Occam's Razor states that the reason for something should be the simplist explanation but NOT SIMPLER! your paper invokes the complexities of day and night as necessary complications to describe a more complete description of the thermal physics. just as Spencer and Lindzen describe localized cloud events to give better understanding than the large grid patterns inherent in global climate models.

I have always had a problem with SB blackbody predictions because the earth is a greybody because of the thermal qualities of land, ocean and atmosphere. here is the latest article on this subject from The Inconvenient Skeptic, an exceptionally bright young man whose blog seems to constantly discuss ideas just before they become more mainstream. The Inconvenient Skeptic » Time Lag and the Moon’s surface.. there are links to previous articles on the same subject and the comment sections are often even more enlightening.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.

Yeah, but it's all they've got.

And, it's not like Komrade hasn't been told about this fallacy before. That's why I call him a moron...or just a cultist tool...either is feasible.

Seriously, it is all they have.

LOL. Sis, you are still tooting that horn? What a fucking moron you are showing yourself to be. The American Institute of Physics states that the causation has been known for at least 150 years.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The American Geophysical Union and the Geological Society of America both have very clear and unequivocal statements concerning the causation of the present warming.


Introduction - 2007GB002953

1. Introduction
[2] During the last decades the global climate research community has established the growing influence of human greenhouse gas emissions on Earth's climate. This research has culminated every 6 years in the publication of the assessment reports (ARs) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Each time a new AR has been published the impact of burning fossil fuel has become more evident as reflected in the following two statements from the three most recent successive reports. “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate” (2nd AR [IPCC, 1995]). “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” (3rd AR [IPCC, 2001]). “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (AR4, [IPCC, 2007]). The increasing knowledge about global warming has not yet been paralleled with increasing action to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” as required by Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Instead anthropogenic carbon emissions have been increasing faster than ever during the last years [Marland et al., 2006] (see also Carbon emissions rising faster than ever - environment - 10 November 2006 - New Scientist) and have been closely tracking business-as-usual scenarios rather than scenarios of CO2 stabilization at levels below 650 ppmv. The long-term response of the global climate system to a continuation of the present emission trends, in which most readily available fossil fuel resources are burned and released to the atmosphere, is a matter of concern. Here we explore this scenario through simulations with a coupled intermediate complexity model of climate, ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles.

[3] Most projections of climate change, including the fully coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model simulations performed for the 3rd AR [IPCC, 2001] and AR4, have been limited to the 21st century, in some cases the next few centuries. This is also true for estimates of future climate–carbon cycle feedbacks [Maier-Reimer et al., 1996; Sarmiento et al., 1998; Matear and Hirst, 1999; Cox et al., 2000; Joos et al., 2001; Dufresne et al., 2002; Friedlingstein et al., 2003; Jones et al., 2003; Zeng et al., 2004; Govindasamy et al., 2005; Friedlingstein et al., 2006] and changes in ocean ecosystems [Sarmiento et al., 2004]. However, it is clear that anthropogenic carbon will remain much longer in the climate system causing climate changes for many millennia to come [Archer et al., 1998; Loutre and Berger, 2000; Archer and Ganopolski, 2005]. Hence here we present climate change projections for 2000 years into the future. Such multimillennial timescale simulations have previously been only possible with highly simplified models [Archer et al., 1998; Joos et al., 1999; Knutti et al., 2003; Lenton et al., 2006], but are now feasible with more detailed models because of increased computer power. The model we use here is much improved relative to those of previous studies with respect to the simulation of ocean circulation and ventilation, as well as the representation of the marine ecosystem and biogeochemical cycles. We will focus our discussion on these aspects of the model simulation. A detailed description of the terrestrial ecosystem and carbon cycle model response to global warming can be found in the work of Matthews et al. [2005b]. We provide the first estimate of the future climate–carbon cycle feedback on multimillennial timescales.

 

[Si modo]

Yeah, but it's all they've got.

And, it's not like Komrade hasn't been told about this fallacy before. That's why I call him a moron...or just a cultist tool...either is feasible.

Seriously, it is all they have.

LOL. Sis, you are still tooting that horn? What a fucking moron you are showing yourself to be. ....

Yes, I am still 'tooting that horn'. No matter how much you cry about it, equating correlation to causation is a logical fallacy.

 

[Old Rocks]

I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!

Not so much nerve as tunnel vision. You simply can't see the data, and real world observations that prove your hypothesis wrong.

The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.

Really? Show me some of that documentation. I have been asking for months and no one seems to be able to provide it, or anything like it. Rocks produces a piece of scripture that doesn't even start to prove anything and the rest of the congregation is no more helpful. If this property is so well documented, you should have no problem providing some of it and if you can't provide it, then that fact should clue you in to one of the problems with your hypothesis.



But nowhere near as high as at various times in history. Times in which we were in ice ages even. And the fact that CO2 concentrations are higher doesn't prove anything but CO2 concentrations are higher. That is not evidence that man is causing climate change.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

The trend has continued but the warming hasn't. CO2 concentrations keep rising but the heat doesn't. We have seen this before in paleohistory. CO2 doesn't drive the climate. It isn't even a back seat driver. CO2 is the fuzz on the carpet in the trunk as far as driving the climate goes.

That's the logic behind AGW. If you notice in the article, it doesn't say that energy isn't being trapped, just that the rate is slower than some expect. Well, that's really a go-hum conclusion, since AGW proponents aren't unanimous in their predictions of how fast warming is coming, anyway. Just that it's coming.

Water vapor traps energy, not CO2. The models don't account for water vapor. The models can't because relative humidity across the globe is to complex to model at this point in time. The heat being trapped is due to water vapor which isn't being modeled.

You have been shown the documentation for months.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[konradv]

Like the other side's dispassionate assessment of the data? Really? You alarmist started this slippery slope back in the 70's making dire predictions based on models and not facts. You guys play loose and fast with (falsified) data and now you want some decorum?

Sciencific fraud of this magnitude would have completely and totally invalidated any arguement people were trying to propose:

1. Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth’s temperature;

2. Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);

3. Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;

4. Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.

You got a lot of nerve man.

I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!

The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?


That's the logic behind AGW.

....

There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.

That isn't correlation, however. That's a logical syllogism. Find the flaw, if you can, but your previous comment is a FAIL!!!

 

[Si modo]

I've got nerve? You're the that ascribes to a position that doesn't meet the logic test!!!

The energy-trapping properties of CO2 and the other GHGs are well documented.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 30-40%, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?


That's the logic behind AGW.

....

There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.

That isn't correlation, however. That's a logical syllogism. Find the flaw, if you can, but your previous comment is a FAIL!!!

Yes it is correlation: CO2 increases and that causes warming.

Moron.

 

[Big Fitz]

There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.

That isn't correlation, however. That's a logical syllogism. Find the flaw, if you can, but your previous comment is a FAIL!!!

Yes it is correlation: CO2 increases and that causes warming.

Moron.

This is just a scream. Konnie and Crocks suddenly have their two favorite sources turn against them and shatter their foundations for their faith.

But of course, it's just deniers spouting nonsense.

 

[konradv]

There is no logic to correlation equaling causation, moron.

That isn't correlation, however. That's a logical syllogism. Find the flaw, if you can, but your previous comment is a FAIL!!!

Yes it is correlation: CO2 increases and that causes warming.

Moron.

CO2 trapping energy isn't correlation, it's observed scientific fact. If it happens in the laboratory, why wouldn't it happen in the atmosphere? More trapped energy, more heat retention. That's LOGIC.

 

[konradv]

That isn't correlation, however. That's a logical syllogism. Find the flaw, if you can, but your previous comment is a FAIL!!!

Yes it is correlation: CO2 increases and that causes warming.

Moron.

This is just a scream. Konnie and Crocks suddenly have their two favorite sources turn against them and shatter their foundations for their faith.

But of course, it's just deniers spouting nonsense.

No such luck. The article in question gave no indication of "shattered foundations", just a difference in degree. Not all AGW believers hold to the same timeline, anyway. Those are two different questions, YES/NO and how much.