Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

Cue the sad trombone...

Quote :

Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming

A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress.

The GOP hired known (but well credentialed) skeptic Richard Muller to study the statistical integrity of AGW. Much to their dismay, Muller played the part of scientist rather than ideologue and had to admit that his finding had thus far confirmed the work of NASA, NOAA, and every other organization on the planet.

Not like it mattered, though. House Republicans still have no interest in honesty or integrity; none of them were swayed by the evidence or testimony.

Heretic wrote:

UrRight wrote:

Darn, Heretic.
Did you ever consider that "that dust will be there...LOOOONG after I'm gone?"

What does that even mean? That we're immune to various biological laws and physics or that such biological collapses from said violations simply don't matter because the rock we inhabit is old?

Do you ever consider that "the dust will be there long after I'm gone?" in all your crazy ramblings on the dangers of minorities?

You seriously don't understand what she wrote? I mean, really?

Really.

Read a great line in Hot,Flat and Crowded by Thomas Friedman.
Mother Nature doesn't do bailouts!

Doesn't look too rosy now, does it? The whole theory is being shot to hell.

Quote :

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, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

[quote="BigWhiteGuy"]Doesn't look too rosy now, does it? The whole theory is being shot to hell.

Quote :

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer,

Yeah,the same nut who signed
An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

Quote :

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.
We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.


WHAT WE DENY

We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.
We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.
We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.

He also cashed in by writing to anti-climate change books,one in 2008 and one in 2010. I guess it must be time for a third I'll now tag off to Heretic and hear what he has to say

Roy Spencer. Creationist.

Do I even need to bother with this one?

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Doesn't look too rosy now, does it? The whole theory is being shot to hell.

Quote :

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, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Physics and chemistry control our climate. For a "scientist" like Roy Spencer to deny a basic fact like this is idiotic. The truth is that Spencer is being paid very well to peddle his crackpot theories to people who believe in fairy tales.

Spencer's interpretation notwithstanding, do you disagree with the data that was obtained?

Robin Banks wrote:

Spencer's interpretation notwithstanding, do you disagree with the data that was obtained?

The author of the article, James Taylor, didn't include any links to the data he was supposedly referencing. However, I'm not surprised since he works for the Heartland Institute and is paid to be a AGW denialist.

Heretic wrote:

Roy Spencer. Creationist.

Do I even need to bother with this one?

Solipsism: The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Roy Spencer. Creationist.

Do I even need to bother with this one?

Solipsism: The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified.

Wingnuttia:The term describes those individuals who,unable to find any scientific evidence to support their crazy theories,turn to fictional deities and the supernatural to prop up their arguments.

Robin Banks wrote:

Spencer's interpretation notwithstanding, do you disagree with the data that was obtained?

Yes, and it's easy to see why. Here's the rundown so far...

A known industry funded skeptic and Heartland Institute author (and creationist to boot), who has been wrong each and every time he's declared global warming (and evolution) over previously, has a global warming ending paper published in a geography journal. The subsequent End-Of-Everything-We-Know-About-Global-Warming story gets picked up a yet another known industry funded skeptic, proven liar, and Heartland Institute board member, James M. Taylor, at his editorial page on Forbes. Yahoo, for reasons I don't understand, reprints it as news rather than the overblown, hyperbolic editorial that it actually is, and it goes rightfully unnoticed until Drudge picks it up.

As to its accuracy, there have been no en masse reversals issued from NOAA, NASA, the National Academies, or any of the scientific organizations on the planet in the wake of such "mind-blowing" research. This, in my experience, simply means the study in question is bunk, but in BWG's world, this is just evidence of The Conspiracy!!!

But this is about the science, so once more into the fray, my friends!

The journal article itself is located here. The first thing that I notice right away is that it's not mere observational data, the satellite data, as claimed by Taylor, but rather satellite data ran through one of Spencer's own computer models.

You just have to love the hypocrisy of “skeptics”. After deriding the dangers and inaccuracy of “computer models”, Spencer debunks global warming with... drum roll please... computer models! Amazing how that works. See they're only bad when climatologists use 'em.

The truth is that climate models are tested on their ability to match observational data. In this case, Spencer's (who has a poor track record of modeling already) is still bunk:

Via RealClimate:

Quote :

The paper’s title “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” is provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors. The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results.

. . .

To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple (Einstein says that things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler): well this has gone way beyond being too simple (see for instance this post by Barry Bickmore). The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point. The clouds respond to ENSO, not the other way round [see: Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O'Dell, and T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314.] During ENSO there is a major uptake of heat by the ocean during the La Niña phase and the heat is moved around and stored in the ocean in the tropical western Pacific, setting the stage for the next El Niño, as which point it is redistributed across the tropical Pacific. The ocean cools as the atmosphere responds with characteristic El Niño weather patterns forced from the region that influence weather patterns world wide. Ocean dynamics play a major role in moving heat around, and atmosphere-ocean interaction is a key to the ENSO cycle. None of those processes are included in the Spencer model.

Even so, the Spencer interpretation has no merit. The interannual global temperature variations were not radiatively forced, as claimed for the 2000s, and therefore cannot be used to say anything about climate sensitivity. Clouds are not a forcing of the climate system (except for the small portion related to human related aerosol effects, which have a small effect on clouds). Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they do not cause the weather systems. Clouds may provide feedbacks on the weather systems. Spencer has made this error of confounding forcing and feedback before, and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results.

The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).

Via LiveScience:

Quote :

"He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer's new study.

. . .

In the new paper, Spencer looked at satellite data from 2000 to 2010 to compare cloud cover and surface temperatures. Using a simple model, he linked the two, finding, he said, that clouds drive warming. His comparisons of his data with six Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models showed, he said, that the models are too sensitive (meaning some variables, such as warming, increase at the slightest change in other factors) and that carbon dioxide is not likely to cause much warming at all. [Image Gallery: Curious Clouds]

However, no climate scientist contacted by LiveScience agreed.

The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. "What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear."

Other researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an "unrealistic" model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the observed temperature changes. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results being real, as opposed to chance fluctuations unrelated to the other variables in the experiment.

"I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Several researchers expressed frustration that the study was attracting media attention.

"If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime," Schmidt said. "Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record."

This part was especially telling:

Quote :

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming.

You wouldn't know that from Taylor's article, would you?

This is a fine example of the conservative media machine in action, though:

Quote :

Roy Spencer, one of the handful of publishing climate scientist ideologues, gets his work into an obscure journal. Then James Taylor, an operative for a fossil fuel front group [the same one Spencer works for. -H], claims it is "very important" on Forbes.com, a media website owned by a Republican billionaire. The Forbes blog post was redistributed by Yahoo! News, giving the headline "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" a further veneer of respectability, even though the full post is laughably hyperbolic, using "alarmist" or "alarmism" 15 times in nine paragraphs.

Referring to Spencer's previous attempts at modeling, but still relevant:

Quote :

What About Roy?

The take-home message here is that Spencer’s curve-fitting enterprise could (and did!) give him essentially any answer he wanted, as long as he didn’t mind using parameters that don’t make any physical sense. And let’s face it, Roy Spencer has established something of a track record in this area. In Part 1, we saw that he plugged unrealistic values (including a 50 m ocean mixed layer depth) into his simple climate model to prove that random variations in cloud cover could skew estimates of the feedback parameter, alpha. In Part 2, we saw that he glommed onto a single 2004 study that cast doubt on the standard explanation for the ice ages, but since then he has ignored the fact that the objections raised have been adequately answered. In this installment, I’ve shown that he once again employed unrealistic parameter values (including a 700 m deep ocean, rather than 50 m!!!) to get the answers he wanted. Finally, it turns out that years ago Roy Spencer and John Christy, who manage the UAH satellite temperature data set, made several mistakes in their data analysis that made it appear the temperature wasn’t rising like all the thermometers were saying. Ray Pierrehumbert summarized,

Quote :

We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.

So once again, all sound and fury, signifying... nothing.

Computer models can be misleading.

Exactly. They're only as good as they're ability to match observational data. Spencer's was off the rails, which is why it got published in a geography journal rather than one that deals with climate, atmospheric chemistry, or physics.

It's interesting what one can learn by actually reading the published work rather than depending on the interpretation of someone else.

I've busted up more than a few denier talking points that way. A study gets published (by a non-denier), conservative media picks it up, declares global warming over. Then I go find the part in the study that states the exact opposite of their claim, usually combined with a statement issued by the author of the study in direct response to all the media attention, "Stop misrepresenting my study; you don't know what you're talking about."

Increased snowfall in Antarctica was one, I think. Made the rounds in the conservative echo chamber for a while, despite the fact that the study explained quite clearly that increase was due to increased air temperatures, which allows the air to hold more moisture. More moisture means more snow. The author issue a press release telling them to stop misrepresenting his study, pointing out that they got it all wrong, but the damage had been done and there were never any retractions.

It works both ways. The point is that I believe it is best to get to the source of the information and draw conclusions based on actual data rather than take someone else's interpretation as fact. Many here subscribe to the latter method.

Absolutely. That's why I always link to the original studies whenever possible. So do the websites I quote from.

Quote :

Climate change: Species climbing higher and migrating north, study says

Go north (or up), young sagebrush.

That, in effect, is the survival imperative that global warming is handing organisms worldwide, and they are responding at a pace much faster than scientists estimated about a decade ago, according to a new study published in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

Researchers in Britain analyzed dozens of studies tracking changes in the ranges of some 1,376 species of plants, animals, and insects. They found that a warming climate is driving species toward higher latitudes at an average of nearly twice the pace that studies indicated in 2003. And species are migrating to higher altitudes nearly three times faster.

I wonder how Spencer explains that, with global warming not happening and all...

Robin Banks wrote:

It works both ways. The point is that I believe it is best to get to the source of the information and draw conclusions based on actual data rather than take someone else's interpretation as fact. Many here subscribe to the latter method.

Anyone who continues to deny that Global climate disruption is occurring belongs to one of several groups.
#1- People who are paid by fossil fuel companies to deny that AGW is occurring.
#2- A small minority of scientists who interpret the data about climate change and it's cause differently.
#3- Conservatives who won't accept the reality of climate change because the solution to climate change requires more government regulation and intervention.
Which group do you belong to,Robin?

Exactly where did I deny that the climate is changing? And as far as your "#2" goes, on what facts do you base your conclusion? Or did you take someone's word for it?

Robin Banks wrote:

Or did you take someone's word for it?

Yes, or as I call it, "deferring to the experts." Just like we all do when we go to the doctor.

happy jack wrote:

Global cooling.
Global warming.
Climate change.
Global climate disruption.
What will you be calling it next week?

Save for "global cooling", any of the above are applicable.