Nasa Aqua Satellite, models are wrong, global warming stopped.. 10 years... AGO.

MrVicchio · 03-23-08, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Climate facts to warm to | The Australian

So anyway, when you BOTHER to read this, then go ya know, read the FACTS you find that hey, the earth really isn't in for a catastrophic over heating moment, and the political stupidity that's GRIPPED the world of the last 15 years has been.. well childish non-sense... well for those of us that have been calling this for YEARS now are going to be right amused watching the collapse of the global warming BS.

Take this... THIS is why it's going to be fun:

Quote:

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

Now, before this continues, we'll get a whole lot of "this is crap" from Jfuh and Co. They'll claim among other charges that Meteorology (a field I myself have earned a PAYCHECK in.. unlike Jfuh who HAS NO experience, training or hell had to make a living figuring out the how why and when weather was happening) is not the same as climatology... anyone with half a brain realizes this is a worthless argument. While the areas of focus different, the methods, sciences and overall processes remain interchangeable and necessitate understanding the what was (which is climatology) to the why is (meteorology) to figure out what will be. See how that works?

So anyway, the writing has BEEN on the wall, I wonder how long people will keep buying into the POLITICAL movement, which is AGW and how fast will people realize what a poppycock BS story this has been, it will go down as the greatest hoax of the 21st century... and maybe just get people to quit trusting what they are told and start thinking for themselves again.

partier9 · 03-23-08, 12:27 PM

Im not really sure what to say. I guess ill wait for someone else to comment, before i decide on what to think about this article.

MrVicchio · 03-23-08, 02:17 PM

If someone can refute this, that'd be worth reading, but I'm expecting.. the usual "it's not true algore says so" sort fo climate debate we get around here.

The Nasa project that this is a part of if you go do teh research, was sent up to verify the models, and prove the validity of AGW.. it's done the opposite.

tecoyah · 03-23-08, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

If someone can refute this, that'd be worth reading, but I'm expecting.. the usual "it's not true algore says so" sort fo climate debate we get around here.

The Nasa project that this is a part of if you go do teh research, was sent up to verify the models, and prove the validity of AGW.. it's done the opposite.

The data is of course accurate, and the Disputes over interpretation are expected. A six year Data set is enough for science to extrapolate hypothesis somewhat accurately, but to claim fact for interpretation of the Data from either side of this issue seems silly to me. The Al Gores of the world only manage to cloud the whole Climate Change issue....just as the Michael Duffys and Jennifer Marohasys do.

ashurbanipal · 03-25-08, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

The IPA isn't exactly an unbiased, non-ideologue organization. Not that this necessarily makes them wrong (no--other stuff does that quite handily), but as the authors of the article point out below, ideologues often have a difficult time absorbing inconvenient facts.

Quote:

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

This seems a little disingenuous. See, for instance, the data here:

Eco-Economy Indicators: TEMPERATURE - Global Temperature Rise Accelerating

You may note that since the data began to be recorded, there are quite a few instances of years-long cooling periods. The overall trend, however, has been upward, especially since 1960 or so.

You can see here:

Eco-Economy Indicators: DATA - TEMPERATURE RISING - Average Global Temperature - With Projections - Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations - Average Global Temperature by Decade

That she picks 1998 for a reason, as it was a recent high point in the series. This makes it easy for her to argue her point, which really turns out to be insignificant in the face of the larger data. If you compare the average of any given decade to the decade before it, it's higher.

Quote:

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Why would it be unexpected? The models used by GW advocates indicate there will be periods of temperature plateaus, and even cooling periods. The overall, long-term trend will be upward, and that is what the data shows. So why it would be "very significant" isn't obvious.

Quote:

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

It's way too early to say that a trend that has lasted since at least 1960 has stopped, especially since temperatures are still well above the average then.

Quote:

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

This is a huge oversimplification. GM advocates claim that at times, certain natural mechanisms will reduce temperatures by a little bit, but that overall, the warming trend will continue.

Quote:

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

This could well be correct. I don't think anyone disputes the possibility. However, suppose it is correct and we go on adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Once the sun stops cooling, what will happen then?

Quote:

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Well, here's what NASA had to say about the findings:

NASA - Top Story - SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY - March 15, 2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by NASA

Their work verified water vapor is increasing in the atmosphere as the surface warms. They found the increases in water vapor were not as high as many climate-forecasting computer models have assumed. "Our study confirms the existence of a positive water vapor feedback in the atmosphere, but it may be weaker than we expected," Minschwaner said.

So it appears that Ms. Marohasy is lying. She has taken data that shows a positive feedback (though weaker than expected) and said it shows negative feedback. There's a huge, obvious difference...

Quote:

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

This bit is filled with transparent, and transparently bad, assumptions. The data does show that the models need to be changed. However, just as they need to reduce the water-vapor feedback effect, they're also going to need to take into account this:

Climate warning as Siberia melts - earth - 11 August 2005 - New Scientist

which will obviously produce a positive feedback.

Quote:

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

It doesn't sound to me like anyone is "in shock." I think people are adjusting their models to accomodate the findings. Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do?

Quote:

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

The author has "spoken truer than he purpos'd".

Quote:

A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.

Then again, it might also be wise to consider that so many learned individuals all lining up on the issue might be indicative that they're on to something.

Quote:

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

A "sceptical cast of mind" is hardly the "basis of empiricism." And it is quite delusional to believe that we will save the planet by recycling and catching public transport.

Quote:

Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?

1) McEwan is a novelist. He may be very intelligent (I think he is) but how qualified is he to comment on these matters, really? If you read the article itself (linked below) you see that he is commenting more on our collective response to CC than on whether or not it's actually taking place.

2) The point is, however, well-taken, and the only good one this author makes. The media do tend to over-exaggerate a story--any story--for the shock value. The media print what they think their readers want to read. And The Australian turns out to be no exception.

3) The actual article in question can be found online here:

Let's talk about climate change | openDemocracy

You will note, on reading it, that McEwan is not a Climate Change skeptic. He is a skeptic of ideology, and seems not to believe in short-term catastrophism. He also appears to be advocating for continued intelligent debate over our response.

Middleground · 03-25-08, 11:32 AM

Quote:

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

This is the point in which I stopped reading. How can an "expert" be fooled into the 1998 "cooling" point of reference? It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's deceptive in the least. It's obvious she is just pushing an agenda.

Gill · 03-26-08, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Middleground

This is the point in which I stopped reading. How can an "expert" be fooled into the 1998 "cooling" point of reference? It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's deceptive in the least. It's obvious she is just pushing an agenda.

The larger point is that she is correct... there has been cooling for the past ten years. It is very apparent in the past five years.

Will it continue? We don't know that, just as no one knows if the warming that started in the late 1970's will continue.

What we do know is that global temperatures have not risen for the past ten years although CO2 has continued to rise. Somebody will have egg on their faces, along with a total loss of credibility.

ashurbanipal · 03-26-08, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

The larger point is that she is correct... there has been cooling for the past ten years.

How is that a "larger" point? It seems to me that not only is it incorrect, it's trivial. 1998 was an aberrantly warm year. The next two years rolled off the 1998 average slightly, but now we're climbing back up. I linked to the temperatures in my post, above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

It is very apparent in the past five years.

The last five years we have data for do not show a cooling trend.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

Will it continue? We don't know that, just as no one knows if the warming that started in the late 1970's will continue.

Indeed. We also do not know if the Tooth Fairy exists or if the Earth really goes around the sun or vice versa...but we can make some pretty intelligent guesses about reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

What we do know is that global temperatures have not risen for the past ten years although CO2 has continued to rise. Somebody will have egg on their faces, along with a total loss of credibility.

It seems to me that global temperatures have risen. Comparing the last ten years to the previous ten gets a higher average temperature. And comparing those prior ten to the ten before that gets the same result. Etc.

Gill · 03-26-08, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashurbanipal

How is that a "larger" point? It seems to me that not only is it incorrect, it's trivial. 1998 was an aberrantly warm year. The next two years rolled off the 1998 average slightly, but now we're climbing back up. I linked to the temperatures in my post, above.

The last five years we have data for do not show a cooling trend.

Indeed. We also do not know if the Tooth Fairy exists or if the Earth really goes around the sun or vice versa...but we can make some pretty intelligent guesses about reality.

It seems to me that global temperatures have risen. Comparing the last ten years to the previous ten gets a higher average temperature. And comparing those prior ten to the ten before that gets the same result. Etc.

The trend lines don't appear to be rising to me. How about you?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Temp...since_2003.jpg

tecoyah · 03-26-08, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill

The trend lines don't appear to be rising to me. How about you?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Temp...since_2003.jpg

I guess it really depends on what graph you use....and how you decide to read it.Hate to tell you but, yours actually indicates warming...heh.

Mine does too: