This is not something NASA is saying. I'm guessing that's why you didn't post a link - this article was written by a lawyer from the (edit: ) Heartland Institute
edit: Either that or he didn't bother to actually read the article he decided not to post a link to.
Last edited by Deuce; 08-16-11 at 09:06 PM.
One of you will end up here next!
⚧ C.T.L.W. You figure it out
My Endo doc went over my blood work. "I see your estrogen level is now at 315, do you feel like you have too much Estrogen now?"
I told her "... N... N.. No..." and started crying.
1. This new research is questionable. Since it contradicts, and does not confirm expectations about cirrus cloud formation as surface temperatures rise, it will have to be taken in context with other new findings from the new NASA Terra satellite. Note that the new data only confirms a trend already seen in the previous generation of satellite data. Nonetheless, I'll leave it to the atmospheric scientists to figure out (I'm a biologist). So I will concede the point without reservation:
Cirrus cloud formation and humidity have not increased as quickly as predicted by some climate change models.
2. This new finding (even if completely true) does NOTHING to change the facts of AGW. What I mean by that is that the response of cirrus cloud formation to increases in atmospheric temperature is just 1 variable in a host of equations used by climate modeling systems. The direct absorption by CO2, CH4, H2O, etc. remains unchallenged. The massive loss of land and sea ice - also unchallenged. The observed changes in global land and sea temperatures - unchallenged. The point is that even if detail 17b is incorrect, the headline does not need to be changed.
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire
All of that has been challenged. It's why AGW has been dismissed.
More on Councilman's Non-linked article for those not familiar.
The writer is James M. Taylor, a lawyer who writes for the Heartland Institute. (a libertarian think tank) In the article, Taylor is talking about a paper put out by Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell. In the paper, they say that climate sensitivity is lower than what "mainstream" climate scientists put it at. A few problems:
1) They use a "simplified model" of their own creation. This model assumes that clouds act as a forcing rather than a feedback - i.e. that some other, unknown cycle of cloud formation kickstarts a change in temperature.
2) The dataset used is very small - 2000-2010.
3) The paper was published in the journal Remote Sensing, not a journal that typically deals with this sort of analysis of climate.
4) Even the paper itself makes no declarations anywhere near as strong as Libertarian Lawyer claims it says. (this is very common. when you read an opinion article that talks about a paper, always check the paper itself to see that the article accurately represents it) From the paper:
So it's an unsolvable discrepancy of an unknown magnitude, and that's taking the paper at face value! Of course, quite a few scientists have already come out and pointed out technical flaws with the paper.The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,
probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite
and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of
lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy
in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due
primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.
One of you will end up here next!