• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NEW NASA Data Blows holes in the Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmist theories!!

GPS_Flex said:
Or, as you have proven, it is so much easier to just assume everything new is already explained, not bother to read the OP and attack the messenger.

You are the last person who should be acting all sanctimonious about reading before reacting right now Deuce. You stuck your foot in your mouth knee deep and aren’t man enough to admit you screwed up yet you lecture others about such issue as though you are one who pays attention to the details?

Please excuse me while I lol.
Click to expand...

Oh please. You're the one who still can't figure out that Watt's claim is still the same claim. Just because he updated it doesn't mean it's some new discussion that nobody had ever seen before. And, as you might have noticed if you'd actually read the paper, even Watts admits that the global average temperature figures are accurate.
 
Deuce said:
Oh please. You're the one who still can't figure out that Watt's claim is still the same claim. Just because he updated it doesn't mean it's some new discussion that nobody had ever seen before. And, as you might have noticed if you'd actually read the paper, even Watts admits that the global average temperature figures are accurate.
Click to expand...

I will post an appropriate response to your comments in the appropriate thread. My point in this thread was to simply point out that you shouldn’t be wagging your finger at others while telling them to go read the study before reacting because there is no way in hell you can pretend you didn’t do in another thread exactly what you are telling others not to do in this thread.

As I said, your other comments on the “Watts” topic will addressed in the appropriate thread shortly.
 
celticwar17 said:
To me it doesnt really make a difference whether global warming is true or untrue... i think all the same ecological reforms still ought to happen.
Click to expand...

Not if they cost jobs and hurt the economy.

The environmentally have known for a long time this was bogus BS but the guys who are at the top of these groups make a great deal of money keeping the lies alive.

We can be ecologists without being radical, stupid or, illogical idiots.
 
Deuce said:
The paper, by its own admission, is not drawing sweeping conclusions about anything. It states in plain text that it is talking about an unquantifiable discrepancy over an unresolved problem.

If you had read the paper instead of a highly-biased opinion piece from a member of a right-wing think tank, you would have been aware of this already.

You must be really desperate to cling to this paper as proof that AGW is "a farce."
Click to expand...

That would require Mr. V to 1) be honest and 2) read. I think we know the likelihood of either.
 
Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
3 August 2011 by Kevin Trenberth
This is a re-post of an article by Kevn Trenberth and John Fasullo on RealClimate

The hype surrounding a new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell (SB11) is impressive (see for instance Fox News); unfortunately, the paper itself is not.
News releases and blogs on climate "skeptic" web sites have publicized the claim from the paper’s news release that “Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming”. The paper has been published in a journal called Remote Sensing, which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does Not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

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 the methods in the paper is not sufficient to be able to replicate the results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated, and we find some points of contention.

The basic observational result seems to be similar to what we can produce, but use of slightly different datasets, such as the EBAF CERES dataset, changes the results to be somewhat less in magnitude. And some parts of the results do appear to be significant. So are they replicated in climate models? Spencer and Braswell say no, but this is where attempts to replicate their results require clarification. In contrast, some model results do appear to fall well within the range of uncertainties of the observations. How can that be?
For one, the observations cover a 10 year period. The models cover a Hundred year period for the 20th century.
[.........]
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”).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is one of many studies that have already been completed and will inevitably occur with more frequency in the near future, showing how inaccurate the IPCC models are and how far we really are from truly understanding the sensitivity of our global climate.

As our technological abilities increase and independent studies of our local and global environment increases, our understanding of global warming will likewise increase.

To the alarmist crowd who loves to fall back on “this doesn’t debunk AGW” I say it doesn’t need to debunk AGW. To the skeptics who say “this proves AGW is bunk” I say this proves nothing of the sort.

What this article shows, as many like it have in the past and many more will in the near future, is that the science is far from complete on the AGW issue and that there is much work to be done if we are to understand the true reasons why the Earth is warming.
 
So from this (the actual paper written by scientists who know what they're talking about)

The magnitude of the surface temperature response of the climate system to an imposed radiative
energy imbalance remains just as uncertain today as it was decades agoThe magnitude of the surface temperature response of the climate system to an imposed radiative
energy imbalance remains just as uncertain today as it was decades ago
Click to expand...

We get this, from an editorial written by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about:

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."
Click to expand...

and from that we leap over a huge chasm to the conclusion that AGW is a load of BS.

Is that about it?

The magnitude remains uncertain doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

The magnitude of the national debt five years from now is uncertain. Does that mean that there won't be one?
 
Dittohead not! said:
So from this (the actual paper written by scientists who know what they're talking about)



We get this, from an editorial written by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about:



and from that we leap over a huge chasm to the conclusion that AGW is a load of BS.

Is that about it?

The magnitude remains uncertain doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

The magnitude of the national debt five years from now is uncertain. Does that mean that there won't be one?
Click to expand...

It is evidence of another problem with the AGW theory. There will be many more to follow.
 
GPS_Flex said:
It is evidence of another problem with the AGW theory. There will be many more to follow.
Click to expand...

Only if the conclusions of the paper are accurate.
 
GPS_Flex said:
It passed a higher hurdle than your repository of comments from AGW bloggers didn’t it?
Click to expand...

Which comments from bloggers do you refer to?
 
Deuce said:
Which comments from bloggers do you refer to?
Click to expand...

Pick any of them and answer the question. Are you now taking the position that blogs are as worthwhile as published articles?
 
GPS_Flex said:
It is evidence of another problem with the AGW theory. There will be many more to follow.
Click to expand...

Yes, there will be many more bloggers who don't know what they're talking about, no doubt about it.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Pick any of them and answer the question. Are you now taking the position that blogs are as worthwhile as published articles?
Click to expand...

Now you're just making **** up. I'm done with you.
 
Deuce said:
Now you're just making **** up. I'm done with you.
Click to expand...

I see. When I claim that published articles carry more weight than blogs do, I’m just making stuff up but when you make that same claim, we should all stand at attention and respect your authority on this issue. Is this how it works?

It is a published article Deuce. Published articles carry more weight in the scientific community than blogs do. If you have a problem with this I don’t know what else to say to you other than you are wrong.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I see. When I claim that published articles carry more weight than blogs do, I’m just making stuff up but when you make that same claim, we should all stand at attention and respect your authority on this issue. Is this how it works?

It is a published article Deuce. Published articles carry more weight in the scientific community than blogs do. If you have a problem with this I don’t know what else to say to you other than you are wrong.
Click to expand...

I have never said blogs carry more weight than published articles. You made that up. That is why I'm done with you.
 
On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance : Greg Laden's Blog
7/29

[......]
Here's the difference between Spencer's model and what climate scientists think in the form of an analogy. Suppose you want to understand the process by which Great Aunt Tillie and her husband Roy get from their place in Hicksville New York to your Ma's house in Terrytown for Thanksgiving. The analogous approach used by climate scientists might be this: Observe the direction in which Great Aunt Tillie turns at each intersection, and also note that Uncle Roy is giving her instructions based on a map he's looking at. That may not be a perfect model ... construction related detours, misunderstandings between navigator and driver (Roy and Tillie have a hing going about driving and directions and have for years!) and the need to stop at Carvelle's for an ice cream cake all make the trip seem somewhat chaotic, but really, it isn't. Various factors directly or nearly directly determine the path from Hicksville to Terrytown.

Spencer, in contrast, would look at the seemingly random variations in the path the car takes as it mostly stays in a particular lane but occasionally wanders to one side of the road or another, or slows and speeds up in accordance with squirrels running across the road or Tillie's state of mind or other factors. Spencer's model claims to explain how Tillie and Roy manage to get from Hicksville to Terrytown on the basis of the accumulation of short term, random, and largely averaged out movements of the car on the roads.

Spencer and Braswell's paper is actually a pretty good example of academic fraud. The authors clearly understand enough climate science to know that what they are suggesting is impossible, absurd, and simply wrong.
The editors of Remote Sensing must have been very clever with their choice of peer reviewers to let this one past, and one wonders what their intentions are.

"On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance" is a big ol' bunch of hooey. I eagerly await an explanation from the journal's editors....."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think this article is on the right track because I am not convinced that cirrus clouds form as a result of warming and agree that clouds control global temps more than global temps control clouds.

If you don’t understand how the IPCC models’ algorithms treat cloud behavior you will have a hard time understanding the crux of this article, IMHO. The myriad of complex processes that determine the magnitude of positive or negative feedbacks in our climate system is still so unknown and new to us that articles like this should be welcomed and encouraged.

I am still waiting for someone to show inconclusively how and why clouds are more a result of temps than temps are a result of clouds. This article takes a step in that direction but leaves as many questions unanswered as it answers in this regard.
 
celticwar17 said:
To me it doesn't really make a difference whether global warming is true or untrue... i think all the same ecological reforms still ought to happen.
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree more. This whole global warming BS makes people concentrate on warming instead of real pollution. Countries world wide are still dumping toxins into rivers that eventually get into the ocean. Still burying 50 gallon drums of poison that eventually get into aquifer.Still sending carcinogens spewing into the air from giant smoke stacks.The global warming crap has made us take our eye off the ball. If I was a conspiracy freak I would say it was being done on purpose by a conglomerate of real polluters trying to divert publics attention from them.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I couldn't disagree more. This whole global warming BS makes people concentrate on warming instead of real pollution. Countries world wide are still dumping toxins into rivers that eventually get into the ocean. Still burying 50 gallon drums of poison that eventually get into aquifer.Still sending carcinogens spewing into the air from giant smoke stacks.The global warming crap has made us take our eye off the ball. If I was a conspiracy freak I would say it was being done on purpose by a conglomerate of real polluters trying to divert publics attention from them.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Plenty of attention is paid to other types of pollution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom