Global Warming: For Experts Only

[stoic]

Tell you what. Find us ONE publishing climate scientist that denies man made global warming.

I mean denies, not casts doubt on or questions the degree of etc.....

What would be the point? Anybody here could easily do a search on the browser and find a list.

But it wouldn’t matter. You’d just call them “Whore’s of the fossil fuel industry”, spew out a few expletives, call them a name or two, then play the fool by essentially convincing yourself that you expressed an intelligent rebuttal.

 

[Slartibartfast]

that video is so slanted... it lies... Hansen's model has completely failed
the IPCC keeps making new models with lower temperature projections because as they say we don't have as much sensitivity to co2 as hansen predicted.



http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/02/...s-climate-reality-failure-its-still-ugly.html

insight:

• Essentially, the NASA model predicted temperatures would follow the bright green curve if GHGs were not curtailed. The cyan (aqua) curve datapoints are the predicted temperatures if GHGs were curtailed. Greenhouse gases have continued their accelerated growth, yet the observed temperatures (the green and pink circles) closely match the cyan curve. Simply, the model's predictions have been spectacularly wrong, worsening by the year.

...

As stated previously, the IPCC has confirmed the rapid, continuing growth of GHGs since the end of 1999, which per the NASA climate model, should have produced global warming equal to the bright green curve on the chart.

Instead, climate reality and natural climatic forces intruded - real world temperatures since 1988 resemble the cyan temperature curve of "draconian" emission cuts that Hansen's testimony implied would necessarily make global warming safe by end of 2014.

As it turns out, some 25+ years later at the end of 2014, we currently have achieved that implied 'safe' global warming that the climate modelers and experts predicted would not happen unless there were forced gigantic emission cuts.

Objectively, the empirical evidence leads to a couple of reality-based, undeniable and incontrovertible conclusions: policymakers should not rely on the unreliable climate models - they're egregiously wrong and not getting much better; and, climate experts truly do not understand the natural forces dominating the climate system.

I can see looking at that is temperatures are rising just more slowly than predicted. This could mean a partial model failure. But... lets look a little deeper as one of the big predictions has been that the upper atmosphere will cool due to CO2 as the lower heats. As observed on Venus. I recall that from a show called Tomorrow's World in the UK in the 80s

So this leads me after a bit of googling and straight to the found or missing tropospheric hot spot. Now to find the most reliable source.

 

[gwb-trading]

Well you could go by the opinions of politicians and internet experts. Or you could go by the opinion of actual experts.....

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Just to sample the above .....and reiterate that virtually no publishing climate scientist agrees with piezoe's tortured, impressive sounding but ultimately wrong opinion.

American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

There goes futurecurrents posting the climate.nasa.gov website again for the 800th time. Of course he ignores that this website is denounced by many NASA employees who demand it be taken down, and is maintained by college graduate students. Hopefully the Trump administration takes this absurdity down shortly.

 

[jem]

I am not sure what the value is of that projection relative to whether man made co2 causes warming and cooling..

in the lower atmopshere co2 acts as a blanket because it bounces heating energy back down.
in the upper atmosphere it acts as a sheild bounces warming rays back into space.

co2 is also very powerful coolant and acts as a thermostat.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/


Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

I can see looking at that is temperatures are rising just more slowly than predicted. This could mean a partial model failure. But... lets look a little deeper as one of the big predictions has been that the upper atmosphere will cool due to CO2 as the lower heats. As observed on Venus. I recall that from a show called Tomorrow's World in the UK in the 80s

So this leads me after a bit of googling and straight to the found or missing tropospheric hot spot. Now to find the most reliable source.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I am not sure what the value is of that projection relative to whether man made co2 causes warming and cooling..

in the lower atmopshere co2 acts as a blanket because it bounces heating energy back down.
in the upper atmosphere it acts as a sheild bounces warming rays back into space.

co2 is also very powerful coolant and acts as a thermostat.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Cruz chart



Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

Jem, that is going off into another area. I'm looking at history/accuracy of the earlier chart you posted. It is used on a lot of denial sites.

From what I can see there are significant measurement issues with the satellites (altitude change etc.) that having been adjust for their data is far better fit with the models.

The next thing is the balloon measurements. Then finding the source of the chart and checking it's authenticity in the first place.

Some stuff on how a couple of famous deniers Christie and Spencer were in error about their interpretation of the satellite temperature data.

Also interesting in the same video is seeing the scientist who developed the data Cruz used explaining how Cruz misrepresented it. Clever to acknowledge Christie's data was no longer acceptable but cheat with newer data.

Cruz's edited chart data:

Actual chart:

Edited: Ok, looking at the chart, from the "Otto et al:" paper, different versions of the chart from skeptic sites I see one issue.

The temperature trend is upwards so you can argue that the atmosphere is less sensitive than expected HOWEVER.. if you project the median line we still hit the same temperatures, just 10-15 years later.

To know for sure I would need to attach the missing last few years of data. Looking for that now.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Looking at the temperature data I found some quirks, but then I saw this.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2...traight-year-even-as-global-economy-grew.html

So the climate concern has produced a tangible change. All good stuff.

 

[jem]

I am not sure of your final point.
Satellite temperature was adjusted because some papers found that they were not compensating for drag. So I am not sure how old those comments are in the video.
But, lets grant your argument. Satellite data might slightly underestimate temps.
We still see the models are missing massively. And... there are still just models.

That is not science showing man made co2 is causing warming.

this is guy is a famous agw scientist..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch
this wiki article is quoting him from a article in der spiegle I have linked to in the past here.



Opinion on global warming[edit]
Storch said in testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006 that anthropogenic climate change exists:

"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."[2]
He is also known for an article in Der Spiegel he co-wrote with Nico Stehr, which states that:

"Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information."[3]
"The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."[4]
In December 2009, he expressed concern about the credibility of science and criticized some publicly visible scientists for simplifying and dramatizing their communications. He pointed to the German Waldsterben (Forest dieback) hype of the 1980s:[5]

Research about the forest die back in Germany may serve as an example at the other end of the spectrum. The science of forest damages was in the 1980s heavily politicized, and used as support for a specific preconceived "good" policy of environmental protection. The resulting overselling and dramatization broke down in the 1990s, and news about adverse developments in German forests is now a hard sell in Germany. An observer wrote in 2004: "The damage for the scientists is enormous. Nobody believes them any longer." Of course, the damage was not only limited to the forest researchers, but also to other environmental scientists and politicians as well.
In January 2011, Storch was counted among the 100 most influential Germans by the Focus magazine for being a "climate realist".[6]

On 20 June 2013 Storch stated "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year."[7]

View attachment 179402

Jem, that is going off into another area. I'm looking at history/accuracy of the earlier chart you posted. It is used on a lot of denial sites.

From what I can see there are significant measurement issues with the satellites (altitude change etc.) that having been adjust for their data is far better fit with the models.

The next thing is the balloon measurements. Then finding the source of the chart and checking it's authenticity in the first place.

Some stuff on how a couple of famous deniers Christie and Spencer were in error about their interpretation of the satellite temperature data.

Also interesting in the same video is seeing the scientist who developed the data Cruz used explaining how Cruz misrepresented it. Clever to acknowledge Christie's data was no longer acceptable but cheat with newer data.

Cruz's edited chart data:
View attachment 179403

Actual chart:

View attachment 179404

Edited: Ok, looking at the chart, from the "Otto et al:" paper, different versions of the chart from skeptic sites I see one issue.

The temperature trend is upwards so you can argue that the atmosphere is less sensitive than expected HOWEVER.. if you project the median line we still hit the same temperatures, just 10-15 years later.

To know for sure I would need to attach the missing last few years of data. Looking for that now.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I am not sure of your final point.
Satellite temperature was adjusted because some papers found that they were not compensating for drag. So I am not sure how old those comments are in the video.
But, lets grant your argument. Satellite data might slightly underestimate temps.
We still see the models are missing massively. And... there are still just models.

That is not science showing man made co2 is causing warming.

this is guy is a famous agw scientist..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch
this wiki article is quoting him from a article in der spiegle I have linked to in the past here.



Opinion on global warming[edit]
Storch said in testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006 that anthropogenic climate change exists:

"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."[2]
He is also known for an article in Der Spiegel he co-wrote with Nico Stehr, which states that:

"Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information."[3]
"The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."[4]
In December 2009, he expressed concern about the credibility of science and criticized some publicly visible scientists for simplifying and dramatizing their communications. He pointed to the German Waldsterben (Forest dieback) hype of the 1980s:[5]

Research about the forest die back in Germany may serve as an example at the other end of the spectrum. The science of forest damages was in the 1980s heavily politicized, and used as support for a specific preconceived "good" policy of environmental protection. The resulting overselling and dramatization broke down in the 1990s, and news about adverse developments in German forests is now a hard sell in Germany. An observer wrote in 2004: "The damage for the scientists is enormous. Nobody believes them any longer." Of course, the damage was not only limited to the forest researchers, but also to other environmental scientists and politicians as well.
In January 2011, Storch was counted among the 100 most influential Germans by the Focus magazine for being a "climate realist".[6]

On 20 June 2013 Storch stated "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year."[7]

I was discussing models with my friend, she has some expertise in forecasting. She advised me that the importance of models are overestimated and gave me some stuff to read. I'll need to take some time.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Surprised that the resident leftists haven't posted this. The end is near. maybe it's because the article identifies the real problem.
"The main reason for the rise is an expected 3.5% increase in emissions in China, the world’s biggest polluter"

India is the next big player. So the "scientists" tell us that if we don't get this in check by 2020 it's all over. Tipping point is past and we're all gonna' die. Leftist solution? Give the biggest polluters until 2030 to cut back, while leaning on America to do more emissions control even though that won't make any difference. Let that sink in. This is like saying if we let these bank robbers keep robbing our bank we'll be broke by 2020, but we've decided to allow the bank robbers to keep robbing the bank until 2030. The shear stupidity of that is even too much for a leftist to come up with, and that's where their real agenda gets exposed. Clean air isn't the goal. Crippling capitalism and destroying any ability for American industry to compete is the goal. America is evil, has exploited the world, and now must be punished.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...et-to-hit-record-high-in-2017-scientists-warn

 

[futurecurrents]

What would be the point? Anybody here could easily do a search on the browser and find a list.

But it wouldn’t matter. You’d just call them “Whore’s of the fossil fuel industry”, spew out a few expletives, call them a name or two, then play the fool by essentially convincing yourself that you expressed an intelligent rebuttal.

No you would NOT find one, let alone a list.

NO publishing climate scientist explictly denies man made global warming. I mean denies, not casts doubt on or questions the degree of etc.....

It should be easy to find one, he or she would stick out like a sore thumb. Contrast that with the fact that when asked, over 97% of climate scientists, Exxon, The Weather Channel, every science org in the world and common sense says man made global warming is happening.

The reason for that is simple. CO2 is an important greenhouse gas that largely controls the temp of the earth and man has raised it's level by 40%. These are facts, not opinions. Do you understand the simple logic in that?