Scientist may have lied

[javaguru]

NASA Study Shatters Climate Alarmists’ Assumptions - By Mario Loyola - Planet Gore - National Review Online

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks.

Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said.

I've been criticizing the climate computer models for years...just sayin.

 

[nimbus]

Are the natural remediation mechanisms of the planet sufficient to cope with the higher CO2 emissions without interfering with life on the planet?

climate models say no, unless you don't care about major cities being completely flooded etc.

 

[nimbus]

2) Are there larger macro trends in global greenhouse gases that will overshadow our man-made emissions regardless?

i had a professor who argued this point vehemently. he says yes there are. his big thing was water vapor. most others i've talked to disagree. good question.

 

[mrplunkey]

climate models say no, unless you don't care about major cities being completely flooded etc.

Haven't these models been found wildly inaccurate?

Was it a model or just Al Gore who predicted some sea level catastrophe due in the 1980's or 1990's?

 

[nimbus]

1) Given that the third world (India and China) aren't stopping their industrialization regardless of what we learn about climate change, shouldn't 100% of our research be put on remediation techniques anyway?

Our GHG emissions per capita are way higher so in this case I think it's important to lead by example before putting too much pressure on the developing nations.

2) Our global supply of fossil fuels is limited. Therefore the CO2 they can release is limited. But the other, more nasty components resulting from incomplete combustion vary by how they are burned. On average, a barrel of oil in the US or Europe is burned vastly more cleanly than it would be in China or India. Wouldn't a true environmentalist want US and European cars to burn cleanly, but hope those developed nations deplete as much of those fossil fuels as quickly as possible?

our global supply is only limited by economics, not by the physical resource. if you look at unconventional sources like oil shale, there are trillions of barrels of potential production in the U.S. alone

 

[kx250rider]

Every decade needs a public panic, and every politician needs a (false) cause to support, and to divert government funding to. About a year ago, there was a student at Cal State Long Beach, who was writing a paper on Global Warming and the proof that it's not affected in any way, shape or form, by human actions. And he must have gotten some pretty damning evidence for his paper, because his "accidentally" drowned body was found in a river, and his dog was found (alive & well) with it's collar missing in another county, and his GF was found drugged and without ID, and walking around INSIDE the secured area of an airport 3000 miles away in Pittsburgh the next day. And by the way, the drowned bro was a swimming champion, and the water was 3 inches deep. And the kid's professor at CSULB was suddenly missing his computer and all his class files, and the kid's parents' computers were stolen in a mystery break-in. The Orange County Coroner (body was found a bit south of Long Beach), ruled that no autopsy was needed since it was "obviously an accidental drowning".

The kicker was; I was watching the KTLA News in Los Angeles the morning that the kid went missing, and they said about the college paper, and "what a star student he is" (didn't yet know about body found). Not only was the story NEVER mentioned again, but every link to it on the internet was dead the next day; ("page not found")

My take on it: He found some cancelled checks signed by Al Gore.

Charles

 

[-SD-]

Holy fucking conspiracy batman

 

[mrplunkey]

Our GHG emissions per capita are way higher so in this case I think it's important to lead by example before putting too much pressure on the developing nations.

Per capita isn't that important when you are outnumbered 20 to 1. Also, as their standard of living increases, their per capita usage will explode as well. They can't be more than 5-10 years away from suburbs.

our global supply is only limited by economics, not by the physical resource. if you look at unconventional sources like oil shale, there are trillions of barrels of potential production in the U.S. alone

If that's the case, we'll be on fossil fuels forever. The world will never shift away unless the alternative is cheaper.

 

[kx250rider]

If that's the case, we'll be on fossil fuels forever. The world will never shift away unless the alternative is cheaper.

........................................Until there's a realistic profit in other fuels and sources for motive power. Almost ALL of the research into alternative fuel, has been force-funded by the Democrats with taxes and fees put upon the oil industry. Believe me, and I'll put my life on this: Successful investors; whether they be in oil or real estate or beer, will put their money into something which WILL make a profit. That's the way America became what it is (oops, I mean WAS in the 1950s). The anti-corporate and anti-"rich" movements are actually just socialists, and should move to a nice, fair, equal place like Siberia. If you want to be an American and make it big, use your brain, open your eyes, and put your money and work into a product that someone will buy...

Charles

 

[mrplunkey]

........................................Until there's a realistic profit in other fuels and sources for motive power. Almost ALL of the research into alternative fuel, has been force-funded by the Democrats with taxes and fees put upon the oil industry. Believe me, and I'll put my life on this: Successful investors; whether they be in oil or real estate or beer, will put their money into something which WILL make a profit. That's the way America became what it is (oops, I mean WAS in the 1950s). The anti-corporate and anti-"rich" movements are actually just socialists, and should move to a nice, fair, equal place like Siberia. If you want to be an American and make it big, use your brain, open your eyes, and put your money and work into a product that someone will buy...

Charles

I like the term "force-funded". That's very descriptive.