Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[michaelsuede]

Well, the actual paper keeps timing out, so....

weeeeeeee...

try this link

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Perhaps michaelsuede is missing my point - value laden language is the opposite of journalism, and thus the original quoted article can be filed under "propaganda." It goes into that round storage container next to the desk. Yes, the one with banana peels.

 

[Trakar]

The inconsistencies are astounding. Which is it?

These two statements argue the same point, from the same perspective!?

Originally Posted by BenBurch
You SHOULD be paying for the damage you do.

Ben is arguing that individuals (regardless of whether they are real people or corporate "persons") should pay for the damages they do

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku
Why should we continue to artifically pad corporate profits while picking up the tab for cleaning up their pollution...

I am arguing that by not forcing corporations to pay for the damages they do, tax payers are effectively subsidizing the portion of corporate profits which should be paying for these damages while building up a public debt in the form of the damgaes which we will have to pay to correct out of tax monies.

Perhaps we are facing language problems which are limiting this discussion, if so please identify your primary language and we can work toward providing information in a more understandable format for you.

 

[DC]

try this link

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/

isn't working

 

[ohms]

Well, the actual paper keeps timing out, so....

weeeeeeee...

Google has it cached

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...FOWVtVQ4J:www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

 

[Trakar]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...FOWVtVQ4J:www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

This paper is 3-4+ years old and has been thoroughly gone over multiple times. Why is it being brought up for discussion as though it were new, significant or in any way relevent to modern considerations of ACC?

 

[macdoc]

On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from
Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance
Roy W. Spencer *

our very own ID proponent....

Roy Spencer (scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to Views on intelligent design‎: Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design as the mechanism for the origin of species. On the subject, Spencer ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

got any more musty rocks to peer under looking for cranks.....

 

[ginjawarrior]

This paper is 3-4+ years old and has been thoroughly gone over multiple times. Why is it being brought up for discussion as though it were new, significant or in any way relevent to modern considerations of ACC?

well its seemed to spread every where as "definitive proof" that agw is false

have you got any links that debunk it?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

isn't working

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

Works perfectly:


On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from
Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance
Roy W. Spencer * and William D. Braswell
ESSC-UAH, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Cramer Hall, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA;
E-Mail: danny.braswell@nsstc.uah.edu
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: roy.spencer@nsstc.uah.edu;
Tel.: +1-256-961-7960; Fax: +1-256-961-7751.
Received: 24 May 2011; in revised form: 13 July 2011 / Accepted: 15 July 2011 /
Published: 25 July 201


4. Discussion and Conclusions
We have shown clear evidence from the CERES instrument that global temperature variations
during 2000–2010 were largely radiatively forced. Lag regression analysis supports the interpretation
that net radiative gain (loss) precedes, and radiative loss (gain) follows temperature maxima (minima).
This behavior is also seen in the IPCC AR4 climate model

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from
Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance
Roy W. Spencer * and William D. Braswell
ESSC-UAH, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Cramer Hall, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA;
E-Mail: danny.braswell@nsstc.uah.edu
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: roy.spencer@nsstc.uah.edu;
Tel.: +1-256-961-7960; Fax: +1-256-961-7751.
Received: 24 May 2011; in revised form: 13 July 2011 / Accepted: 15 July 2011 /
Published: 25 July 2011
Abstract: 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.
Keywords: climate; sensitivity; temperature; feedback; clouds; warming; CERES; models

 

[Reality Check]

This paper is 3-4+ years old and has been thoroughly gone over multiple times. Why is it being brought up for discussion as though it were new, significant or in any way relevent to modern considerations of ACC?

This paper by Roy Spencer seems new (published July 2011): On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance.

I do have some doubts about it, e.g. why is a paper about climate sensitivity being published in a journal like Remote Sensing?

 

[rjh01]

try this link

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/

This paper is 3-4+ years old and has been thoroughly gone over multiple times. Why is it being brought up for discussion as though it were new, significant or in any way relevent to modern considerations of ACC?

Here is the full text http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf. To get something published in that journal you need to pay at least 500 CHF (Swiss Francs) per processed paper. Ref http://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/apc/ What does that say about the quality of papers?

It was only recently submitted to this magazine. It also contains a graph that goes up to 2011, so cannot be an old paper. Could be an updated one.

 

[CapelDodger]

And yet the quantum jump to realizing natural gas heating is a necessity appears elusive to some. This is pushing an agenda and not rational discussion.

A necessity? For what?

I have no agenda to push. As I pointed out, many people in the UK use natural gas for heating, and the UK is hardly unusual in that. A lot of those who don't are off the gas-grid and use fuel-oil or propane.

Strawman. I've said numerous times emissions are being reduced. Your statement is fallacious.

You've spent a lot of time arguing that the percentage increase in emissions has been constant (your prefered term was "linear" for some reason) which is quite opposite to saying that they're being reduced. In fact, of course, they are increasing.

lol, yes frittered away on that luxury we call electricity. That's just an absurd position to take.

There are other means of generating electricity. It is far more efficient in the medium-term to use natural gas directly for heating (including hot water, of course), but in the short-term (which is what modern capitalism responds to) it was the cheap option. The installed capacity which resulted has, of course, a medium-term lifetime, which is why the UK now imports natural gas to feed into it.

The Norwegians did things differently.

Strawman. Nobody wants things to "stay where they are", quite the contrary. People are making changes everyday, you're just blind to everything going on in front of your face. Windturbines, electric cars, solar panels, high efficiency furnaces...there are so many I can't even begin to list all of them.

The things which you say "the carbon projects" have wasted their money on. Directly implying that they should not have been invested in.

All these changes reduce CO₂ emissions, thereby (by your peculiar thesis) weakening the economy.

I'm just using Canada as a benchmark to show how absurd claims are about emissions and what can or can't be done.

Your claim that emissions are being reduced and that economic strength is measured by CO₂ emissions are what's absurd.

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its butt when it hopped.

That hardly furthers a rational discussion. It is an established fact that the UK is now dependent for natural gas on the European grid, which is in turn dependent on Russia. You perhaps failed to register the diplomatic concern when Russia was last strong-arming Ukraine over gas, but it was a big issue this side off the pond. That's why liquefied-gas terminals and alternative pipelines are being built, and why the Norwegian long-term strategic approach is turning out very well for them. When it comes to strong economies they're well up there.

 

[CapelDodger]

Perhaps michaelsuede is missing my point ...

Nobody's shocked by that.

... value laden language is the opposite of journalism ...

And, of course, anathema to science, which is why scientific papers are so dry. Journalism should seek the mid-point stylistically.

... and thus the original quoted article can be filed under "propaganda."

Spencer recently declard his job to be "combatting big government" and has been involved in a right-wing campaign against the Australian carbon-pricing proposals, so we're not dealing with a scientist here. We're dealing with a member of Soon's "A-Team".

It goes into that round storage container next to the desk. Yes, the one with banana peels.

You could shred it, eat it, excrete and flush it but it will still keep coming back. This is Extreme Zombie flesh we're talking about.

 

[CapelDodger]

And none of this matters unless it's adopted world wide. You aren't looking at the big picture.

The same argument is used in every nation. And when a world-wide plan is suggested it confirms the New World Order so beloved by Monckton and his blissed-out acolytes.

This why you need not fear anything effective being done. What we all need to worry about is the next financial crisis, and your attention might be more sensibly directed there.

 

[AlBell]

This paper is 3-4+ years old and has been thoroughly gone over multiple times. Why is it being brought up for discussion as though it were new, significant or in any way relevent to modern considerations of ACC?

The Remote Sensing article states publication date July 2011. Is the Remote Sensing journal not an appropriate data source? Or are you saying the article itself is a rehash of 3-4 year old data? Or ??.

 

[bobdroege7]

There is evidence that the feedbacks are indeed occurring.

Here is one

Specific humidity anomalies (marine only)

Berry and Kent (2009, red [marine only]).

Berry, D.I. and E.C. Kent, 2009: A New Air-Sea Interaction
Gridded Dataset from ICOADS with Uncertainty Estimates. Bulletin
of the American Meteorological Society, 90(5), 645-656
(DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2639.1).

from Dave Berry, National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton

 

[Furcifer]

Perhaps we are facing language problems which are limiting this discussion, if so please identify your primary language and we can work toward providing information in a more understandable format for you.

Apparently I need to learn doublespeak. First it's these measures are effective at reducing CO2 then there's been no reduction in CO2 and in fact it's increasing at an alarming rate. On one hand we need to pay for externalities from fossil fuels and on the other we already are.

There's no absolutely no consistency when it comes to theories on how to curb CO2 emissions. And it's pretty easy to figure out why, the science isn't definitive and its been overrun by politicians posing at climate change eco-warriors.

 

[Furcifer]

Libertarian News reports:

Scientists can calculate the amount of heat CO2 directly traps from human emissions. This amount of heat is incredibly small. In order for human emissions to cause any real change in climate, alarmist scientists have to incorporate “feedback” mechanisms in their models that greatly amplify the known effects of human CO2 warming.

These “feedback” mechanisms are entirely hypothetical constructs which are incorporated into alarmist computer models. This study destroys all of the scientific basis for those hypothetical models. In effect, the study turns anthropogenic warming models into works of fiction.

Dr. Roy Spencer comments on his research:
​

Praise Mao.

Positive feedback is real. It's well studied and scientifically sound.

So is negative feedback. It isn't well studied. There's no money in it.

Once the alarmists run out of positive feedbacks to study they will be forced to acknowledge the bias.

Don't forget this is a relatively new area of science. There's so much more to learn it would be foolish and irresponsible to to make any judgement calls now.

 

[Trakar]

This paper is 3-4+ years old and has been thoroughly gone over multiple times. Why is it being brought up for discussion as though it were new, significant or in any way relevent to modern considerations of ACC?

my apologies I mistook this very similarly worded and greatly similar content paper by the same authors.

"On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedback in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing," - doi:10.1029/2009JD013371

for this more recent paper

"On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance," - doi:10.3390/rs3081603

Though, for the most part the issues and problems are the same.