This is Why it is Not Possible that CO2 is the Cause of Global Warming.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: ColCurious
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Why isn't CO2 increasing temperatures by half (~0.4 degrees) if from 1998-2016 CO2 levels have increased by 39ppm?

Because CO2 and °C do not correlate in a linear way.
You're disregarding climate sensitivity (feedback lag) and the relative contributions of natural forcings (like the function of oceans as CO2 buffers - to name one). Your timeframe here is just way too short.

Or climate "science" is the BS many of already believe it to be.

must be nice to know that every professional person who has spent decades in their field of study, are full of BS.

a reply to: ColCurious

LOL...what you are saying is that CO2 is not the factor behind warming... If it takes more than 18 years for CO2 molecules to heat up, which is nothing but nonsense, how do you separate the natural forcings from CO2 forcing?... Heck 30 years from now we could see new or more drastic changes occurring to the Sun itself but the AGW camp can proclaim that "see, I told you CO2 would increase temperatures....even though it was 30 years from now".

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Either CO2 is the cause behind global warming/climate change or it isn't... And it is obvious that it isn't.

a reply to: Greven

WTH are you on about now Willis?...

Dr. Roy Spencer describes here why they changed from one version to another.

Instruments are calibrated and re-calibrated all the time Willis. I guess we better through out ALL GCMs because they all give different readings...

Heck, the AGW scientists have had to change their predictions of warming because their "predictions" (they are not really predictions but let's call it that for the sake of simplicity). I guess that means you don't trust GCMs and their models either huh Greven?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greven

WTH are you on about now Willis?...

Dr. Roy Spencer describes here why they changed from one version to another.

Instruments are calibrated and re-calibrated all the time Willis. I guess we better through out ALL GCMs because they all give different readings...

Heck, the AGW scientists have had to change their predictions of warming because their "predictions" (they are not really predictions but let's call it that for the sake of simplicity). I guess that means you don't trust GCMs and their models either huh Greven?

I don't know what you're on about with the WIllis stuff.

This is not calibration. Calibration refers to getting to a known point, like immersing a thermometer in ice water, and setting the thermometer to 0 degrees Celsius. Roy Spencer doesn't have a point to calibrate to; calibration is already achieved by using a black body. There is no calibration needed for the microwave sounder. What he is altering is the algorithm that determines temperature based on microwave sounder measurements.

This is what spits out the data that you see in those two sets - an algorithm that is run on microwave sounding measurements, which is used to infer (INFER, NOT MEASURE) temperatures at certain altitudes. It's like pointing a device at a surface and getting a temperature, except not for the surface - which an infrared thermometer can do pretty easily - but for layers of air between the surface and the measuring device.

So why can't they use infrared to get surface temperatures? They can, but it's kind of hard... You see, clouds block infrared because water vapor is pretty opaque to it. All sorts of things interfere with IR. So they tend to use microwave sounders.

Are you now okay with changing resulting data? These aren't small changes. Based on the differences, we can say that 5.6 was terrible, 6.0 is terrible, or both are terrible. One or perhaps both of these are clearly not representative of reality, wouldn't you agree?

UAH has a difference of 0.9 Celsius between two data sets for a corresponding data point. Don't you find it peculiar how dramatically different things are?

Given that one or both of these data sets is clearly wrong, and that the algorithm he uses has clearly changed for determining what the resultant data is, why do you trust him to be right? Clearly your trust was misplaced in March 2015, when the data was, according to Roy Spencer himself, flawed.

WHY IS HE TRUSTWORTHY NOW? Why do you think 6.0 is more representative of reality than 5.6?

I can't say that I do trust models, no. Climate models have tended to underestimate what has been borne out by reality.

a reply to: mbkennel

So wait a second...

Since about 2005 the Sun's activity has slowed down, so from where is this extra heat coming from?

CO2 cannot magically produce more heat (not to mention that since 1998-2016 the atmosphere has only warmed about ~0.1... CO2 absorbs absorbs heat from the energy budget Earth receives from the Sun or other sources outside of Earth. Also, the atmosphere is not a storage for heat... It is not possible that CO2 is now after 11 years still releasing more heat into the oceans. More so because as I mentioned since 1998-2016 Earth's atmosphere has only heated by ~0.1 degree.

What new "magical" factor are you re-inventing now mbkennel?

I also really want to see from where NOAA is getting these readings... is this similar to the attempts made by certain environmental scientists who measured the salinity in parts of the oceans close to active volcanic vents, runoff etc, and when they saw the ocean ph change from alkaline to more neutral ( it was and is still called acidification of the oceans even though the oceans are not acidic, they are not even neutral yet) they started claiming "see? I told you anthropogenic CO2 would make the oceans more acidic"... Even though it is a known fact that active volcanic vents, areas close to river runoff etc do change the ph of the ocean around those areas...

If there is any truth to those readings from NOAA then it is more likely this heat is coming from Earth's core, and not from the atmosphere.

a reply to: Greven

WTH...I guess you better stop believing everything NOAA says because they have been including new algorimths to generate temperatures from microwave satellite measurements for decades now...

Link

(ATS code seems to be confusing some sections of the link as one of ATS' code and does not redirect you to the url. But you can copy the url and paste it in a new window to check the source)

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
You realize much of that paper uses Roy SPENCER and John CHRISTY, right?

They're kind of pioneers in microwave sounding. Like many pioneers, they haven't gotten it right yet.

What is this ludicrous 'what about you' #? I'm asking you a question which it seems you are unwilling to answer: WHY SHOULD WE TRUST ROY SPENCER?

He's altered the 'data' in the past. The alterations are many and large. Why should he be trusted now, when by his own action, he shouldn't have been trusted less than two years ago?

Why do you not answer this question?

a reply to: Greven

I did answer your question. You are making s#it up...

Dr Roy Spencer is doing the same thing that other atmospheric scientists have been doing for decades...

You seem to be claiming Dr. Roy Spencer is altering the readings, which is false. Dr. Roy Spencer uses the same type of techniques other atmospheric scientists use, and you are trying to blame Dr. Roy Spencer...

Here is another link to that paper

An Algorithm to Generate Deep-Layer Temperatures from Microwave Satellite Observations for the Purpose of Monitoring Climate Change
Mitchell D. Goldberg and Henry E. Fleming
NOAA/National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Satellite Research Laboratory, Washington, DC

Add to Favorites Track Citation Download Citation Email

Download Citation Email

DOI: dx.doi.org...(1995)0082.0.CO;2
Received: 31 January 1994
Final Form: 6 September 1994
Published Online: 1 May 1995

Abstract

An algorithm for generating deep-layer mean temperatures from satellite-observed microwave observations is presented. Unlike traditional temperature retrieval methods, this algorithm does not require a first guess temperature of the ambient atmosphere. By eliminating the first guess a potentially systematic source of error has been removed. The algorithm is expected to yield long-term records that are suitable for detecting small changes in climate.
...

Link

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
You realize much of that paper uses Roy SPENCER and John CHRISTY, right?
...

No...that paper uses the data from MANY other atmospheric scientists...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Greven

I did answer your question. You are making s#it up...

Dr Roy Spencer is doing the same thing that other atmospheric scientists have been doing for decades...

BTW, that paper I gave a link to does not mention Dr. Roy Spencer at all, It was authored by Dr Mitchell D Goldberg, and Henry E. Fleming.

Here is another link to that paper

What am I making up?

That Spencer and Christy are cited extensively in that paper that you've now linked twice with no discernible relevance to the question I've posed? Perhaps you haven't looked too closely at the paper?

How in God's name can you sit there and say the paper doesn't mention Spencer at all, when it contains no less than four references to publications by (Dr. Roy) Spencer and (Dr. John) Christy, and numerous citations to these references throughout the work?

You don't even know what you're doing; you're just throwing # out there on the hope it distracts me or the reader. You're clearly not answering the question, which is obvious to anyone reading this discussion. WHY SHOULD WE TRUST SPENCER?

Worse, you're claiming that you answered the question about trusting Roy Spencer by citing a paper that extensively cites Roy Spencer's work as if that somehow explains any damn thing at all (it doesn't). This is increasingly bizarre.

You've clearly looked at the data sets that Roy Spencer has referenced and created using an algorithm.
You've clearly noticed that these data sets are strikingly different.
You've clearly seen that Roy Spencer himself calls one data set flawed (for now, who knows what he'll do when 6.0 starts showing a stronger warming trend).

Yet you want to trust this data with the future of civilization and life on this planet?

I herd this song before.... I can remember sitting in class and my teacher explaining how man was causing global cooling and an ice age was imminent. Paper grocery bags were singled out as the enemy of all life on earth. The science was settled. To disagree only proved how dumb and ignorant you are.... The science was settled.
And then plastic bags replaced paper. Businesses all over the nation were forced to adapt new rules and regulations...prices went up to cover the new costs.... somebody made a lot of money and disappeared.
And global cooling never happened..... and those people disappeared from the public eye just as quickly as they had appeared. Science...was wrong.... very wrong...... might even say they lied to promote an agenda.
And now they are back, but with a new war cry MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING! Except this time "because we say so" isnt good enough, this time the voice of the dissenters are not being silenced.
Science is wrong more often than it is right...... but every time it believes THIS TIME they nailed it. And science goes through great lengths to protect prevailing beliefs.... even if it means ruining the lives of people proposing new ideas.
Even Einstein suffered at the hands of Mainstream Science....as did countless others after him for daring to rock the boat...... even as people are today for daring to speak up and put forth their own data.
These people of science are the same ones who like to take credit for "discovering" things that generations of people have known about their whole lives.

a reply to: Zimnydran
Maybe you went to the same school as all the others who can't remember what really happened.

Your anecdotes are useless. The President of the United States gave a speech on February 8th,1965; in it he discussed atmospheric changes - nuclear and carbon dioxide being the two named.

Some people yelled a lot about it getting cooler. They were wrong. The end. Why won't you get over it?

a reply to: Greven

There are MANY other papers cited in that research... It's YOU who are trying to claim that Dr. Roy Spencer is rigging the data when this is a false claim you made up...

Creating new algorithms as technology gets better, and our understanding is improved is normal... Many atmospheric scientists have come up with similar algorithms throughout the past few decades...

a reply to: mbkennel

That's a good point yes.
So you also have to consider than that we have no 'valid' record from before 1880 for temperature and 1960 for co2.
From the moment we began taking actual measurements.

What I mean is, to stitch icecore proxies from +100.000 years ago with actual thermometer data isn't scientifically correct imo. Even with all the tweaks and such. There simply wasn't a guy with a thermometer and notebook 400.000 years ago(well not as far as we know now).
I believe you have to look at those separately and not compare.
But as you know this is done by both skeptics and believers as they both have good arguments to support their fields.

And every measurement device has it's errors, over time the equipment change, location of stations change, number of stations, most of the stations are still manual so you have the human error,...
So even in that timespan from 1880 till now there is error. I believe I'v read it somewhere on the NOAA GISS website where they talk about an error of 0.15 degrees C in their measurements.

originally posted by: mbkennel
...
When extremely secure physics says X, and a naive interpretation of paleo-climatology indirect records says Y, but there is another plausible interpretation which is compatible with X (and happens to agree with professional modeling)---go with X.

Stuff that happened 400,000 years ago and we have indirect evidence of is less informative than stuff regarding physics and observations NOW.
...

"extremely secure physics"? wth does that mean? Does physics needs a seatbelt now?

BTW, I guess you are yet once again ignoring the fact that the Sun's activity had been increasing and it was only after 2005 that the sun's activity lowered, or rather slowed down... But yet again you are ignoring this... I guess that's what you mean by "extremely secure physics"?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There are 14 papers cited, and 4 of those are from Spencer & Christy; that's a pretty significant chunk.

The data was changed, correct? That's what I've claimed. That's what you've seen. The data sets are clearly different.

You seem to think such changes are an improvement; wouldn't that be the same for other adjustments in climate records, or is it only okay for Roy Spencer to do it? If not, why is he different - why is he to be trusted?

Oh, and a funny thing about how this all plays out that you may not know about. TLT is temperature of the lower troposphere; this is a slice of the atmosphere up to about 12.5 km (see here). It's weighted such that the first several thousand meters count for more, but it still counts up higher and averages this all out to that single number in the data set.

Incidentally, the reason it gets colder as one goes up (with some variation mind you) is because of greenhouse gases. They don't absorb and hold on to heat; rather, they absorb and re-emit heat. The result of this is that less heat escapes higher into the atmosphere with height. An increase in greenhouse gases will magnify this effect.

Consequently, the surface will warm much more than 10 km up; it may in fact cool at that altitude. As a simplistic example, let's say the surface increases by +1.0C, and 10 km up decreases by -0.5C (the remainder of the atmosphere higher up loses the other -0.5C to balance out energy received from the Sun). An unweighted measurement of +0.5C might be inferred from microwave sounding. Do you begin to see how there might be some problems?

One last thought for the evening: even Roy Spencer's 6.0 data set shows a warming trend of +0.11 C/decade. Down from +0.15 C/decade in his 5.6 data set, but whatever. Now that you've quite heavily defended Roy Spencer's 6.0 record, do you agree with the warming trend that it shows?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
...

And every measurement device has it's errors, over time the equipment change, location of stations change, number of stations, most of the stations are still manual so you have the human error,...
So even in that timespan from 1880 till now there is error. I believe I'v read it somewhere on the NOAA GISS website where they talk about an error of 0.15 degrees C in their measurements.

Greven never said a peep, or even asked questions when uncorrected/raw temperature data was going from warming to cooling and then the "corrected data" in several regions went opposite, showing from cooling to a warming trend when the raw/uncorrected/unadjusted data showed a warming to cooling trend".

Some of us at the website tracked this "rigging", and the official excuse given that "the temperature stations had changed altitude" was shown to be a lie. Areas where the temperature stations were moved to were at about the same altitude and the stations were never close to areas where the heat island effect could affect the readings. At least the temperature stations could not have been affected to the extreme that was "officially" claimed.

Like this.



In the above example you can see the "unadjusted/raw data" shown on the graph on the top right in red. You can see it showed a cooling trend. The adjusted/corrected data, the one in orange, showed the opposite from cooling to warming. There were several stations throughout south America where this was found. Other real tampering of temperature data has been shown in the forums but people like Greven ignored it/dismissed it.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

a reply to: Greven

Wait...wait... Do you mean like that graph, not sure who posted it since that person seems to have deleted that graph now, showing the temperature in our oceans and that same person failed to state that this graph was showing temperatures in the ocean from 0-2,000 meters?...

I guess that same person doesn't know that for heat to move down to 2,000 meters in our oceans takes decades(actually it takes thousands of years not decades for heat in our oceans to move down to 2,000m) and that heat was absorbed by the first 200m of our oceans long, long ago...

originally posted by: Greven
...
I don't know what you're on about with the WIllis stuff.
...

I call people Willis when their statements make no sense. It makes no sense for me to call you Willis right? Just like making statements or claims like "extremely secure physics" or blaming Dr. Roy Spencer for doing what other atmospheric scientists also do and is normal to do makes no sense whatsoever...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: mbkennel

So wait a second...

Since about 2005 the Sun's activity has slowed down, so from where is this extra heat coming from?

Increased greenhouse effect. More outgoing radiation is absorbed and re-emitted in an ingoing direction than before.

In a nutshell: the atmosphere is shining more in infrared than before.

CO2 cannot magically produce more heat (not to mention that since 1998-2016 the atmosphere has only warmed about ~0.1... CO2 absorbs absorbs heat from the energy budget Earth receives from the Sun or other sources outside of Earth. Also, the atmosphere is not a storage for heat... It is not possible that CO2 is now after 11 years still releasing more heat into the oceans.

That's not how the physics works. Radiation which would otherwise go to space hits the atmosphere and comes back down. That process takes microseconds. The heat capacity of CO2 is of course negligible, is is the infrared properties that are causing the issue. This physics was understood 100 years ago in the basics and in quantitative detail by the 1960's.

If there is any truth to those readings from NOAA then it is more likely this heat is coming from Earth's core, and not from the atmosphere.

Funny that it's colder deeper and warmer up top then.