It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

page: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
Touching your faith in humanity. Sad that your utopia does not exist. There there, never mind. When you are little older you might not have quite so much faith in peopole.


LOL look into my posts a little deeper and you'll see I have very little faith in humanity actually. However one of the few facets I still do believe in is indeed scientists. Not because of some naive idol worship for people in lab coats, but simply out of respect for science itself.

Because the thing I don't think you guys ever seem to realize is this: the way you're focusing so much on the question of how much can we trust the consensus and all that - you're actually the ones putting too much faith in them.

Because you're assuming all of your knowledge and hence all of your trust on this has to be filtered through them. Meanwhile you're overlooking how much simple logical deduction you can do completely on your own.

It can be broken down to a number of straightforward things:

1. The Greenhouse Effect is real.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3. Emissions are increasing.
4. This is my favorite one - Anthropogenic Global Warming was predicted over 100 years ago based on the 3 above principles.
5. That prediction is coming true.

Everything else might be a confusing he said-she said smorgasborg of politics and propaganda for those unfamiliar with the inner workings of this debate. But even then I can sum it all up in one single question moving forward: what do we do now?

And we can sit here and bitch and moan to each other all day about uncertainties this and corruption that and whatever other distractions have been put out there to derail a more constructive discussion. But there is NO skeptic out there, NOT A SINGLE ONE, who can convincingly PROVE this is NOT (i.e. at least potentially) a serious problem.

So the best you can do is declare uncertainty. And with that in mind, I have never seen anyone be able to make a more concrete argument than what this guy says:





edit to add: this cartoon makes a damn good point too:




edit on 19-11-2010 by mc_squared because: word.




posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


See and again this is exactly what I'm talking about when I mention moving the goal posts and such. In your first response you came out all guns blazing pronouncing how I have painted myself into a corner, because there's no consensus on global warming and that's why they had to rename it climate change.

When I demonstrated you have a lack of full understanding by PROVING you wrong on the name change point, did you so much as acknowledge that you at least made a whoopsy? No. You immediately DENIED it and quickly changed the subject.

Well I'm not letting it go.

Because if you're going around spitting out completely wrong talking points like that, then what makes you so sure all the rest of your information isn't just as tainted? You wanna see exactly how it came about that people in the media started calling it climate change instead of global warming? Here, watch this video:



And pay very close attention around the 2:30 mark and take note of "rule number 1".

Because this is what I have been saying all along: I have done tons and tons of research into this topic on BOTH sides. And when you look at it from a complete perspective rather than a cherry-picked one, it becomes patently clear it is the "skeptics" who are being brainwashed and swindled, not the warmists. As I just reminded PuterMan above, a great deal of the basis for AGW is rooted in unambiguous science and history - and as you can see from that video it is the denialists who have sought to obfuscate this self-evident truth by drowning it out in manufactured doubt.

So the fact that you came on here spouting the "they used to call it global warming but now they call it climate change" myth and telling others how much they have painted themselves into a corner only shows how effective this campaign has become. You seriously need to take a harder look at your own corner, no matter how much you believe you've looked at all of them with balanced scrutiny already.

Because if you had truly looked at all sides you would have seen that of course there is no 100% consensus on my claims. There is pretty much no 100% consensus on anything. Some people still think the Earth is flat. But there are multiple studies that have revealed amongst professional climate scientists there is about a 97% consensus.

So the only place there is this idea of massive disagreement and doubt is here - in the public forum. And that's because it has been deliberately manufactured by the propagandists and the denialists above to bamboozle everyone into accepting apathy and believing there is no way we can get off the fossil fuel industries that make them so stinking rich.

If you truly want to claim you have looked into both sides - then I seriously recommend you start looking a little deeper into this part of the conspiracy. That is, if you've got the guts. I have yet to meet a so-called "skeptic" who does.

You can watch the whole video here:


Google Video Link



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Also addressed to mc_squared re below.

So perhaps you would care to comment on these items then?

Part 1: CBC’s continuing denial of the climate science debate (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology, Canada Free Press)

Part 2: CBC’s denial of the climate science debate (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology, Canada Free Press)


Like the network itself, The Fifth Estate has violated its own mandate with ‘The Denial Machine’

Since the CBC first broadcast The Denial Machine in November 2006, both the show’s producers and the network’s Ombudsman have been informed about numerous scientific and other errors in the programme.


Part 3: The Denial Machine negates Fifth Estate’s claim to investigative reporting excellence (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology, Canada Free Press)


Despite these warning from the United States, the UN proceeded to finalize the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997, in which they assigned no greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to developing nations.


Tell, how can you equate that to a desire to reduce carbon emmissions?

Part 4: From basic statistics mistakes to subliminal language tricks, The Denial Machine disgraces the CBC (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology, Canada Free Press)


Fifth Estate errors even extend to simple statistical mistakes. They say, "But don’t bother doing the math. All you really need to know is that, even if the US did cut greenhouse gas intensity by 18%, the absolute amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere could go still up and up, which is precisely what’s happening." They reinforced this assertion by uncritically including the comment of Philip Clapp of the National Environmental Trust that, "US emissions have done nothing but go straight up." This is quite wrong. As can be seen in the following graph from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, absolute emissions dropped 1.3% in 2006, 1.7% in 2001 and 1% in 1991.


Part 5: Viewer’s guide to rooting out propaganda in future CBC climate coverage (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology, Canada Free Press)


It is revealing to compare UN and other political pronouncements about climate with the original scientific research that supposedly backs them. Conditional words - "could", "may", "possibly" or "it appears"- that appear in the science papers vanish when the issues become political and make their way into the press. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s assertions before the 15th Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development in May is classic, "The recent report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasizes that the science on climate change is very clear, that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and that this is happening because of human activities." Of course IPCC scientists concluded no such thing, but the Secretary General’s exaggerations generate exciting headlines and draw more attention to his cause.


Obviously these men of integrity must be aware that their words are being changed. Do they say anything?

Looking at these articles it seems to me that the Global Warmist machine will lie it's way through anything without a care in the world if it assists their nefarious purpose.


Your rational or accusation for the scientists "inspiration" for "creating fraudulent temps" has failed to materialize.


Really?

Bearing that in mind, perhaps you can also explain how this can possibly be considered to be scientific. The first paragraph states:


Computer models and basic principles predict atmospheric temperatures should rise slightly faster than, not lag, increases in surface temperatures. Also, the models predict the fastest warming should occur at the Tropics at an altitude between eight and 12 kilometers. However, temperature readings taken from weather balloons and satellites have, according to most analysts, shown little if any warming there compared to the surface.


OK, that is fine. Little if any warming compared to the surface so it would appear the models were incorrect no?

Oh no! In true scientific fashion these scientists did something that seems to be common, they disregarded the data. We don't like that data. It does not fit what we want to see so......


By measuring changes in winds, rather than relying upon problematic temperature measurements, Robert J. Allen and Steven C. Sherwood of the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale estimated the atmospheric temperatures near 10 km in the Tropics rose about 0.65 degrees Celsius per decade since 1970 -probably the fastest warming rate anywhere in Earth's atmosphere. The temperature increase is in line with predictions of global warming models.


Holy Moley, we just measure the wind and come up with a figure we like, despite the fact that this flies in the face of measured data?

Yes I am beginning to see just how much integrity these scientists have. So much for melatonin's tirade. Then they continue....


"I think this puts to rest any lingering doubts that the atmosphere really has been warming up more or less as we expect, due mainly to the greenhouse effect of increasing gases like carbon dioxide," Sherwood said.


I think this puts to rest any lingering doubts about the integrity of these scientists.


Many scientists, including Allen and Sherwood, have long argued that temperature data were flawed for many reasons such as the change of instrument design over the years. "These systems were never designed for measuring climate change," said Sherwood. However, some global warming skeptics had argued that weather balloon temperatures were accurate,and models that predicted global warming were wrong.


Talk about dishonestly attempting to baffle brains with bovine excrement! So the radio sonde temperatures are perfectly OK for normal use but not for 'climate'. Horse #. A temperature is a temperature whether you apply it to weather forecasts or climate modelling. That is just about the most pathetic ill thought out unscientific excuse I have come across so far, and I seem to be coming across a few now I have started looking.


The biggest scam going is that Oil, gas and power are heavily subsidized so as to make it cheaper than it actually is, and YOU are actually paying for it, WITH THE HEALTH OF THE PLANET.
That is the most expensive scam I have ever seen.

The artificial cost of Oil has made the west dependent on it.


Perhaps you would care to quote your source for that mis-information? Far from being heavily subsidised they are heavily penalised and in Europe taxed to the hilt. In what way is the cost artificial?

By the way Poptech has not run away. He has been banned from posting on this thread. The excuse reason is that his user name is too similar to his website name. Being a good consipracist I have to wonder.....


edit on 19/11/2010 by PuterMan because: tag error



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 


By the way the last cartoon. Agreed, but you seem to be saying that sceptics are denying that global warming/climate change exists. As far as I can see this is not the case.

Of course we should do everything we can to limit emissions - globally which includes developing countries as well - but that cartoon is poking fun at a non-existent concept, and the video above by the way I have seen before and terrifying it is not. We should not be turning the problems we are facing into a money making scam. If you cannot see that THIS is one of the main problems then there is little hope for you. People are not SCEPTICAL about global warming/climate change but about the cause and yet all the time they are accused of denying climate change. Horse #### read the words.


And we can sit here and bitch and moan to each other all day about uncertainties this and corruption that and whatever other distractions have been put out there to derail a more constructive discussion. But there is NO skeptic out there, NOT A SINGLE ONE, who can convincingly PROVE this is NOT (i.e. at least potentially) a serious problem.


Who is trying to prove that??? See what I said above. Perhaps you should take a look at the the other side again. Obviously you did not read it properly. When you stop calling people deniers or sceptics they will probably stop calling you alarmists or warmists. It really is about time people listened to each other and stopped being so childish and so money grabbing. It is about time they did something for the planet and not try and line their pockets. Taxation is NOT the way to go about it.
edit on 19/11/2010 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Also addressed to mc_squared re below.

So perhaps you would care to comment on these items then?

Please address my Posthere instead of changing the subject.
Your comments were shown to be totally incorrect regarding Science Daily.


Part 1: CBC’s continuing denial of the climate science debate (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology, Canada Free Press)

Part 2: CBC’s denial of the climate science debate (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology, Canada Free Press)

Yawn.
Tim Ball.

Is that really the best that you have?



Like the network itself,....... numerous scientific and other errors in the programme.

Look at this then.
www.uctv.tv...
I bet you won't though.



Part 3: The Denial Machine negates Fifth Estate’s claim to investigative reporting excellence (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology, Canada Free Press)


Imagine that, Ball trying to defend himself after being shown to be a lying Shill, yet again.



Despite these warning from the United States, the UN proceeded to finalize the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997, in which they assigned no greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to developing nations.


Tell, how can you equate that to a desire to reduce carbon emissions?


Point out where I say it equates to anything.
Your introduction of Red Herrings and a total lack of a response to this post is showing your desire to avoid the fact you are wrong.
To address the above comment though, you simply look at the amount of emissions for the West vs Third World Countries in order to understand the above comment.
It is not "rocket surgery".
www.ucsusa.org...

Also, please point out exactly how Kyoto has anything to do with the science of AGW.
Kyoto was an attempt at introducing political policy around the world in order to combat climate change.
It has failed. As did Copenhagen which was an "updated" version of Kyoto.


Part 4: From basic statistics mistakes to subliminal language tricks, The Denial Machine disgraces the CBC (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology, Canada Free Press)


Fifth Estate errors even extend to simple statistical mistakes. They say, "But don’t bother doing the math. All you really need to know is that, even if the US did cut greenhouse gas intensity by 18%, the absolute amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere could go still up and up, which is precisely what’s happening." They reinforced this assertion by uncritically including the comment of Philip Clapp of the National Environmental Trust that, "US emissions have done nothing but go straight up." This is quite wrong. As can be seen in the following graph from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, absolute emissions dropped 1.3% in 2006, 1.7% in 2001 and 1% in 1991.

They dropped in 2008 too(when the price of gas was really high and we had a little global financial crisis)
But over all, the trend is up.
www.epa.gov...

The US only managed to drop roughly one percent in three separate years in nearly 20 year trend of increasing use.
I guess Ball was desperate to try and discredit them after they proved he was a total lying Oil shill.


Part 5: Viewer’s guide to rooting out propaganda in future CBC climate coverage (Tim F. Ball, Ph.D. Climatology, Canada Free Press)



It is revealing to compare UN and other............ Of course IPCC scientists concluded no such thing, but the Secretary General’s exaggerations generate exciting headlines and draw more attention to his cause.


Obviously these men of integrity must be aware that their words are being changed. Do they say anything?

There is a big difference though, the scientists who the Secretary General is referring to actually know what they are talking about.
The PR campaigns fronted by Ball, Singer et al. well we know what "oils" their wheels.



Looking at these articles it seems to me that the Global Warmist machine will lie it's way through anything without a care in the world if it assists their nefarious purpose.


What nefarious purpose would that be?
All the ones that have failed to make any impact at all, Like Cap n trade, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Carbon Taxes or an agreed Carbon price.
PuterDUD. You fail.



Your rational or accusation for the scientists "inspiration" for "creating fraudulent temps" has failed to materialize.


Really?

Yes! Really, you rational has failed to materialize.


Bearing that in mind, perhaps you can also explain how this can possibly be considered to be scientific. The first paragraph states:

Actually, you are a liar. But that is to be expected from people who need to quote mine Wattsupwiththat.

This is actually the first paragraph.

opac.yale.edu...
New Haven, Conn. — Yale University scientists reported Sunday that they may have resolved a controversial glitch in models of global warming: A key part of the atmosphere didn't seem to be warming as expected.


Now back to your twisting of the version.



Computer models and basic principles.......... However, temperature readings taken from weather balloons and satellites have, according to most analysts, shown little if any warming there compared to the surface.



OK, that is fine. Little if any warming compared to the surface so it would appear the models were incorrect no?

Yes, it could seem like the models are wrong in relation to ONE part.
OR it could be that ONE of the INPUTS they are using for the MODEL may be wrong. Considering that the data for other areas was correct to the model indicates that it could be ONE of the INPUTS.
That is why instead of dismissing everything, they try other methods to input data to test the model or theory.
It is called science.
It is interesting thought that you ignore the fact that the surface temp rises match the Model.
Hmmmm, why so selective?


Oh no! In true scientific fashion these scientists did something that seems to be common,

Yes, we all know weather satellites and heart transplants and space shuttles came from scientists that merely "made" stuff up in order to fit models because it is the scientific fashion and common.

I guess Evolution is a fraud and the NAZI's didn't gas all those Jews too!
I mean why stop with Global Warming Denial Puterdude. You are, on a roll bro!


they disregarded the data. We don't like that data. It does not fit what we want to see so......

FAIL.
They did further test in order to gain an understanding.

New Haven, Conn. — Yale University scientists reported Sunday that they may have resolved a controversial glitch in models of global warming: A key part of the atmosphere didn't seem to be warming as expected.



Holy Moley, we just measure the wind
Yeah, imagine measuring the wind in order to understand climate. I mean, what total a/holes. They should have tested your breath if they wanted to fudge the data, you seem to blow a lot of hot air.

and come up with a figure we like, despite the fact that this flies in the face of measured data?


Sure mate. They found warm temperature rises in reality didn't they. That is, when they tested the real world, they found warm temps related to the AIR in the form of WIND that is related to temperature(see the atmosphere).
Duh!


Yes I am beginning to see just how much integrity these scientists have. So much for melatonin's tirade. Then they continue....


Speaking of integrity:

Allen and Sherwood predicted that measuring thermal winds, which are tied to fluctuations in temperatures, would be a more accurate gauge of true atmospheric warming than the thermometers. To measure the thermal winds, they studied data on the motion of weather balloons at different altitudes in the atmosphere. They then calculated temperatures that would account for the wind velocity recorded.

Geez, they applied simple techniques. They made a prediction, then tested it, and guess what. They got it right.

You can contact these scientists yourself.
Somehow I doubt you will.



I think this puts to rest any lingering doubts about the integrity of these scientists.

Puterdude, lets be honest. You have never lingered in any doubt. You have been pretty blatant in your wallowing within denial.
And I have seen first hand the validity of your "lingering doubt, which is shown to be flawed, here take a look Mr. Integrity.



Many scientists, including Allen and Sherwood,......some global warming skeptics had argued that weather balloon temperatures were accurate,and models that predicted global warming were wrong.



Talk about dishonestly attempting to baffle brains with bovine excrement!
Yeah, you really should stop.

So the radio sonde temperatures are perfectly OK for normal use but not for 'climate'. Horse #.

Yes, I agree, your comment is total Horse #.
Because, once again, you fail to comprehend the limits of balloons with radiosonde. The ability of radiosonde to give us an overall picture is limited as it does not give us a great deal of general geographic coverage in readings in order to create uniformity in those readings, which is why we use satellites more nowadays.
So for regional readings and information(Weather) it is great. For GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, it is limited.
That is why the scientists went for this option.

Allen and Sherwood predicted that measuring thermal winds, which are tied to fluctuations in temperatures, would be a more accurate gauge of true atmospheric warming than the thermometers. To measure the thermal winds, they studied data on the motion of weather balloons at different altitudes in the atmosphere. They then calculated temperatures that would account for the wind velocity recorded.
opac.yale.edu...
Once again though, simply show that the method they used is wrong.
It is that simple.

measuring thermal winds, which are tied to fluctuations in temperatures, would be a more accurate gauge of true atmospheric warming than the thermometers. To measure the thermal winds, they studied data on the motion of weather balloons at different altitudes in the atmosphere. They then calculated temperatures that would account for the wind velocity recorded.

Simple show this is wrong.
Go on.
It is a scam after all, isn't it Puterdude.



A temperature is a temperature whether you apply it to weather forecasts or climate modelling. That is just about the most pathetic ill thought out unscientific excuse I have come across so far, and I seem to be coming across a few now I have started looking.

Show they are wrong then.
You can contact these scientist here.
email: rjallen@uci.edu
www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au...
I was actually at UNSW last Wednesday, if only you had posted earlier, I could have dropped in to Sherwood's office in order to accuse him of fabricating data to fit models in order to enable

Global Warmist machine will lie it's way through anything without a care in the world if it assists their nefarious purpose.
.
I am sure you will explain where they went wrong.
Pretty simple PuterDUD.


Perhaps you would care to quote your source for that mis-information? Far from being heavily subsidised they are heavily penalised and in Europe taxed to the hilt.
You forget that european energy and fuel companies receive many breaks, they receive tax breaks for oil and gas exploration(instead of looking at alternatives) and they also receive subsidies related to the research and development of oil rsources( because there are different costs in securing oil like getting oil out of the sea is more expensive than in the Middle east for example) that would normally be passed on to the consumer. Also, european countries import a lot of energy from countries where it is heavily subsidized or exempt from taxes to make the product competitive in the global market. So subsidies flow on and effect real costs even in countries in Europe that have a local policy that taxes oil at higher rates in relation to consumers.


In what way is the cost artificial?

*Sigh*
Wake up dude.

Earlier this year, Business Week reported the IEA's Chief Economist Fatih Birol told the leaders of the Group of 20 that ending oil subsidies by 2020 "would reduce global oil demand by 6.5 million barrels a day, or about a third of the current U.S. use." Birol told Business Week,
“This is the only single policy item that could make such a major change in the global energy and climate-change game."
Those subsidies, said the IEA on Tuesday, amounted to $319 billion in 2009.


Read more: www.digitaljournal.com...


The effect of subsidies on the increased use and dependance on oil is no new issue.
resources.metapress.com...

And listen to these experts relating the US dependance on Oil, which also reflects the Western Worlds general concerns.

The federal government subsidizes the oil industry with numerous tax breaks and government protection programs worth billions of dollars annually. These benefits are designed to ensure that domestic oil companies can compete with international producers and that gasoline remains cheap for American consumers.

www.iags.org...

But anyway, I guess its all just misinformation.


By the way Poptech has not run away. He has been banned from posting on this thread. The excuse reason is that his user name is too similar to his website name. Being a good consipracist I have to wonder.....

You are not a very good conspiracy theorist.
You basically claim scientists around the world have conspired to create the illusion that the world is warming in order to complete some nefarious activity. Yet all attempts to change or reduce the very thing(CO2 emissions from fossil fuels) these scientists claim is responsible for the warming has failed.
Some conspiracy hey!
I bet Poptech will be thrilled when he gets a look at the good conspiracy( shoot myself in the foot) post that totally slams him here.


Thanks again for the laughs.

edit on 20/11/10 by atlasastro because: I just love quote box errors



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 
That one part of the model (the hotspot) is very important because it supports a high climate sensitivity. Without the amplification from water vapour to boost CO2's minor warming effect the predicted warming stands at only 1°C after a doubling of CO2, the positive feedbacks from water vapour and clouds is predicted to take that warming up to 3°C, or even 6°C. Sherwood admits that the radiosonde data shows less warming in the troposphere than at the surface suggesting the models have exaggerated positive feedback from water vapour.


Despite these attempts, most analyses of radiosondes continue to show less warming of the tropical troposphere since 1979 than reported at the surface. "Allan & Sherwood. "Warming Maximum in the Tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds".

Therefore Sherwood simply circumnavigates 30 years of unambiguous radiosonde data and is forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive by measuring the temperature by wind-speed. "So there!" Sherwood exalts triumphantly, "I have found the hotspot! The answer is hidden in the speed of the wind". Who would have guessed?

What's interesting, is that if the radiosondes were all wrong (that's 30 years of measurements which inconveniently happen to agree with the UAH and RSS satellite data (which is shown in the CCSP report here on page 110-111) thermometers in radiosondes must be astronomically more unreliable than anyone could have ever imagined and yet the ARSA website estimates that 40,000 radiosondes are launched every month to collect data on pressure, temperature and relative humidity, among other things. You would think that countries would be changing their methodology and be thanking Sherwood for this new scientific breakthrough that have made radiosondes obsolete. Notice in the CCSP report that the RSS data slightly overlaps with the models predictions but it doesn't show any amplification, it's at 0°C! Also, see how the radiosondes compare with the models on page 116. See any correlation?

Even the IPCC themselves admit that the satellite data is in agreement with radiosondes:


The range (due to different data sets) of the global mean troposphere temperature trend since 1979 is 0.12°C to 0.19°C per decade based on satellite-based estimates (Chapter 3) compared to a range of 0.16°C to 0.18°C per decade for the global surface warming.

One of the arguments I often hear against radiosondes is that they are not always reliable at measuring the humidity, which is true, as their humidity sensors can dry up, but they are very accurate at measuring the temperature with their thermometers. Here's a paragraph from NASA's website concerning the accuracy of radiosondes over several different models in 1980.


1989 tests of several models of radiosondes used in the United States in the 1980's showed pressure measured to an accuracy of about +/- 2mb, temperature measured to an accuracy of +/-0.3 degrees Celsius, and relative humidity to an accuracy of +/- 2 percent. (Elliott and Gaffen 1991)

Furthermore, I also hear people saying that radiosonde data is geographically sparse. Here is a graph from NOAA showing more than 1250 stations in which radiosondes are frequently launched.

So, in summarisation: to believe that the positive feedback effects from water vapour will amplify CO2's warming effect pushing the temperature from 1°C to 3-6°C after we have doubled CO2's initial concentration we must assume that satellites and 30 years of radiosonde data (which are specifically designed to measure the temperature) amounting to thousands of measurements are all wildly inaccurate and measuring the temperature by wind-speed is instead far more reliable.
edit on 20-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
As some are completely resistant to evidence showing that radiosondes are pretty unreliable (and most evidence challenging their denial), which recent reanalyses only consolidate (and lead to a position of 'who knows?'), I thought I'd post this for later reference.

The interesting thing about the tropospheric 'hot spot' is that it is a result of lapse rate changes. Thus, it occurs with any form of forcing. It is not indicative of GHG-induced warming and in no way 'falsifies' their effects. Further, some attempt to use this issue to negate the magnitude of positive feedbacks (i.e., water vapour, I presume).

However, as is usual with deniers they tend to have issues acquiring clues. If we assume that the evidence suggests that the 'hot spot' does not result from warming (from GHGs, solar, albedo etc), then we can therefore infer that the lapse rate changes are not present (as they are the mechanism which produces the hot spot).

The Lapse rate mechanism in models actually produces a net negative feedback. And it is determined largely independently of water vapour feedback (observed by the likes of Dessler's studies).

Therefore, if what some deniers try to argue is the case (i.e., no hot spot, no lapse rate) then climate sensitivity is most likely higher than was previously estimated. Thus, doubling CO2 would result in more warming.

Funny, eh?
edit on 20-11-2010 by melatonin because: I've walked Las Ramblas, but not with real intent



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

The interesting thing about the tropospheric 'hot spot' is that it is a result of lapse rate changes. Thus, it occurs with any form of forcing. It is not indicative of GHG-induced warming and in no way 'falsifies' their effects.

I agree, the hotspot doesn't necessarily need anthropogenic warming to occur. Theoretically any radiative forcing could produce a hotspot and changes in the lapse rate, like a decrease in cloud cover which would allow more sunlight to heat the oceans thus accelerating the hydrological cycle, but regardless of what type of forcing could produce a hotspot, the bottom line is, there is no hotspot, which means the modellers have exaggerated positive feedback from water vapour. All models show the troposphere should warm faster than the surface due to positive water vapour feedback. Observation shows it's the other way around. It's funny, when we simply point out discrepancies in the IPCC's theory, unbelievably, we get called deniers. The argument can be more nuanced as it is about positive feedback (or the lack of). The mechanism that is supposed to be responsible for the majority of the warming is missing. That's the bottom line. Which means positive feedback from water vapour has been exaggerated. That is how the IPCC made it's case. If you disagree with them that's fine, but it is what they presented. They specifically say it should be there as a "distinct" response of greenhouse gases and it's not. Theories about what else could maybe cause it are irrelevant since we were told with 90% certainty that the warming over the last 50 years is anthropogenic.


The Lapse rate mechanism in models actually produces a net negative feedback. And it is largely independent of water vapour feedback (observed by the likes of Dessler's studies).

Check out the IPCC graph. Which feedback has the greatest hypothetical influence? Would that be water vapour on its own, or water vapour pegged back by the lapse rate negative feedback?




As some are completely resistant to evidence showing that radiosondes are pretty unreliable (and most evidence challenging their denial), which recent reanalyses only consolidate (and lead to a position of 'who knows?'), I thought I'd post this for later reference.

And yet for all their unreliability and uncertainty the radiosondes still managed to produce completely unambiguous results for 30 straight years, time after time, coincidentally. And 40,000 radiosondes are still launched every single month all across the world. You should tell the ARSA what a massive waste of time it is and that their radiosondes are pointless. Their reliability when it comes to measuring humidity is questionable, but their simple thermometer sensors are individually calibrated to 0.1°C. Do you see the irony in calling us deniers when you deny 30 years of satellite and radiosonde observations? Only a religious zealot of biblical proportions would denounce that as meaningless.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Check out the IPCC graph. Which feedback has the greatest hypothetical influence? Would that be water vapour on its own, or water vapour pegged back by the lapse rate negative feedback?


Well done. You refuted yourself.

Congrats.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatoninYou just refuted yourself

Eh? The negative lapse rate feedback that is meant to weaken the greenhouse effect in the graph under WV+LR looks marginally weaker than the effect from WV. When all feedbacks are accounted for you can see that they are strongly positive and WV is the strongest of them all.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
So you clearly agree that the effects of changes in lapse rate on climate appears to be a negative feedback.

The tropical tropospheric hot-spot is the result of changes in lapse rate. If you want to argue that no hot-spot is present, then you are suggesting no changes in lapse rate.

Those changes result in a negative feedback. Take it away, and we have a stronger positive feedback.

It's not that hard to follow, really. The effect of temperature on water vapour is little to do with lapse rate - the water vapour feedback still exists, and is a consequence of Clausius-Clapeyron.

The lapse rate alters the vertical profile of warming. That's all. It actually results in a negative feedback because warming higher in the atmosphere (as expected in tropics) allows the troposphere to cool more effectively (more longwave radiation released) compared to the setting with homogenous warming through the troposphere (or surface biased).

You refuted yourself. I know it's confusing for you at the moment. You have put a lot of weight on this issue, but you don't really understand half of what you regurgitate from the likes of JoNova et al. You can accept that you did refute yourself, or you can deny and squirm.

Your choice.
edit on 20-11-2010 by melatonin because: you can't always get what you want but if you try real hard, you'll get what you need



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
You can accept that you did refute yourself, or you can deny and squirm.




I'll have $10,000 on deny and squirm thanks.
edit on 20/11/10 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by melatonin
You can accept that you did refute yourself, or you can deny and squirm.




I'll have $10,000 on deny and squirm thanks.
edit on 20/11/10 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)


lol

I have visions of Emperor Nathan furiously searching denier outlets for a cheap and nasty tie to hide the nakedness.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

The tropical tropospheric hot-spot is the result of changes in lapse rate. If you want to argue that no hot-spot is present, then you are suggesting no changes in lapse rate.

Yes, I am suggesting that (gasp). The lapse rate is the rate of decrease of atmospheric temperature with increase in altitude. The hotspot is meant to compare atmospheric temperature trends with surface trends (changes in the lapse rate). As far as my limited capacities are able to judge the hotspot in the models (anthropogenically produced or not) is meant to appear due to evaporation increasing and dumping more latent heat into the atmosphere. By suggesting that there is no hotspot I am suggesting that there has been no considerable change in the lapse rate since the surface and temperature trends have remained more or less same. If you can't accept the fact that the climate models are not accurately modelling the climate then you qualify as a believer. Maybe if we wait 20 years the models won't be so audaciously wrong.


It's not that hard to follow, really. The effect of temperature on increasing water vapour is little to do with lapse rate.

Excuse me? Are you saying that increasing water vapour has little to do with lapse rate? If more water vapour was dumped into the atmosphere it would act as a powerful greenhouse gas which would undoubtedly change the lapse rate. Why wouldn't it?


the water vapour feedback still exists, and is a consequence of Clasius-Clapeyron.

The idea that water vapour is a positive feedback is one that sounds reasonable to me on the face of it, although I think the essential question at issue is what happens to the water vapour as it condenses into clouds. The extra water vapour could even cause global cooling (gasp) by initiating the negative feedback of clouds. Clouds being a strong negative feedback is something that Roy Spencer has found real supporting evidence.


because warming higher in the atmosphere allows the troposphere to cool more effectively (more longwave radiation released)

I have no real objections to this.


I know it's confusing for you at the moment. You have put a lot of weight on this issue, but you don't really understand half of what you regurgitate from the likes of JoNova et al.

I have great respect for Joanne Nova's scientific and technical abilities and I have no idea why you keep suggesting she is an CAGW denier. Denial of CAGW is a natural human response to giving the so-called 'evidence' presented by CAGW-advocates some honest, rational scrutiny.


You can accept that you did refute yourself, or you can deny and squirm.

You can either accept that the models are wrong or you can keep living in your fantasy world where up is down and down is up. The observations do not match the models. End of story. Deal with it. The IPCC's hypothesis is not the only one in town, and it has been blown away by the non-appearance of the predicted hotspot in the troposphere. Computer models, or pen and paper calculations for that matter, do not comprise real evidence. If you have any such real evidence, please present it. Model-predictions are based on sheer blind trust and make-believe. And those things have no value in real science whatsoever.



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
I'll have $10,000 on deny and squirm thanks.


You were right. I would have only given you odds of 1/50000 anyway, lol.

Was it ever really in doubt?

@Nathan: I was playing hypotheticals, and taking your position and assessing its impact. I outlined my position on the model--hot-spot issue here and elsewhere. The evidence is unclear and no firm conclusions can be made. In contrast, you cherrypick data to infer there is a discrepancy - just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

As you stated, the changes in lapse rate result in a negative feedback, and many forcings will produce it. The tropical hot-spot is a direct result of lapse rate changes. Therefore if we assume no hot-spot due to no changes in lapse rate, we get a higher climate sensitivity and more warming. You see, we can observe the water vapour feedback:


Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008

A. E. Dessler
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

Z. Zhang
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

P. Yang
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA's satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λ q = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.


The best estimate from models is 1.8ish. Perhaps it a bit higher in the obs because there are no lapse rate changes in the tropics, as you propose (lol).

As I said when we first discussed this, if you want to question the hotspot, you are a 'lapse rate contrarian'. It's in no way indicative of CO2, GHGs, or even water vapour feedback.


If more water vapour was dumped into the atmosphere it would act as a powerful greenhouse gas which would undoubtedly change the lapse rate


And, yes, water vapour is a GHG, and a positive feedback. I know. CO2 is a GHG and a forcing. As CO2 increases it warms the troposphere, resulting in a positive feedback from water vapour.

Cheers.
edit on 20-11-2010 by melatonin because: this is the end, my only friend, the end...



posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I'll post as proxy for Nathan.

Originally posted by melatonin

I'll have $10,000 on deny and squirm thanks.



You were right. I would have only given you odds of 1/50000 anyway, lol.

That would still be positive feedback.



Was it ever really in doubt?
With Nathan, it is only ever doubt, manufactured doubt. Doubt is the new "faith".


@Nathan: I was playing hypotheticals, and taking your position and assessing its impact. I outlined my position on the model--hot-spot issue here and elsewhere. The evidence is unclear and no firm conclusions can be made. In contrast, you cherrypick data to infer there is a discrepancy - just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Nathan will miss the point or simply ignore it as it is not something he can quote mine in order to dismiss it.
Cherry picking an area of uncertainty to simply support people who are already certain that the scientists are wrong and we can throw the baby out with the bath water.
The entire debate surrounding AGW does not rest solely on the issue relating to Models Nathan and PuterDUD seem to hope will "vanquish" the evil scientists.



As you stated, the changes in lapse rate result in a negative feedback, and many forcings will produce it.
Lets just forget that. That requires a broader scope of investigation and consideration that might undermine the process of denial.

The tropical hot-spot is a direct result of lapse rate changes. Therefore if we assume no hot-spot due to no changes in lapse rate, we get a higher climate sensitivity and more warming. You see, we can observe the water vapour feedback:

(channelling little britain) Denial computer says: "no".


Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008

A. E. Dessler
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

Z. Zhang
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

P. Yang
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

Can you stop with the science already.
Can you actually link a blog that re-interprets this to show it argues against AGW theory please.



Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA's satellite-borne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS).

INITIATING DACR(Denialists Blog Automated Common Response) Bring back the balloons, NASA made a mistake with GISS readings once, that means AIRS is corrupt too, except when it gives us data we can twist into an argument against AGW, ummm, then it is O.K and legit.



Over most of the troposphere, q increased with increasing global-average surface temperature, although some regions showed the opposite response. RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of λ q = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models. The magnitude is similar to that obtained if the atmosphere maintained constant RH everywhere.



The best estimate from models is 1.8ish. Perhaps it a bit higher in the obs because there are no lapse rate changes in the tropics, as you propose (lol).
......... Response being formulated........ open bookmark page......... click denial folder....... accessing..... Wattsupwiththat.... RealClimate...... Centre for Science and Policy ...... formulating reply.........."The Hockey stick is a fraud to bring about a one world government".



As I said when we first discussed this, if you want to question the hotspot, you are a 'lapse rate contrarian'. It's in no way indicative of CO2, GHGs, or even water vapour feedback.

But that is not what the think tanks tell me. So you must be wrong and all those climate scientists and atmospheric physicists are liars. That makes more sense.


quote by Nathan_D
If more water vapour was dumped into the atmosphere it would act as a powerful greenhouse gas which would undoubtedly change the lapse rate
= I am just going to say the lapse rate shows it is something else and that something else is creating something else which indicates uncertainty of my original premise which I was hoping would make the reality uncertain even though what I am using reduces the uncertainty of my own attempt at manufacturing uncertainty.

I need to lay down for a bit.


And, yes, water vapour is a GHG, and a positive feedback. I know. CO2 is a GHG and a forcing. As CO2 increases it warms the troposphere, resulting in a positive feedback from water vapour.

But what about the lapse rate. I mean, it is a lapse rate. It must mean that something is wrong with the models, if I mention lapse rate the truth will simply lapse from existence and I can continue to ignore a really pressing global issue in order to preserve the status quo that the Fossil Fuel companies want to maintain via a PR campaign of Denial.

Give yourselves a big pat on the back EU, Poptech, PuterDUD and Nathan_D.

“History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.”

- Abba Eban
edit on 20/11/10 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 

In contrast, you cherry-pick data to infer there is a discrepancy - just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Of course. Because 30 years of radiosonde data is obviously cherry-picking. We have empirical evidence. What you have is an elaborate, convoluted, highly-imaginative conjecture that is unsupported by the laws of physics and the empirical observations that would be needed to prove it. I'm sorry, but what you CAGW-advocates are doing with all of this is not real science. Since you did not have enough real evidence ready to hand to make your case compelling you set about manufacturing it with speculative models, even to the extent of fabricating your basic temperature-data in this way too. You did all that and keep doing it in an ongoing process that is gargantuan in size. At the same time you have ignored, hidden and sought to explain away all of the theoretical and observational evidence that contradicts your prior conviction, which exists in abundance.


The evidence is unclear and no firm conclusions can be made.

The evidence is clear. There is no tropospheric hotspot and thus there is no positive feedback amplification from water vapour to boost CO2's minor warming effect.


As you stated, the changes in lapse rate result in a negative feedback, and many forcings will produce it.

Changes in the lapse rate can be as result from a negative or positive feedback (or HME/RTM). In any case, there are several mechanisms in the climate models that give rise to the tropospheric hotspot above the equator and the main mechanism is from greenhouse gases. From the IPCC 8.6.3.1: "In the troposphere, the radiative forcing due to direct anthropogenic sources of water vapour (mainly from irrigation) is negligible (see Section 2.5.6). Rather, it is the response of tropospheric water vapour to warming itself - the water vapour feedback - that matters for climate change. In GCMs, water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback (see Section 8.6.2.3): alone, it roughly doubles the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases)." Did you get that? The IPCC make it clear that the hotspot is due to positive feedback water vapour amplification and Figure 9.1 only shows a hotspot in response to the greenhouse effect. You're wrong.


if we assume no hot-spot due to no changes in lapse rate we get a higher climate sensitivity and more warming.

Wait a minute - you mean there is no warming in the troposphere meaning there is no positive feedback amplification from water vapour and that indicates a high climate sensitivity? So let's get this straight: no hotspot indicates a high climate sensitivity and a hotspot also indicates a high climate sensitivity? Ha, ha! Why didn't you just say so? But according to you the hotspot is not missing and in fact Sherwood has found it by analysing the speed of the wind? Here's the bottom line. I'm going to write this in small words now just so you can understand. Let's be clear, the hot spot is due (specifically in the GCMs) to a number of effects, primarily from greenhouse gases. According to the IPCC, as CO2 increases it produces a positive feedback loop from water vapour and this feedback loop produces more water vapour and thus more warming occurs (that is positive feedback). Following? It isn't happening. The troposphere is not warming, and in fact radiosonde measurements show that relative humidity has fallen (Paltridge 2009) which indicates a negative feedback.
edit on 21-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 
Oh no. Another brainwashed sucker who has swallowed the alarmist twaddle emanating from the core-cabal of the CAGW-cult and who doesn't even know that he's been had.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Actually, there is plenty of Alarm in there, mostly at your ignorance and your ability to deny that fact that you have been proven wrong a number of times. So I agree I am Alarmed.

P.S. Can you link another blog link from Tim Ball or Singer, I need a laugh.

P.S.S can you at least thank Mel for totally schooling you from pillar to post on this thread.
Schooled.
Pawnd.
and Owned.

Yet Again, I might add. You got schooled on that other thread by Mel too huh!, On exactly the same topic!
Tsk Tsk.
Not a quick learner are we.
God Bless 'em.

I think straws are on sale are K-mart this week, just in case you might need some new ones to grasp at.
Good luck with that.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 

can you at least thank Mel for totally schooling you from pillar to post on this thread.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but I think I just coughed up my spleen laughing.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join