Welcome to PatsFans.com

Co2 forcing driving climate ?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by patsfan13, Nov 25, 2009.

  1. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,234
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3

    Well the modelers/alarmist have theorized that the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere has a positive feedback effect on temperatures. Now systems with positive feedback are very sensitive systems all the climate models build in a positive feedback effect from CO2 having to do with clouds trapping heat and causing the planet to warm. How do these models compare with the measurements from satellites?


    He is an abstract from R Spencer who is the father of satellite measurements at NASA

    Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Change (supercedes “Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?”) Roy Spencer, Ph. D.



    BTW for those concerned this is non commercial material submitted into the public domain.
  2. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Roy Spencer? Oops.

    RealClimate: How to cook a graph in three easy lessons
    RSS / MSU and AMSU Data / Browse

    What else? Just for fun:

    Roy Spencer (scientist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,258
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Not really sure what the point is. The article is one scientists interpretation of the IPCC approach and, since we're concerned about evil motivations, that scientists happens to be a popular writing of anti-global warming articles for conservative magazines like National Review and books. So, perhaps we should question his motives, as the skeptics question the motives of those who believe in mmgw.

    Of course it's diffiuclt to respond to a scientific presentation, but I did find this on realclimate.org:

    RealClimate: FAQ on climate models: Part II

    "Spencer's critique has not been published in the peer reviewed literature and so it is difficult to know what he has done. From the figures he has shown he is using different averaging periods for the data and the models (12 month running mean vs. 91 running mean) and is not stated whether he is looking at analogous periods. Comparing models to observations is perfectly fine, but the comparison has to be apples-with-apples and the analysis has to be a little more sophisticated than saying 'look at the lines' (or 'linear striations'). His contention that models were built incorrectly because of a mis-interpretation of cloud data is completely bogus."

    This article does not talk directly about the one patsfan13 posted, but in layman's terms raises a number of questions about Spencer's methodology:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/comment-page-3/
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2009
  4. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Not quite sure why there is a need to have 4 threads on the same thing, where are the mods... oh, they are the ones posting and responding...

    Wake up mods..

    :spygate::spygate::spygate::spygate:
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,234
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3



    The real climate people are the ones cheating how care what lies they are telling.


    BTW much more important than the emails were the data sets and code that was released. People are goig through now and there some things in their that are very damaging.

    This scandal is just getting started. In the UK writers that supported the AGW scam are already calling for Jones to resign.

    Keep whistling past the graveyard strudel.
  6. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,234
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3



    The point is that determining the climate sensitivity and whether is is a negative or positive feedback mechanism determins whether human activity would cause the types of prolems the alarmist scream about.
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,234
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3




    This story has many aspects sorry if youdon't understand or can't follow the conversation. The posts will continue.

    I fond it much more interesting that yousex scandal posts/
  8. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    It still belongs in one logical thread rather than dislocated across the forum in a paean to ADD.
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,234
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3

    This thread is about a climate paper that says the there is no positive feedback climate forcing from CO2. Indeed that clouds are a negative feedback mechanism. he used satellite data to support this position.

    If his paper is correct them CO2 is a non issue in terms of planetary climate.
  10. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    1) The paper is not correct and has been corrected by other scientists.
    2) It would be much more useful to have a single climate change thread to focus discussion. Otherwise all you have is a million disparate threads touching on the same general issue.

    But sure, keep spamming the forum with a new thread for all the bad science you believe in.
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,234
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3



    1) Links please. Peer reviewd from a Journal not from a propaganda site like real climate. Thanks.


    How many Bush/Cheney crime threads have there been?
  12. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Propaganda site? That work has far more peer review than the link you posted.

    Address the science instead of crying propaganda. (I'm sure you'll just stick your fingers in your ears.) There's plenty of science there to address, if you can do it (and I know you can't).

    As for the Cheney crime threads, it probably is a good idea to have a perpetual Bush/Cheney crime thread. It'd be pretty long.


    Sigh.
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,234
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3

    Real climate isn't a perr reviewed journal. Indeed the emails I posted show that it is a 'safe site' for the alarmist that has NO Review process. I take it from your answer you don't have a link to a legit journal.
  14. apple strudel

    apple strudel Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    No, it's a blog. But Mann has plenty of peer reviewed articles to his name. Also, being a blog, it is reviewable by any peer, and many non-peers.

    Can you address the science he discusses or are you going to keep sticking your fingers in his ears?
  15. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,234
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3






    Spencer had his paper published in a peer reviewd paper. Was Mann's responce submitted to the same Journal for open review or did he just respond in a blog?

    Mann BTW is caught on email trying to blackball dissenting opinion from bieng published in peer reviewed journals.


    I can take it you answer is no Spencer's peer reviewed paper was refuted in the Journal. Thanks.

Share This Page