Attention AGW Deniers - Especially Those Acolytes of Dr. Roy Spencer...

[homersapien 12,172]

Cmon, and miss a chance @ posting a clip of a singing frog ?

Lighten up Francis

"That myth has been debunked, actually, though it does make for a nice talking point."

And you tell me to lighten up?

[AFTiger 282]

Another alarmist pillar collapses – Greenland melting due to old soot feedback loops and albedo change – not AGW

http://wattsupwithth...change-not-agw/

Nice try, but if you consult the actual article, http://www.the-cryos...10-477-2016.pdf , you will find the following statements in the abstract:

"Analysis of MAR outputs indicates that the observed albedo decrease is attributable to the combined effects of increased near-surface air temperatures, which enhanced melt and promoted growth in snow grain size and the expansion of bare ice areas, and to trends in light-absorbing impurities (LAI) on the snow and ice surfaces."

And then:

"Albedo projections through to the end of the century under different warming scenarios consistently point to continued darkening, with albedo anomalies averaged over the whole ice sheet lower by 0.08 in 2100 than in 2000, driven solely by a warming climate."

In other words, the decrease in albedo is being exacerbated by global warming. It is not proposed as an alternative mechanism but a concurrent one.

The discovery of another interactive mechanism hardly disproves AGW. In fact, it's these inherent possibilities that might accelerate the effects of warming.

This is a good example of how sites like WUWT distort the actual science for their political purposes.

Denier

[homersapien 12,172]

Another alarmist pillar collapses – Greenland melting due to old soot feedback loops and albedo change – not AGW

http://wattsupwithth...change-not-agw/

Nice try, but if you consult the actual article, http://www.the-cryos...10-477-2016.pdf , you will find the following statements in the abstract:

"Analysis of MAR outputs indicates that the observed albedo decrease is attributable to the combined effects of increased near-surface air temperatures, which enhanced melt and promoted growth in snow grain size and the expansion of bare ice areas, and to trends in light-absorbing impurities (LAI) on the snow and ice surfaces."

And then:

"Albedo projections through to the end of the century under different warming scenarios consistently point to continued darkening, with albedo anomalies averaged over the whole ice sheet lower by 0.08 in 2100 than in 2000, driven solely by a warming climate."

In other words, the decrease in albedo is being exacerbated by global warming. It is not proposed as an alternative mechanism but a concurrent one.

The discovery of another interactive mechanism hardly disproves AGW. In fact, it's these inherent possibilities that might accelerate the effects of warming.

This is a good example of how sites like WUWT distort the actual science for their political purposes.

Denier

That's just sad.

You need to redirect your embarrassment to WUWT, not me.

[Guest NC1406]

I am going to take a leap and say I believe the scientists and that AGW is real. Even if you believe those facts what brings one to believe that fossil fuels are the problem? What has been the population explosion during the time frame of the studies? What has been the expansion of large cities that grow concrete versus plant life? Should we not be opposing big cities as the real cause of AGW? How did we jump to the conclusion that fossil fuels did all this? Yes I have a bias, I work in the fossil fuel industry but shake my head when I see what large cities do to our environment.

[homersapien 12,172]

I am going to take a leap and say I believe the scientists and that AGW is real. Even if you believe those facts what brings one to believe that fossil fuels are the problem? What has been the population explosion during the time frame of the studies? What has been the expansion of large cities that grow concrete versus plant life? Should we not be opposing big cities as the real cause of AGW? How did we jump to the conclusion that fossil fuels did all this? Yes I have a bias, I work in the fossil fuel industry but shake my head when I see what large cities do to our environment.

Make that scotch a double!

Regarding your questions, it's a relatively simple matter to calculate where most of the excess CO2 is coming from. We are removing sequestered carbon from the earth and putting it into the atmosphere.

You are absolutely correct about the effects of population as that is directly correlated to the amount of carbon-based fuels that are consumed. Deforestation also has an impact as trees sequester carbon, even if not permanently.

And not to be an alarmist, but one of the things that don't get much attention is the release of large amounts of methane - which is worse than CO2 - sequestered in permafrost as it thaws. Also, at some point, the oceans will lose their buffering capacity and stop absorbing CO2.

It's such feedback loop mechanisms that keep scientists up at night. However, many avoid discussing such subjects because of charges of "alarmism".

http://www.theguardi...-global-warming

https://nsidc.org/cr...nd/methane.html

http://www.pri.org/s...scientists-warn

Triggering a few of these sort of feedback loops could result in runaway warming with the capability of wiping out humans as a species.

[Guest NC1406]

I am going to take a leap and say I believe the scientists and that AGW is real. Even if you believe those facts what brings one to believe that fossil fuels are the problem? What has been the population explosion during the time frame of the studies? What has been the expansion of large cities that grow concrete versus plant life? Should we not be opposing big cities as the real cause of AGW? How did we jump to the conclusion that fossil fuels did all this? Yes I have a bias, I work in the fossil fuel industry but shake my head when I see what large cities do to our environment.

Make that scotch a double!

Regarding your questions, it's a relatively simple matter to calculate where most of the excess CO2 is coming from. We are removing sequestered carbon from the earth and putting it into the atmosphere.

You are absolutely correct about the effects of population as that is directly correlated to the amount of carbon-based fuels that are consumed. Deforestation also has an impact as trees sequester carbon, even if not permanently.

And not to be an alarmist, but one of the things that don't get much attention is the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases - such as methane, which is even worse than CO2 sequestered in permafrost when it thaws. Also, at some point, the oceans will lose their buffering capacity and stop absorbing CO2.

It's such feedback loop mechanisms that keep scientists up at night. However, many avoid discussing such subjects because of charges of "alarmism".

http://www.theguardi...-global-warming

https://nsidc.org/cr...nd/methane.html

http://www.pri.org/s...scientists-warn

Triggering a few of these sort of feedback loops could result in runaway warming with the capability of wiping out humans as a species.

I just poured that scotch and will not read these links tonight (they wouldn't mean much right now). Really interested in the translation of what is the cause of global warming and will follow the links late tomorrow after I finish some work. While I don't disagree that there is global warming, I am suspect of the current culprit being exclusively fossil fuels.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Given that X is bad, and it is desirable to have less of X instead of more, even though attempts to lessen X is viewed as either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what we input for X, i'ts funny to see how each is viewed.

X as C02.

X as ILLEGAL immigrants.

[Auburn4life 24]

This is why I don't buy into man made global warming, because Man makes the data fit their needs.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/

Everthing below is quoted from link...

In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.

I combined the two graphs at the same scale below, and put a horizontal red reference line in, which shows that the earth’s atmosphere has not warmed at all since the late 1950’s

[homersapien 12,172]

This is why I don't buy into man made global warming, because Man makes the data fit their needs.

http://realclimatesc...g-for-58-years/

Everthing below is quoted from link...

In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.

I combined the two graphs at the same scale below, and put a horizontal red reference line in, which shows that the earth’s atmosphere has not warmed at all since the late 1950’s

Quick, submit a paper! :-\

[Auburn4life 24]

you and Raptor (according to you) have something in common. You turn a blind eye to truth. Data was definitely altered to fit their desired results.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Conclusion.......after many threads and posts on GW in this forum, NO ONE knows the facts/truth. Only time will tell.

[homersapien 12,172]

Conclusion.......after many threads and posts on GW in this forum, NO ONE knows the facts/truth. Only time will tell.

Well, you are partly right. While I don't personally "know" the facts/truth, I do understand that virtually all of the scientists that work in the field believe it's real. I also have enough education to understand the presented evidence.

As a rational person, that's good enough for me.

[homersapien 12,172]

you and Raptor (according to you) have something in common. You turn a blind eye to truth. Data was definitely altered to fit their desired results.

Like I said. Get a paper published and I will give it full consideration. Meanwhile you are just another poster on the Internet. :-\

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Conclusion.......after many threads and posts on GW in this forum, NO ONE knows the facts/truth. Only time will tell.

Well, you are partly right. While I don't personally know the facts/truth, but I do understand than virtually all of the scientists that work in the field believe it's real. I also have enough education to understand the presented evidence.

As a rational person, that's good enough for me.

That's OK but just quit knocking everyone who disagrees with you

[AURaptor 1,137]

See, it's an often repeated non-fact that " virtually all of the scientists that work in the field agree " believe it's real , but I too have enough education to understand the over all issue.

And my solution ? Isn't the crushing weight of the imperial federal govt, or the UN , orchestrating a massive redistribution of wealth under the completely false pretense of " saving the planet ".

[AUDub 11,784]

This is why I don't buy into man made global warming, because Man makes the data fit their needs.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/

Everthing below is quoted from link...

In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.

I combined the two graphs at the same scale below, and put a horizontal red reference line in, which shows that the earth’s atmosphere has not warmed at all since the late 1950’s

You're quoting a denialist that even other denialists think is stupid. Steven Goddard.

He's an idiot. Luckily, I've already replied to this on a another forum:

That's just silly. The NOAA didn't hide anything. The starting point for the graphs was 1979 to align the radiosonde record with the UAH and RSS satellite datasets, which started in 1979. And that Radiosonde data he's using came from (guess who?) the NOAA. That's right, they're so intent on keeping this secret that they not only included said decline in this brief, they show it on pretty much ever dag blasted temperature record and proxy reconstruction that dates back that far. Very sneaky. Look at pages 5 and 6.

Further, the writer took the graph for troposphere atmospheric data points from a 1978 graph that displays standard deviations from the mean of a data set between 1950-1977 and then lined up the mean of that graph to the mean of the NOAA graph, which uses an entirely different data set (1979-2015). Two entirely different means. Thus the deviations and subsequent analysis would be meaningless. If you were to do this right you would need the raw data points of the whole (1950-2015) and then do a whole new analysis with a new mean over the entire period and then run the corresponding stdevs.

Don't take the article you shared seriously. Guy has no idea what he's doing. His analysis is meaningless.

[AFTiger 282]

Unhinged deniers attack

[homersapien 12,172]

Conclusion.......after many threads and posts on GW in this forum, NO ONE knows the facts/truth. Only time will tell.

Well, you are partly right. While I don't personally know the facts/truth, but I do understand than virtually all of the scientists that work in the field believe it's real. I also have enough education to understand the presented evidence.

As a rational person, that's good enough for me.

That's OK but just quit knocking everyone who disagrees with you

Educating people is not "knocking" them. I am all for an actual debate on the question.

[homersapien 12,172]

See, it's an often repeated non-fact that " virtually all of the scientists that work in the field agree " believe it's real , but I too have enough education to understand the over all issue.

And my solution ? Isn't the crushing weight of the imperial federal govt, or the UN , orchestrating a massive redistribution of wealth under the completely false pretense of " saving the planet ".

You need to work on that. It makes no sense.

Unhinged deniers attack

Correct. We are making progress.

[AFTiger 282]

Global Warming Satellite Data Gets Suspicious Makeover

Written by Alex Newman

Facing an accelerating implosion of faith in the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) theory due in part to satellite data showing more than 18 years of no warming — the great “pause” or “hiatus,” as some put it — one of the satellite data sets has now been adjusted to show a slight increase in temperatures over the last two decades. Global-warming theorists on the government dole celebrated the news, speculating that it might herald the end of skepticism over their controversial theory and even what particularly rabid warmists refer to as “climate denial.” However, experts and scientists warned climate alarmists to cool it — especially because the “adjusted” data is now significantly different than other, unmanipulated temperature data sets. There appear to be big problems with the adjustments, two, experts in satellite temperature data said.

The adjusted data set in question comes from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), satellites put into orbit by NASA but now overseen by chief RSS climate scientist Carl Mears in Santa Rosa, California. The new numbers, which were recently adjusted, purport to show about 0.125 degrees Celsius of warming every 10 years. That is radically more than the 0.078 Celsius per decade — a statistically insignificant figure — that the RSS data set showed before being “adjusted.” The new numbers from RSS also show radically higher temperature increases than other satellite data, such as the numbers from the University of Alabama at Huntsville's data set (UAH). Examining the alleged warming over the tropics, for example, the new adjusted RSS data shows a rate of warming almost five times larger than UAH data, analysts said.

Scientists at UAH, including Dr. Roy Spencer, former senior climate scientist at NASA, compared the new RSS results with the data collected by UAH satellites. In comments on his own website and at climate-focused outlets, Spencer said there had been “spurious warming” added into the new RSS data — a problem that UAH data does not have. He blamed the spurious warming in the adjusted RSS data set on the RSS scientists failing to correct for discrepancies between more accurate temperature data-gathering instruments and data gathered by older, poorly calibrated instruments that have drifted from their original orbit. “I suspect Carl Mears [with RSS] grew tired of global warming ‘denialists’ using the RSS satellite data to demonstrate an 18-year ‘pause,’” Spencer was quoted as saying by the Daily Caller. “So, now that problem is solved.”

Spencer also followed up with an in-depth analysis of the changes on his own website. “Importantly, Mears and [fellow RSS scientist Frank] Wentz choose to leave this calibration drift in without adjustment for it,” explained Spencer after showing the discrepancies graphically. “In effect they are saying, ‘we don’t know which of the two satellites is at fault, so we will leave both satellites in without adjustment.'... We find it curious (to say the least) that RSS would treat these two satellites as equally accurate.” Spencer also noted that his colleague at UAH, Dr. John Christy, computed the level of agreement between the three satellite data sets and the various other sets of data. UAH data had better agreement with other data sources than RSS or NOAA's data set, Spencer said.

In his conclusion, Spencer said the evidence suggests that the latest RSS data set has “spurious warming” due to a lack of correction for calibration drift in the NOAA-14 MSU instrument, which gathers data from a satellite. “Somewhat smaller increases in their warming trend are due to their use of a climate model for diurnal [daily] drift adjustment, compared to our use of an empirical approach that relies upon observed diurnal drift from the satellite data themselves,” he added. “While the difference in diurnal drift correction methodology is a more legitimate point of contention, in the final analysis independent validation with radiosonde data [from weather balloons] and most reanalysis data sets suggest better agreement with the UAH product than the RSS product.”

Speaking to meteorologist Anthony Watts, who runs one of the world's leading websites focused on climate science, Spencer was even more blunt about the problems. “So, it looks like they [RSS] decided to force good data to match bad data,” he said. “Sound familiar?” Watts responded by saying, “Yes, yes it does.” Considering the fact that there “aren't many satellite temperature data experts in the world,” Watts also asked Spencer at UAH whether he or Dr. Christy, also a climatologist at UAH, had been asked to review the paper by RSS' scientists “finding” the spurious warming. Spencer said that Christy reviewed the original one and requested more evidence, but the paper was ultimately rejected anyway. Eventually the RSS scientists submitted the claims to another journal “and likely asked that we be excluded as reviewers,” Spencer noted.

Watts also tore into the latest adjustments, lambasting what he called the “Karlization” of temperature data — a term named after National Climatic Data Center director Tom Karl, currently under congressional scrutiny, who was called out even by fellow warmists for trying to make the past seem colder so the present would seem warmer. “It seems to me based on his recent comments that Dr. Mears has gotten fed up with people using his RSS data set to suggest that the world isn’t warming as he expects it should,” Watts said about the recent adjustments to RSS data. “Taking a cue from the other Karl, he publishes a paper and claims that new and improved adjustments have 'found' that missing warming.”

On his climate-focused site, WattsUpWithThat, Watts also highlights Mears' own statements published on his own website. Attacking the selection of 1998, a very warm year due to El Niño, by skeptics to point out that there has been no warming in 18 years, Mears nevertheless concedes that “there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate.” “This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature data sets,” Mears added. Watts, though, takes Mears to task for using terms such as “denialist,” clearly revealing his bias in favor of global-warming alarmism. El Niño is once again causing high temperatures for 2016.

Other climate experts, meanwhile, downplayed the latest RSS adjustments, while highlighting the fact that climate models predicting massive and accelerated warming as CO2 concentrations increased were still at serious odds with reality. The RSS adjustment is “not that big a change, and it’s still controversial and new,” Chip Knappenberger, a climate scientist now at the Cato Institute, was quoted as saying by the Daily Caller. “It’s still not coming close to explaining the discrepancy between the models and the observations.” Speaking to the Associated Press, Knappenberger noted that the revisions show “how messy the procedures are in putting the satellite data together.”

Prominent climate bloggers, who have long been exposing fraud and deceit by the tax-funded climate-alarmism machine while on a shoe-string budget, promptly ridiculed Mears and his effort to find warming. “As usual with these things, the past has been cooled and the present warmed,” explained Paul Homewood with the blog Not A Lot Of People Know That, adding that the adjustments so far dealt only with the mid troposphere, rather than the lower troposphere that normally receives more attention. “It is apparent that substantial adjustments have been made since 2012 as well. This is often a tell tale sign that adjustments keep accumulating in one direction, rather than making one step change, something we have regularly seen with [NASA data set] GISS.”

Another climate analyst whose work has embarrassed well-funded “climate scientists” for years similarly blasted the new revisions alongside graphs illustrating the deception. “Nothing about climate science reeks more of confirmation bias, than the changes scientists make to their own data sets over time,” noted climate-model whistleblower Steve Goddard (pseudonym) of Real Climate Science in a post highlighting the changes to various data sets, including the new revisions to RSS. “They all show exactly the same pattern of monotonically cooling the past and warming the present, regardless of the instrumentation.”

Unsurprisingly, considering that the stubborn 18-year “pause” in warming was used as evidence by skeptics to argue that AGW theory was a fraud or at least discredited, government climate scientists were very pleased with the latest adjustments. NASA's Gavin Schmidt, for example, who failed to properly explain numerous adjustments to the agency's own manipulations of surface temperature data, could hardly contain himself. “New version of RSS about to be released — the end of the satellite 'pause'?” he asked on Twitter. Of course, the other satellite data, and the weather balloons, continue to show the pause, which Schmidt knows very well.

As if to confirm the allegations of his critics, RSS' Mears celebrated that skeptics could no longer point to his RSS data to say there has been no warming in 18 years or more. “There are people that like to claim there was no warming; they really can't claim that anymore,” Mears was quoted as saying, falsely, in a deeply biased report by the Associated Press. Of course, Mears also omitted the fact that other data sets that have not been similarly manipulated continue to show the pause.

As Watts pointed out, one Karl, the chief of the National Climatic Data Center, is already being investigated by Congress for manipulating data to show bogus warming and hide the “pause” in temperature increases. His manipulation was so extreme that even top climate alarmists had to call foul. Perhaps it is time for Congress to expand its probe into the manipulation of data — especially because U.S. taxpayers are being asked to fork over billions of dollars and suffer a reduced standard of living under the guise of dealing with AGW. For now, though, experts say the RSS data should also be treated as suspect until further notice.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, environment, politics, education, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

[homersapien 12,172]

Global Warming Satellite Data Gets Suspicious Makeover

Written by Alex Newman

Facing an accelerating implosion of faith in the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) theory due in part to satellite data showing more than 18 years of no warming — the great “pause” or “hiatus,” as some put it — one of the satellite data sets has now been adjusted to show a slight increase in temperatures over the last two decades.......

That's freakin' hilarious. An "accelerating implosion of faith"?!

In the face of one record breaking month/year after the other?

To the contrary, even the disinterested and unscientific are starting to recognize the evidence as it reveals itself right in front of their face.

You seem to think that satellite data is some sort of gold standard for measuring the temperature of the earth. It's not. It's simply one of dozens of techniques - many of which are more direct and thus provide more accurate information. (After all, what could possible be less direct that trying to measure temperature from a satellite? If it weren't so, the data wouldn't require manipulation in the first place.)

If the satellite date were producing artificially high temperature readings do you think the deniers would change their minds? Hell no, they are gravitating to satellite data because it fits their agenda - denial.

If global warming is not progressing, how in hell do you explain all of these recent highs in the record? (And please, don't say El Nino. We've had El Nino's in the past without producing historically record breaking temperatures.)

[AURaptor 1,137]

We're looking at high temps more, so we're finding more. Same with quakes. More sensors equates to more events being registered.

[AFTiger 282]

Global Warming Satellite Data Gets Suspicious Makeover

Written by Alex Newman

Facing an accelerating implosion of faith in the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) theory due in part to satellite data showing more than 18 years of no warming — the great “pause” or “hiatus,” as some put it — one of the satellite data sets has now been adjusted to show a slight increase in temperatures over the last two decades.......

That's freakin' hilarious. An "accelerating implosion of faith"?!

In the face of one record breaking month/year after the other?

To the contrary, even the disinterested and unscientific are starting to recognize the evidence as it reveals itself right in front of their face.

You seem to think that satellite data is some sort of gold standard for measuring the temperature of the earth. It's not. It's simply one of dozens of techniques - many of which are more direct and thus provide more accurate information. (After all, what could possible be less direct that trying to measure temperature from a satellite? If it weren't so, the data wouldn't require manipulation adjusting in the first place.)

If the satellite date were producing artificially high temperature readings do you think the deniers would change their minds? Hell no, they are gravitating to satellite data because it fits their agenda - denial.

If global warming is not progressing, how in hell do you explain all of these recent highs in the record? (And please, don't say El Nino. We've had El Nino's in the past without producing historically record breaking temperatures.)

Data adjustments always help.

[AUDub 11,784]

Global Warming Satellite Data Gets Suspicious Makeover

Written by Alex Newman

Facing an accelerating implosion of faith in the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) theory due in part to satellite data showing more than 18 years of no warming — the great “pause” or “hiatus,” as some put it — one of the satellite data sets has now been adjusted to show a slight increase in temperatures over the last two decades.......

That's freakin' hilarious. An "accelerating implosion of faith"?!

In the face of one record breaking month/year after the other?

To the contrary, even the disinterested and unscientific are starting to recognize the evidence as it reveals itself right in front of their face.

You seem to think that satellite data is some sort of gold standard for measuring the temperature of the earth. It's not. It's simply one of dozens of techniques - many of which are more direct and thus provide more accurate information. (After all, what could possible be less direct that trying to measure temperature from a satellite? If it weren't so, the data wouldn't require manipulation adjusting in the first place.)

If the satellite date were producing artificially high temperature readings do you think the deniers would change their minds? Hell no, they are gravitating to satellite data because it fits their agenda - denial.

If global warming is not progressing, how in hell do you explain all of these recent highs in the record? (And please, don't say El Nino. We've had El Nino's in the past without producing historically record breaking temperatures.)

Data adjustments always help.

You'll need to ask Roy why UAH is on its sixth version. :-\