Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

BOMBSHELL: Study shows greenhouse gas induced warming dropped for the past 14 years

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BOMBSHELL: Study shows greenhouse gas induced warming dropped for the past 14 years

    From Watts Up With That?
    BOMBSHELL: Study shows greenhouse gas induced warming dropped for the past 14 years

    Posted on August 5, 2014 by Anthony Watts

    Paper finds a decrease of IR radiation from greenhouse gases over past 14 years, contradicts expected increase – cloudiness blamed for difference.

    A paper published in the Journal of Climate finds from 800,000 observations a significant decrease in longwave infrared radiation from increasing greenhouse gases over the 14 year period 1996-2010 in the US Great Plains. CO2 levels increased ~7% over this period and according to AGW theory, downwelling IR should have instead increased over this period.

    According to the authors,
    The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site.”

    The findings contradict the main tenet of AGW theory which states increasing greenhouse gases including the primary greenhouse gas water vapor and clouds will cause an increase of downwelling longwave infrared “back-radiation.”

    Read the whole article here

  • #2
    This is clearly an area of personal interest to you. May I ask why you find the topic so fascinating?
    "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by myth View Post
      This is clearly an area of personal interest to you. May I ask why you find the topic so fascinating?
      I am quite old (an octogenarian) and diminished in capacity to deal in depth with all the things that interest me; so, I decided to pick just one topic upon which to focus my attention.

      I picked global warming/climate change because I see clearly the big picture and decided to learn and share details thereof as an educational project.

      The AGW scam is the greatest hoax in the history of the world. What could be more fascinating as a focus for one's attention?

      Imagine the Supreme Court of the U.S.A being duped into declaring CO2 ―which every living creature exhales healthily and benignly, and which in turn is absolutely essential for all vegetable life, which in turn is essential for all human and animal life ― a pollutant to be regulated by the EPA, which is thus empowered to exercise dictatorial control over every activity of every person, animal, farm, business, etc. in the U.S.A.

      I could go on and on, but it's too tiring for me to do so more than just a little at a time.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by John Reece View Post
        The AGW scam is the greatest hoax in the history of the world.
        Dear Mr Reece,
        You are thinking like conspiracy theorist. You won’t learn anything if you have already made up your mind.
        http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/c...s-and-his.html
        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
        “not all there” - you know who you are

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
          Dear Mr Reece,
          You are thinking like conspiracy theorist. You won’t learn anything if you have already made up your mind.
          http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/c...s-and-his.html
          yeah an irate blogger who merely resorts to ad hom really does a great job of refutation. not.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
            Dear Mr Reece,
            You are thinking like conspiracy theorist. You won’t learn anything if you have already made up your mind.
            I wasn't born yesterday. I have spent most of my eight decades in this world seeking to understand the truth of things ― with an open, inquiring mind, devoting considerable effort to freeing myself from all personal preconceptions, my own as well as those of others.

            I did not approach the subject of AGW with any presuppositions in mind; rather, I learned to understand the big picture via an approach which I have followed with regard to everything I else I have studied and learned.

            I have not only studied the theory of AGW; more importantly, I have studied the people who advocate the theory, as well as the people who question the theory; and the more I have studied the people who advocate the theory, the more clear the big picture has become to me.

            Anyone who sees (in what I post) evidence of a conspiracy theory mindset is projecting in the psychological sense ― a phenomenon with which I am quite familiar, having worked for an entire career as a professional colleague of psychiatrists and psychologists in a community mental health center.

            AGW proponents are all too prone to accuse anyone who disagrees with AGW theory of being a 'conspiracy theorist', when such has never been true with regard to any of the people I know of who have been thus accused.
            Last edited by John Reece; 08-06-2014, 11:35 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Are these two sentences compatible?
              Originally posted by John Reece View Post
              The AGW scam is the greatest hoax in the history of the world.
              Originally posted by John Reece View Post
              Anyone who sees (in what I post) evidence of a conspiracy theory mindset is projecting in the psychological sense ―
              Is it you who is projecting?

              http://www.psmag.com/navigation/book...mindset-30295/

              “Douglas and Sutton aren’t denying that fear avoidance plays a role, but they’re pointing to a different (perhaps complementary) phenomenon. In some cases, they argue, belief in conspiracies is a matter of psychological projection — that is, the tendency to apply one’s own attitude to others.”
              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
              “not all there” - you know who you are

              Comment


              • #8
                There's nothing to refute here in the paper itself. There's nothing at all "bombshell" in the research, and in particular the paper doesn't conflict with the normal physics of climate as used in conventional science.

                The paper in question is Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains, in Journal of Climate, Vol 24, pp 4831–4843, Sept 2011.

                From the abstract:
                The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site.

                Reading this as a conflict with the normal (and very well understood and measured) greenhouse effect is just wrong. The measurements are at one particular location; it is not a global phenomenon. The paper describes the likely cause of the measured effect ... a reduction in cloudiness.

                A relevant extract from the paper (which is available in full text at the above link) is:
                These trends in all-sky radiance are primarily caused by changes in the fraction of scene types (i.e., cloudiness) over the SGP site. Overall, there are more clear-sky scenes and fewer thick cloud scenes in the winter, summer, and autumn, thus leading to a negative all-sky radiance trend, whereas the opposite is true in the spring. Furthermore, clear-sky radiance is decreasing in all four seasons, which we hypothesize is due to a decrease in the precipitable water vapor in all seasons. Thick cloud radiance is decreasing in autumn and winter. Thin cloud radiance is increasing in spring and decreasing in winter. Diurnal as well as diurnal difference time series contain further significant trends. The trend spectra reveal changes in cloud characteristics that may be attributed to changes in cloud height, temperature, and particle size.

                Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas for Earth. It accounts for much more of the greenhouse effect than does carbon dioxide. The importance of carbon dixoide is that it is persistent in the atmosphere. Water is not. Water exchanges very rapidly through the atmosphere. Adding water directly, or removing it, makes very little difference; because it evaporates back in or precipitates out so quickly. Water vapour content of the atmosphere is determined by weather -- and temperature in particular. In this way, water acts as a positive feedback. Anything which raises air temperatures tends to increase the capacity of the atmosphere to hold water, which enhances the greenhouse effect and gives an extra boost to temperature... this is called positive feedback, and it is both a consequence of pretty basic physics and a measured phenomenon globally.

                On top of that there are local effects which mean that in a changing climate, some regions dry out, and some become more humid, and cloudiness can increase or decrease in different regions. In this particular region, over the last 14 years, there's a measured decrease in cloudiness. That will decreasing backradiation, of course, because of the greenhouse effect of clouds. As the paper effectively explains!

                This is a useful bit of research; mainly because it gives extra information on what is happening to climate locally, in the US Southern Great Plains. Lots more such detail in many regions would be really useful to climate modelers.

                But reading this as a contrast or conflict with conventional climate science is just misreading the paper. The second hand source (Watts) which is the source of the bizarre word "bombshell", does this a LOT. The paper is no bombshell at all.

                Cheers -- sylas

                Comment


                • #9
                  It is not always easy for a layman such as myself to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources of information, especially once a very technical debate has become so highly politicized.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                    Is it you who is projecting?

                    http://www.psmag.com/navigation/book...mindset-30295/

                    “Douglas and Sutton aren’t denying that fear avoidance plays a role, but they’re pointing to a different (perhaps complementary) phenomenon. In some cases, they argue, belief in conspiracies is a matter of psychological projection — that is, the tendency to apply one’s own attitude to others.”
                    I thought I had made a mistake by not deleting the paragraph to which you are responding. On second thought, after I had left the computer, it bothered me; but I had become occupied otherwise and therefore failed to preempt your seeing it. I am rather impulsive and often post things I wish I hadn't.

                    You said I was thinking like a conspiracy theorist; from your perspective, that's a fair enough thought and comment. However, from my perspective, it does not fit.

                    I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor are any of the scientists who question AGW doctrine and have consequently been impugned as being conspiracy theorists. Aside from the fact that they are scientists and I am not, they also have better sense than to use the words 'hoax' and 'scam' as I have done in this thread (but that discretion does not preclude their being impugned as 'conspiracy theorists' and other such disparaging terms). Except for the veteran meteorologist Brian Sussman, who did use such terms in CLIMATEGATE, and rather well documented his good reasons for doing so.
                    Last edited by John Reece; 08-06-2014, 04:46 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                      Anyone who sees (in what I post) evidence of a conspiracy theory mindset is projecting in the psychological sense ― a phenomenon with which I am quite familiar, having worked for an entire career as a professional colleague of psychiatrists and psychologists in a community mental health center.
                      Amen, John. I appreciate your efforts. I do not know the science, but I do believe that when AGW began to politicize the issue it revealed a lack of objectivity. A serious lack.
                      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                        I thought I had made a mistake by not deleting the paragraph to which you are responding. On second thought, after I had left the computer, it bothered me; but I had become occupied otherwise and therefore failed to preempt your seeing it. I am rather impulsive and often post things I wish I hadn't.

                        You said I was thinking like a conspiracy theorist; from your perspective, that's a fair enough thought and comment. However, from my perspective, it does not fit.

                        I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor are any of the scientists who question AGW doctrine and have consequently been impugned as being conspiracy theorists. Aside from the fact that they are scientists and I am not, they also have better sense than to use the words 'hoax' and 'scam' as I have done in this thread (but that discretion does not preclude their being impugned as 'conspiracy theorists' and other such disparaging terms). Except for the veteran meteorologist Brian Sussman, who did use such terms in CLIMATEGATE, and rather well documented his good reasons for doing so.
                        I agree that the whole topic is grossly over heated. Part of that over heating is caused by factions who are determined to prevent regulation and taxation. So there is a lot of ideological interference in the commentary but I would expect that there is virtually none in the underlying scientific papers. I also think that the denialist side produces a lot of commentary but zero research of any quality. This is because they know that all they have to do to win is obfuscate and delay. There is only one side in this debate that is actually doing any science.
                        “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                        “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                        “not all there” - you know who you are

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                          I agree that the whole topic is grossly over heated. Part of that over heating is caused by factions who are determined to prevent regulation and taxation. So there is a lot of ideological interference in the commentary but I would expect that there is virtually none in the underlying scientific papers. I also think that the denialist side produces a lot of commentary but zero research of any quality. This is because they know that all they have to do to win is obfuscate and delay. There is only one side in this debate that is actually doing any science.
                          See here.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                            See here.
                            Notice how Roy Spencer on his own website plays down this important fact:

                            “It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.”

                            Put that way, it sounds like nothing, almost too few molecules to mention; even that increased CO2 is good for the environment but that is 2.5% in 5 years and 10% in only 20 years. And when you see that on a graph it is a massive spike. A scientist seeing that sort of spike in the data starts rubbing his chin rather than pretending at the outset that it is nothing to worry about.
                            “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                            “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                            “not all there” - you know who you are

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                              Notice how Roy Spencer on his own website plays down this important fact:

                              “It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind’s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.”

                              Put that way, it sounds like nothing, almost too few molecules to mention; even that increased CO2 is good for the environment but that is 2.5% in 5 years and 10% in only 20 years. And when you see that on a graph it is a massive spike. A scientist seeing that sort of spike in the data starts rubbing his chin rather than pretending at the outset that it is nothing to worry about.
                              Your point is? That Spencer is not a scientist? That 40 molecules of CO2 in every 100,000 molecules will inevitably increase to 43 molecules of CO2 out of every 100,000 molecules of air in another 15 years? And that will be a catastrophic amount of an essential nutrient of all plant life on the planet, i.e., CO2?

                              What has made you so CO2 phobic? After all, we are talking about carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Charles, Today, 09:40 AM
                              1 response
                              6 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Maranatha  
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:34 PM
                              5 responses
                              33 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by LiconaFan97, Yesterday, 07:31 PM
                              3 responses
                              36 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Bill the Cat, Yesterday, 02:47 PM
                              41 responses
                              174 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, Yesterday, 10:59 AM
                              30 responses
                              155 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Working...
                              X