Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in CO2

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
Post Reply
User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in CO2

Post by kramer » Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:02 pm

"In a nutshell, the issue is rather simple, yet powerful. Salby is arguing that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of natural variation. "

Read about it from WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/t ... e-and-co2/

Read about it from climate scientist Judith Curry's website:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbo ... questions/

Listen to Salby's presentation here.

(I'll have to admit, I'm a bit skeptical of Salby's point of view given the rate of fossil fuel usage over the last 150 or so years. But he makes a strong case in his presentation so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out...)
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
oceanvue
Posts: 5928
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by oceanvue » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:11 am

Dang it Bobby

Image
Image

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by Parrotpaul » Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:11 pm

Kramer...did you catch this....? Thought it might interest you.

Lou Dobbs Breaks His Promise To “Debunk Climate Change”

Aug 8, 2011 at 10:16 am

by Jill Fitzsimmons & Jocelyn Fong, Media Matters

Source

This piece was originally published at Media Matters. For a complete debunk of Roy Spencer’s findings, see our earlier post here.

Promoting an interview with scientist and climate skeptic Roy Spencer, Fox Business’ Lou Dobbs claimed last week that Spencer’s “new findings throw the entire global warming theory into question.” Not to be misunderstood, Dobbs slowed down and repeated the claim: “I said new facts throw the entire global warming theory into question.”

Dobbs teased the interview again at the end of his August 2 show, stating: “Debunking climate change — new evidence from NASA. The whole thing. Well tune in, Al Gore, tomorrow.”

But on August 3, Dobbs changed his tune. His interview with Spencer did not address whether global warming is happening or whether humans are contributing to it, but what the “effects” will be. In fact, at the end of the interview, Dobbs concluded: “[T]here’s no question about climate change. What there is an issue about is the effect of it primarily, and really not much of a discussion about cause either.”

That doesn’t mean, however, that the claims made by Dobbs (and Spencer) during the show were actually supported by Spencer’s study. Nor did Dobbs bother to mention that many climate scientists have criticized Spencer’s methodology and disputed the study’s conclusions.

Dobbs wasn’t the only media figure quick to grossly exaggerate Spencer’s findings. As we detailed, conservative media outlets ran sensational headlines this week, falsely claiming that Spencer’s study refutes the notion that climate change is a problem. Today Rush Limbaugh claimed the paper showed that “the whole thing has been” a “hoax.”

Even Spencer, who makes known his conservative political views, said media outlets “are overstating what the research found,” according to the Associated Press. On his website, Spencer conceded that he “did not actually ‘prove’” that “the models produce too much warming in the long term.” However, Spencer himself overstated the findings during his television appearance.

Dobbs claimed Spencer’s research shows “the future effects of warming could be far less than what most computer models to this point have predicted.” And Spencer said that contrary to IPCC model projections of 3 degrees C of warming, “We’re finding from the real satellite data of how the real climate system operates that it might be more like 1 degree C of warming, and maybe even less.” But these statements are not supported by the study, which only looked at the past 10 years and cannot speak to long-term warming projections.

Asked about Spencer’s performance on Fox Business, MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel said:


I cannot see how Spencer’s statements to Fox are supported by his data. I must say I am disconcerted to hear him spinning his own work.

Similarly, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a frequent critic of the IPCC, wrote that Spencer and his co-author were “concluding too much from their analysis about feedback, sensitivity, and the performance of models,” adding:


It needs to be understood that given the short period of their data set, Spencer and Braswell are looking only at fast feedback processes associated with clouds (not the longer feedbacks associated with oceans and ice sheets). How to translate all of this into a conclusion that climate models are producing incorrect sensitivity to greenhouse warming is not at all clear.
"I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education." John Locke

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by kramer » Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:23 pm

Parrotpaul wrote:Kramer...did you catch this....? Thought it might interest you.

Lou Dobbs Breaks His Promise To “Debunk Climate Change”

Aug 8, 2011 at 10:16 am

by Jill Fitzsimmons & Jocelyn Fong, Media Matters

Source

This piece was originally published at Media Matters. For a complete debunk of Roy Spencer’s findings, see our earlier post here.

Promoting an interview with scientist and climate skeptic Roy Spencer, Fox Business’ Lou Dobbs claimed last week that Spencer’s “new findings throw the entire global warming theory into question.” Not to be misunderstood, Dobbs slowed down and repeated the claim: “I said new facts throw the entire global warming theory into question.”

Dobbs teased the interview again at the end of his August 2 show, stating: “Debunking climate change — new evidence from NASA. The whole thing. Well tune in, Al Gore, tomorrow.”

But on August 3, Dobbs changed his tune. His interview with Spencer did not address whether global warming is happening or whether humans are contributing to it, but what the “effects” will be. In fact, at the end of the interview, Dobbs concluded: “[T]here’s no question about climate change. What there is an issue about is the effect of it primarily, and really not much of a discussion about cause either.”

That doesn’t mean, however, that the claims made by Dobbs (and Spencer) during the show were actually supported by Spencer’s study. Nor did Dobbs bother to mention that many climate scientists have criticized Spencer’s methodology and disputed the study’s conclusions.

Dobbs wasn’t the only media figure quick to grossly exaggerate Spencer’s findings. As we detailed, conservative media outlets ran sensational headlines this week, falsely claiming that Spencer’s study refutes the notion that climate change is a problem. Today Rush Limbaugh claimed the paper showed that “the whole thing has been” a “hoax.”

Even Spencer, who makes known his conservative political views, said media outlets “are overstating what the research found,” according to the Associated Press. On his website, Spencer conceded that he “did not actually ‘prove’” that “the models produce too much warming in the long term.” However, Spencer himself overstated the findings during his television appearance.

Dobbs claimed Spencer’s research shows “the future effects of warming could be far less than what most computer models to this point have predicted.” And Spencer said that contrary to IPCC model projections of 3 degrees C of warming, “We’re finding from the real satellite data of how the real climate system operates that it might be more like 1 degree C of warming, and maybe even less.” But these statements are not supported by the study, which only looked at the past 10 years and cannot speak to long-term warming projections.

Asked about Spencer’s performance on Fox Business, MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel said:


I cannot see how Spencer’s statements to Fox are supported by his data. I must say I am disconcerted to hear him spinning his own work.

Similarly, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, a frequent critic of the IPCC, wrote that Spencer and his co-author were “concluding too much from their analysis about feedback, sensitivity, and the performance of models,” adding:


It needs to be understood that given the short period of their data set, Spencer and Braswell are looking only at fast feedback processes associated with clouds (not the longer feedbacks associated with oceans and ice sheets). How to translate all of this into a conclusion that climate models are producing incorrect sensitivity to greenhouse warming is not at all clear.
Yes, I caught this story the day after it came out but I didn't post anything on it.

One of the things Spencer is saying with this study is that there is more heat escaping the earth than what should be. But his study is only for something like 10 years.

I noticed your post had this comment from Kerry Emanuel: "I cannot see how Spencer’s statements to Fox are supported by his data. I must say I am disconcerted to hear him spinning his own work."

Emanuel also said the paper was good:
"Kerry Emanuel of MIT, one of two scientists who said the study was good, said bloggers and others are misstating what Spencer found."
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by kramer » Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:27 pm

oceanvue wrote:Dang it Bobby

Image

The above picture is how the totally stumped and flabbergasted respond to panty wadding discomforting information.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
oceanvue
Posts: 5928
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by oceanvue » Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:52 am

kramer wrote:

The above picture is how the totally stumped and flabbergasted respond to panty wadding discomforting information.
between debunking global warming (which coincidentally I'm not convinced either) and fantasying about my wadded panties you've had a full and fruitful day
Image

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24354
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by Wabash » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:13 am

The current decade is on track to be the warmest decade in recent history. The greater majority (>95%) believe AGW is occurring and is caused by human activity.

Your continual carpings don't change the actual science.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
oceanvue
Posts: 5928
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by oceanvue » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:20 am

I'm more concerned about his infatuation with my panties
Image

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24354
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by Wabash » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:21 am

oceanvue wrote:I'm more concerned about his infatuation with my panties
Entiendo.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
oceanvue
Posts: 5928
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by oceanvue » Thu Aug 11, 2011 6:53 am

that's what I'm scared of
Image

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by kramer » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 am

oceanvue wrote:
between debunking global warming (which coincidentally I'm not convinced either) and fantasying about my wadded panties you've had a full and fruitful day
If you're not convinced, then why do you post like you are?
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by kramer » Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:09 am

Wabash wrote:The current decade is on track to be the warmest decade in recent history.
This is true but if you notice, the temperature rate of increase has essentially stopped for the last 10 or so years. Meanwhile, the all powerful warming gas CO2 has continued its exponential rise over the last 10 years from 370 ppm to 390 ppm.


Wabash wrote: The greater majority (>95%) believe AGW is occurring and is caused by human activity.
The greater majority of what? Liberals? Jackasses? Chimps?
Wabash wrote:Your continual carpings don't change the actual science.
I've never tried to change the science. I'm just pointing out the weaknesses, contradictions, exaggerations, mistakes, etc. in the science and the leftist political ramifications of AGW that align nicely with the now fizzled out NIEO.

By the way, do you know what was one of the most important concerns with the NIEO? The need for developed nations to use less energy (so that there is more for the developing world to use).
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24354
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by Wabash » Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:42 pm

kramer wrote: This is true but if you notice, the temperature rate of increase has essentially stopped for the last 10 or so years. Meanwhile, the all powerful warming gas CO2 has continued its exponential rise over the last 10 years from 370 ppm to 390 ppm.
The majority of scientists believe AGW is real and human activity is causing it.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
18echo
Oversight Committee
Posts: 4246
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:29 am

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by 18echo » Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:27 am

Wabash wrote: The majority of scientists believe AGW is real and human activity is causing it.
The majority of Americans voted for Bush.
Twice.
Does that make it right?


BTW, the "A" is for anthropogenic:
of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings, or originating in human activity.

When you say AGW, you don't have to add that human activity is causing it, it's right there in the first letter.
"Hoc spatium adsuesco assuesco pro profunda rhetoricam."

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24354
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by Wabash » Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:12 am

18echo wrote:The majority of Americans voted for Bush.
Twice.
Does that make it right?
Actually the plurality of Americans only voted for Bush once. He lost the popular vote in 2000.

Your confusing science with politics. A bad comparison.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
18echo
Oversight Committee
Posts: 4246
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:29 am

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by 18echo » Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:16 am

Wabash wrote:Actually the plurality of Americans only voted for Bush once. He lost the popular vote in 2000.
How did I forget that?
Folks wanted to dispose of the Electoral College system.
Win at any cost I suppose, that's what makes this country great.
Wabash wrote: You're confusing science with politics. A bad comparison.
The AGW debate, (at least as it exists on forums amongst non-scientists, like here) is more about "politics" than science.

And by "politics", I don't mean people actually discussing policy issues, I mean party tools who regurgitate party line talking points ad nauseum.
"Hoc spatium adsuesco assuesco pro profunda rhetoricam."

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24354
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by Wabash » Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:21 am

18echo wrote: How did I forget that?
Folks wanted to dispose of the Electoral College system.
Win at any cost I suppose, that's what makes this country great.
It involves Bush. Someone conservatives want us to forget. And who can blame them?
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
oceanvue
Posts: 5928
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by oceanvue » Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:27 am

18echo wrote: How did I forget that?
Folks wanted to dispose of the Electoral College system.
Win at any cost I suppose, that's what makes this country great.



The AGW debate, (at least as it exists on forums amongst non-scientists, like here) is more about "politics" than science.

And by "politics", I don't mean people actually discussing policy issues, I mean party tools who regurgitate party line talking points ad nauseum.
The welfare of the earth ought to be out of the reach of mindless party retards
Image

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Scientist-Temperature, not oil reason for recent rise in

Post by kramer » Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:23 pm

Wabash wrote: The majority of scientists believe AGW is real and human activity is causing it.
That's like saying the majority of police believe drunk driving is resulting in lots of accidents and people drinking and driving are the reason for it.

Regarding the comment you made, what is 'believed' is that scientists are 90% sure that we are the reason for the warming because they've found no other reason for the warming (the 'principle of exclusion').

In addition, the OP is about a climate scientist who has theorized that the recent rise in CO2 is mostly from nature, not CO2 meaning a slight problem for the AGW believers.

In addition, of the approx 0.6C of warming over the last 50 years that the IPCC said is mainly from human emissions of GHGs (mainly CO2), the warming power of CO2 has been 'downgraded' in a sense in that only about 35% of this 0.6C of warming is from CO2. Another slight problem for the AGW believers and even worse for the NIEO crowd using sustainable development to achieve the NIEO's goals.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

Post Reply