Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[SB Shock]

In other words quoting a Russian study is lame

So where in the data that the Russians presented in their study did they go wrong in their hypothesis? Did they make it up?

[kcshocker11]

So where in the data that the Russians presented in their study did they go wrong in their hypothesis? Did they make it up?

If u research u you find da Russkies made studies to meet their needs, the times they are a changing in Russia.

When conservatives are starting to believe, its time to get serious

[SB Shock]

So where in the data that the Russians presented in their study did they go wrong in their hypothesis? Did they make it up?

LOL, kind of like Global Warming alarmist who have their hands in the carbon-offset dole who are creating data.

If you actually researched your original story and looked at their papers that you claim as proof, you would see that you have been suckered :tears_of_joy:

Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.

Their actual hypothesis is that warming and cooling patterns are tied the fluctuations to the AMO and ENSO oscillations. Although still researching they have found strong correlations in the data. They actually have some very good animations.

Where is the dancing banana when you need it?

[kcshocker11]

http://www.physorg.com/news192371472.html

You must be right and these guys are wrong.

http://www.physorg.com/news179670878.html

or these guys

[kcshocker11]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

click on advanced science

Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.
One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge

[kcshocker11]

http://planetsave.com/2010/08/18/humans-cause-global-warming-10-indicators/

Nice article about indicators with links to studies to back them up

http://planetsave.com/2010/08/13/119-one-liners-to-respond-to-climate-science-myths/

119 skeptic claims, click on any of them to find science refuting them.

Have fun

[SB Shock]

http://www.physorg.com/news192371472.html

You must be right and these guys are wrong.

can we stay on task - did you actually read their study and the data they presented , or are you just "title whore" that fitted your preconceived bias (and when asked can't even profess what you believe). Again here is what the authors say:

Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.

[SB Shock]

http://www.physorg.com/news192371472.html

You must be right and these guys are wrong.

Actually you don't know what I believe.

I can provide a list of scientists who credentials are just as impressive who have differing views as your list. So what? Does who has the bigger list win?

[kcshocker11]

This statement, signed by 255 of the world's leading scientists, explains the[COLOR=#0E3266 !important]scientific research[/COLOR] process and confirms the fundamental conclusions about climate change based on the work of thousands of scientists worldwide. It specifically reaffirms the "compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend," and highlights that there is nothing identified in recent events that has changed the fundamental conclusions about climate change.

Did u read it?

Lets see SB or Nasa , Natl Aced of Science, 1700 Uk Scientists hmmmm I'll take NASA

[SB Shock]

Did u read it?

Lets see SB or Nasa , Natl Aced of Science, 1700 Uk Scientists hmmmm I'll take NASA

You mean this NASA, that published a study this summer

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

[kcshocker11]

Spencer and Braswell 2011

On 26 July 2011, Spencer and Braswell published a paper, "On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance", in Remote Sensing, a peer-reviewed, open-access journal. The paper questioned the ability of some computer climate models to reproduce the time lagged relationship between average sea surface temperature and net terrestrial radiative flux, and used a simple model to suggest the method used by Andrew Dessler and others to established the value of cloud feedback was flawed.^[16]
The conclusions of the paper were subsequently exaggerated by parts of the media and the authors themselves, with headlines such as "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" in Forbes magazine.^{[17] [18]} The paper was met with swift criticism by mainstream climate scientists.^[19]
In September 2011, the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Dr. Wolfgang Wagner, resigned his editorship citing errors in the Spencer and Braswell paper. In his resignation letter, he took the unusual step of publicly criticizing Spencer and the paper's reviewers (who were assigned by the journal). He criticized the science behind the paper, stating that it had "fundamental methodological errors" and "false claims," though he did not announce that the paper would be retracted. Wagner further criticized Spencer, Braswell and parts of the media for misrepresenting the significance of their research:

"I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011, the main author’s personal homepage, the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes, and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News, to name just a few."^[18]

Spencer told BBC News "I stand behind the science contained in the paper itself, as well as my comments published on my blog at drroyspencer.com. ^[20]
On 6 September 2011, a proof copy of a rebuttal, by Dessler, of Spencer and Braswell's 2011 paper in to be published in Geophysical Research Letters was released. Dessler pointed out that Spencer uses a circular argument to suggest that short term sea surface temperature changes are driven by cloud variation. Specifically, Spencer uses the assumption that his hypothesis is correct in establishing a value for the heat capacity of the atmosphere and near surface oceans. Spencer then goes on to use that heat capacity value to prove his assumption. Using a heat capacity value based on the work of others, Dessler concludes that short-term global average sea surface temperature is driven primarily by heat transport from deeper in the oceans as part of the ENSO (in line with current understanding), thereby vindicating Dessler's earlier method for establishing cloud feedback. Dessler also points out that in comparing climate models with data, Spencer used those that did least well at simulating the ENSO while choosing to ignore those that simulated it well.^[21]

Flawed study, NASA has not changed its position

[kcshocker11]

/http://planetsave.com/2011/07/29/no-global-warming-scientists-not-in-tatters-after-new-study/

As the famous critique goes, “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good”:

1. “He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.
2. “It is not newsworthy,” Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.
3. NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth (excerpted from below): “I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much?”

To understand this paper, you have to understand the difference, between a “forcing” and a “feedback.” Forcings are imposed changes to, the climate, while feedbacks are processes that respond to changes in, the climate and amplify or ameliorate them. So the addition of carbon, dioxide to the atmosphere by humans is a forcing—it is simply an, imposition on the climate. Water vapor, on the other hand, is a, feedback because the amount of water vapor is set by the surface, temperature of the planet. As the planet warms, you get more water, vapor in the atmosphere, and since water vapor is itself a greenhouse, gas, this leads to additional warming.
The canonical way to think about clouds is that they are a feedback—as, the climate warms, clouds will change in response and either amplify, (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the, initial change.
What this new paper is arguing is that clouds are forcing the climate, rather than the more traditional way of thinking of them as a, feedback. This is not, in fact, a new argument. Spencer’s 2010 JGR, paper as well as the new Lindzen and Choi 2011 paper both make this, argument.
Overall, the argument made in all of these papers to support the, conjecture that clouds are forcing the climate (rather than a feedback) is extremely weak. What they do is show some data, then they, show a very simple model with some free parameters that they tweak, until they fit the data. They then conclude that their model is right., However, if the underlying model is wrong, then the agreement between, the model and data proves nothing.
I am working on a paper that will show that, if you look carefully at, the magnitudes of the individual terms of their model, the model is, obviously wrong. In fact, if Spencer were right, then clouds would be, a major cause of El Niño cycles—which we know is not correct. Talk to, any ENSO expert and tell them that clouds cause ENSO and they’ll laugh, at you.
Finally, the best way to put Roy’s paper into context it is to recognize how Roy views his job: “I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism. I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.” (he wrote that on his blog).
Thus, his paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take him seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall St. Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.

Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research also commented on the paper in an email.

I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much? I have never read that journal.
The main basis for the paper is a figure : Figure 3 which is based on Fig. 2 data. The axis on Fig. 2 is incorrectly labeled. Fig 3 should never have been published because it has no error bars or uncertainty estimates. Significance of results is never addressed, and we do not know whether anything in the figure is significant, but Spencer treats it as if it were. Also we do not know how it was calculated and whether smoothed data (as in Fig. 2) were used or not. Significance also goes down a lot when one goes fishing by including all leads and lags unless there is an a priori reason for those values. One can usually guess the significance by looking at enough leads and lags and the fact that the magnitude of values at -12 months are similar to those at plus 3 months suggests neither are significant. For the models, values are based on 100 years, not 10 years. If instead 10 sets of 10-year model values had been selected then the odds are one would look like the “observed”. i.e. the models are likely more realistic of the true relationship.
In addition, I find the whole discussion to be out of touch with reality. The external radiative forcing of the climate system is mostly well known and comes from the changes in atmospheric composition (greenhouse gases) and the sun spot cycle etc. The part not so well known is the pollution (aerosol), but that is small. Nearly all of the variations in water vapor and clouds, except for those affected by aerosol, are a response to the weather and climate variations; they are NOT a forcing. This is a major error that continues in Spencer’s work.
The model is totally unrealistic and it does not have such things as El Nino or a hydrological cycle. It is known that the major variations in this period are associated with El Nino, as we have discussed in our rebuttal of Lindzen’s work:
Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O’Dell, and T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Ltt., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314. [PDF]
The ocean heat content and its variations are very important, and moreover are not that well connected to sea surface temperature. Large leads and lags are known to occur. The parameters of Spencer’s model are selected by assuming the answer to get the best fit, and do not take any ocean dynamics into account at all. In short, the model does NOT provide a means of interpreting the data in any shape or form.

Next

[SB Shock]

Lol. You uphold NASA as the gold standard and then when they release a study u don't like then it is flawed. Post-turtle logic.

[kcshocker11]

Lol. You uphold NASA as the gold standard and then when they release a study u don't like then it is flawed. Post-turtle logic.

No SB his study isnt NASA's position on the issue.

[SB Shock]

No SB his study isnt NASA's position on the issue.

You do realize NASA is pretty much been relegated to just being government bureaucracy in today world instead of research organization it once was. Research has taken huge cuts, and they have quit spending money on updating their labs.

Tuesday’s report from the National Research Council, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that research laboratories at the 10 NASA centers for studying materials, aeronautics and other basic science were merely “marginally adequate.”

They have been relegated to being a middle-man of handing out research money to contractors, companies and researchers. NASA pretty much just sway with the political winds and any of their "opinions" will likely change when new occupants move into the White House.