Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can appreciate the Church of Climatology's position. When we apply for research grants, we have to exaggerate the truth or outright lie and make predictions of doom and gloom to get da money.
Please cite the NASA study that contradicts the following tenets of current global warming theory:
(1) CO2 causes surface temperatures to rise.
(2) Aerosols have a net cooling effect on the environment.
The study you might likely cite the paper that claims that IF aerosol concentrations increased at the (then high) same rate, the planet would cool. That does not go against current global warming theory at all - in fact, it supports it.
Example: You get a very nasty, deep cut. The doctor tells you, "If you don't have that cut treated, it will become infected and it could become fatal." You decide to treat it and you end up not getting an infection. Is the doctor's prediction incorrect? Or have you changed the conditions to enter a new path?
sorry wxjay, your two points above are not the "tenets of gwt.
They are some facts that everyone agrees to.
the issue with gwt relates to the forcing caused by the warming related to CO2. That forcing is key to there being a AGW event that is detrimental humanity.
Please cite the NASA study that contradicts the following tenets of current global warming theory:
(1) CO2 causes surface temperatures to rise.
(2) Aerosols have a net cooling effect on the environment.
The study you might likely cite the paper that claims that IF aerosol concentrations increased at the (then high) same rate, the planet would cool. That does not go against current global warming theory at all - in fact, it supports it.
Example: You get a very nasty, deep cut. The doctor tells you, "If you don't have that cut treated, it will become infected and it could become fatal." You decide to treat it and you end up not getting an infection. Is the doctor's prediction incorrect? Or have you changed the conditions to enter a new path?
Upon further review of the study, you are in fact correct as to its findings. Here is text from the abstract:
"It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K."
Upon further review of the study, you are in fact correct as to its findings. Here is text from the abstract:
"It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K."
Let us know when you are able to pull up the study at the center of this thread. It is from NASA's University of Alabama-Huntsville campus. The site has been too busy for me to pull up the .pdf
sorry wxjay, your two points above are not the "tenets of gwt.
They are not THE ONLY tenets - they are tenets of the theory, however.
Quote:
the issue with gwt relates to the forcing caused by the warming related to CO2. That forcing is key to there being a AGW event that is detrimental humanity.
The issue is the NET radiative forcing, which is why the impact of aerosols is so crucial to such studies and for climate modeling.
Once again, those that think they can model future climate change have been shown to be way off base.
Maybe some day scientists will admit that they cannot accurately model climate change. This world is way too complex to model with any credibility at all.
O
"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."
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.
“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.
This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.
They are not THE ONLY tenets - they are tenets of the theory, however.
The issue is the NET radiative forcing, which is why the impact of aerosols is so crucial to such studies and for climate modeling.
and this NET radiative forcing is the heart of the matter. your first two points are not denied by skepitcial scientists. they are stipulated.
however hte NET forcing is the heart of the issue... and this paper being discussed here, and to which I have linked the actual paper itself, addresses this issue and suggest that the models are overstating the forcing because MORE heat is being released into space than prevously thought.
Measurements have been taken. data is availble. the paper is peer reviewed.
There is a cost to the endless back and forth on AGW just as there is a cost to the endless back and forth on the debt ceiling. Those caught up in the fray don't even notice the crowd edging away because the riot police are moving in with the stun grenades and tear gas. Whatever happens next week re: a deal over debt issues, our AAA rating is gone, goodbye, and with that comes real pain in the form of a prime rate that accurately reflects America's political dysfunction. When and if, it is definitively proven that the worst of the climate model scenarios could have been positively affected by swifter remedial action it will be too late. But America is good at hindsight blame gaming and scapegoating. When America is forced by threat of hostile fire to use Chinese manufactured solar installations (because we idled our own plants) you will see real political infighting. You punters will be well out of it.
H
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is text from the abstract:
