PDA

View Full Version : Help me understand this Global Warming information...



tbonez3858
11-10-2009, 05:07 AM
I am a bit confused about a peer reviewed study I reviewed last night..It was a study done by two MIT climate scientists (Lindzen and Choi). The study states that the estimates that the IPCC have used to guestimate the impact of Global warming are completely wrong. According to the study the gases that are supposed to be building up and causing the global warming are actually escaping into space. The data that brought about this conclusion comes from a review of compiled data from satellites over multiple decades. So my question is where do we stand? It appears that the original assumption that CO2 build up (which it appears that even Al Gore has backed away from at this point) is not causing global warming. What is causing it and what if anything can be done about it since we dont appear to know the cause?


*Im not trying to start a climate war debate. Im asking for honest feedback…








The latest findings to this effect by Lindzen and Choi add to the work that Roy Spencer and several other researchers have been doing for years in this arena. Instead of a climate sensitivity lying within the IPCC’s range of 2.0° to 4.5°C, Lindzen and Choi report it to be about 0.5°C—six times less than the IPCC’s “best estimate” of 3.0°C.

Lindzen and Choi make their determination by examining radiation data measured by instruments carried by satellites orbiting above the earth’s atmosphere and comparing the variation of incoming and outgoing radiation with the variations in the earth’s tropical ocean temperatures. Climate models seem to predict that when the ocean temperature increases, less radiation leaves the earth to space, which leads to additional warming—a positive feedback.

However, actual observations seem to show that warmer oceans results in more radiation lost to space, which acts to reverse the warming—in other words, a negative feedback. Changes in cloudcover are one possible mechanism involved. The data presented by Lindzen and Choi are shown in Figure 1. The red box surrounds the data from the observations and shows a positive relationship between sea surface temperature changes and the amount of radiation lost to space, while the climate models (the other 11 boxes in Figure 1) show the opposite—radiation lost to space declines as ocean temperatures rise.



http://masterresource.org/?p=4307

reyalp
11-10-2009, 05:17 AM
Even pro-AGW people here bash the IPCC, man.

TeeR4v_Gainer
11-10-2009, 06:13 AM
well my conclusion would be that we were sold on global warming....and as far as this study concludes, i would think that it means we can't do anything about "global warming" but that its a natural process but yeah, a lot of people discredit the IPCC...

riptor
11-10-2009, 08:40 AM
I am a bit confused about a peer reviewed study I reviewed last night..It was a study done by two MIT climate scientists (Lindzen and Choi). The study states that the estimates that the IPCC have used to guestimate the impact of Global warming are completely wrong. According to the study the gases that are supposed to be building up and causing the global warming are actually escaping into space. The data that brought about this conclusion comes from a review of compiled data from satellites over multiple decades. So my question is where do we stand? It appears that the original assumption that CO2 build up (which it appears that even Al Gore has backed away from at this point) is not causing global warming. What is causing it and what if anything can be done about it since we dont appear to know the cause?


*Im not trying to start a climate war debate. Im asking for honest feedback?€?








The latest findings to this effect by Lindzen and Choi add to the work that Roy Spencer and several other researchers have been doing for years in this arena. Instead of a climate sensitivity lying within the IPCC?€™s range of 2.0° to 4.5°C, Lindzen and Choi report it to be about 0.5°C?€”six times less than the IPCC?€™s ?€œbest estimate?€? of 3.0°C.

Lindzen and Choi make their determination by examining radiation data measured by instruments carried by satellites orbiting above the earth?€™s atmosphere and comparing the variation of incoming and outgoing radiation with the variations in the earth?€™s tropical ocean temperatures. Climate models seem to predict that when the ocean temperature increases, less radiation leaves the earth to space, which leads to additional warming?€”a positive feedback.

However, actual observations seem to show that warmer oceans results in more radiation lost to space, which acts to reverse the warming?€”in other words, a negative feedback. Changes in cloudcover are one possible mechanism involved. The data presented by Lindzen and Choi are shown in Figure 1. The red box surrounds the data from the observations and shows a positive relationship between sea surface temperature changes and the amount of radiation lost to space, while the climate models (the other 11 boxes in Figure 1) show the opposite?€”radiation lost to space declines as ocean temperatures rise.



http://masterresource.org/?p=4307

I've already done a post about this paper in another thread. You can read the entire thing here.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=407496141&postcount=80

Basically the paper is technically correct, but Lindzen used outdated data to do his calculations. If he had used the current data, his hypothesis would have been shown to be false. The authors only selected the ERBE data that would fit their preconceived conclusions. The experts in the ERBE radiation data don't seem to think that the data used by Lindzen is the best available, so he should have explained in this paper why he only used the older data while ignoring the newer data.

Let's imagine that someone had done something similar, but this time only picked the data that would show that the possible warming will be worse than the original projections. Their calculations would still be technically correct, but their overall conclusions will still be just as wrong.

If someone is going to use this paper as proof against global warming, they must be careful not to commit what is known as the single study fallacy. That's where someone claims that one study proves or disproves a phenomena. Naturally no one paper will be able to cover all aspects of any subject, but there are many different lines of evidence that converge to show the earth is warming. To prove warming false, all these different areas would need to be addressed, which would take more than one paper.

riptor
11-10-2009, 08:55 AM
Talk about coincidences, I was just checking out another forum where someone brought up this very same article. Someone linked to a blog article from a global warming skeptics blog, where in a comment Lindzen himself remarks: "We are proceeding to redo the analysis of satellite data in order to better understand what went into these analyses."

So if the author of the paper is willing to check out his work to make sure it is correct, I don't think any layman can use this paper as any sort of definitive last word on the subject.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

KLMARB
11-10-2009, 09:42 AM
Its really fairly simple. There is a correlation between CO2 and global warming. What has happened is that the causation has been reversed, and then indoctrinated as a psuedo-religion on the basis of subjective morality. CO2 rises as a result of higher temps, it does not cause them. No big suprise the former reds/totalitarians/statists have been using it as the whole justification for their attempted power grabs. The big problem is that it has distracted from real environmental issues like pollution, habitat destruction, etc.....

jedi786
11-10-2009, 09:44 AM
Other planets are also having high levels of CO2, due to sun spot activity.

Sushi
11-10-2009, 11:18 AM
I honestly believe it is an excuse to further tax US Citizens..

Many have said that When Global warming IS debunked and accepted it will down in the History books as the biggest hoax of all time.

Large_Emu
11-10-2009, 11:23 AM
I honestly believe it is an excuse to further tax US Citizens..

Many have said that When Global warming IS debunked and accepted it will down in the History books as the biggest hoax of all time.

LooooL!!! Climate change is real, Britain hasn't had a bad winter since the 50s or something, it used to happen every few years.

Sushi
11-10-2009, 11:55 AM
LooooL!!! Climate change is real, Britain hasn't had a bad winter since the 50s or something, it used to happen every few years.

I'm not questiong climate change I'm questioning human emitted co2 global warming.

the same theory that says a dog damages the atmosphere as much as a SUV.

N*GGAPLEAZE.jpg

KLMARB
11-10-2009, 04:28 PM
LooooL!!! Climate change is real, Britain hasn't had a bad winter since the 50s or something, it used to happen every few years.

I suggest you Google "Little Ice Age" and see what kind of weather England had then...Especially how it influenced the demise of the Spanish Armada....

neonhypoxia
11-10-2009, 04:45 PM
Other planets are also having high levels of CO2, due to sun spot activity.

Venus and Mars are the only other planets in the solar system with a significant proportion of their atmosphere being CO2 and that has nothing to do with sun spots. I think what you were trying to say is the worn out statement that other planets in the solar system are warming and therefore that means the only thing causing the Earth to warm in a change in solar activity. That is just plain wrong. Infact here is the very first link I came to in a Google search that must have taken an entire five seconds. I suppose five seconds is too long for some people to bother looking anything up. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm


Its really fairly simple. There is a correlation between CO2 and global warming. What has happened is that the causation has been reversed, and then indoctrinated as a psuedo-religion on the basis of subjective morality. CO2 rises as a result of higher temps, it does not cause them. No big suprise the former reds/totalitarians/statists have been using it as the whole justification for their attempted power grabs. The big problem is that it has distracted from real environmental issues like pollution, habitat destruction, etc.....

You have no understand of IR spectra at all do you? Source that CO2 rises after temperature does or STFU and GTFO. And no, someone's blog does not count as source. I want actually scientific data not some tard with an internet connection.

Anyways, moving on to the OP's question. As Riptor has already pointed out the data that was used is questionable at best and the authors intentionaly tossed out data that didn't agree with what they wanted to results to be. Also the data they did use only contains temperature measurement for a paticular area of the Earth, not the entire planet. Saying one area is warming or cooling says nothing about the planet on the whole. Also the temperature measurement that were used are from satalite data which actually measures the temperature average of the entire section of atmosphere above the area of land/ocean. Satelite temperature measurements do not always reflect ground measurements and infact can sometimes be quite a bit off. We are more concerned with ground temperature as that is where we and pretty much everything else lives.

Oh, and while CO2 does escape from the atmosphere into space just like any other gas it does so extremely slowly. Infact it does so even slower than O2 and N2 do. The article wasn't claiming that CO2 was escape from the atmosphere but rather that IR was.

riptor
11-11-2009, 10:24 AM
I am a bit confused about a peer reviewed study I reviewed last night..It was a study done by two MIT climate scientists (Lindzen and Choi). The study states that the estimates that the IPCC have used to guestimate the impact of Global warming are completely wrong. According to the study the gases that are supposed to be building up and causing the global warming are actually escaping into space. The data that brought about this conclusion comes from a review of compiled data from satellites over multiple decades. So my question is where do we stand? It appears that the original assumption that CO2 build up (which it appears that even Al Gore has backed away from at this point) is not causing global warming. What is causing it and what if anything can be done about it since we dont appear to know the cause?


*Im not trying to start a climate war debate. Im asking for honest feedback…








The latest findings to this effect by Lindzen and Choi add to the work that Roy Spencer and several other researchers have been doing for years in this arena. Instead of a climate sensitivity lying within the IPCC’s range of 2.0° to 4.5°C, Lindzen and Choi report it to be about 0.5°C—six times less than the IPCC’s “best estimate” of 3.0°C.

Lindzen and Choi make their determination by examining radiation data measured by instruments carried by satellites orbiting above the earth’s atmosphere and comparing the variation of incoming and outgoing radiation with the variations in the earth’s tropical ocean temperatures. Climate models seem to predict that when the ocean temperature increases, less radiation leaves the earth to space, which leads to additional warming—a positive feedback.

However, actual observations seem to show that warmer oceans results in more radiation lost to space, which acts to reverse the warming—in other words, a negative feedback. Changes in cloudcover are one possible mechanism involved. The data presented by Lindzen and Choi are shown in Figure 1. The red box surrounds the data from the observations and shows a positive relationship between sea surface temperature changes and the amount of radiation lost to space, while the climate models (the other 11 boxes in Figure 1) show the opposite—radiation lost to space declines as ocean temperatures rise.



http://masterresource.org/?p=4307

You might also want to check out this link. It does a very good job of explaining what I was trying to do, and it has nifty graphs and stuff.

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/

Bavarian-Bull
11-11-2009, 10:52 AM
Listen I am sorry to say, because I once belived Al Gore, that he is actually lieing about global warming. The truth is that we are actually experiencing a cooling and not a warming, Al Gore is just doing this to get democrat politicians in the senate and to pass different bills.

One of these bills is to send money to other countries, poor ones, who have not burned as many fossil fuels as us. the reality is that it would be just to reditribute the wealth, I hope I answered any questions