United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell -- Separating Science Fom Bullshit
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
Published: Feb 5, 2011
Author: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D
Post Date: 2011-02-05 09:10:50 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 47872
Comments: 66
Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter. Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%. Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.) Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.) BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic. Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system. Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
These days, when global warming inactivists need to trot out somebody with some semblance of scientific credentials (from the dwindling supply who have made themselves available for such purposes), it seems that they increasingly turn to Roy Spencer, a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama. Roy does have a handful of peer-reviewed publications, some of which have quite decent and interesting results in them. However, the thing you have to understand is that what he gets through peer-review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you’d think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere. His recent guest article on Pielke Sr’s site is a case in point, and provides the fodder for our discussion today. Actually, Roy has been pretty busy dishing out the confusion recently. Future posts will take a look at his mass market book on climate change, entitled Climate Confusion, published last month, and his article in National Review. We’ll also dig into some of his peer reviewed work, notably the recent paper by Spencer and Braswell on climate sensitivity, and his paper on tropical clouds which is widely misquoted as supporting Lindzen’s IRIS conjecture regarding stabilizing cloud feedback. But on to today’s cooking lesson. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
So game is on, right? Trash anyone who doesn't drink the koolaid.
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
#1. To: go65 (#0) "You get a warm Arctic and you get cold outbreaks in the middle latitudes," Serreze said. Until the N Atlantic Thermohaline Conveyor stops from the flood of cold 'melt' and the intrusion of 'coal embers' from the same conveyors undermining the Antarctic Glaciers. # # Climate Change: The Next Generation: WAIS and Pine Island Glacier ... Feb 23, 2008 ... The biggest of the glaciers, the Pine Island Glacier, is causing the ... which seems to be undercutting the ice and lubricating its flow. ... climatechangepsychology.b...nd-glacier-antarctic.html - Cached mcgowanjm posted on 2011-02-04 21:36:17 ET
that means that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been overturned. And the author of this article and his sources are smarter than Einstein. Surprised , or not so surprised, Scientific American is jumping All over it. LMFAO
Global warming isn't a theory; it's a fact - even most of the most ardent deniers stipulate that temps have been rising. Only loons like Bastardi and Padlock believe otherwise. Warming is a fact. Given the fact of warming, theories of its affect were developed. Climate change being one. Now, what is hilarious, is that with the theorized affects of warming on climate coming true, these same deniers point to those same predicted affects as somehow being refutative of the affects of warming.
There is general consensus that global temperatures rose from the late 70s to the late 90s -- by about 0.2C. What the warm-mongers won't admit is that it is not at all inconsistent with historical temperature trends. Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
What predictions would that be, Willie? From 5 or 6 years ago when there were mild winters and that was touted as the effect of global warming or the cold winters now when that is the the effect of global warming?
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
We are coming out of the ice age. Both poles are still ice. Of course it is going to get warmer as we leave the ice age. That is good. More crops. It would be a concern if there was global cooling. That would be something to worry about. Man made global warming is as stupid as Obama looks like a pile of shit.
It does not seem to matter what the weather is now or was in the past, the climate doom cult faithful see harbingers of doom everywhere. It is almost as if, in the psychosis, they are praying for the demise of humanity.
Go google Milankovitch Cycles. There are 26,000 year, 41,000 year, 95,000 year, 125,000 year and 413,000 cycles in the earth's axis procession, axis tilt, and orbital shape that are probably the cause of the earth's climate cycles. Yes, we are still in an ice, but in an inter-glacial period. The earth has been warming for 12,500 years, except for a 200 year cooling period that ended around 1800. For millions of years there wasn't any ice at the poles. Some warming would be better than some cooling because of food supplies. Something I just learned -- there is only 10% of the bio-diversity at the 45th parallel than there is at the equator. Life on earth likes hot weather.
you are talking about cycles that occur over thousands of years, i'm talking about rapid warming over 40 years, something the earth has never seen before. You have to also deny that CO2 is increasing and the CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
Misery solved: How we measured temperatures... Another absolutely false argument. Historical temps are based on various reconstructions that are all consistent in their findings. Current temps are measured via land, sea, and satellite sensors that again, are consistent in their findings.
Since January 3, 2011, Republicans have controlled the power of the purse.
United States and Global Data Integrity Issues The United States and global data bases have serious problems that render them highly questionable for determining accurate long term temperature trends. Especially since most of the issues mentioned produces a warm bias in the data. As shown here, though there has clearly been some cyclical warming in recent decades (most notably 1979 to 1998), the global surface station based data is seriously compromised by urbanization and other local factors (land-use/land- cover, improper siting, station dropout, instrument changes unaccounted for, and missing data) and uncertainties in ocean temperatures. Thus the data bases can’t be relied on to determine accurate trends. These factors all lead to overestimation of temperatures. Numerous peer-reviewed papers (referenced below in bold) in the last several years have shown this overestimation is the order of 30 to 50% from these issues alone.
Until you learn to control yourself, you're on bozo. You do not have permission to use any part of what you believe is my name other than what I may choose to use here.
Do you know how absolutely ridiculous that statement sounds? How hard is it to record a temperature, enter it into a database and then observe a trend? You are disparaging a method that has existed since the first man decided to observe and record something. Now, suddenly, in the 20th and 21st century, you want me to believe that there's an issue with this particular method? I mean, there are stupid things to say and then there are REALLY stupid things to say. You just tipped the scale.
willie, willie, willie, willie, willie, willie, willie, willie, willie, willie, willie, willie,
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
It is clear that satellite data has been consistently lower than surface data. Note RSS, UAH data vs. GISS, NOAA. Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
If
you had come to my defence when my name was being dropped on this site, then I
might have some empathy for you, but as it is, the shoe is on the other foot
now, wear it..(Deleted by me the moderator)! And no one here objected to posting
personal info on badeye either, so STFU!!! There is no deep, dark secret as
to who you are willie, your face, and name, is exactly where you put it on the
internet.....
I wasn't posting here when it was, doof. Oops. Facts -R- Still not your friend. And you need to seek help, Weezie...
I don't understand his hissie fit. I could be talking about Willie Stargell as far as anyone knows
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
His self-rightious snit pissed me off, they don't expect their nastiness to come back on them and bite them on the ass....
BTW, Mammy, in PM's I told certain posters that I was not comfortable with personal information of other posters being put on these boards. One of these exchanges occurred around the time that you let Boofer suck you into that vortex by posting what came dangerously close to libelous inferences about FM. Ironically, once was with someone posting Padlock's stuff and the other was when someone was posting about....wait for it...YOU. I have never posted any personal information about anyone here. EVER. I have never posted my full name anywhere EVER. Put your foot in your mouth much?
Hey! It's your euro-trash friends you want to convince, my word doesn't matter...and what you have to say to me, or about me, matters even less...
Mammy, you are seriously bi-polar. Dueling Mammy's... Mammy 1: If you had come to my defence [sic] when my name was being dropped on this site, then I might have some empathy for you, but as it is, the shoe is on the other foot now, wear it..(Deleted by me the moderator)! And no one here objected to posting personal info on [boofer] either, so STFU!!! Mammy 2: ..and what you have to say to me, or about me, matters even less... So on one hand she's whining because of something I didn't say and on the other she doesn't care ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If I were to guess...Mammy #1 is telling the truth and #2 is the liar. The question is...when I put her on bozo, will she require two spots?
I
don't lie, I make mistakes like many other's, but I don't lie. If DELETED BY ME THE MODERATOR is not your name, then there is
NO REASON for it to be deleted! If that name dissapears again, then you are the
one who has been proven the LIAR!!!
Do you know how absolutely ridiculous that statement sounds? How hard is it to record a temperature, enter it into a database and then observe a trend? The article states that recording a temperature, entering it into a database (no databases existed 40, 50 and 100 years ago) is extraordinarily hard mistakes have been made because of instrumentation and changes in the location of the temperature recording devices. If you had actually read the article, you would have know this. But you didn't.
OBTW, cute pics, but they don't look a thing like me, and if you had been smart cough..cough...lol, you'd have seen the real me by now....
I did read the article. After time, temperature is the easiest measurement to make. Trying to turn it into something else is a total bastardization of science. In essence, your "article" is claiming that when it's 5PM in Boston, it requires a complicated formula to determine that. Then because you're measuring in more than one place, that it's EVEN MORE complicated to determine that it's 5PM in NY.
I hope that you have Boofer on video cam to witness this meltdown, Mammy. ON the Twinkie Wagon to Bozoland - where the Prozac flows so freely - you go.
ROTFLMAO....
He's a coward who always hides when the truth comes too fast and furious.
Well, [war's] got to do something for attention, his multiple personalities aren't speaking to him any more, and his imaginary friends keep finding excuses not to come over.
The article correctly argues that measuring technology has changed, that the conditions around current measuring stations have changed (it used to be a field, now it's cement), and that there are not as many measuring stations as there were in the past. All of these have contributed to incorrect comparisons. I believe the scientists. You believe Al Gore, who is profiting mightily from this nonsense.
You can add 'LIAR' to the list of things he is....he and the cyber trash he hangs out with actually think calling me mammy and liar must make it so, I suppose, I think any woman could intimidate them tho....lol
Since he came back, two people have put me on filter. How gutless must you be to hide on a message board? Just children who love to snipe.
Well, [war's] got to do something for attention, his multiple personalities aren't speaking to him any more, and his imaginary friends keep finding excuses not to come over.
Says the idiot who tried to associate me with child molesters because of a similarity of name. You got better than you tried to give in your stick it to me attempt, and you are still whining. Why am I not surprised. None the less, welcome back.
Why if it isn't the euro-weenie enviromentalist to the rescue....lmao~
Well my dear, I have certainly lived in Europe, but am neither adjective. And I don't rescue anyone in this forum. I assume if one is here, they are tough enough to handle the big bad old Internet by themselves. I would speak up in anyone's defense if I felt them unfairly picked on, even you. But I would do you no special favors. You have a right to be here and to express your viewpoint, as do I. And that's the extent of it. I learned a long time ago not to hold grudges or to just unreasonably hate people. If this trait is a weakness to you, well so it goes. You have a right to be wrong like anyone else here, including me.
OH PULEEEEEEZE, YOUR BREAKING MY HEART!
Favor has no 'e'. And your post is amusing, but makes you look silly. Do yourself a favor, get over it, stop renting space in your head for obsession concerning me. My sentiments for you are to do well and have a good spring, with plenty of good times and good health. I just see no point in hating you. You after all are your own worst enemy.
By the way, I did happen across the post where you took Goldi on for her subtle racism and in which you ended your posting there. I was impressed and I commend you for it. How do you feel about Stone's overt racism though? Have you changed your view in regard to expressions of race hate?
Comments (42 - 66) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHow to cook a graph in three easy lessons
#2. To: go65 (#1)
Future posts will take a look at his mass market book on climate change, entitled Climate Confusion, published last month, and his article in National Review.
#3. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
#4. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
Finally, if the climate system is insensitive,
#5. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
#6. To: war (#5)
#7. To: war (#5)
Now, what is hilarious, is that with the theorized affects of warming on climate coming true
#8. To: war (#5)
Global warming isn't a theory; it's a fact -
#9. To: no gnu taxes (#7)
From 5 or 6 years ago when there were mild winters and that was touted as the effect of global warming or the cold winters now when that is the the effect of global warming?
#10. To: no gnu taxes, war, go65 (#0)
(Edited)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#11. To: jwpegler (#10)
Go google Milankovitch Cycles. There are 26,000 year, 41,000 year, 95,000 year, 125,000 year and 413,000 cycles in the earth's axis procession, axis tilt, and orbital shape that are probably the cause of the earth's climate cycles.
#12. To: go65 (#11)
i'm talking about rapid warming over 40 years
Yesterday And today 
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#13. To: jwpegler (#12)
How we measured temperatures... Yesterday And today
#14. To: go65 (#13)
Current temps are measured via land, sea, and satellite sensors
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#15. To: no gnu taxes, A K A Stone (#7)
(Edited)
#16. To: jwpegler, go65 (#14)
(Edited)
The United States and global data bases have serious problems that render them highly questionable for determining accurate long term temperature trends.
#17. To: war (#15)
Until you learn to control yourself, you're on bozo. You do not have permission to use any part of what you believe is my name other than what I may choose to use here.
#18. To: jwpegler (#14)
#19. To: war, no gnu taxes, A K A Stone, ALL (#15)
"You do not have permission to use any part of what you believe
is my name other than what I may choose to use here".
#20. To: Murron (#19)
(Edited)
If you had come to my defence when my name was being dropped on this site
#21. To: Murron (#19)
#22. To: no gnu taxes (#21)
"I don't understand his hissie fit. I could be talking about Willie Stargell as far as anyone knows"
#23. To: Murron, Ferret Mike, Skip Intor (#22)
(Edited)
#24. To: war (#23)
I have never posted my full name anywhere EVER.
#25. To: Murron (#24)
It's your euro-trash friends you want to convince, my word doesn't matter...and what you have to say to me, or about me, matters even less...
#26. To: war (#25)
Mammy #1 is telling the truth and #2 is the liar. The question
is...when I put her on bozo, will she require two spots?
#27. To: war (#16)
(Edited)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#28. To: war (#25)
#29. To: jwpegler, go65 (#27)
You didn't actually read the article because you are a leftist simpleton who doesn't care about the details. I already understood that. No problem.
#30. To: Murron. A K A Stone (#28)
#31. To: war (#30)
ON the Twinkie Wagon to Bozoland - where the Prozac flows so freely - you go.
#32. To: Murron (#31)
#33. To: war (#29)
In essence, your "article" is claiming that when it's 5PM in Boston, it requires a complicated formula to determine that.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899
#34. To: Rudgear (#32)
He's a coward who always hides when the truth comes too fast and furious.
#35. To: Murron (#34)
#36. To: Murron (#19)
"If you had come to my defence when my name was being dropped on this site, then I might have some empathy for you..."
#37. To: Ferret Mike (#36)
"Says the idiot who tried to associate me with child molesters because of a similarity of name. You got better than you tried to give in your stick it to me attempt, and you are still whining. Why am I not surprised".
#38. To: Murron (#37)
#39. To: Ferret Mike (#38)
#40. To: Murron (#39)
#41. To: Murron (#39)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]