Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/28/2011 12:04:25 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The collapse of physical science. I almost expect to hear that rocks adhere through crazy glue.


2 posted on 07/28/2011 12:10:14 PM PDT by onedoug (If)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
Looking for more detail...from Watts Up With that this may help:

Pielke Sr. on new Spencer and Braswell paper

********************************EXCERPT*****************************************

Posted on by Anthony Watts

http://nola2010.hamptonu.edu/EarthBalanceGSFC.gif

Earth Balance - Source: Allison, Mead A., Arthur T. DeGaetano, Jay M. Pasachoff. /Earth Science/. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2006.

Reposted from Dr. Roger Pielke Sr’s blog

New Paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011

There is a new paper published which raises further questions on the robustness of multi-decadal global climate predictions. It is

Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

The University of Alabama has issues a news release on it which reads [h/t to Phillip Gentry]
Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

“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.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

For this experiment, the UA Huntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra satellite.

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UA Huntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.

==============================================================

Dr. Spencer has a pdf available.  He discussed the findings here.

3 posted on 07/28/2011 12:11:55 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an outcome that started long before AGW alarmists predicted:

This is obvious for anyone who does not wear a hat in the winter,

4 posted on 07/28/2011 12:11:55 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

AGW fraud bump for later...........


5 posted on 07/28/2011 12:13:56 PM PDT by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

bookmark for later.


7 posted on 07/28/2011 12:16:49 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Kind of a bummer about the drowning bears being fake.

I was thinking if they’re gonna die anyway why not start a charter boat hunting service where you could blast em from the deck.


8 posted on 07/28/2011 12:17:01 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Great post - thanks.


10 posted on 07/28/2011 12:23:37 PM PDT by GOPJ (Honk if I'm paying for your car, your mortgage, and your big, fat Greek bailout - mewzilla)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere, an outcome that started long before AGW alarmists predicted:

That must be why no Hot Spot can be found. A factor that Greenhouse Theory itself says must exist to confirm "Greenhouse warming."

No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)

The missing hotspot (JoNova)

Those two articles take Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect. CO2 levels are only pertinent to Greenhouse warming not any other potential causes of warming.

11 posted on 07/28/2011 12:28:13 PM PDT by TigersEye (No dark sarcasm in the press room ... Hey!, Barry!, leave them bills alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

The “scientist” who claimed “Polar bears are drowning!!!” in some deep doo-doo

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2755224/posts


12 posted on 07/28/2011 12:37:10 PM PDT by Roccus (Obama & Holder LLP, Procurers of fine arms to the most discerning drug lords (202) 456-1414)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
This is confirmed by long recognized archeological findings.

During the Ordovician period (488.3–443.7 million years ago) the average CO2 level was 4200 ppm (15 times pre-industrial level) but the average temperature was only 2deg C higher. During the Ordovician period, the Earth had polar ice caps and experienced the Hirnantian glaciation. The Earth did not burn up like the alarmist have said. It was much like today.

15 posted on 07/28/2011 12:46:45 PM PDT by CharlyFord (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
In fact, much of the heat goes out into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere

We have to come up with new climate models before it's too late!

21 posted on 07/28/2011 12:54:36 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

BMFL


26 posted on 07/28/2011 1:24:29 PM PDT by Scutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Return. Thanks for posting.
27 posted on 07/28/2011 1:27:33 PM PDT by jnsun (The Left: the need to manipulate others because of nothing productive to offer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
“A false conclusion once arrived at and widely accepted is not easily dislodged, and the less it is understood the more tenaciously it is held.” Jeff Cooper

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

28 posted on 07/28/2011 1:34:11 PM PDT by Varmint Al
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

30 posted on 07/28/2011 2:09:43 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I wonder how Hansen is going to explain this.... >PS


32 posted on 07/28/2011 2:28:27 PM PDT by PiperShade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Great post E. Thanks.


34 posted on 07/28/2011 2:47:24 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....Duncan Hunter Sr. for POTUS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

.


40 posted on 07/28/2011 8:07:03 PM PDT by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Facts don't matter. They will find some other “theory” to fit their desired outcome.
That outcome is always the same. Higher taxes, limits on personal freedom; limiting free market economies, dictating where you live, what you drive, how many kids you have, etc etc...
41 posted on 07/28/2011 8:12:13 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (I love how the FR spellchecker doesn't recognize the word "Obama")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson