New study calls into question basic AGW models

M

mop

2,500+ Posts
A new study out by Dr. Spencer is casting huge doubt on some of the basic assumptions used in climate models long used to defend AGW. Turns out that NASA's Terra satellite showed that far more radiative heat is leaving earth's atmosphere than assumed by climate models referenced by the IPCC. This article from Forbes gives a layman's description, but is unfortunately over the top with rhetoric.



Climate models undermined by new Spencer study

Here is a link to Spencer's page where a link to the PDF of the actual study is available:

Dr. Spencer's own release of the study
 
I hopefully read these links anticipating that perhaps we were not facing a potentially catastrophic environmental disaster. I was particularly intrigued after reading your description that this was causing "huge doubts" about the existing scientific consensus.

Unfortunately, this is not only a propaganda piece, it doesn't even support your assertion. The study itself indicates that the researchers could not determine whether the hypothesis had merit.

While I would love for you to be correct, the hard science is not with you.
 
buffalo, i can't really respond to your thoughts because it is just argumentum assertum. if you have some specific points you want to bring out, then please do so. did you read Dr. Spencer's study? or did you just read the Forbes piece (which i was disappointed in as well actually).
 
"The study itself indicates that the researchers could not determine whether the hypothesis had merit."

Is this true?
 
mop,

When I said that the study did not support the hypothethsis, that is not an "argumentum assertion." It is a rebuttal.

For reference, this is from the abstract to the article:

"It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."

The conclusion in the articles assert that temperature flucations from 2000-2011 (not sure why the time frame is so narrow) supports the abstract. Although the researchers draw preliminary conclusions about the effect of "radiative feedback" which support the article, the researchers are carfeul to note that this is not quantifiable.

There is no real meat here. I would love to join the climate change skeptic side, but so far I cannot.
 
now that's something to which i can respond! what i was looking for was specifics as to why you disagreed with the take i was presenting. you have now given me that so i can now respond.

ok buffalo, i don't know if you are aware that you may be painting yourself into a corner here. if Spencer is right about the atmospheric feedback diagnosis remaining an "unsolved problem" then the climate models upon which much of the supposed "consensus" is based becomes an "unsolved problem" as well.

However, I think you are putting too much stock in that quote anyways. Spencer's point, if I understand it correctly, was not that he may be incorrect about the radiative release of the atmosphere, but that in light of this new information, we have to go back to the drawing board so to speak. in other words, if you read his PDF you will find that in fact the NASA Terra satellite upon which this information is based, is indeed showing that the numbers used by the climate models the IPCC bases their position on the sensitivity of the atmosphere to CO2 forcing is faulty and we need to consider it a as yet "unsolved problem."

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
mop,

I don't have the scientific basis to know whether the hypothesis regarding radiation feedback is meritorious to begin with. My point is that the confidence asserted in the article and your initial post did not seem supported by the research.

Nevertheless, I will be sure to continue monitoring science news to see if this bears out. I hope that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are wrong, but I also hope for peace and prosperity so that only gets me so far.
 
they had to reset my account recently when there were problems with the server….so i went from something over 5,000….to 0!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top