New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism

AspenValley wrote: "Alarmist" on the other hand, implies someone who not only has an agenda but is deliberately hyping up the threat in a deceitful manner.

Based on that, I would say the use of the term 'alarmist' was more accurate than inaccurate. To imply that the AGW crowd doesn't have an agenda is to suspend all connection with reality.

PrintSmith wrote:

AspenValley wrote: "Alarmist" on the other hand, implies someone who not only has an agenda but is deliberately hyping up the threat in a deceitful manner.

Based on that, I would say the use of the term 'alarmist' was more accurate than inaccurate. To imply that the AGW crowd doesn't have an agenda is to suspend all connection with reality.

So your contention is that the "AGW crowd's" agenda is to "alarm" people?

"We have to significantly reduce GHGs regardless of the cost before we reach the tipping point" isn't alarmist in nature? Really?

PrintSmith wrote: "We have to significantly reduce GHGs regardless of the cost before we reach the tipping point" isn't alarmist in nature? Really?

If I say "We need to evacuate the building immediately before it burns down", it might be alarmist or it might not. It would depend on whether I had a body of evidence suggesting the building was actually on fire.

One would have to include "accurate" before "body" in that statement for it to have any merit. An inaccurate body of evidence that the building was actually on fire might lead to prosecution for yelling fire in a crowded theater when there was no actual fire.

AspenValley wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

AspenValley wrote: "Alarmist" on the other hand, implies someone who not only has an agenda but is deliberately hyping up the threat in a deceitful manner.

Based on that, I would say the use of the term 'alarmist' was more accurate than inaccurate. To imply that the AGW crowd doesn't have an agenda is to suspend all connection with reality.

So your contention is that the "AGW crowd's" agenda is to "alarm" people?

For some, I would answer as definitely. For the scientist who is trying to actually access the impact of our CO2 emissions and currently interprets the results as "yes they are" I'd say no. A fundamental issue is that the emphasis is put on AGW instead of an ongoing process and the possibility that CO2 emissions may accelerate the long term trend. Politically and financially interested parties play on emotional responses rather than reality. The reality is that our ability to accurately access the impact of CO2 is lacking. It IS NOT THE CAUSE, but MAY have a contribution. Taking the "may have" to the level of AGW is where the problem comes into the picture and "alarmist" becomes appropriate.

PrintSmith wrote: One would have to include "accurate" before "body" in that statement for it to have any merit. An inaccurate body of evidence that the building was actually on fire might lead to prosecution for yelling fire in a crowded theater when there was no actual fire.

The fact that not every piece of evidence is undisputed does not imply that there is not sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude they ought to evacuate the building. You can always choose to disbelieve my reasons for evacuating and decide to stay and burn with it, but at least I won't be held liable for failing to warn you of the evidence of the fire.

Your example of yelling fire in a crowded theater is gravely flawed, the only time such language can or should be punished under the law is if the person yelling KNEW the statement was untrue.

Is that data valid and accurate or not? Arguing over the use of a word ads nothing to the topic...or maybe I'm just to dumb to understand.

This an absolute piece of garbage, but that is to be expected from Viking. The "article" written by James Taylor, a LAWYER, for the anti global warming, oil company & Koch Bros. funded Heartland Institute, allegedly quotes from a scholarly article in Remote Sensing by credible scientists. If you bother to actually read that article, it does not support the "conclusions" by Lawyer Taylor.


Yet, as seen in Figure 2, we are still faced with a rather large discrepancy in the time-lagged
regression coefficients between the radiative signatures displayed by the real climate system in satellite
data versus the climate models. While this discrepancy is nominally in the direction of lower climate
sensitivity of the real climate system, there are a variety of parameters other than feedback affecting
the lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult. These include the
amount of non-radiative versus radiative forcing, how periodic the temperature and radiative balance
variations are, the depth of the mixed layer, etc., all of which preclude any quantitative estimate of how
large the feedback difference is. More recent work which attempts to minimize non-feedback
influences [14] might well provide more accurate feedback estimates than previous studies.

Finally, since much of the temperature variability during 2000–2010 was due to ENSO [9], we
conclude that ENSO-related temperature variations are partly radiatively forced. We hypothesize that
changes in the coupled ocean-atmosphere circulation during the El Niño and La Niña phases of ENSO
cause differing changes in cloud cover, which then modulate the radiative balance of the climate
system. As seen in Figure 3(b) for the ocean-only data, the signature of radiative forcing is stronger
over the oceans than in the global average, suggesting a primarily oceanic origin.
What this might (or might not) imply regarding the ultimate causes of the El Niño and La Niña
phenomena is not relevant to our central point, though: that the presence of time varying radiative
forcing in satellite radiative flux measurements corrupts the diagnosis of radiative feedback.

Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains
the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is
largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,
probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and
likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite
and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While
the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of
lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we
find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy
in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. 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.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

No where do they discuss the conclusions for the lawyer for the Heartland Institute, nor do they discuss any gaping hold in Alarmisn". This is pure unadulterated garbage, but then again what can you expect from conservatives like Viking.

and another one bites the dust.

APNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation that polar bears likely drowned in the Arctic helped galvanize the global warming movement during the last decade was placed on administrative leave while officials investigate scientific misconduct allegations.

AP Yahoo News