Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA

Now, some of you will assume this "shocking news" debunks the global warmers, but, according to the "experts", this means the opposite. It means temperatures will be warmer than they've been predicting, not cooler, even though what they've been saying is burning fossil fuels warms, not cools, the planet. They do explain why cooling warms in the article, but I won't attempt to explain how they do it, so you'll just need to read it if you're interested.

However, when I read the article I couldn't help seeing a repeated theme and that's that "climate science" isn't anywhere near settled. Why? Well, because as this new research has shown, they've been working with incomplete data and even the data they are using isn't accurate. And, don't just take my word for it, the researchers and spokespersons all say the same thing. Of course, in their view, they've already concluded this new research will result in data showing more warming. So, who knows what they'll "conclude" next, but when you have a +/- micro factor involving a century, or even centuries, who could possible doubt "experts predicting" micro changes in our global climate.

 

the problem with this entire concept and argument as its manifested over the decades, is they keep changing the science behind their proof, and as soon as they hit a roadblock where people finally say, using your own science we proved you're wrong... so they reformulate methods and practices and redefine knowledge until it fits the conclusions they want... now as someone who routinely reads medical and scientific journals that are peer reviewed before publishing, I also recognize that most studies published as proof, end up being proven wrong in just a couple years... thats the current factual reality of most published science around the world...

what the argument always should have been, and should always be, is that "pollution is bad, we should reduce it"... rather than attempting to scientifically prove it over and over and over and over again as each new methodology used to prove it, turns out to be inaccurate and wrong years later... they should stick to the core belief, and core goal, and stop attempting to "prove" pollution is bad... we know pollution is bad, thats why we call it pollution... they should refocus their efforts on having people recognize that the air we breathe affects our health, and things emitting what we breathe in, are bad for our health... etc etc etc...

they should give up this attempt to spend billions and slowly approaching a trillion dollars on convincing people of their methodology... "winning" the argument of proof is all they now seem interested in, they no longer seem interested in the basic message that has existed for centuries... pollution and waste is bad... and we should always be working towards using less... reduce, reuse, recycle... that should be the only message they preach, rather than trying to "win" the argument which keeps being redefined...

thats where this whole thing went wrong... once non-scientists started to influence scientists to push an agenda... next time, just stick to pollution is bad... its a message everyone gets... show pictures of kids sucking on the end of tail pipes, and ask people if this is what they want their children breathing in... and then help solve that...

P.S. the article and picture below, are what people should be repeating over and over again, not the ever changing science used to push agendas... because, lets face it, we all have smog warnings across this country every summer now... and china is a perfect example of what happens when things don't change... push the tangible pollution, not the hypothetical science... this is a story and picture about beijing, this decmeber... this is a tangible reality people understand, face masks are a common thing worn in china... this is what they should teach and demonstrate to people... not trying to prove unproven science... stick to things we can demonstrate and prove today, thats all you need to do!

http://time.com/4155365/china-red-alert-smog/

 

A brief moment of truth

Like she really knows . Might as well roll the bones or read entrails.

 

Are denialists just now learning about aerosols?

 

Yes, NASA is saying we are just lucky because global warming is balancing out global warming. Global warming is A MAGICAL HEATERISTICAL HOTTERISM!

 

1) I'll make this easy, please list one person who denies the "climate changes". One.
2) By their own admission, it's clear NASA is the one still learning. It's also clear, again, by their own admission, their data is incomplete & their thus their models are flawed. So, it seems the question is, do you 'deny' their perdictions are also flawed?

 

And I'll make this easy. Please quote where I said that this is what is being denied.

They are pretty good for predictions of a chaotic system, and the predictions come in the form of ranges, which have been accurate thus far. Yes, unlike denialists, NASA is always learning . . . that's what science is all about. No, no findings have changed the scientific consensus.

 

NASA is now a denialist? Can you people make up your minds yet? Or do the talking points change that quickly?

- - - Updated - - -

The models have not been accurate so far.

 

NASA has been talking about aerosols ever since I was a kid. The denialists are the ones who think this is something new.

The long term effect of adding more greenhouse gases to our atmosphere is that it will cause in increase in the global average temperature, as it already has been doing. Nothing has changed there.

They have been accurate. The denialists sometimes cherry pick in order to make them seem inaccurate, specifically by choosing the highest end of the range given for scenarios involving more CO2 emissions than ended up actually being emitted for the year.

 

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

this doesn't debunk global warming, at all

 

Typical denialism. They don't know the difference between weather and climate and they don't know the difference between global and local. Toss in their inability to draw a trend line and we'll have the whole trifecta

 

Actually, she's playing it safe saying that, because it's pretty damn obvious it's "complex". I mean, forecasting temp's +/- a few degrees two,three, four weeks out is "complex", right? So what's that make estimating furture (meaning furure centuries) global temp's? She says complex, but I think near impossible is more accurate. There are just to many unknown variables to even approach anything approaching accuracy, and the fact their models are developed with arrays of "best guess" senerios makes "accuracy" even more remote.

 

It is also accurate to say that the more complex a model is, the more likely it will be wrong as every uncertainty in the input adds up over time.

 

The OP says "cools planet." NASA says local cooling. /thread

 

Local like over the oceans that cover over 70% of the earth?

 

yes, aerosols reflect sunlight back into space.

just like sulfur does when there is a volcanic eruption.

but this hasn't stopped the Earth from warming.

its going to be 70 degrees on Christmas Day in NYC

 

Mistaking weather for climate?

 

The entire East is in an extended warm pattern due to this year's very strong El Niño in the Pacific.

Nothing more nothing less, global warming envirowackos out there!

 

I'd prefer to focus on one issue at a time instead of playing the usual denialist hopscotch. Once we've agreed that the OP is wrong and has told an untruth about NASA's claim, then I'll be happy to move on to the oceans.

 

Yep, they don't realize they are calling natural variation AGW.

 

Hey, you're the one using the label, you explain what's being denied. If not climete change, what then?

They are pretty good for predictions of a chaotic system, and the predictions come in the form of ranges, which have been accurate thus far. Yes, unlike denialists, NASA is always learning . . . that's what science is all about. No, no findings have changed the scientific consensus.[/QUOTE]

Ah...so they're "pretty good", IYO. How nice. So, what's your "range" of what's "pretty good"? +/-? I mean, "pretty good" seems like a rather low bar for something being sold as "settled science".

 

Denying the scientific consensus that human emissions are primarily responsible in increases in global average temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

Yes. And the "settled science" I described above does not require such modeling, but the models, being tools, have been accurate for their subject matter. In many cases, they have actually proven to be too conservative in their estimates.

 

This has always been a complex matter …

E.g., before coal-fired power plants were required to scrub sulfur gases from the stack gases, the large amounts of sulfur oxides (which have a net cooling effect) tended to mask the warming effects of carbon dioxide …
And, yes, aerosol/particulate clouds at altitude tend to reflect incoming solar radiation …

So, yes, the simplistic "deniers" just don't *get*it* (apparently because they don't want to get it …)

 

The OP said it was more prevalent over the oceans that was expected. Are the oceans that cover over 70% of the earth just local?

 

You mean like the model average over predicting warming in the troposphere as much as 4 times or more compared to the two satellite and 4 balloon observations that closely agree with each other? The troposphere where the warming is supposed to show first?