PDA

View Full Version : Environment New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism


petegz28
07-28-2011, 07:56 AM
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.


"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

alnorth
07-28-2011, 08:07 AM
interesting. I'll have to read more on that and reactions to the study later. I've definitely come around on this issue since the e-mail scandal from "I think it is probably real so maybe we should do something", to "we have no f'ing idea, let's find out before we do anything"

Intuitively it makes some sense, if true. Global warming folks are mostly scared about a negative feedback loop where warming begets more warming in a runaway spiral until we no longer can stop it.

This might be an example of the planet's natural resistance to prevent a warming loop: if the earth gets warmer, then more and more heat begins to escape into space, far more than we previously expected, like some sort of relief valve letting off steam.

Donger
07-28-2011, 08:17 AM
interesting. I'll have to read more on that and reactions to the study later. I've definitely come around on this issue since the e-mail scandal from "I think it is probably real so maybe we should do something", to "we have no f'ing idea, let's find out before we do anything"

Intuitively it makes some sense, if true. Global warming folks are mostly scared about a negative feedback loop where warming begets more warming in a runaway spiral until we no longer can stop it.

This might be an example of the planet's natural resistance to prevent a warming loop: if the earth gets warmer, then more and more heat begins to escape into space, far more than we previously expected, like some sort of relief valve letting off steam.

I've been saying this for years: nature tends to equilibrium.

Brock
07-28-2011, 08:24 AM
Yeah, but it's hot outside.

morphius
07-28-2011, 08:29 AM
interesting. I'll have to read more on that and reactions to the study later. I've definitely come around on this issue since the e-mail scandal from "I think it is probably real so maybe we should do something", to "we have no f'ing idea, let's find out before we do anything"

Intuitively it makes some sense, if true. Global warming folks are mostly scared about a negative feedback loop where warming begets more warming in a runaway spiral until we no longer can stop it.

This might be an example of the planet's natural resistance to prevent a warming loop: if the earth gets warmer, then more and more heat begins to escape into space, far more than we previously expected, like some sort of relief valve letting off steam.
I've always doubted that they had enough information, and the fact that their theory actually predicts every sort of weather possible makes it seem even less truthful.

But I also believe we should continue to try to lower our pollution either way, just not in extremist ways (cap and trade).

alnorth
07-28-2011, 08:29 AM
I've been saying this for years: nature tends to equilibrium.

I read a little bit of the study and the University press release. (The study itself is rather complicated)

He's not necessarily saying man-made global warming isn't real, but he is saying that the earth is *FAR* more efficient at shedding heat than the models currently believe, and that the earth begins to shed heat in a local area shortly after a local area begins to warm up, months before the models think the earth begins to release heat.

In other words, maybe we did warm the earth a little bit, and catastrophic global warming might still theoretically happen, but if it does it will be very slow, take a very long time to occur, and it will take a hell of a lot more effort from us to make that happen to overcome the earth's powerful heat "relief valve".

jiveturkey
07-28-2011, 08:31 AM
I've always doubted that they had enough information, and the fact that their theory actually predicts every sort of weather possible makes it seem even less truthful.

But I also believe we should continue to try to lower our pollution either way, just not in extremist ways (cap and trade).Hard to argue with this.

Do what we can to keep our water and air clean without screwing everything else up. Balance.

Donger
07-28-2011, 08:34 AM
I read a little bit of the study and the University press release. (The study itself is rather complicated)

He's not necessarily saying man-made global warming isn't real, but he is saying that the earth is *FAR* more efficient at shedding heat than the models currently believe, and that the earth begins to shed heat in a local area shortly after a local area begins to warm up.

In other words, maybe we did warm the earth a little bit, and catastrophic global warming might still theoretically happen, but if it does it will be very slow, take a very long time to occur, and it will take a hell of a lot more effort from us to make that happen to overcome the earth's powerful heat "relief valve".

Global warming IS real. It happens every day.

Bob Dole
07-28-2011, 10:34 AM
Does Al have to give his Nobel back now?

Saul Good
07-28-2011, 12:01 PM
The alarmists are conspicuously absent today...

vailpass
07-28-2011, 12:15 PM
Why you all hates polar bears?

BigCatDaddy
07-28-2011, 12:19 PM
Yeah, but it's hot outside.

THIS!

ROYC75
07-28-2011, 12:31 PM
Does Al have to give his Nobel back now?

( Liberal Greenie ) Well, no. He did say the planet was getting warmer, right. Haven't you been outside this past month or are you holed up inside all the time.

ROYC75
07-28-2011, 12:31 PM
Why you all hates polar bears?

Bout time for a Klondike bar.......

KILLER_CLOWN
07-28-2011, 12:45 PM
Nature is/was/will always be Chaotic yet somehow were supposed to create a new tax for the people to offset the guilt some feel. In turn a few will get much richer, sounds like a great plan if you're one of the few.

Calcountry
07-28-2011, 01:15 PM
Yeah, but it's hot outside.Yeah, and that bitch with big tits on the Weather channel says that the globes are warming.

alpha_omega
07-28-2011, 01:20 PM
Come on Pete....you know its called "Climate Change" not "GW".

Stinger
07-28-2011, 02:17 PM
I've always doubted that they had enough information, and the fact that their theory actually predicts every sort of weather possible makes it seem even less truthful.

But I also believe we should continue to try to lower our pollution either way, just not in extremist ways (cap and trade).

You must have forgot where you were .... We will have no common sense here in the DC forum... :harumph:

suzzer99
07-28-2011, 06:04 PM
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.[/url]

Do you guys ever bother to check sources on anything?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

The Heartland Institute's Environmental "expert," James Taylor, is a lawyer based in Florida. Despite presenting a veneer of scientific expertise in their Environmental advocacy, the Heartland lacks any(?) scientists trained to understand climate issues.

The Heartland institute is a Libertarian think tank that gets funding from the Koch brothers, Exxon-Mobil and Phillip Morris, among others.


The fact is that there is still a scientific consensus on global warming from every major scientific body on earth. None of that is changed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations

When your grandkids ask why you did nothing about this - you can tell them you chose to believe a few random lawyers from corporate-funded libertarian think tanks - over every major legitimate scientific body in the world. And they will cock their heads at you like a dog that doesn't understand a new noise.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404

Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming
A UC Berkeley team's preliminary findings in a review of temperature data confirm global warming studies.
April 04, 2011|By Margot Roosevelt, Los Angeles Times

A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress.

Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.

The Berkeley project's biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases.

The $620,000 project is also partly funded by the federal Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where Muller is a senior scientist. Muller said the Koch foundation and other contributors will have no influence over the results, which he plans to submit to peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, which contributed some funding to the Berkeley effort, said Muller's statement to Congress was "honorable" in recognizing that "previous temperature reconstructions basically got it right…. Willingness to revise views in the face of empirical data is the hallmark of the good scientific process."

But conservative critics who had expected Muller's group to demonstrate a bias among climate scientists reacted with disappointment.

Anthony Watts, a former TV weatherman who runs the skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat.com, wrote that the Berkeley group is releasing results that are not "fully working and debugged yet.... But, post normal science political theater is like that."

Over the years, Muller has praised Watts' efforts to show that weather station data in official studies are untrustworthy because of the urban heat island effect, which boosts temperature readings in areas that have been encroached on by cities and suburbs.

But leading climatologists said the previous studies accounted for the effect, and the Berkeley analysis is confirming that, Muller acknowledged. "Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming?" he asked in his written testimony. "We've studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no."

Temperature data are gathered from tens of thousands of weather stations around the globe, many of which have incomplete records. Over the last two decades, three independent groups have used different combinations of stations and varying statistical methods and yet arrived at nearly identical conclusions: The planet's surface, on average, has warmed about 0.75 degrees centigrade (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since the beginning of the 20th century.

Temperature data were the focus of the so-called 2009 Climategate controversy, in which opponents of greenhouse gas regulation alleged that leaked emails from a British climate laboratory showed manipulation of weather station records. Five U.S. and British government and university investigations have refuted the charges.

"For those who wish to discredit the science, this [temperature] record is the holy grail," said Peter Thorne, a leading expert at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. "They figure if they can discredit this, then society would have significant doubts about all of climate science."

Thorne said scientists who contributed to the three main studies — by NOAA, NASA and Britain's Met Office — welcome new peer-reviewed research. But he said the Berkeley team had been "seriously compromised" by publicizing its work before publishing any vetted papers.

On the project's website, in a public lecture and in statements to the media, Muller had portrayed the Berkeley effort as rectifying the "biases" of previous studies, a task he compared with "Hercules cleaning out the Augean stables." He said his study would be "more precise," analyzing data from 39,000 stations — more than any other study — and offering "transparent," rather than "homogenized" data.

Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a university consortium, said he was "highly skeptical of the hype and claims" surrounding the Berkeley effort. "The team has some good people," he said, "but not the expertise required in certain areas, and purely statistical approaches are naive."

The project team includes UC Berkeley statistician David Brillinger and UC Berkeley physicists Don Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld and Jonathan Wurtele. The group's atmospheric scientist is Judith Curry, chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, who has suggested that temperature data were "airbrushed" by other scientists.

One full-time staffer, Richard Rohde, a who recently earned a doctorate in statistics, is doing most of the work, Muller said.

Although in his testimony Muller praised the "integrity" of previous studies, he said estimates of human-caused warming need to be "improved." And despite his preliminary praise for earlier studies, he said further data-crunching "could bring our current agreement into disagreement."

Other scientists noted that temperature is only one factor in climate change. "Even if the thermometer had never been invented, the evidence is there from deep ocean changes, from receding glaciers, from rising sea levels and receding sea ice and spring snow cover," Thorne said.

"All the physical indicators are consistent with a warming world. There is no doubt the trend of temperature is upwards since the early 20th century. And that trend is accelerating."

petegz28
07-28-2011, 06:06 PM
Do you guys ever bother to check sources on anything?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute



The Heartland institute is a Libertarian think tank that gets funding from the Koch brothers, Exxon-Mobil and Phillip Morris, among others.

The fact is that there is still a scientific consensus on global warming from every major scientific body on earth. None of that is changed.

When your grandkids ask why you did nothing about this. You can tell them you chose to believe a few random lawyers from corporate-funded libertarian think tanks - over every major legitimate scientific body in the world. And they will cock their heads at you like a dog that doesn't understand a new noise.

I guess Al Gore is what then? And every major legitimate scientist does not subscribe to the crap we are getting told. Only the ones who want some money.

alnorth
07-28-2011, 06:11 PM
Do you guys ever bother to check sources on anything?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute



The Heartland institute is a Libertarian think tank that gets funding from the Koch brothers, among others.

The fact is that there is still a scientific consensus on global warming from every major scientific body on earth. None of that is changed.

When your grandkids ask why you did nothing about this. You can tell them you chose to believe a few random lawyers from corporate-funded libertarian think tanks - over every major legitimate scientific body in the world. And they will cock their heads at you like a dog that doesn't understand a new noise.

You are attacking a guy who wrote a Forbes article, which was crowing about the findings in another study. You ignored the source study.

Dr. Roy Spencer and the University of Alabama are not inherently discredited sources, and Remote Sensing is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. His claim seems to be straightforward, the study is only about 5 pages, and the source of the data is above question. It wont take long for independent analysis to be done. If there are severe obvious flaws in his study, then it will be universally discredited pretty soon.

suzzer99
07-28-2011, 06:21 PM
Ok but Spencer is a pretty huge AGW skeptic with ties to big oil as well: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

My guess is we won't hear much more about this since it probably represents one small insignificant piece of the puzzle. But the oil companies get their propaganda to keep the FUD going, which is all that matters.

Yeah it looks like he's been pretty thoroughly rebutted on plenty of his past theories:

View: our climate change is likely natural

At a 2008 talk sponsored by the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, Spencer said, "There's probably a natural reason for global warming. ... We will look back on it as a gigantic false alarm. ... The Earth isn't that sensitive to how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere. ... I think we need to consider the possibility that more carbon dioxide is better than less." [2]

Favored alternative is PDO; but evidence runs counter, shows no long-term trend

To account for warming his favored alternative theory is that it's due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.[3]; yet the PDO "shows no [long-term] trend, and therefore...is not responsible for the trend of global warming".[4]


View: climate sensitivity is low, so near-future climate change won't be severe

Scientifically, the crucial point in Spencer's position is that of climate sensitivity. Spencer suggests in his blog that climate sensitivity may be low, due to mainstream climate scientists underestimating clouds, and he claims that satellite data will support him [5].

Rebuttal

"Roy Spencer has come up with yet another “silver bullet” to show that climate sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates. I.e., he fits a simple 1-box climate model to the net flux of heat into the upper 700 m of the ocean, and infers a climate sensitivity of only about 1 °C (2x CO2). There are several flaws in his methods–inconsistent initial conditions, failure to use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper than 700 m. (He fixed the last one in an update.) All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3 °C, which is the IPCC’s central estimate. ... while Spencer’s latest effort doesn’t really do any damage to the consensus position, it turns out that it does directly contradict the work he promoted in The Great Global Warming Blunder."[6]


So basically he just keeps making up new theories, but always as to why global warming is wrong. Then if that's wrong he goes back to the drawing board. Real. Science.
View: peer review is biased against contrarians

"I believe the day is approaching when it will be time to make public the evidence of biased peer review." (Spencer, 2009)[8]

Rebuttal

"Instead of complaining about how biased and awful the peer review system has gotten, [Spencer] should (at the very least) get a statistician to work with him and do the modeling right, and then submit it for publication in a reputable journal. "[10]

LOOOL he's against peer review. So even if this theory is debunked he's already got a built in excuse.


And super lol he also doesn't believe in evolution:

Opposition to evolution and embrace of "intelligent design"

Spencer has been an active in advocating Intelligent Design over evolution, and he argues that its teaching should be mandatory in schools[11]. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that is based on a "Biblical view" rather than science. As a defender of the pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design" creationism, Spencer has asserted that the scientific theory of evolution is really just a kind of religion.[12]

Bolded is lolwtf? What a scientist.

Do you guys understand how shill science works? These are the same guys (in many cases literally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Connections_to_the_tobacco_lobby)) who denied that tobacco caused lung cancer for 40 years. All they have to do is sow the seed of doubt, and give the people who want to believe something to latch on to. That's why they make the big bucks. And you eat it up hook, line and sinker.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-28-2011, 10:25 PM
4 Recent Scientific Blows to the Global Warming Theory

Activist Post

The science behind the anthropogenic global warming theory appears to be falling apart with each new scientific study. Global warming, now often referred to as "climate change," is still reported as fact in every establishment publication despite increasing evidence to the contrary. It's difficult to argue that the climate is not shifting in some noticeable way, yet recent reports clearly show that the science is not as settled as some global warming advocates would suggest.

In fact, since the Climategate scandal broke, where top climate scientists were caught manipulating data to fit the theory, polls have shown the number of global warming believers has plummeted to new lows. Notably, this has occurred while every major media outlet has promoted the theory as environmental law. The record number of skeptics has inspired Al Gore to create a new climate re-education project where he claims "The climate crisis is real and we know how to solve it."

Even though Gore claims to know how to solve an unproven theory, the proposed solutions to global warming are now drawing scathing criticism from some world leaders like Czech President Vaclav Klaus. Klaus, an economist who lived through the rise and fall of communism, recently said that the climate change movement is a threat to democracy.

"I consider (the global warming doctrine) a new dangerous attempt to control and mastermind my life and our lives, in the name of controlling the climate or temperature," Klaus said to an audience of the Australian-based think-tank Institute of Public Affairs. Klaus also exposed phony environmentalists, "They don't care about resources or poverty or pollution. They hate us, the humans. They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them."

Rhetoric aside, the science now pouring in appears to further debunk the anthropogenic global warming theory. Here are four recent developments that damage the theory:


1. A biologist who claimed that polar bears were drowning because of melting ice has been suspended and is being investigated for scientific misconduct following his "veracity" in emotionalizing a debunked topic. Get ready for Polarbeargate.

2. Today, new NASA data blows a gaping hole in global warming alarmism: "NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing."

3. CERN physicists conducted a cosmic ray climate experiment that is said to directly contradict the climate change debate in the political arena. Apparently, so much so that the scientists have been gagged from discussing their findings reportedly proving that cosmic (space-based) energy has a far greater effect on the climate than previously believed.

4. A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found evidence that coal burning plants may actually be cooling the planet. The findings have been accepted to the point of suggesting using sulfur to combat global warming; "Sulfur's ability to cool things down has led some to suggest using it in a geo-engineering feat to cool the planet." If anything, this study proves that the science behind the anthropogenic global warming theory is unproven.

The stakes are incredibly high in the climate change debate, and global solutions are being offered to us by some less-than reputable leaders, including the international banking cartel. We should remain skeptical and continue to gather more evidence, or the proposed solutions for the climate might lead to other changes that we could live to regret.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/4-recent-scientific-blows-to-global.html

alnorth
07-28-2011, 11:03 PM
Link to the first critical article I could find: http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html

Basically, a few scientists attack and nit-pick Spencer's argument and observations. (with one guy saying he couldn't believe his study got published)

However, those scientists also acknowledge that recent data and observations do not conclusively show global warming (which is the basis for Spencer's attack: your models said X would happen, but it did not, so here's my alternative explanation, and now some satellite data that backs me up), but those scientists rely on the ancient paleoclimate record, which Spencer, of course, dismisses.

In 40 or 50 years, we ought to know who is right, but the global warming alarmists say we can't wait for them to be proven out.

suzzer99
07-28-2011, 11:08 PM
Honestly I don't think it matters what we do. Because we're going to burn all the fossil fuel we have one way or another. I don't think cap and trade or a carbon tax is realistic unless every nation is on board and plays fair. Which will never happen.

I just really really really hate shill science. I think we should at least be honest that we're probably ****ing the planet up for our kids. And then see what happens. This is no different than the tobacco deniers spreading FUD for 40 years.

suzzer99
07-28-2011, 11:09 PM
4 Recent Scientific Blows to the Global Warming Theory

Activist Post

The science behind the anthropogenic global warming theory appears to be falling apart with each new scientific study. Global warming, now often referred to as "climate change," is still reported as fact in every establishment publication despite increasing evidence to the contrary. It's difficult to argue that the climate is not shifting in some noticeable way, yet recent reports clearly show that the science is not as settled as some global warming advocates would suggest.

In fact, since the Climategate scandal broke, where top climate scientists were caught manipulating data to fit the theory, polls have shown the number of global warming believers has plummeted to new lows. Notably, this has occurred while every major media outlet has promoted the theory as environmental law. The record number of skeptics has inspired Al Gore to create a new climate re-education project where he claims "The climate crisis is real and we know how to solve it."

Even though Gore claims to know how to solve an unproven theory, the proposed solutions to global warming are now drawing scathing criticism from some world leaders like Czech President Vaclav Klaus. Klaus, an economist who lived through the rise and fall of communism, recently said that the climate change movement is a threat to democracy.

"I consider (the global warming doctrine) a new dangerous attempt to control and mastermind my life and our lives, in the name of controlling the climate or temperature," Klaus said to an audience of the Australian-based think-tank Institute of Public Affairs. Klaus also exposed phony environmentalists, "They don't care about resources or poverty or pollution. They hate us, the humans. They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them."

Rhetoric aside, the science now pouring in appears to further debunk the anthropogenic global warming theory. Here are four recent developments that damage the theory:


1. A biologist who claimed that polar bears were drowning because of melting ice has been suspended and is being investigated for scientific misconduct following his "veracity" in emotionalizing a debunked topic. Get ready for Polarbeargate.

2. Today, new NASA data blows a gaping hole in global warming alarmism: "NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing."

3. CERN physicists conducted a cosmic ray climate experiment that is said to directly contradict the climate change debate in the political arena. Apparently, so much so that the scientists have been gagged from discussing their findings reportedly proving that cosmic (space-based) energy has a far greater effect on the climate than previously believed.

4. A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found evidence that coal burning plants may actually be cooling the planet. The findings have been accepted to the point of suggesting using sulfur to combat global warming; "Sulfur's ability to cool things down has led some to suggest using it in a geo-engineering feat to cool the planet." If anything, this study proves that the science behind the anthropogenic global warming theory is unproven.

The stakes are incredibly high in the climate change debate, and global solutions are being offered to us by some less-than reputable leaders, including the international banking cartel. We should remain skeptical and continue to gather more evidence, or the proposed solutions for the climate might lead to other changes that we could live to regret.

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/4-recent-scientific-blows-to-global.html

It takes zero effort to post this. And almost as little effort to look up the sources on all these and find out their from Exxon/Koch Brothers-funded think tanks.

KCWolfman
07-29-2011, 12:37 AM
I've always doubted that they had enough information, and the fact that their theory actually predicts every sort of weather possible makes it seem even less truthful.

But I also believe we should continue to try to lower our pollution either way, just not in extremist ways (cap and trade).

Amen, Jeff. It makes sense to use and reuse, from both conservative and liberal standpoints, but it has to be done logically.

KCWolfman
07-29-2011, 12:40 AM
You are attacking a guy who wrote a Forbes article, which was crowing about the findings in another study. You ignored the source study.

Dr. Roy Spencer and the University of Alabama are not inherently discredited sources, and Remote Sensing is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. His claim seems to be straightforward, the study is only about 5 pages, and the source of the data is above question. It wont take long for independent analysis to be done. If there are severe obvious flaws in his study, then it will be universally discredited pretty soon.

Actually he is attacking sources while supporting his point with wikipedia. I am not sure, but that is awful close to irony.

KCWolfman
07-29-2011, 12:42 AM
Honestly I don't think it matters what we do. Because we're going to burn all the fossil fuel we have one way or another. I don't think cap and trade or a carbon tax is realistic unless every nation is on board and plays fair. Which will never happen.

I just really really really hate shill science. I think we should at least be honest that we're probably ****ing the planet up for our kids. And then see what happens. This is no different than the tobacco deniers spreading FUD for 40 years.

We have left scars on the planet's ecosystem. However, I believe many of the issues noted are overblown for a variety of reasons. I think the planet recovers much more easily than we ever will admit.

If there is a way to utilize resources safely that doesn't hinder human progress, I am all for it.

Baby Lee
07-29-2011, 08:46 AM
Honestly I don't think it matters what we do. Because we're going to burn all the fossil fuel we have one way or another. I don't think cap and trade or a carbon tax is realistic unless every nation is on board and plays fair. Which will never happen.

I just really really really hate shill science. I think we should at least be honest that we're probably ****ing the planet up for our kids. And then see what happens. This is no different than the tobacco deniers spreading FUD for 40 years.

Couple of things I hate;

How each and every skeptic is data mined for 'ties to big oil' while all alarmists get folded in as an amorphous 'consensus of experts.'

Hyperbolic appeals to emotion [ie, bolded above]. There are vast deserts that used to be verdant lands, vast temperate lands that used to be covered in mountains of ice. There are vast areas now that have been largely uninhabitable for centuries. Heck, in 50 years a major US city has become a ghost town just because Asians got better at making cars than us.

Unequivocally equating things that are vastly different. Tobacco deniers were executives who KNEW that tobacco contains carcinogens. Nobody KNOWS the truth about climate change.

Chiefshrink
07-29-2011, 08:57 AM
Yeah, but it's hot outside.

Yeah, it's hot ever summer and still no heat records have been broken either for this year:rolleyes:

ChiefaRoo
07-29-2011, 11:59 AM
Global warming is settled science. Anyone who disagrees is a denier. Now, massage my penie/Al Gore

RNR
07-29-2011, 02:10 PM
It takes zero effort to post this. And almost as little effort to look up the sources on all these and find out their from Exxon/Koch Brothers-funded think tanks.

And it takes zero effort to support and post agenda driven GW swill~

Brock
07-29-2011, 06:44 PM
Yeah, it's hot ever summer and still no heat records have been broken either for this year:rolleyes:

:drool:

suzzer99
09-03-2011, 11:02 AM
So I'm sure all the right-wing blogs and Koch/Exxon funded libertarian think tanks who ran wild with this story have issued a full retraction now that it's been refuidated by editor of the journal that published it. Right? Also the Editor has stepped down.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/02/update-on-the-spencer-braswell-paper/

Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.

After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.

With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements, e.g., in a press release of The University of Alabama in Huntsville from 27 July 2011 [2], the main author’s personal homepage [3], the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes [4], and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News [5], to name just a few. Unfortunately, their campaign apparently was very successful as witnessed by the over 56,000 downloads of the full paper within only one month after its publication. But trying to refute all scientific insights into the global warming phenomenon just based on the comparison of one particular observational satellite data set with model predictions is strictly impossible. Aside from ignoring all the other observational data sets (such as the rapidly shrinking sea ice extent and changes in the flora and fauna) and contrasting theoretical studies, such a simple conclusion simply cannot be drawn considering the complexity of the involved models and satellite measurements.

Don't worry there is an endless supply of shills for you to choose to believe. Be sure to forget this part of the story when you have to explain to your grandkids how you carried Big Energy's water for them.

mlyonsd
09-03-2011, 11:54 AM
So I'm sure all the right-wing blogs and Koch/Exxon funded libertarian think tanks who ran wild with this story have issued a full retraction now that it's been refuidated by editor of the journal that published it. Right? Also the Editor has stepped down.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/02/update-on-the-spencer-braswell-paper/



Don't worry there is an endless supply of shills for you to choose to believe. Be sure to forget this part of the story when you have to explain to your grandkids how you carried Big Energy's water for them.

From your link....

So should the paper by Spencer & Braswell have been published? Ideally, it would have undergone a more rigorous peer review and have been improved as a result of that process. Spencer & Braswell make some points that are worth considering, but this needs to be done in a more rigorous manner (and with much less hype.)

orange
09-03-2011, 02:13 PM
So why, after a more careful study of the pro and contra arguments, have I changed my initial view? The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.

p.s. sportsshrink - Now that Denver has had its hottest August in 140 years, I know exactly who to blame.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-03-2011, 02:14 PM
p.s. sportsshrink - Now that Denver has had its hottest August in 140 years, I know exactly who to blame.

I blame the Gorical, he's so full of hot air it must have invaded Denver.

orange
09-03-2011, 02:22 PM
From your link....

From the same link but DEFINITELY NOT from the same author, though. Let's be clear about that.

The journal editor who resigned, Wolfgang Wagner, was quite clear:

Wagner - This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

Also, the loading up the review committee with nothing but sceptics I find unlikely to be a coincidence, and Judith Curry's minimizing of the whole issue in that blog is quite obvious.

Curry - The overhyping of scientific results by the author or their institution is always a mistake. Often the media takes control of something (Webster et al. 2005 paper on hurricanes and global warming is a good example), and things quickly spin out of any control that the author might have.

I interpret the overhyping of the Spencer & Braswell paper to backlash against the “consensus” that routinely trivializes (or worse) any skeptical paper. And consensus scientists are in charge of most of the editorial boards of the most relevant journals. I suspect that the editor-in-chief has no strongly held or publicly stated opinion on the subject of global warming, or he might have been more wary of how to deal with a paper by Spencer, which is likely to be associated with controversy.

B.S. The overhyping of anything that remotely challenges any part of the AGW argument is standard operation by the deniers. Wasn't it just this week that a warning by a CERN to their authors not to overhype their study was itself flaunted as evidence of the Grand Conspiracy?

Stewie
09-03-2011, 02:53 PM
I work in the aerospace industry and climate change is a big deal. Over the past 10 years we've decided that the pro/con data is useless. Nothing has changed over the past 100 years that makes us think that recent "data" matters.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-03-2011, 03:15 PM
I work in the aerospace industry and climate change is a big deal. Over the past 10 years we've decided that the pro/con data is useless. Nothing has changed over the past 100 years that makes us think that recent "data" matters.

Ok but what if we all die? wouldn't the sky have then fallen? The planet would embrace us if we just pay a few bums...errr hard working earth savers more of our hard earned money.

HonestChieffan
09-03-2011, 03:24 PM
Just cooled off here. They must be right.

orange
09-03-2011, 03:40 PM
Ok but what if we all die? wouldn't the sky have then fallen? The planet would embrace us if we just pay a few bums...errr hard working earth savers more of our hard earned money.

It won't matter to Americans. China will have nuked us all to oblivion long before then.

orange
09-03-2011, 04:00 PM
9/02/2011 @ 1:12PM
Paper Disputing Basic Science of Climate Change is "Fundamentally Flawed,"
Editor Resigns, Apologizes

Peter Gleick, Contributor

One month ago, a paper by Roy Spencer and William Braswell was published in the journal Remote Sensing arguing that far less future global warming will occur than the scientific community currently anticipates. This highly controversial finding – controversial since it is at odds with observations, basic understanding of atmospheric physics, models, and with what most scientists think we know about climate science — was seized upon by climate change deniers and skeptics and broadcast loud and far.

While other climate experts quickly pointed to fatal flaws in the paper, it received a great deal of attention from certain media. In something of a media frenzy, Fox News, the authors themselves in press releases and web comments, Forbes, in a column by a lawyer at the Heartland Institute, Drudge, and others loudly pointed to this as evidence that the vast array of science on climate change was wrong.

The staggering news today is that the editor of the journal that published the paper has just resigned, with a blistering editorial calling the Spencer and Braswell paper “fundamentally flawed,” with both “fundamental methodological errors” and “false claims.” That editor, Professor Wolfgang Wagner of the Vienna University of Technology in Austria, is a leading international expert in the field of remote sensing. In announcing his resignation, Professor Wagner says “With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements.”

In his editorial resignation, Professor Wagner says the paper was reviewed by scientific experts that in hindsight had a predetermined bias in their views on climate that led them to miss the serious scientific flaws in the paper, including “ignoring all other observational data sets,” inappropriate influence from the “political views of the authors,” and the fact that comparable studies had already been refuted by the scientific community but were ignored by the authors. He summarizes:

“In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal. This regrettably brought me to the decision to resign as Editor-in-Chief―to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.

There is a famous saying in science: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” In this case, the arguments for climate change are backed up by such an astounding degree of science and evidence, that one, or even a few, papers that claim to refute the science of climate change deserve careful scrutiny. As the author of Skeptico notes:

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence. The evidence for the extraordinary claim must support the new claim as well as explain why the old claims that are now being abandoned, previously appeared to be correct.

The Spencer and Braswell paper fails in these requirements. But this is also the way science works: someone makes a scientific claim and others test it. If it holds up to scrutiny, it become part of the scientific literature and knowledge, safe until someone can put forward a more compelling theory that satisfies all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, and fits the models. Once again, despite the fervent desires of climate skeptics and deniers, the vast body of literature and the basic conclusions about the growing threat of climate change remains intact: the climate is changing rapidly and humans are the dominant cause.

Now, the question remains, will Fox News, Drudge, the Heartland Institute, and others that covered the initial report of this paper show the honesty and courage that Professor Wagner has shown and cover the fact that the paper is “fundamentally flawed?” Any bets?


Dr. Peter H. Gleick is co-founder and President of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California. He is an internationally recognized climate and water expert and works at the intersection of science and policy, including issues related to the integrity of science. His work addresses the critical connections between water and health, the human right to water, the hydrologic impacts of climate change, the concepts of “peak water” and the “soft path for water,” sustainable water use, privatization and globalization, and ways of reducing conflicts over water resources. Dr. Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University in Engineering and Applied Science, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the Energy and Resources Group of the University of California, Berkeley. He is the recipient of numerous awards for his work, among them the prestigious MacArthur “genius” Fellowship in 2003. He was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2006.
The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/09/02/paper-disputing-basic-science-of-climate-change-is-fundamentally-flawed-editor-resigns-apologizes/

orange
09-03-2011, 04:03 PM
I'll echo him:

Any bets?

HonestChieffan
09-03-2011, 05:23 PM
Now, back to the NASA story....

orange
09-03-2011, 06:29 PM
Now, back to the NASA story....

Are you really that dense? What do you think we've been talking about today?

Answer: The DEBUNKED NASA story in the OP.

Frankie
09-03-2011, 07:18 PM
Do you guys ever bother to check sources on anything?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute



The Heartland institute is a Libertarian think tank that gets funding from the Koch brothers, Exxon-Mobil and Phillip Morris, among others.


The fact is that there is still a scientific consensus on global warming from every major scientific body on earth. None of that is changed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations

When your grandkids ask why you did nothing about this - you can tell them you chose to believe a few random lawyers from corporate-funded libertarian think tanks - over every major legitimate scientific body in the world. And they will cock their heads at you like a dog that doesn't understand a new noise.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404"The Heartland institute is a Libertarian think tank that gets funding from the Koch brothers, Exxon-Mobil and Phillip Morris, among others."

Rep.

Frankie
09-03-2011, 07:24 PM
In related news:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/huge-chunk-ice-breaks-off-greenland-glacier-151516535.html

go bowe
09-03-2011, 07:47 PM
i could use some of that ice right about now...

mlyonsd
09-03-2011, 07:55 PM
i could use some of that ice right about now...Plenty up here. Makes BV very cold.

Frankie
09-03-2011, 07:59 PM
i could use some of that ice right about now...

That's Russia you are seeing.

go bowe
09-03-2011, 08:01 PM
That's Russia you are seeing.

russian ice is still cold, and it would keep my beer cold tonight... :harumph:

go bowe
09-03-2011, 08:02 PM
Plenty up here. Makes BV very cold.

you have ice in sd in september?

jeebus...

mlyonsd
09-03-2011, 08:08 PM
you have ice in sd in september?

jeebus...Cold front coming your way. I mowed the yard today for three hours in a sweatshirt. Supposed to get to 44 tonight. Yeah baby, fuck summer.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-03-2011, 08:18 PM
I'll echo him:

Any bets?

The courage to get paid off? I have a hard time seeing that as courage.

boogblaster
09-03-2011, 08:31 PM
lots of sweat off me sack fell in my sister-in-laws eyes this summer ....

RJ
09-03-2011, 09:05 PM
I was really worried about global warming until last Tuesday when we finally got some rain. About damn time! I'm feeling a lot better about things now.