RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Politesub53 -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 4:07:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


Current trend has shown COOLING, and your beloved Jones CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN why warming even occurred during a period. But, by all means, don't let THE FACTS interfere with your politics. [8|]




How typically unobservant. You have no clue of my politics, or what constitutes a trend, certainly isnt the last 15 years.




mnottertail -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 4:09:14 PM)

and of course the trend has not shown cooling whatsoever, only for 3 months out of some few years out of 10.

not trendy at all, not even as trendy as a carnaby street boutique. 




tweakabelle -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 8:33:03 PM)

sorry people I did it again - double post!




Hillwilliam -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 8:36:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA


1)  Current trend has shown cooling.


Well, hell, The 'current trend' not that I'm cherry picking or anything [8D]. from September to date in the Northern Hemisphere shows severe cooling... Oh My GAWWWWD. Ice age coming...[:D]




tweakabelle -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 8:46:05 PM)

The very confusing discussion about CO2 is about to become redundant, some people are claiming.

Recently vast quantities of methane gas were found to be discharging directly into our atmosphere off Northern Siberia. UK newspapaer 'The Independent" described it as a "methane time bomb" when it reported the discovery. It is the subject of another thread.

I've never heard anyone dispute the negative effects of methane gas on the atmosphere. Most estimates I've seen put it at about 20 times more damaging than CO2. So whatever the case with CO2, the methane problem is beginning to look a lot more menacing and could turn out to be far more serious in the medium to longer term.




MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 9:57:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

How typically unobservant.



Pretty much sums up everything you've posted thus far. Carry on. [8|]





MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 10:47:18 PM)

 
Not that it'll matter to those who worship at the alter of Global Warming/Climate Change, but...


New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
By James Taylor | Forbes – Wed, Jul 27, 2011

 
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.

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





tweakabelle -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 11:25:22 PM)

It appears that MSLA is presenting one side of the story (no surprise there, is there?) The Editor of Remote Sensing has subsequently resigned taking responsibility for the 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer ie. the paper quoted in the story MSLA posted above.

"Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer

Posted on 3 September 2011 by John Cook
Professor Wolfgang Wagner has stepped down as editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. The reason for his resignation was his journal's publishing of the paper On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance, by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, which we examine at http://sks.to/negspencer. Wagner concluded the paper was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal".

Some key excerpts from Wagner's editorial:

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, the main author’s personal homepage, the story “New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism” published by Forbes, and the story “Does NASA data show global warming lost in space?” published by Fox News, to name just a few.
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.
The editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors
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, a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers."


The co-author of the study Dr Roy Spencer has a bit of history that, for some strange reason, the Forbes magazine article omitted. Check it out below:



"The Damaging Impact of Roy Spencer’s Serially-Wrong ‘Science’

In his bid to cast doubts on the seriousness of climate change, University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer creates a media splash but claims a journal’s editor-in-chief.
The science doesn’t hold up.
by Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham, and Peter Gleick
Reposted from the Daily Climate
The widely publicized paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell, published in the journal Remote Sensing in July, has seen a number of follow-ups and repercussions.
The latest came Friday in a remarkable development, when the journal’s editor-in-chief, Wolfgang Wagner, submitted his resignation and apologized for the paper.
As we noted on RealClimate.org when the paper was published, the hype surrounding Spencer’s and Braswell’s paper was impressive; unfortunately the paper itself was not. Remote Sensing is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal much with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should have received an honest vetting.
Friday that truth became apparent. Kevin Trenberth received a personal note of apology from both the editor-in-chief and the publisher of Remote Sensing. Wagner took this unusual and admirable step after becoming aware of the paper’s serious flaws. By resigning publicly in an editorial posted online, Wagner hopes that at least some of this damage can be undone.
Unfortunately this is not the first time the science conducted by Roy Spencer and colleagues has been found lacking.
Spencer, a University of Alabama, Huntsville, climatologist, and his colleagues have a history of making serious technical errors in their effort to cast doubt on the seriousness of climate change. Their errors date to the mid-1990s, when their satellite temperature record reportedly showed the lower atmosphere was cooling. As obvious and serious errors in that analysis were made public, Spencer and Christy were forced to revise their work several times and, not surprisingly, their findings agree better with those of other scientists around the world: the atmosphere is warming.
Over the years, Spencer and Christy developed a reputation for making serial mistakes that other scientists have been forced to uncover. Last Thursday, for instance, the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres published a study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer. Their findings showed that Christy erred in claiming that recent atmospheric temperature trends are not replicated in models.
This trend continues: On Tuesday the journal Geophysical Research Letters will publish a peer-reviewed study by Texas A&M University atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler that undermines Spencer’s arguments about the role of clouds in the Earth’s energy budget.
We only wish the media would cover these scientific discoveries with similar vigor and enthusiasm that they displayed in tackling Spencer’s now-discredited findings."
– Kevin Trenberth is a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
– John Abraham is a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering in Minneapolis, Minn.
– Peter Gleick is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a MacArthur Fellow, and co-founder of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, Calif.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/05/311864/roy-spencer-wrong-science/ (Reposted from Daily Climate )


Full details of the controversy are posted at http://sks.to/negspencer if you wish to review the matter further.




tazzygirl -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/4/2012 11:29:17 PM)

You got mail tweak




Hillwilliam -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/5/2012 5:11:11 AM)

Is a short article that uses the term "Alarmist computer models" 12 times to be considered unbiased? Does the author own a thesaurus or is he just "writing down" to the level of his audience?[:D]

The truly interesting thing is that even a BIASED article didn't say that warming wasn't happening. It said LESS than predicted.

"The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted,"


Thanks for showing that even the deniers are admitting that the climate is changing for the warmer. If it isn't as quickly as the worst case scenarios presented that's a good thing.




tweakabelle -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/5/2012 6:04:33 AM)

Hill, it appears that the Forbes magazine article was a trashy sensationalist version of dodgy science by a climate change denying 'scientist'. One can easily chart here how bad science is presented to a gullible public as 'fact' and how the complexities of the debate are reduced to meaningless populism in order to promote a certain perspective.

This seems to mirror the impression I had of leading climate change critic Prof Plimer, and of the so-called 'Climategate' emails affair that I mentioned in the OP.

For those of us befuddled by the technical complexities, there's a clear warning here to be very sceptical about non-professionals using isolated sets of statistics to prove a point - it is a strategy fraught with disaster.

That one side in the debate indulges in such irresponsible tactics causes sensible people to wonder why - to ask why their case needs gilding, embellishment and gross exaggeration. One answer to this question that suggests itself is that without these fraudulent tactics, the case against climate change might fall flat on its face.

That is the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the area - the people who are on top of the detail, aware of the complexities and who can see through these cheap stunts - have arrived at.

I have yet to hear a plausible, let alone convincing reason why these scientists should enter into an apparently spontaneous worldwide conspiracy to present a false view of the evidence as those who deny the dangers of climate change charge. It seems to me that the people making this charge are the ones being repeatedly shown to have either acted improperly and/or to have the improper ideological political and/or financial motives they are recklessly accusing others of having.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/5/2012 6:45:16 AM)

My point, tweaks, was that even the most rabid denialists are admitting that things are getting warmer. They use such phrases as "not as rapidly" and "less" and "plateau" but none of them seen to deny that things have gotten warmer since the beginning if the Industrial revolution.

My point is a take off on Pascal's Theorem when debating the existence of God.
He basically said there are 4 possibilities ....

There is a God and you believe in him = Heaven

There is no God and you believe in him = nothing

There is no God and you don't believe in him = nothing

There is a God and you don't believe in him = Hell.

As you can see, there are 2 neutral outcomes, one awesomely good one and one REALLY bad one.

Substitute manmade warming in there and you get similar results except as follows.

Warming, yes, do something about it, no = Arabs own our ass and climate makes life more difficult especially food production

Warming, no, do something about it, no = Arabs own our ass

Warming, yes, do something about it, yes = Arabs go back to eating dirt and rocks, climate change is minimalized and food production stays the same, fossil hydrocarbons for industrial purposes are cheaper due to lack of demand and prices fall for consumer goods.

Warming no, do something about it yes = Food production stays good, Arabs go back to eating dirt and rocks and fossil hydrocarbons for industrial purposes are cheaper due to lack of demand and prices fall for consumer goods.

Here you have 2 good outcomes and 2 bad.




vincentML -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/5/2012 10:32:06 AM)

quote:

Warming, yes, do something about it, no = Arabs own our ass and climate makes life more difficult especially food production


In September 2011 24% of United States crude came from the Middle East. Do the math. That hardly meets your repeated assertion that "Arabs own our ass." You can just as well consider the opposite: their economies are dependent on our purchases, as are economies elsewhere dependent upon our consumption of varied imports. The Saudis are also dependent upon a robust U.S. military presence in the Gulf to protect them against Iran.

As for farming: there will be 'dust bowls' with increasing world temps. But there will also be new and more productive farmland in the northern and southern latitudes as the tundra defrosts. There will be a greater abundance of water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that condition will be conducive to increased crop production. Siberia, Canada, and Australia will increase their agriculture. This will sustain us until the next glaciation.

Predictions. Hypothesis. Mine. But just as probable as your doomsday scenarios. Maybe more so. With your science education you very well know that a closed system establishes dynamic equilibria. The earth's atmosphere is a closed system. The greenhouse gases return to earth. Water vapor as rain; carbon dioxide into marine and biological sinks; and methane is oxidised after eight and a half years. These are not the END TIMES!!

I'm off out to purchase some farmland on Hudson Bay [:D]




popeye1250 -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/5/2012 11:00:15 AM)

If people want to believe in "global warming" (or whatever they're calling it this week.) fine, but no Taxdollars!
The SUN is what is responsible for heating and cooling of the Earth.
Funny thing, all the planets in our solar system are heating up at the *same rate* as the Earth.
No money in that though!




Hillwilliam -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/5/2012 11:02:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Warming, yes, do something about it, no = Arabs own our ass and climate makes life more difficult especially food production


In September 2011 24% of United States crude came from the Middle East. Do the math. That hardly meets your repeated assertion that "Arabs own our ass." You can just as well consider the opposite: their economies are dependent on our purchases, as are economies elsewhere dependent upon our consumption of varied imports. The Saudis are also dependent upon a robust U.S. military presence in the Gulf to protect them against Iran.

As for farming: there will be 'dust bowls' with increasing world temps. But there will also be new and more productive farmland in the northern and southern latitudes as the tundra defrosts. There will be a greater abundance of water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that condition will be conducive to increased crop production. Siberia, Canada, and Australia will increase their agriculture. This will sustain us until the next glaciation.

Predictions. Hypothesis. Mine. But just as probable as your doomsday scenarios. Maybe more so. With your science education you very well know that a closed system establishes dynamic equilibria. The earth's atmosphere is a closed system. The greenhouse gases return to earth. Water vapor as rain; carbon dioxide into marine and biological sinks; and methane is oxidised after eight and a half years. These are not the END TIMES!!

I'm off out to purchase some farmland on Hudson Bay [:D]

Your agricultural prediction may very well become true but who is going to compensate a farmer that now has 5000 useless acres in Iowa and tell him to pick up stakes and move to Alberta. what's he going to buy that land in Alberta with?
Who is going to afford food when the price of fertilizer (a petro product) quadruples?

The atmosphere was a more or less closed system for millenia but we are introducing megatons of new foreign substances into it.

Your claim of 24% is pretty good. Now, what would happen if we had to import ZERO? Prices would drop and the Arabs would have exactly no hold on us because they'd have nothing we wanted. Military presence in the Mideast?? FUKUM. Let Iran or whoever thinks they can do it have the Goddam place. Let them kill each other off with their unending religious wars and we'll wait a decade or 3 and deal with the few survivors.




vincentML -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/5/2012 12:04:05 PM)

quote:

Your agricultural prediction may very well become true but who is going to compensate a farmer that now has 5000 useless acres in Iowa and tell him to pick up stakes and move to Alberta. what's he going to buy that land in Alberta with?


Who compensated the blacksmith when the internal combustion engine was produced on a large scale? No one. He learned to fix cars or he got a job on the line. The Iowa farmer will put in a crop of tropical fruit. The land will be purchased as all land is: by mortgage.

quote:

Who is going to afford food when the price of fertilizer (a petro product) quadruples?


Why will this happen? In any case, if no one can afford the price of food brought to market the farmer will plant less; the farmer will buy less fertilizer; the price of fertilizer will fall. Price is governed by Demand.

quote:

The atmosphere was a more or less closed system for millenia but we are introducing megatons of new foreign substances into it.


Very few molecules escape beyond the outer limits of our atmosphere. The greenhouse gases - water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide - are not new. They have always been part of our atmosphere.

quote:

Military presence in the Mideast?? FUKUM. Let Iran or whoever thinks they can do it have the Goddam place. Let them kill each other off with their unending religious wars and we'll wait a decade or 3 and deal with the few survivors.


Shall we abandon Israel then?





Hillwilliam -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/5/2012 12:33:31 PM)

[/quote]
Shall we abandon Israel then?


[/quote]
I hate to be a hardass but:

1. what have they done for us?

2. they have a nuclear deterrent.

They've been killing each other in that area for over 5000 years. They're not going to stop and the best thing we can do is not get our people killed. Im a Darwinist that way.

As far as your other, If it gets warm enough for tropics in Iowa, the sea level will make food production and mortgages the least of our worries.

A huge percentage of the population lives on the coast and they will be forced to migrate inland but I really don't see it getting anywhere near that bad while humans still exist.




vincentML -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/5/2012 12:39:06 PM)

quote:

A huge percentage of the population lives on the coast and they will be forced to migrate inland but I really don't see it getting anywhere near that bad while humans still exist.


Oh damn, Will. I was looking at some potential beachfront lots in Arizona. Disappointed. [:(]




Hillwilliam -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/5/2012 12:40:31 PM)

I hear the surf crashing against the mountains of NC will be particularly desirable LOL.




LaTigresse -> RE: Climate change denial: Epic fail? (1/5/2012 12:50:43 PM)

All I know is that it is currently 61 degrees at my house. It is usually about 16 this time of day, this time of year.




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875