Print 188 comment(s) - last by jdonkey123.. on Aug 4 at 4:50 PM

Hard data from NASA's Aqua satellite has shown that climate models have a "huge discrepancy" with reality, when it comes to the amount of heat escaping the atmosphere.  (Source: NASA)

The Earth has proven much less succeptible to runaway warming than previously believed. The so-called indirect trapping by evaporated water has been overstated by warming alarmists.  (Source: Alaska in Pictures)

Climate alarmists like Al Gore have profited in money and power at the expensive of the environment, the public's finances, and the public health. Sadly, precious few have been determined enough to overcome the barriers impeding studies on alternate conclusions.  (Source: AP Photo)

  (Source: New Scientist)
Alarmism and climate profiteering is dealt yet another serious blow

Many are still operating under the perception that current global warming models are "good enough" to make drastic economic decisions.  That party line has been pushed, in part, by certain individuals like ex-U.S. Vice President and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who have stood to gain tremendously in personal finances by promoting alarmist and sensationalist rhetoric.  Indeed, Mr. Gore's "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth painted a grim picture of a pending apocalypse and made Mr. Gore hundreds of millions in sales and speaking fees -- but its accuracy is hotly debated.

I. New Study Blasts a Hole in Current Models

In a new study, Roy Spencer, Ph.D -- a prestigious former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) climatologist who currently works at the University of Alabama -- has examined data between 2001 and 2011 gathered by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer sensor housed aboard NASA's Aqua satellite.

The study was published [PDF] in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing.

The data reveals yet another thorough analysis of atmospheric heat dissipation -- an important factor in heating or cooling.  And like past studies, it found that the Earth's atmosphere shed heat at a much faster rate than what's predicted in widely used global warming models.

The hard facts show that both the predictions of the amount of heat shed during a a full warming scenario, and the amount of heat shed as warming begins were understated.

As the data shows the Earth's atmosphere to be trapping less heat; that means the outcomes of any sort of human-based warming caused by the emission of carbon greenhouse gases and other compounds is likely overstated.  Thus the dire predictions of models used by the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and researchers are likely flawed.

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

This is a critical conclusion as it shows that the secondary "indirect" trapping from atmospheric water may be far less than previously predicted.  

II.  Supporting Evidence Builds Stronger Case

The new study isn't necessarily cause to abandon climate models altogether.  After all, understanding our planet's climate is the key to growing better crops and protecting people from natural disasters.  That said, the models likely will need a major overhaul, one which some leading climate alarmists may regret.

Supporting evidence strengthens the case that such an overhaul is needed.

Researchers at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have been baffled by the fact that the widely used climate models were failing to properly predict atmospheric humidity and the rate of cirrus cloud formation -- phenomena driven by atmospheric heat.

Few public voiced such thoughts, likely for fear of persecution by their more sensationalist warming colleagues.  Still, despite the politics, the data crept silently into several studies.

Additionally, sensors aboard NASA's ERBS satellite collected long-wave radiation (resulting from escaping atmospheric heat) between 1985 and 1999 than was predicted by computer models.

Between the relatively comprehensive volume satellite and atmospheric data, the picture appears clear -- the climate models are badly flawed.

III. Indirect v. Direct Warming

So what's the difference between direct and indirect warming?  Well, direct warming is caused by substance like carbon dioxide, which trap a certain amount of heat when they're found in large quantities in the atmosphere.

While carbon dioxide has been vilified in the media, peer reviewed research states with relative certainty that it is actually a very weak greenhouse gas and a weak contributor to "direct" warming.

The fearful hypothesis, which alarmists have been pleased to promote, is that carbon's direct heating -- while small -- will somehow throw the environment out of whack, causing an increased abundance of atmospheric water.  As water is a far better greenhouse gas at trapping heat, this could lead to a domino effect -- or so they say.

But the new study shows that the predictions of runaway indirect heating are likely badly flawed.

IV. The New Climate Picture

The new study doesn't dismiss that warming will occur if man keeps burning fossil fuels.  Rather, it indicates that it will likely occur at a much gentler pace than previously predicted, and that the maximum temperature reached will likely be lower the predicted, as well.

This is significant as alarmists have tried to use the hypothesis of rapid runaway warming as a justification for sweeping economic changes.  Under a gentler warming scenario, slowly rises in sea levels would not be that big a deal as mankind would have plenty of time to adjust to them.  Plus the levels would not rise as fast as previously predicted.

Of course, this means some of the "good effects" of warming -- such as resource harvesting in an ice-free Arctic -- won't be realized either.  Thus the more temperate, data-based climate picture has both advantages and disadvantages versus the more fantastic past models.

V. A Brave Scientist

Professor Spencer deserves to be commended for his thorough analysis and outstanding work.  It takes a bold man to defy some of one's colleagues when they're clearly perpetrating a factual inaccuracy.

It's not hard to imagine how difficult it must have been for Professor Spencer to get his work funded and published in a field dominated by NASA, whose higher ranks are heavily dominated by pro-warming advocates like James Hansen.  The Nov. 2009 "climategate" email scandal at the University of East Anglia seemingly confirmed what many suspected -- it's hard for scientists to voice alternate opinions given the dogmatic state of climate research.

And yet it's tremendously important to do so.

For the most part, everyday environmentalists who have bought into the rhetoric of wealthy entrepreneurs like Mr. Gore, or powerful research chiefs like James Hansen did not personally profit off of the alarmism and approached the climatology debate with the best of intentions.

Sadly, in doing so pressing real environmental crises like the destruction of the Earth's rainforests faded into the background.  Further, the climate emphasis led, in some cases, to lesser cuts to toxic gases such as nitrogen and sulfur compounds produced in the burning of fossil fuels.  Regulators allowed greater levels of these gases, so they could focus on forcing industry to adopt stricter carbon standards.

These toxic gases have contributed tremendously, according to thorough peer review, to problems like asthma.  Thus the climate alarmism may have indirectly cost the public's money, the health of the environment, but the public's health, as well.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

i wish we could all just chill
By superPC on 7/29/2011 10:33:26 AM , Rating: 3
the earth has warm up before and has cool down before. heck in the dinosour days it's hot enough so reptiles can thrive in the polar circle. in the ice age ice caps spread up to new york. creatures survives just fine in the hot and cold climate. even human survives the cold climate.

so the earth can warm up or cool down but life and human will go on.

can we now please move past this?

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By superPC on 7/29/2011 10:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
sorry that's dinosaur not dinosour.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Omega215D on 7/29/2011 10:42:27 AM , Rating: 5
aww... to think I thought there was a new gummi snack to bring with me to work. =(

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Dorkyman on 7/29/2011 4:20:54 PM , Rating: 1
Love gummis.

Also, Jason, your article is full of typos and grammatical errors. Suggest you get it cleaned up since it is sure to be widely read.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By SiliconJon on 7/29/2011 10:44:48 AM , Rating: 3
dinosour's make my lips pucker

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By sabbede on 7/29/2011 11:28:01 AM , Rating: 4
I just like the picture of the bear. I'd really worry about their plight if they made good pets. Too bad they'd eat you if you tried to scratch their ears.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Omega215D on 7/29/2011 1:01:07 PM , Rating: 1
Bear: "I hope you're happy..."

Of course I'm on the side of "earth isn't static" type thinking and different bear species will go on.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Hyperion1400 on 7/29/2011 3:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
But none nearly as cute :(

And what will we do without all the white baby seals?

By SiliconJon on 7/30/2011 5:16:54 AM , Rating: 2
He looks like he's thinking "I wish somebody would give ME a bear hug".

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Jeffk464 on 7/31/2011 12:08:42 AM , Rating: 2
There have been cases of tamed bears, its possible. Look at the Russian circus bears. The bad thing is they can be fine for a long time, and then one day get moody and take your head off.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By bh192012 on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
By Omega215D on 7/29/2011 1:02:32 PM , Rating: 4
He can capitalize by producing and distributing Dinosours! I'll buy that for a dollar.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By AnnihilatorX on 7/29/2011 11:45:21 AM , Rating: 1
creatures survives just fine in the hot and cold climate. even human survives the cold climate.

Yes but you are being over simplistic. Human population back then was a many isolated tribes few in number which, any change in food supply in the enviornment will not be a significant impact on survivability.

In current world where over 7 billion people live in, a change of 10% food yield is disastrous.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By StanO360 on 7/29/2011 12:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
It should be noted that past temperature rises were quite prosperous for mankind. We could very well see an increase in arable land and/or crop yields (or not).

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By bryanW1995 on 7/29/2011 1:38:09 PM , Rating: 2
Certainly a large enough temperature rise would open up the arctic to shipping and the antarctic to human settlement, but a large enough global warming to cause that to happen is likely to cost us a bunch of very expensive land (in NY, London, California, Tokyo, a huge proportion of the major world population centers) while opening up a very distant desert to colonization. A mild or at least a relatively slow warming trend would mitigate this circumstance, however.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Brian H on 7/29/2011 2:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of arable land, any CO2 rise large enough to cause that much warming would also boost ag yields by 40-50%. Everyone would get fat.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: i wish we could all just chill
By KoS on 7/29/2011 2:34:05 PM , Rating: 3
CO2 causes acid rain?

I haven't heard acid raid being a issue in a long while. So, CO2 levels have rose, yet reports of acid rain have fallen?

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: i wish we could all just chill
By geddarkstorm on 7/29/2011 3:22:32 PM , Rating: 5
Two major, and I mean -major-, problems with what you are saying.

1. What concentration of gaseous CO2 (partial pressure) is needed to drive enough into water to form carbonic acid? You'll also notice that the majority of dissolved CO2 will not react with water. Do the calculation, I think I'll be interesting to you. You should further note there are a lot of other things in the atmosphere condensing with water (such as the nucleating particles and aerosols) that will effect pH, which carbonic acid will have to contend with.

2. Carbonic acid's first pKa is 6.352. That is, if you have a pure solution of carbonic acid, your pH will be 6.342. This is not damaging to biological systems. Furthermore, you'll never get that high a concentration of carbonic acid in water naturally, as there is no where near enough CO2. So, just because it has "acid" in its name doesn't mean it's all that relevantly acidic, just that it's pKa is less than 7. However, carbonic acid's SECOND pKa is 10.329 (bicarbonate), or highly BASIC.

We will never get acid rain from CO2.

Oh, and, carbonic acid is part of the CO2 buffering system used in your blood to keep your blood pH around 7.2-7.4. Just so you know.

Oh, and and, the Cretaceous had CO2 levels of 1700 ppm, and the Devonian was 2200 ppm. Both times, life flushed wonderfully. Yes, CO2 sure is dangerous.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: i wish we could all just chill
By geddarkstorm on 7/29/2011 4:10:29 PM , Rating: 5
We were discussing acid rain, not ocean acidification (which only means the ocean is becoming less basic, as it is far away from pH 7, not that they are becoming actually acidic). You were insinuating acid rain from CO2 would be a problem for crops. If you bothered looking into actual chemistry and numbers, you'd see that ridiculously false. Did you know, that the optimal soil pH for non-arid/desert plants, especially crops, is between pH 6 and 7? "Carbonic acid rain" (if such a thing were even possible, and it is not, as you'd see if you bothered looking at the numbers yourself) would be highly beneficial for plants.

The oceans are not the topic here, so don't try to change the game to make yourself look right.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: i wish we could all just chill
By geddarkstorm on 7/29/2011 4:37:31 PM , Rating: 3
I am going to listen to Reclaimer77 and this will be the last time I will answer you, for you clearly are not interested in following discussions or facts.

I didn't specify one way or another, if you assumed, that is your own fault.


"By Brian H on 7/29/2011 2:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of arable land, any CO2 rise large enough to cause that much warming would also boost ag yields by 40-50%. Everyone would get fat.

"By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 2:18:56 PM , Rating: 0
Yea! As long as we pretend that CO2 doesn't turn into acid rain when in the atmosphere, you are dead on. Are we going to argue the basic chemistry of that next?

"By KoS on 7/29/2011 2:34:05 PM , Rating: 4
CO2 causes acid rain? I haven't heard acid raid being a issue in a long while. So, CO2 levels have rose, yet reports of acid rain have fallen?

"By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 2:50:39 PM , Rating: 1
So your answer to chemistry is a loose correlation? Acid rain dropped cause they SEVERELY dropped sulfer dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which are also major contributors. If the CO2 gets too high though, it will cause acid rain when it mixes with water. Please, argue with chemistry, that would be hilarious. Maybe you could argue some more correlation equaling causation, logic fail 101.

Then came my post.

Do you see what the discussion was about now? You did specify, and if you wanted to talk about oceans with me, you should have asked to start a new thread on that subject, not try to hijack this one on acid rain after all your false ideas about the chemistry came falling to the ground. I only like to discuss science with someone interested in learning (as I am) and checking personal assumptions against reality.

For this reason--trying to change the topic during a factual based discussion that was clearly outlined from the onset, and then trying to be condescending about it--I will no longer continue this with you till you can get serious.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: i wish we could all just chill
By ppardee on 7/29/2011 4:58:42 PM , Rating: 3
The volume of the ocean is 1.35 x 10^18 cubic meters. The average annual rainfall into the ocean is 3.24 x 10^15 cubic meters.

There are two ways to look at this... It will take 400+ years to exchange all of the ocean water with the much more acidic rain water and all life in the ocean will die (probably much sooner than 400 years since it can't handle the massive change in pH). This seems to be your approach.

Or you can look at it rationally. Acid deposition is a natural occurrence. Volcanoes, lightning and marshes produce a HUGE amount of acidic rain. Carbon dioxide also lowers the pH of rain, but as it has been pointed out, the concentration of CO2 has been a lot higher in the past. So, logically, if the ocean has a pH of about 8 and 'clean' rain has a pH of about 5.7 and the ocean is completely replaced by rain water every 420 years or so, there are other mechanisms in place that alkalinize the ocean. This is not a simple equation of taking the incoming pH and subtracting it from the existing pH (and it would probably be some sort of silly logarithmic equation anyway).

Now is a good enough time as any for you to learn that today's scientists, especially ones studying climate change and evolution, do not use science. They are paid to research something and invariably find a way to justify their benefactor's point of view. Science is "observe, hypothesize and test (in an effort to disprove your hypothesis". Today's method is "Get told what to research. Find supporting evidence. Ignore contrary evidence. Present findings as indisputable fact. Ostracize any dissenters."

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: i wish we could all just chill
By ppardee on 7/29/2011 6:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
But the real issue at hand isn't whether acid rain causes issue with crops or the ocean (which I can argue that it doesn't because, despite numerous studies stating that it does, I have yet to see any quantifiable results that take the concept out of theory and into reality.)

The real issue is are we causing it and can we stop it. 30 years ago, the answer to the questions was a qualified "yes". Yes, we were significantly contributing to the acidity of rain to the extent that it was causing observable negative effects. And we were able to reduce our affect on the situation through pollution controls.

AGW, and now apparently acid rain since AGW has been repeatedly exposed for the farce that it is, is being used as a weapon against oil companies and large corporations under the guise of environmentalism. About 30% of the population of the US won't have a problem with wholesale warfare on corporate America (simply because they are completely clueless when it comes to economics) but to affect change, radicals need more support than that. Very few people are going to say "I don't care about the environment!" So they are attempting to bring about socio-economic change by calling it environmental protection.

Is the Earth warming? Most definitely, and has been pretty steadily for longer than we've been mining fossil fuels.

Is CO2 increasing? Yep. Quite a bit. But it is still (much) less than 1/10th of 1% of the atmosphere by volume, and it is nowhere near the highest it has ever been since life began. By the way, we wouldn't even notice it until it was about 25 times its current concentration. It is increasing by 0.004% by volume per year. If allowed to persist at this rate, we'd begin all feel a bit drowsy in about 250 years.

But history tells us that isn't how things work. The trend will level off, then concentrations will likely drop off as new technology comes about and nature catches up.

I personally don't need anything from the ocean except oxygen. I have a hard time believing that all of the plant life in the ocean would have a problem with higher concentrations of CO2. There are also a LOT of other food sources on land than just corn.

I'm not saying they DON'T have all the answers, but running around like our hair is on fire is a useless endeavor. Until we get some actual science on the problem, simply observing that the ocean pH is dropping and screaming that acid rain/CO2 is the culprit without actually testing that hypothesis, I see no reason to panic, change my behavior, or force others to change their behavior.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Reclaimer77 on 7/29/2011 4:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
Geddark you make great points, but they have fallen on deaf ears. Gzus is a liberal retard, so he knows more than you. He knows more than chemists. He knows more than the "shill" who did the study based on perfectly self-evident satellite data that can't be countered.

Oh, and and, the Cretaceous had CO2 levels of 1700 ppm, and the Devonian was 2200 ppm. Both times, life flushed wonderfully. Yes, CO2 sure is dangerous.

Here's on for ya, well, him. "Acid rain" was first discovered in 1852. Clearly this is a naturally occurring phenomenon, unless he's seriously going to argue there was massive man made industrial pollution causing atmospheric changes in the 1800's. As you've already pointed out, "acid rain" wasn't even acid. But then again "slightly acidic" rain doesn't have the same sensationalized scare factor to it for the evening news.

You've already won, but I just suggest you do not directly engage the idiot any longer. You'll soon be dragged into 40 straw men and red herrings while he clouds the argument so badly you'll forget what you were even debating in the first place.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By MrTeal on 7/29/2011 5:50:51 PM , Rating: 2
Here's on for ya, well, him. "Acid rain" was first discovered in 1852. Clearly this is a naturally occurring phenomenon, unless he's seriously going to argue there was massive man made industrial pollution causing atmospheric changes in the 1800's.

You mean like the industrial revolution, where they vented hydrochloric acid directly into the atmosphere? Air pollution in the 1800s was worse than it is now.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By ekv on 7/31/2011 1:52:47 AM , Rating: 2
Depends on where you were. Industrial revolution started, basically, in UK and spread. For the US the venting you speak of was more likely the latter part of the 1800s, since steel factories -- part of the "second industrial revolution" -- didn't start mass production till the 1860s.
Air pollution in the 1800s was worse than it is now.
Agreed (in light of above note). Especially when trolley cars in burgeoning cities were horse drawn. Horse pucky dries out and when it gets stepped on can make some fairly nasty particulates, not to mention coal, and so on. A case can be made that the newfangled automobile helped reduce air pollution.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By zmatt on 7/31/2011 5:00:26 AM , Rating: 2
1852 was during the first half more or less of the industrial revolution. Coal fired steam engines had yet to catch on nearly as much as they would in the second half of the century. While industry was definitely building from the riches gained through colonization the traditional picture of the industrial revolution is one of the later 1800s. I would find it hard to believe that anything we did in the early 1800s had a worldwide environmental impact.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Paj on 8/4/2011 7:55:46 AM , Rating: 2
You can see a layer of soot in antarctic ice cores from around that time. Chernobyl is on there as well.

By geddarkstorm on 7/29/2011 3:30:23 PM , Rating: 5
Ah, I almost forgot. To further your chemistry considerations and calculations remember that water's capacity to hold dissolved gasses DECREASES with increasing temperature, and INCREASES with decreasing temperature (inverse relationship). If the world warms, water will hold less dissolved CO2 per unit of partial pressure (pCO2). Calculate the rate of pCO2 increase verses CO2 solubility in water per 0.1 C of temperature. One variable you must also consider when calculating pCO2, is pH2O (and several other atmospheric gasses), which also rises with temperature; CO2 ppms do not directly tell you pCO2.

By shin0bi272 on 7/29/2011 3:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
so it will rain seltzer water ... big deal. LOL

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By KoS on 7/29/2011 4:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
How eltist and snobby of you!! Thought only conservatives can be...

I was asking a simple question based on a statement you made. Never heard CO2 being an issue with acid rain, rather the sulfer dioxide and other chemicals were issues.

Seems those who a big on correlation equals casusation are the man-mde global warming crowd...I used the wrong term...climate change.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By shin0bi272 on 7/29/2011 3:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
no it was leaded gas, factory exhaust, and farm runoff that caused acid rain... even though there wasnt really any acid rain it was a misnomer.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: i wish we could all just chill
By ppardee on 7/29/2011 6:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well... I mean, technically, "acid rain" is a misnomer since not all of it is actual rain, but solid acidic particulate matter falling from the sky... But I don't think that's what he meant.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By superPC on 7/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: i wish we could all just chill
By espaghetti on 7/29/2011 2:09:05 PM , Rating: 4
Make me.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: -1
By corduroygt on 7/29/2011 4:06:45 PM , Rating: 3
Stop the bs. The one thing that will make him eat less will be food and healthcare costs... If he can be healthy while eating tons, good for him and I envy him.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By ppardee on 7/29/2011 4:09:54 PM , Rating: 5
"stop being stupid" says the guy who believes all of the lies of the lunatic left.

At every turn, the environmental freaks use scare tactics to draw attention to marginally important issues. People desperate to matter latch on to these causes and further the madness.

We haven't heard much about acid rain lately. The pH of the average rainfall is about 5.6... and has been that way for a LONG time. So where is the drastic reduction in crops? Where are the world-wide famines? In fact, as populations have increased, so has food production. And at a higher rate!

We are yielding more food per acre than any time in history. We have so much food that we are turning it into ethanol!

Stop falling for alarmist tactics. Use critical thinking and research before you sign on with Camp Gore. You will look much less foolish in the future for your efforts.

You're welcome.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 4:32:53 PM , Rating: 1
The PH was much worse before we reduced it thanks to that crazy left organization, the EPA. Tack on technology advancements and that can easily explain the increased crops. Highly acidic rain damages crops, if you don't accept this, you are denying all science. When acid rates go to the 2 range, approximately what is seen in highly industrial areas of China and Russia, plants die quickly.

Science is based on peer review and findings, not political leaning, stop throwing it into everything. If you want to breathe garbage air, you can go do it on your own. Stop writing things off cause you think they have a political leaning, you have no research to back up anything you make up, just anecdotes and loose correlations.

By JKflipflop98 on 7/31/2011 9:16:32 PM , Rating: 3
Do you put any thought into anything you say before you type it? Stop and think for 5 seconds the next time you're ready to shoot off your yammer hole.

If there was really acid falling from the sky with a Ph of 2, it would be dissolving cars and burning the skin off of humans. I had to clean up some 100% pure semiconductor grade sulfuric acid off a wet bench last night and it only has a Ph of 3.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Jeffk464 on 7/31/2011 12:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think NASA qualifies as the "lunatic left." But granted, you probably shouldn't listen to hippie college chicks to get accurate information on climate change.

By shin0bi272 on 7/29/2011 3:39:48 PM , Rating: 2
ahh but you are forgetting about the feast and famine mindset our bodies live in to this very day. When there's lots of food we eat it to get fat for the times when there isnt any. Plus if the world heats up too much and turns to desert or freezes and no crops will grow it will take hundreds of years... the longest lasting food rations (aside from twinkies lol) only last what 5 or 10 years? Youre wasting your time trying to make people eat less when there's plenty of food... you might as well pee in the ocean and call it a sewer cause no one's going to listen to you.

By FITCamaro on 7/29/2011 12:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
Life isn't fair.

By geddarkstorm on 7/29/2011 2:10:26 PM , Rating: 4
Then the population dynamics will change so that the population numbers stabilize at a new level capable of being sustained by that reduced resource amount. This is painfully common sense. If anything out grows capacity, its numbers fall back to capacity; do some bacteria culturing, product manufacturing, or buy one of those ecosystems in a box they sell in Japan and you'll see the truth first hand.

The other point, is this can be a slow effect, not a disastrous shift, because people can survive on a large range of available food. But how many offspring they have will be changed. We are already seeing a widespread reduction of human population growth rates, and many developed countries have negative growth rates. That means their population dynamics have matured and reaching their steady state. Eventually all countries will reach this (barring horrible disasters like meteors, pandemics, or world wars).

Oh, and by the way, the Earth hasn't reached 7 billion people yet, let alone "more than". We're estimated to reach 7 billion later this year though. And we're probably reach a population equilibrium around 9 billion in the end.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Jeffk464 on 7/31/2011 12:18:12 AM , Rating: 2
A 10% reduction in food yield could take the population from 7 billion back down to 4.5 billion or so.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Jeffk464 on 7/31/2011 12:19:28 AM , Rating: 2
Nature tends to balance things out.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By hiscross on 7/31/2011 4:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
You got photos or youtube videos of the human population back then? I wonder if Starbucks and Mickey D had stores back then? Actually, before the flood, the earth was completley tropic. There was a second expanse that filtered out the direct sunlight that we experience today. I do believe the earth is warming up and it won't stop getting warmer.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By omnicronx on 7/29/2011 12:16:47 PM , Rating: 5
Not to spoil your party, but it was not 'just fine' just the majority of creatures. In fact the latest Ice age was most likely detrimental to the rise of mammals in general, whom were better equipped to deal with the icy conditions. Not to mention the reptiles that 'thrived' in the polar circle were most likely the first ones to go, as land masses on the poles are known to heavily influence the timing of ice ages.

(in fact we are still in an ice age and will most likely continue to be as long as a landmass resides in the south pole)

That said, I would tend to agree with your sentiments. The earth has warmed, the earth has cooled, and we have in fact been covered in ice for the better part of the last 20 thousand years. Yet we are still here.

The Earth's climate has been shown to work in cycles, short and long, many of which overlap and have different causes which makes it even harder to predict. The idea that short term modelling can accurately predict climate patterns just seems absurd to me. We already have core samples dating back thousands of years, and have a clear indication of past green house gas levels and temperature levels that show that what we are seeing is truly nothing out of the ordinary. (Even today we as humans only account for around half a percent of the worlds greenhouse gases, and even then are still far below the extremes throughout history.)

This does not mean don't have to be aware of climate change, or that it does not exist. We just can't continue to be making economic decisions that impact everyone based on what can only be described as bad science. We need to analyse the facts and go from there without jumping to conclusions and/or making hasty decisions without analysing the consequences.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By dgingeri on 7/29/2011 3:27:50 PM , Rating: 3
you seem to have forgotten that the last ice age saw the development of wooly mammoths, sabre toothed cats, dire wolves, and cave bears, all of which were twice to 5 times the size of their current descendents. They died when the ice age lessened. (I agree with you that we're really in a mild ice age right now.)

Do you consider success of the mammal family to be more diversity of species, domination of the surface of the planet, or larger, more successful animals? I think your comment "most likely detrimental to the rise of mammals in general" need clarification. I consider both domination of the surface (or water in some cases) and larger animals to be the attainment of success of a family of species. This would mean mammals were very successful during the last ice age.

RE: i wish we could all just chill
By Jeffk464 on 7/31/2011 12:05:37 AM , Rating: 2
"the earth has warm up before and has cool down before. heck in the dinosour days it's hot enough so reptiles can thrive in the polar circle. in the ice age ice caps spread up to new york. creatures survives just fine in the hot and cold climate. even human survives the cold climate.

so the earth can warm up or cool down but life and human will go on.

can we now please move past this?"

You know that climate changes have not always been kind to human and other populations right?

By jdonkey123 on 8/4/2011 4:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody's saying that the species will die off, just a few billion!

Polar Bear
By JasonMick on 7/29/2011 11:25:00 AM , Rating: 2
P.S. A six hasn't been awarded in a while, so I will +6 someone, if they can come up with the cleverest caption of what the polar bear would be thinking/saying.

Let your opinion be known on the suggestions, to help me pick!

RE: Polar Bear
By cjohnson2136 on 7/29/2011 11:33:51 AM , Rating: 3
"I see a seal over there but it's too hot to hunt"

RE: Polar Bear
By ClownPuncher on 7/29/2011 11:55:20 AM , Rating: 3
If Gore hadn't lied, I'd be getting a tan right now. *sigh*

RE: Polar Bear
By AssBall on 7/29/2011 11:58:22 AM , Rating: 1
This cheap ass studio photo gig doesn't even have any catered seal meat. Where's my agent!

RE: Polar Bear
By Fenixgoon on 7/29/2011 12:08:38 PM , Rating: 6
The difference between correlation and causation makes my head hurt.

RE: Polar Bear
By JasonMick on 7/29/2011 1:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
You were the first to 5!! Congrats. :) And your quote is science-y.

RE: Polar Bear
By Hyperion1400 on 7/29/2011 3:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
Nah man, you gatta post a link to a picture of Jonas Venture or something when you bring up science-y-ness!

RE: Polar Bear
By Mitch101 on 7/29/2011 12:16:13 PM , Rating: 5
He finally regrets selling out to Coca Cola and Klondike bars and is contemplating making a leaked sex tape hoping to rejuvenate his career.

RE: Polar Bear
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 12:19:00 PM , Rating: 2
Doing it polar bear style, so they can both watch TV.

RE: Polar Bear
By RedemptionAD on 7/29/2011 12:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
"Study finds that Polar Bears enjoy yoga."

RE: Polar Bear
By JDHammer on 7/29/2011 12:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
How about:

"Don't look at me, I'm not responsible for eating Al Gore!"

RE: Polar Bear
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2011 12:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
Come closer cameraman to see my "suffering". You look tasty...

RE: Polar Bear
By theslug on 7/29/2011 12:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
"Can't tell if that's a crunchberry under the fridge, or a trix."

RE: Polar Bear
By nafhan on 7/29/2011 12:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Whatcha' thinkin' about?"
"Nothin, just polar bear stuffs."

RE: Polar Bear
By rcc on 7/29/2011 12:51:44 PM , Rating: 3
Al Gore paid me to sit like this and look pathetic!

RE: Polar Bear
By MastermindX on 7/29/2011 12:56:35 PM , Rating: 3
"Now, I need a new excuse for going extinct"

RE: Polar Bear
By shin0bi272 on 7/29/2011 3:30:08 PM , Rating: 1
except they're not... they were put on the marine mammal protection list in the 80's when there were about 1700 breeding pairs left. Now they get put on the endangered species list when there's 25,000 breeding pairs. You wanna know why they are having to swim farther for food? theres too many friggin polar bears and they are eating all the damned fish!

RE: Polar Bear
By EricMartello on 7/29/2011 5:57:27 PM , Rating: 4
I don't think it's the 25K polar bears causing a "fish shortage" when you got plenty of fishing boats dragging massive nets across the water to feed the millions humans who can't seem to stop shoving food down their hole.

RE: Polar Bear
By Omega215D on 7/29/2011 12:56:50 PM , Rating: 3
"Meh, I'm just a bear. What can I do?"

RE: Polar Bear
By Denithor on 7/29/2011 1:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
"Nothin much, jus chillin."

RE: Polar Bear
By JasonMick on 7/29/2011 1:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, the first to 5 gets a six. I'm not voting to be impartial! Have at it. :)

RE: Polar Bear
By Denigrate on 7/29/2011 1:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
Guess I can ease up on my laps across the Bering Strait.

RE: Polar Bear
By kb9fcc on 7/29/2011 1:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
"So now what am I going to do with all that sunscreen I bought?"

RE: Polar Bear
By HolgerDK on 7/29/2011 1:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
"man this electric car is really to small for me"

RE: Polar Bear
By michael67 on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Polar Bear
By JasonMick on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Polar Bear
By michael67 on 7/29/2011 3:11:54 PM , Rating: 1
You ware asking what the Polar Bear was thinking!

Not what I was thinking!

Jason is apparently not familiar with sarcasm and black humour, whit a serious undertone!

RE: Polar Bear
By michael67 on 7/29/2011 4:18:03 PM , Rating: 1
And properly if i had said:

"OMFG here go's those eco freaks again, with there FUD opinion,if you would believe them the NeoCons could learn a thing or to in deception and misdirection of a subject

And still my ice block is still there under my pawns"

I would properly be in the race for the +6.

Jason you make a mockery out of people that have mostly honest believes, in that what they do is for the good.
(May that be right or wrong)

But if someone takes the piss out of your biased opinion you get pissed.

So its this is now a website ware if you don't agree with some one, you sensor them to -1.
If that's the new policy have fun with it, you will be left with only people that agree with you as everyone else will tune out.

RE: Polar Bear
By BigSlick on 7/29/2011 2:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
"Damn it's cold today!"

RE: Polar Bear
By KoS on 7/29/2011 2:30:06 PM , Rating: 3
Here comes dinner!!

RE: Polar Bear
By MrBlastman on 7/29/2011 2:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
The worn out Polar bear laid down in contemplation one afternoon, "Ach, me stones hurt and they need to cool off." His drifting thoughts continued, "Darn polar bearettes unable to make up their minds! I'm too hot today! I'm feeling cold! Wait... is that a seal in your fur? Don't poke me with that!..."

With a big sigh he then buried his testies in the snow, "Better on ice then handled by their icy paws."

RE: Polar Bear
By Mitch101 on 7/29/2011 3:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
I said form of a Polar Bear and what does that idiot Zan do form of water. Form of Water! In the polar ice cap! How the heck am I going to find him now?

Michael Asher returns
By deanx0r on 7/29/2011 10:38:27 AM , Rating: 2
I swear I thought this was going to be a masher article when I read the title. Has your perspective changed over the years Jason?

RE: Michael Asher returns
By JasonMick on 7/29/2011 11:05:40 AM , Rating: 5
I swear I thought this was going to be a masher article when I read the title. Has your perspective changed over the years Jason?

Actually it has.

(And for the record, I'm not Mr. Asher, though I respected his opinion even in our adversarial era)

I honestly think there's some merit in climate research, still, but I also think sadly it's been corrupted by power seekers and profiteers. As I realized that my perspective greatly changed, as I learned to examine the context of certain reports.

When a matter of science becomes a matter of politics, that's a dangerous game and serious threat to the integrity of any field of research.

At this point I feel that there's no clear cut picture as to how much mankind is warming the Earth, though opportunists would tell you there is. In fact, the evidence I've covered seems to suggest that there's no pressing danger.

I'm actually still an unabashed "environmentalist", in a moderate, rational, unb@stardized sense of the term.

For example, I'd like to see reductions to emissions of sulfides and nitrides -- gases shown conclusively in peer-reviewed studies to raise respiratory disease rates and cause other issues.

I'd also love to see a return to preserving the rainforests, as the destruction of biodiversity, is most certainly real and irreversible in our lifetimes or our childrens' lifetimes.

Sadly all these legitimate issues have been lost in the corruption of the environmentalist movement by profiteers. While I believe environmentalists are generally well intentioned -- as I was when I wrote pro-warming articles -- I think they're being duped by those looking to make a cheap buck. I can only be thankful that my guiding principle of keeping an open mind helped me eventually see through the alarmism and rhetoric.

RE: Michael Asher returns
By rikulus on 7/29/2011 11:31:23 AM , Rating: 2
I would just like to suggest that you consider this. For better or worse, those who would rather not have any environmental protections tend to push all environmental topics into one group. Then put everybody's focus on the topic they find easiest to discredit. If you really want to get people's focus off global warming and onto more pressing issues - why not write articles about those issues? Maybe some about good things that are happening, and some to draw attention to bad things?

Just a quick question... did the paper's author predict how much of a difference these items would make compared to any specific climate models? Like "XYZ" model predicted that global temperatures would rise 4 degrees by xxxx year, but adjusting the model as suggested would mean x degrees in that year, or 4 degrees wouldn't happen until xxxx?

RE: Michael Asher returns
By Reclaimer77 on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Asher returns
By AnnihilatorX on 7/29/2011 11:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
Well I take arguments from both side of debate a grain of salt.
No matter how good a model is, there are always assumptions to be made.

The facts in this article may be correct, but it doesn't stop the current climate model understating warming effects due to some unknown undiscovered factors. There is simply no end.

We simply don't know anything.

RE: Michael Asher returns
By AssBall on 7/29/2011 11:54:13 AM , Rating: 3
The stupid thing is that many people, especially the least educated about the topic, are so easily polarized by the debate. It is not black and white, yes or no, good or bad, left or right politics. It is a poorly understood and complex as hell climatology science.

Keeping an open mind is difficult for most people these days surrounded by our politically driven, erroneous, simplified media.

RE: Michael Asher returns
By Bostlabs on 7/29/2011 2:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, that deserves a 6. Since I cannot award that to you I'll give you my respect instead. :)

Well said!

RE: Michael Asher returns
By geddarkstorm on 7/29/2011 2:30:04 PM , Rating: 3
You have matured and grown greatly in your views, throughout the years I've watched you. It's heartening to see a rational mind begin to stand up and think critically, look through the curtains, and ask the questions. You are becoming a great man, Jason, regardless of how much one may agree or disagree with your views. For greatness of mind isn't necessarily determined by the views one holds, but by the ability to be reasonable about them and evaluate all things.

In this, though, I agree wholly. And feel saddened by the witch hunt over CO2 our economy and society has been damaged by; when instead, there are so many real, and pressing issues we should be and must be looking at.

RE: Michael Asher returns
RE: Michael Asher returns
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Asher returns
By geddarkstorm on 7/29/2011 3:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
Did you know that Dr. Spencer is also one of lead people who runs UAH, one of the two major satellite temperature records (and the most trusted, due to it being the Aqua satellite, while RSS is on a satellite with a deteriorating orbit) used by all climate scientists?

Now tell me, where do you see hard numbers and actual science in the article linked above that could be used to refute the hard numbers and science of the published paper? Or have you even read the paper and seen its data? You do know that science is run on actual data and observations, not opinions or reputations, right? Finally, you do know what the Terra satellite is and what it does and what all its testing and measuring, correct?

RE: Michael Asher returns
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Michael Asher returns
By geddarkstorm on 7/29/2011 4:59:02 PM , Rating: 3
I don't expect you to study every piece of science there is, nor for anyone to do so. But, if you are going to discuss a specific paper, and then decry it and its authors, I would expect any reasonable person would actually fact check the information. Look at the paper, its claims, evaluate the data yourself, see if the conclusions of the paper match that of the data, and cross reference with other sources of information you know (just as Jason did in this article). Don't go off of reputations alone one way or the other.

Do we assume this guy is right even in the face of that, or do we accept that based on his credibility, bias and funding, he may be wrong?

No, we evaluate the -science- being presented and then decide on the merits of that science if it's right or wrong. And you don't need a Ph.D. to look at and read data. But just assuming based on reputation you believe about someone, that their data must therein be false (data from a NASA satellite), you are being intellectually lazy to a dangerous decree. You are also leaving yourself naive and open for manipulation from others opinions rather than building a foundation of data and fact.

Since this study says that all GCMs so far are running too hot (and indeed, actual temperature trends are far below the GCM's presented by the IPCC. Starting to get close to 2 standard deviations away, which is the threshold of what's statistically significant) and then says why that is so, using actual hard data, do you not think that those with a vested interest in the GCMs they built would immediately go on the defensive against this paper? It is reasonable for them to be so, but that says nothing about the validity of the paper's contents until and unless a factual, scientific rebuttle is made.

So, don't let the "but it's too much wooooorrrrk" argument get in your way of the pursuit of truth. That is never an excuse for using ad homs against a trained author to try to dismiss his/her work that was peer reviewed and published in his/her field.

RE: Michael Asher returns
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Michael Asher returns
By KoS on 7/29/2011 6:15:32 PM , Rating: 3
The study was published [PDF] in the peer-reviewed journal Remote Sensing.

Forbes didn't publish the article, they reprinted it.

RE: Michael Asher returns
By jbartabas on 8/1/2011 10:41:52 AM , Rating: 2
Ohhh the irony! UAH reported by the voice of Roy "Global Cooling" Spencer (& Christy) a downward trend for temperatures for years because of their failure to account for orbital decay, among other errors (correction for diurnal cycle), rightly pointed out by Frank Wentz (and others) from RSS, and now it becomes the "most trusted" source of temperature records because of issue of deteriorating orbit on the RSS side. Only in the parallel universe of the Internet ....

I guess what you meant is that it is the "most trusted" by Anthony Watts and part of the blogosphere.

RE: Michael Asher returns
By Reclaimer77 on 7/29/2011 4:36:39 PM , Rating: 1
Yea, we should totally trust this study, written by a shill who supports ID and thinks god runs the environment just for us and

That's bigoted. It's the same as me saying a Muslim can't possibly publish an unbiased study on terrorism. Or that a Christian can't work in a lab.

What does his personal beliefs have to do with his work? Being a proponent of ID doesn't change the data or the results. Do you have anything more substantial besides ad-hominem attacks on his personal beliefs as a means of destroying his professional credibility?

RE: Michael Asher returns
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 4:54:03 PM , Rating: 1
That's bigoted. It's the same as me saying a Muslim can't possibly publish an unbiased study on terrorism. Or that a Christian can't work in a lab.

I love how you make bigoted generalizations that Muslims are all terrorists under your breath while simultaneously calling someone a bigot, you are the best. I can't wait till you forget I am going to mess with you again.

Anyway, Muslims aren't all terrorists, so they can publish anything they want as long as they don't happen to also be terrorists, as that would then be a bias and would come under harsh scrutiny. Christians can and do work in labs, one of my favorite evolutionary biologists is Ken Miller, a devout Catholic and the expert witness on the case against ID. Ken Miller doesn't let his religion dictate truths he finds in his research as evidenced by his accepting evolution based on the research he and others have done. He accepted it and continued with his religion and he is perfectly within his right to do so.

The moment it becomes a problem is when you make illogical conclusions such as ID, which has no proof and is asserted as truth for a classroom. On top of that, the man asserts that god made the environment for us and he won't let it change, so no matter what he finds, he says the environment can't change, that is a bias. The bias is the problem, him being a shill just adds to the pile.

Personal beliefs have a lot to do with things when you bring them in. If he left his religion out of his work, it would have never come up and wouldn't be an issue. Plenty of scientists hold religious beliefs and never involve them in their research as they have nothing to do with one another.

RE: Michael Asher returns
By Reclaimer77 on 7/29/2011 5:22:34 PM , Rating: 1
I don't care if he believes he came from Pluto. I'm not interested in his personal beliefs. Can you refute the data based on the data alone? That's all I care about.

You know what you sound like? You sound like someone who believed in something with all his heart, had that belief challenged or disproved, and is now lashing out like a child. Sorry, that's what I see.

You can attack this guy all you want once you have proven him wrong on the merits of the study itself.

RE: Michael Asher returns
By Starcub on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
The First Rule of Science Club
By SiliconJon on 7/29/2011 10:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
Is don't talk about things against Science Club.

CERN: Don't Interpret CLOUD Data...

BBC to limit dissent from skeptics...

RE: The First Rule of Science Club
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: The First Rule of Science Club
By espaghetti on 7/29/2011 2:07:19 PM , Rating: 3
So people of faith cannot be trusted in scientific research?
When the hell did this happen?
You seem confused as to why we are picking global warming research apart.

Because the research can be used to control the behavior of us citizens through bad legislation .

By the way, Freedom and Liberty are actually taken to heart by most Americans .

RE: The First Rule of Science Club
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 2:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say "people of faith cannot be trusted in scientific research", I trust Ken Miller and he is a practicing Catholic and an amazing evolutionary biologist. The people you can't trust are the ones that disingenuous with science to let their faith get in the way of conclusions found by science. The man said that god controls the environment just for us and wouldn't let the climate change, if that isn't bias, I don't know what is. He came to a conclusion and then made the facts fit his conclusion, that is not science.

RE: The First Rule of Science Club
By SiliconJon on 7/29/2011 2:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, more guilt by association and other fallacies. I understand that remaining critical is essential, and flags such as your may deserve a moment of consideration, but ultimately you need to be sure your attempts at applying critical (as in challenging) thought do not falter into fallacies. Humans remain incredibly resilient at being a market basket of insane, genius, and mediocre of any combination of factors.

RE: The First Rule of Science Club
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 2:56:28 PM , Rating: 3
He stated his bias, that is not guilt by association, that is clear bias. If I told you I am going to study if the Earth is flat, but I said that god made the world flat for us, would you trust my conclusion that the world is flat? If you come to a conclusion before researching, you have failed science. People's character come into play when discussing their jobs and things they produce. If he wants things to stand on their own merit, he shouldn't bring his religion into it as science has nothing to do with religion, it is just a methodology to figure out how things work.

The study was discounted by multiple, respected professors at respected universities, this man has many red flags and I will treat his work as such.

RE: The First Rule of Science Club
By SiliconJon on 7/29/2011 3:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, I would not trust that conclusion, but the premise should still be analyzed seperately. If one were to tell me the world is round therefore God made it so and the evidence for the Earth being round was sound I would not be required to accept the conclusion that it was God's doing. And there's nothing wrong with wanting the best of both, but truth is a journey not a destination, for do we not continue to find more questions with each answer?

As for your last sentence you merely compounded guilt by association with an appeal to popularity (and authority).

RE: The First Rule of Science Club
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 3:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, I would not trust that conclusion, but the premise should still be analyzed seperately.

Agreed, analyze away, but there is a clear double standard when this guy can make one study in Forbes with all his bias and faulty previous science, yet when 1000 of scientists produce studies to the contrary, we write it off cause they get government funds. This guy was funded as well, where is the scream of problems with that? There aren't any from the usual crowd, cause this guy said what they wanted to hear.

If this gets reviewed and more evidence shows it to be true, awesome, it is true. At this point, this man has no reason to be trusted and we should assume the negative till his research has been verified. Forbes is hardly a scientific journal, I have a feeling this wasn't properly reviewed by peers as colleagues are questioning how it got published based on flawed data.

As for your last sentence, that is how science works, it is based on peer review and repeatable results. If peers review it and find flaw, then the study has to be redone and verified. Authority helps clarify, but it is not the reason for truth, things are true independently of the speaker, I understand that. This is the scientific world though and we all hardly have the time to learn climatology, review the data and repeat the tests, so we have to somewhat take the consensus on the matter. I have never verified atomic theory on my own in a lab, I have accepted that the authorities on the matter are correct because I just can't verify everything in the world. That is where consensus and credibility come into play. I love logic, but ironically, the logistics of it sometimes get in the way.

By SiliconJon on 7/30/2011 5:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
Repeatable and falsifiable are indeed essential, though I can't say I'm willing to put Peer Review in the throne as ruler supreme, and I don't think you're saying it should be. Yes, peer review can be very helpful, but like your earlier example, was not the flat earth and geocentricity peer reviewed (formally or not)?

It can cut both ways, quite evident in these very topic for do we not have peer reviews on both sides of the aisle?

Again, I don't call for the dismissal of peer review, just proper weight and analysis whenever possible.

RE: The First Rule of Science Club
By Reclaimer77 on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: The First Rule of Science Club
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 5:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
Plus he sounds like a retard who can't tell the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design

There is no difference, don't pretend. Even the court, judged by a right wing, Christian, Bush appointed judge stated it showed no proof and was thinly veiled creationism with a different name. I am going to go out on a limb and say you have never even looked into the court case or watched the evidence they produced, it was hilarious. They went through their books and they literally just changed the words creationism to Intelligent Design in them, they proved it in court.

I don't have to attack the source material, that is done by science as none of us so far I have seen are qualified to judge the material. Now, the other scientists on the other hand can very easily judge it as they have the research knowledge. It is the same way I can't make decisions on early quantum physics research, but once it is verified as fact, I can go and read how it works and understand it. Science is based on what a bunch of laymen think about it as we don't have the lab or understanding to parse every scientific discovery made. I find it odd you don't argue all the other scientific discoveries, only ones that you think are against your political view. (I don't really find it odd, I am being coy)

Climategate, you are such a shill, ha.

RE: The First Rule of Science Club
By SiliconJon on 7/29/2011 2:40:17 PM , Rating: 1
By the way, Freedom and Liberty are actually taken to heart by most Americans .

I can't agree one bit with that last sentence. I think most (an easy 51%+) Americans take Feedom no further than their lips, having no place for it in their hearts, minds, or anywhere in their body that requires anything more than lip service. (redefining "Freedom" as slavery does not negate this issue)

We can of course awake the masses from this coma.

By SiliconJon on 7/30/2011 5:29:07 AM , Rating: 1
For examples of lip-service only (and also hypocrisy, counting liberties only when they apply to those of similar political "alignment"):

Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity...

And yes, there's plenty on the "left", too. But I've heard more of these characters having many around me glued to their words.

Don't get too excited folks.
By Smilin on 7/29/2011 11:20:27 AM , Rating: 1
Don't get too excited folks. The guy is a shill.

Hopefully if he's on to something a cooler head will investigate.

This was not a Nasa study. It was done by some guy using Nasa data and whipped up with his own spin. You'll find his name here:

I have faith in our scientists (not politicians). If this guy made a discovery that alters the debate then I have faith that our scientists will take a look.

RE: Don't get too excited folks.
By DFSolley on 7/29/2011 11:44:49 AM , Rating: 3
There should be no "faith" in science. Science is not a belief system, it is a process of divining the truth. You can put your trust into scientists, but those scientists that have pushed AGW/CC have been all about selling us on faith instead of facts, thus proving themselves untrustworthy.

RE: Don't get too excited folks.
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 12:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't say faith in science, he said faith in the people.

RE: Don't get too excited folks.
By Smilin on 7/30/2011 11:47:11 AM , Rating: 2
There should be no "faith" in science. Science is not a belief system, it is a process of divining the truth.

I'm with you. My mention of the word "faith" was in regards to the integrity of *most* scientists.

You can put your trust into scientists, but those scientists that have pushed AGW/CC have been all about selling us on faith instead of facts, thus proving themselves untrustworthy.

Ok, not with you. *ALL* of "those scientists"? Easy on the hyperbole. There are certainly people with political agendas. I find these folks are often the "tv scientists" rather than the real ones who could give two craps about what the world thinks and just want to do what they love.... science!

The guy that is the topic of this article appears to be an untrustworthy person. Meh. So what. If he found something factual then other people with better integrity will investigate. If they reach the same conclussion then cool... knowledge is always good and *especially* when it counters some political non-science dogma.

RE: Don't get too excited folks.
By mcnabney on 7/29/2011 11:46:29 AM , Rating: 4
author of the NASA study is affiliated with The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation which "is a conservative Christian public policy group that promotes a free-market approach to care for the environment while working against the current environmental movement. In particular, the Cornwall Alliance promotes climate change denial."
He's a signatory to this Evangelical declaration, "We believe Earth and its ecosystems - created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence - are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

Jason - the derp that is this study has been plastered all over by the conservative media. If you track down the paper almost all of the data is inconclusive, but the author makes the assumption that inconclusive = something. The data itself shows warming, but less than anticipated. So the paper should have just been "2001-2010 climate warming in upper atmosphere is less than current models predicted".

RE: Don't get too excited folks.
By tomppi on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Don't get too excited folks.
By omnicronx on 7/29/2011 1:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
The data itself shows warming, but less than anticipated.
Which is exactly what anti man made global warming proponents would attest too..

There is this idea that a line has been drawn in the sand, and that either the earth is heating up, or its not. Sadly this is just not the case. We know the earth is currently heating up, what nobody has yet to show is any sort of conclusive evidence that shows abnormally large and/or rapid increases in temperature, which in essence is what GW proponents are trying to prove.(based on historical data which is often based on real findings such as core samples, geological findings etc etc)

Clearly the author of this study has drawn some malformed conclusions, but the consensus of the scientific community is that satellite readings are far more accurate than ground level readings (i.e this is something both sides can mainly agree upon). So the fact remains that even GW proponents can't disagree that the satellite findings showed very limited warming if at all in many areas. This goes completely against their models, and while it does not necessarily prove them as incorrect, it surely should be a sign that perhaps what many would consider the 'consensus' is perhaps vastly flawed.

RE: Don't get too excited folks.
By mcnabney on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Don't get too excited folks.
By omnicronx on 7/29/2011 2:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
As atmospheric CO2 increases (it is up 50% from 150 years ago) the rate of water absorption (as carbonic acid) increases as well.
Which is not that surprising considering we left a period of extended cooling some 150-200 years ago and we are currently in a warming period. C02 levels have risen from some 250ppm to a little under 400 and are still well under historical levels in which extended heating had occured.C02 levels have been shown to rise with temperature levels. That said, it has also been shown to lag ~800 years behind these temperature increases.

As for ocean acidification, I'm not sure where this clear evidence is coming from, as we certainly do not have a handle on exactly how and or why the cycles work. Ocean PH rises and drops in cycles, while levels have dropped 0.1 (which is actually quite a lot, ~25% as PH is a sliding scale) compared to pre industrial revolution levels, most of these studies also seem to flat out disregard the fact that it has risen and dropped 5 times since then, with PH levels actually rising (i.e less acidic) to pre industrial levels as late as the 50's and 60's.

This seems to go completely against the theory that c02 levels rising since then have had a direct impact as C02 has constantly been going up, while PH levels have been going up and down.(as with calcification levels which acidification proponents often point to as a big concern related to ocean acidification).

From my understanding this is the entire basis of their theory, ecosystems being unprepared for quick changes in PH (and thus the underlying effects of the change in PH) occurring over a short period of time (as its pretty much accepted science that we are not even close to historical c02 levels making it very likely that PH levels have been far more acidic in the past). Unfortunately historical records don't seem to support these findings as such changes have long been occurring in short cycles.

By geddarkstorm on 7/29/2011 2:21:32 PM , Rating: 3
You're right, the Earth is a heavily buffered system. Did you know the Late Devonian period (~385 mya) of the Earth had an average temperature 8C greater than today, even while CO2 levels in the atmosphere were falling rapidly down from the equally hot Early Devonian (~416 mya)? Or that the Cretaceous Warm Period had tropical sea surface temperatures 17C higher than now? And that life and bio diversity was flourishing beyond the levels we see now back in those much warmer epochs?

Why did the Earth warm and cool radically throughout all its history? By what mechanism do you propose, when no people were around, for each rapid up and down of multiple C's in temperature and 100's of ppms in CO2 concentration the Earth has gone through, spanning decades or centuries as ice core data show? And now, suddenly, you think everything is different for our planet than the past multi-billion years of its history that you would have to apologize to your kids?

I think climate scientists need to remember one of the most fundamental laws of science, which spans all the disciplines of: Le Chatelier's principle. To summarize it, and all its incarnate forms, "Any change done to a system in equilibrium is immediately counteracted to maintain the equilibrium". Climate is no different.

RE: Don't get too excited folks.
By Brian H on 7/29/2011 2:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
Significantly and critically less than expected, especially over the oceans, where it really counts. Trenberth was already looking for the missing modeled heat. It's now gone. There's no there there.

While this is news....
By Dfere on 7/29/2011 11:03:09 AM , Rating: 3
It isn't unexpected. The only thing I find amazing is how gullible most people are. I am continually surprised....

RE: While this is news....
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: While this is news....
By mkrech on 7/29/2011 1:43:46 PM , Rating: 3
Please link one AGW proponent that is not a shill for a government funded research grant. I want an actual scientific study, one that would cost time and money to produce.

Just one please.

RE: While this is news....
By Gzus666 on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: While this is news....
By troysavary on 7/29/2011 3:13:37 PM , Rating: 3
Just like the fact you have "666" in your name rules out anything you say. Sorry, but I see that, I can't help but picture you as some mascara-wearing goth kid who cuts himself or some Norwegian death metal guy who thinks his Satan tatoo and upside-down cross makes him bad-ass.

RE: While this is news....
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 4:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
What I say isn't published in a journal presented as science. I am not under the gun in that fashion as you can easily filter what I say though basic logical axioms. I say you, I don't mean you, cause you are clearly too stupid to argue with what I said, but other people who understand it can.

I love how you refer to people from the Middle East as "towel heads", I imagine you as a fat, stupid redneck from the South who watches NASCAR and beats his fat wife. Mine is based on your actual words though, not a nickname which really has no bearing on anything.

You are a real piece of work chief, maybe you shouldn't throw stones in your glass house.

RE: While this is news....
By troysavary on 7/30/2011 10:00:31 AM , Rating: 3
Canadian, so pretty much not from the south, but nice try. Studied engineering, so probably not stupid by most people's standards. I personally can't watch NASCAR, it bores me to tears, but I fail to see how watching it would invalidate anyone's opinion on anything not related to racing. My wife is a size 4 or something like that, not that women's clothing sizes actually make much sense, even after bearing four children, so not fat.

In this case, your screen name is relevant, as both the post you made that I responded to and your name exhibit anti-Christian biases.

RE: While this is news....
By mkrech on 8/1/2011 12:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
It is ironic that you are actually much more religious than I am. You are an AGW true believer who wants to force your faith on others.

You missed my point entirely. I am not surprised. My point is that you should not base any criticism on what you perceive to be bias. Evaluate the research on it's own merits. Once you do that, any moderately intelligent person will see the truth.

However, you are not an unbiased individual commenting intelligently on a theory. You are a sycophant who prefers to evangelize his religion with platitudes and ad-hominems.

In other news
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2011 12:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
Individuals such as Al Gore have denounced Dr. Spencer and his team as "quacks" stating that they clearly are in denial of the truth and working with the Republicans.

RE: In other news
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 12:35:46 PM , Rating: 4
He is a quack, the guy is a proponent of Intelligent Design, no scientist worth their weight goes anywhere near that BS. Read his quotes on it, he studied evolution and Intelligent design he says and the one that made more sense to him was ID, congratulations Mr. Spencer, you are retarded. I'm willing to bet much of his "study" involved a preacher and a bible. Gotta love scientists like that.

RE: In other news
By SiliconJon on 7/29/2011 2:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think that level of harshness is ironic. While I remain somewhat "agnostic" to a literal sense I don't see how one could claim intelligent design to be any more absurd than chaos or chance. Granted there are specifics (such as Creationism) that I certainly find no apathy with when it comes to more popular ID which I gather is likely what you are generalizing. But maybe if more discussion were encouraged (as hostilities such as your do just the opposite) then perhaps we could move the understandings along and even find surprising common grounds.

While it's not entirely relevant to my point I'm sure some reading can't help but project or assume so I'll go ahead and put it on the table: I don't think intelligent design (in it's most vague, but literal dictionary meaning) is at all incompatible with evolution, physics, and other sciences. While I hang on to the sciences I can no sooner say there couldn't be some higher power at the healm of these very sciences than I could say we know exactly what's going on. Someone else in control VS us in control seems to often be the heart of this argument, but why can't it be both, or neither?

Also, my idea of a "higher power" doesn't conform to the vast majority of "higher power" beliefs I see and hear all around me. My points are best understood by rejecting temptations to attach common notions to my words when those notions don't really apply properly to the words I use.

RE: In other news
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 3:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how one could claim intelligent design to be any more absurd than chaos or chance.

Then you have no idea the claims made by it or how evolution works. I would recommend reading up on the subject. Ken Miller, a practicing Catholic and evolutionary biologist has a wonderful series of videos on Youtube about it. He was the one that helped keep ID out of our schools because of how absurd it is. He goes through and explains its absurdities piece by piece along with the wonders of evolution and their findings thus far. It is a far cry from 150 years ago and Darwin's original findings. Neil Shubin has a delightful book on the subject based on a fossil he found, "Your Inner Fish" which also explains things quite well. The information is out there, people just don't want to learn about it, they want the easy way out. God is the easy way out, there is no real explanation at that point, just a cop out.

You introduced something infinitely more complex into the equation to explain something complex, this is clearly a flaw as anyone who studied axioms knows, you have to keep them as basic as possible or you risk messing up the entire system. If your axiom is that some higher power made everything exist, then you have to explain that higher power and how it came to be, you introduced more complexity into your answer which is the opposite of your goal of explaining things.

It is the circular reasoning and lack of evidence I complain about, not their faith. They can believe whatever they wish, that is their right, just don't push it as fact with no evidence.

RE: In other news
By SiliconJon on 7/29/2011 3:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that filling in the knowledge gap with easy answers, such as a God, too often induces intellectual sloth. But there are plenty who find faith in a higher power who still pursue the answers. I don't think that science and faith are mutually exclusive even if the noisiest or majority of intellectual design proponents were to behave so. And I have no problem with a higher power believed to be beyond the currently understood so long as it remains understood there is still a gap between the two, and aims to close that gap are constantly pursued.

I love unbiased articles...
By safcman84 on 7/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: I love unbiased articles...
By Schrag4 on 7/29/2011 11:02:09 AM , Rating: 2
I'm confused about your position on warming. So we didn't cause it, but we're accelerating it? So it would have happened anyway, but we're making it happen faster? Is that a bad thing, a good thing, or does it make no difference?

Also, I think the only thing this article proves is that according to NASA's own research, more heat escapes our atmosphere than alarmists (including many at NASA) had previously claimed was possible. You might say that doesn't prove anything, and I'd be inclined to agree. I think the only thing that can be proven is that the predictions of global warming alarmists over the last decade are simply not going to happen. Time will prove that beyond any doubt (and to an extent already has).

RE: I love unbiased articles...
By rikulus on 7/29/2011 11:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
Where do you draw the line at "alarmist?"

I'm sure some people would call that a person who has predicted complete doom and damnation - that we are already over the cusp and everything we know will be gone within a generation. (Well, I think everybody would call that an alarmist.)

But, there are also those who would call anyone who suggests we should cut back on fossil fuels and make plans for higher sea levels and changing weather patterns an alarmist.

RE: I love unbiased articles...
By Schrag4 on 7/29/2011 2:19:19 PM , Rating: 4
Where do I draw the line? I suppose it doesn't much matter, but to me, anyone who suggests we cut back on fossil fuels for any reason other than national security or long-term economics (what happens when it runs out several hundred years from now?) is an alarmist. In other words my position is that our planet and its ecosystem can handle us putting all that CO2 back into the atmosphere. Most of it was in the atmosphere at some point in history, during which life absolutely flourished (when compared to today), after all. If higher CO2 levels cause runaway warming then life on this planet would have ceased millions of years ago. But my position isn't cool and doesn't grab headlines, and therefore it doesn't fund research either.

RE: I love unbiased articles...
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 2:30:53 PM , Rating: 1
So if someone told you we should cut back on fossil fuels due to well known health problems and acid rain, you would say that is alarmist? Or do you support smog, soot and acid rain?

Your position isn't based on research, it is based on what you think happened as an armchair scientist. Provide me with your peer reviewed papers, and maybe we can talk. This guy in this very article received money and major news hits over his "study", why don't you question it? This is a double standard.

The debate...
By Schrag4 on 7/29/2011 10:14:07 AM , Rating: 4
...has already been settled, though! LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!

RE: The debate...
By NES on 7/29/2011 10:42:59 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, through the scientific law of consensus, the debate has been settled. No more discussing the $h!tty, kindergarten-level, simplistic models of a static, non-convecting, assumed infinitely thick atmosphere that greatly simplifies the math and hockey stick-generating algorithms. Making the data easier to manipulate towards the answer we know is right is just an integral part of the scientific process that goes hand in hand with limiting undesirable debate and scrutiny. Just send us more money from the gravy train to study what is already a known fact, and buy a lot more carbon credits, for Gaia's sake!

Here a review of math used for the paper.
By dlapine on 7/29/2011 5:49:32 PM , Rating: 1

Hint: it's thoroughly messed up.

It's a long article, but does provide a good look as to why these results are suspect.

The important points:

"As I mentioned in Part 1, Roy Spencer believes that climate change is largely controlled by chaotic, natural variations in cloud cover, rather than by external forcing. The idea that there are chaotic, natural climate variations over short timescales of up to a decade or so is non-controversial, but Spencer wants to take it a step further."

"Spencer’s hypothesis is that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has been controlling most of the global temperature change over the last century. "

"If the PDO is forcing the system, Spencer reasoned, maybe he could take the PDOI, multiply it by some scaling factor to convert it into W/m^2, and then run that through his simple climate model (see Part 1) to see what comes out. "

To get the simulation to work, he had to provide reasonable guesses for 4 parameters:

alpha = the feedback parameter (see Part 1 for explanation)
beta = the scaling factor to convert the PDOI into W/m^2
h = the depth of the ocean mixed layer (see Part 1)
?To = the temperature deviation from equilibrium at the start of the simulation

My favorite quote:

"Arthur Smith has now done the full mathematical proof for what I showed by playing around with MATLAB. UPDATED UPDATE: Arthur went on to show that, given the mathematical form of Spencer's model, he would have to start his model at ?To = negative a few trillion degrees in 1000 A.D . to have his model produce a suitable anomaly in 1900 to adequately fit the 20th century data."

Man, that's cold.

This what peer review is: somebody else qualified checks your math and makes sure that your conclusions are valid. Seems like Roy might have missed a few decimal points somewhere.

The article goes into depth about the other variables (why 1000m is way too deep for the thermocline, etc) and why they don't make any sense with observed data.

So, to sum up:

I don't care about his political, religious or other beliefs
Roy Spencer's math is wrong
his conclusions are wrong
nothing new to see here

RE: Here a review of math used for the paper.
By KoS on 7/29/2011 6:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
And what does this have to do with the current study? Nada.

Nothing in the article linked address the topic at hand. Was the satellite reads used wrong? Was he's conculsion wrong? ??

Apples and oranges here.

RE: Here a review of math used for the paper.
By Tafter on 8/1/2011 5:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
Your reading/comprehension abilities clearly suck. The point is: the current "study's" assumptions are really, really bad. It is bad science.

It has everything to do with the topic at hand in that it directly addresses the core assumptions of the referenced study. Think. Please.

By KoS on 8/2/2011 1:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks jackass...I missed where the blog article linked mentioned..."satellite radiation flux data". After reading again, I see I was mistaken by my previous comment.

Sadly, I really don't trust anything said on the subject, pro or con. The whole topic has been soured to the point nothing can be trusted, from any source.

As a side note, directed at all. I find it interesting no one is ripping into the co-author.

Criticism of Roy Spencer's Paper
By jah1subs on 7/29/2011 11:37:12 AM , Rating: 1
The debate about climate science reminds me of a bumper sticker:
"If you don't believe in Jesus, you better be right."

What I mean of course is that the new bumper sticker would read:
"If you don't believe in global warming, you better be right."

This is not important for me personally because the conversation is about impacts in 2030, 2050 or 2100 and I am old enough to have lived through the Chicago blizzards of 1967 and 1979. It is important to our 18 year old child.

The following critical assessment of Roy Spencer's paper is from Since this is a technical audience, I thought that other readers of this thread would appreciate the way other climate scientists describe their views of Roy Spencer's paper. Their quotes are actually in the last three paragraphs below.


As LiveScience’s Stephanie Pappas writes, the paper then was promoted by a Heartland Institute blogger on the website:

The study, published July 26 in the open-access online journal Remote Sensing, got public attention when a writer for The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank that promotes climate change skepticism, wrote for Forbes magazine that the study disproved the global warming worries of climate change “alarmists.” However, mainstream climate scientists say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor correct.

Pappas interviewed climatologists Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Andrew Dessler, who eviscerated Spencer’s shoddy science:

The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. “What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear.”

“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer’s new study.

“I cannot believe it got published,” said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

RE: Criticism of Roy Spencer's Paper
By shin0bi272 on 7/29/2011 3:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no it has a connection to the vast right wing conspiracy! It must not be true then! STFU!

All the climatologists that come out in favor of man made global warming are paid off by the governments (you know via those lovely government GRANTS) so that the government can enact legislation to curb your lifestyle (you know carbon credits) which is quasi or total socialism.

The scientists at nasa in 2008 said that sunspots had more of an effect on our climate than we ever could and that we were going into an 11 year cycle of few to no sunspots (sunspots are actually really massive waves of radiation that are being shot out at us via solar flares and can reach mars before disconnecting from the sun... so its like a solar microwave and we are right in its path). In 2009 I think it was we had our first recorded year of no sunspots for the entire month of I wanna say april but it might have been may or june.

Yet when someone comes out with a study that says "hey look the raw data doesnt match the models that the government in its IPCC (or intergovernmental panel on climate change) told us we should be seeing since 1982" you instantly call it a hoax or a creationist right wing lie.

You do understand that according to the UN the entire world produces ~300 tons of co2 a year and to lower the temperature 1deg C we'd have to cut ~1000 tons of co2 out of the air. So in order to lower the temperature to the temperature that algore says we have to have (which is 9 degrees IIRC) we'd all have to stop producing any co2, that means no volcanoes, no co2 leaking from the ocean floor, no animals, no people, and definitely no cars or factories... for 30+ years! Then on top of all of this it's in the kyoto agreement, that we wont sign btw, that even if all of the most stringent controls are put in place.. even worse than kauleeforneah's regulations there's still NO GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL LOWER THE TEMPERATURES AT ALL! EVER! Their best projection is 0.007deg F in 50 years! 50 years of basically slavery to a government that cant prove a damned thing they claim for 0.007deg! No thank you!

Im sorry to have to break it to you but your climate change "religion" is a hoax. Global warming is a natural phenomenon and we are unable to affect it one way or the other please log off before you hang yourself so you dont clog up the internet post-mortem.

By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 4:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no it has a connection to the vast right wing conspiracy! It must not be true then! STFU!

You say this as to insinuate that we shouldn't be biased...

All the climatologists that come out in favor of man made global warming are paid off by the governments (you know via those lovely government GRANTS) so that the government can enact legislation to curb your lifestyle (you know carbon credits) which is quasi or total socialism.

...then you come out and say this which says you think they are wrong for the same reason you just chastised him. You sir are a professional BSer, tip my hat.

What a crock!
By Simonova on 7/29/2011 1:01:10 PM , Rating: 1
Jason, how can you possibly harp on about Gore profiteering from alarmist warming when Spencer so clearly produced this report for his creationist mates. If you're going to open an article with the pretext of being unbiased, at least check the report you reference is authored by someone without obvious affiliations.

RE: What a crock!
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 1:03:04 PM , Rating: 1
Nope, it only works one way. If you produce something against warming, you are a freedom fighter even if you believe in Intelligent Design and if you are one of tons of other scientists who say otherwise, you are an alarmist and a profiteer.

RE: What a crock!
By shin0bi272 on 7/29/2011 4:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
well you are attacking their "religion" after all. I mean when you have no concrete proof that youre right and you go on an overzealous rant about something and enact legislation to force everyone to think like you do that's pretty much a religion to me.

RE: What a crock!
By Gzus666 on 7/29/2011 4:40:11 PM , Rating: 1
Evolution has concrete proof, you and people like you are just too stupid to even have read the basics about it. You can do a basic experiment in it on your own. Get some fruit flies all of the same species. Put half of those flies in one environment, put the rest in another and let them reproduce for many generations. After a period of time, because of their short reproduction cycle, you will see they have made different changes. After that period, reintroduce them to one another and you will see they cannot breed as they have become different species. That is the basic theory of evolution in a nutshell.

ID has absolutely NO evidence, when it was subject to scientific scrutiny, it fell flat because it was based on guesses and assumptions. They tried to make the evidence fit the conclusion, not the other way around.

Why so sensationalist?
By rikulus on 7/29/2011 11:01:31 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't get why you use so many sensationalist phrases in these articles, rather than just writing them as a factual article. It feels like you are ranting, and I'm sure gives the impression to those who want to ignore global warming that they were right all along.

When really, if I'm reading this correctly... this study seems to completely support that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but suggests that the heating will not accelerate as fast as some models have suggested.

That sea level rises and changes in weather will happen, that mankind will have to move or protect cities from these effects, but we won't have to complete this work as soon as some models suggest.

(I do actually like your ending comments about the global warming debate distracting from more obvious environmental issues, it has been a bad consequence I've noted long ago. Almost as though because people feel like there is a debate about global warming, they feel like there's probably a debate about anything that "green" people suggest they do. Even my mom now seems to have some conspiracy theory about how it's not worth collecting recycling!)

RE: Why so sensationalist?
By Starcub on 7/29/2011 11:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't get why you use so many sensationalist phrases in these articles, rather than just writing them as a factual article.

Had I not already posted on this topic, I would have rated you up.

Here at DT they used to take pride in presenting articles that are biased from two different sides of the issue. This of course was bad, because the individual articles painted the wrong picture and served to polarized the debate. However, that has changed and we now get bias from only the anti-AGW side. Presumably no money was able to be wrangled from AGW proponents, probably because they are largely non-political and really don't care what the blogosphere says.

Anyone who actually read the published paper, even just the short discussion and conclusions section, would have realized the same as you did: the study's author implicitly acknowledged that AGW was a real issue. The only thing the author took issue with was the discrepancy between the amount of heat radiated into space as predicted by climate models vs. what satellites have measured.

Although the author of the study stated that the discrepancy was, and I quote FTA, "nominally in the direction of lower climate sensitivity", the study's author didn't attempt to explain the cause for the discrepancy. However, he alluded that it might be the result of cloud formations caused by weather anomalies caused by GW that weren't accounted for in the models. The best he could do was state that he didn't know the reason for the discrepancy because the problem hadn't been evaluated sufficiently.

And yet look at how the media pundits and their faithful horde (which I classify DT as a member of) spin irrelevant straw-men and already debunked 'information' to generate more non-nonsensical polarization by decontextualizing "nominally in the direction of lower climate sensitivity" from the linked report.

Another laffer
By Shuxclams on 7/29/2011 1:00:56 PM , Rating: 3
So you are going to base your article on Roy Spencer's work? An unabashed 'Free marketer' who believes in Creationism and thinks the world will be fine because 'God' will intervene?

You did that with a strait face right?


By espaghetti on 7/29/2011 1:57:48 PM , Rating: 2
Now how do you feel about direct vs. indirect global warming?

By shin0bi272 on 7/29/2011 3:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
The new study isn't necessarily cause to abandon climate models altogether.

no but the fact that the climatologists started out the the premise that it was co2 that was causing the warming and built their models to prove that the more co2 that was produced the hotter it would get IS a reason to abandon them!

Also anyone want the 50mb worth of emails from east anglia university? I still have them on my backup drive... you can read them yourself where they are saying they cant make the actual temperatures fit the model and wondering how they were going to hide the decline in temperatures like they did with the temps in the 40's.

By ipay on 7/29/2011 3:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
While it's true that people claiming global warming is flawed are often ridiculed in the scientific community, i think it's important to point out that only happens to people who do so without any evidence to back them up. They are often funded by conservative politicians or energy companies.

Any scientist who could actually disprove global warming with hard science would be treated like a rock star. He would instantly be one of the foremost climate scientists in the history of the world, and could get all the funding they needed for the rest of their life.

So while I agree there may be some incentives in the scientific community not to spout random theories without evidence, it's definitely not the case that someone can't work on the subject and make a difference.

By spkay on 7/29/2011 4:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
What ever is the world coming to! Pretty soon we'll find out that Politicians know even less about legislation than scientists.....

By nvpyyasnzqya on 7/30/2011 9:07:46 AM , Rating: 2
welcome to our website:

------- www (point) ifancyshop (point) com --------

if you like to order anything you like.

More details,

please just browse our website Quality is our Dignity;

Service is our Lift.

enjoy yourself.

thank you!!

-------www (point) ifancyshop (point) com-----

its like this
By stilltrying on 7/30/2011 5:27:42 PM , Rating: 2
evolve. screw GW models

By lkjasdf on 7/30/2011 9:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
welcome to our website:

------- www (point) ifancyshop (point) com --------

if you like to order anything you like.

More details,

please just browse our website Quality is our Dignity;

Service is our Lift.

enjoy yourself.

thank you!!

------- www (point) ifancyshop (point) com -----

Jason I'd like to ask..
By just4U on 7/31/2011 1:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
What is your view these days in light of all the developments we've read about? I remember the days when you and Michael used to go at it but now you seem to have taken on a somewhat different view that seems to compliment many of the articles that masher was posting up. As a side note, I know that you are not quite as informed about it all as he was but you do atleast post up these little tidbits are a fairly frequent basis. (you know what a hot button topic this is on these forums afterall!)

By caonimeiaaa on 7/31/2011 9:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
welcome to our website:

------- www (point) ifancyshop (point) com --------

if you like to order anything you like.

More details,

please just browse our website Quality is our Dignity;

Service is our Lift.

enjoy yourself.

thank you!!

------- www (point) ifancyshop (point) com -----

The o@*$ thing worse...
By Tafter on 8/1/2011 3:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing worse than Jason Mick's Apple coverage is his climate change coverage. When someone makes an outrageous claim completely at odds with our current scientific understanding of a subject, it is advisable to consider that claim with a skeptical eye. This instance is no exception to that bit of advice. (Note I'm not saying we should dismiss it. I'm simply saying we should take it with a grain of salt and, you know, actually investigate the claim and how it relates to understood science.)

So let's hear from some scientists in the field about this study and paper:

From the first link: The paper’s title “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” is provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors. The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.

From the second link: Spencer himself is up front about the politics surrounding his work. In July, he wrote on his blog that his job "has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism," and said he viewed his role as protecting "the interests of the taxpayer." When asked why his work failed to gain mainstream acceptance, Spencer cited funding as a motivation for climate change researchers to find problems with the environment.

So to sum up: the author is a guy with a political axe to grind and uses questionable statistics and un-reproducible methodology

Jason: could you please control your obvious bias enough to at least fact-check the studies you write about? It would make you at least seem like a voice worth considering. Instead you seem like a zealot pushing your predetermined opinion.

I'm no fan of the politicization of climate science and largely agree that there are many on the far left that want to exploit it for their own green agenda. But that is all about politics and policy. When you actually read the papers and opinions of the scientists involved with the study of climate, there is a diverse set of opinions on the science and constant refinement of measurements, models and theories to better understand the subject.

IOW: you guys are confusing talking heads with scientists. Stop listening to the talking heads (and the media, who would rather talk to sensationalist talking heads than actual scientists).

By AlexKM on 8/2/2011 4:56:45 AM , Rating: 2

I design rockets and airplanes professionally, and generally consider myself a person who understands science, but the climate sciences have gone to such a level, that I feel I have to be a mere bystander, struggling with the basics. However, the posted link has very interesting counter to Spencer's work, by experts of the same field. It points out how subtly but easily you can manufacture science...

By Lazarus Dark on 8/2/2011 8:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
kudos for placing the +1 button in such a prime position so soon. I've already switched fully to G+. We just need a "share on G+" button now...

By jdonkey123 on 8/4/2011 4:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Please welcome DailyTech's newest columnists; Rupert Murdoch & Sarah Palin! (DT's resident experts on climate change.)

Holy CRAP! I had no idea that this site was a Tea Party, Neo-con conspiracy stronghold! Assuming this study is 100% accurate, it still doesn't cast any doubt on the body of work that has been done studying the disastrous effects of and timeline of our planet's warming!

It merely states that new evidence is indicating that part of the theory of the mechanism of (how the warming is happening) is significantly incorrect in its amplitude. Regardless of the mechanisms at work, the thermometers are still telling the same story, it's getting hotter and the ice is melting!

Citing this to debunk global warming is like trying to tell yourself your girlfriend isn't pregnant, because you didn't have sex on the (estimated) day of conception... So what if the doctor estimates the wrong day for conception, you still got her pregnant, just on a different day!

Something is missing
By puplan on 7/29/2011 5:38:28 PM , Rating: 1
"sensors aboard NASA's ERBS satellite collected long-wave radiation (resulting from escaping atmospheric heat) between 1985 and 1999 than was predicted by computer models" - I think "more" is missing in this sentence.

this is just sad :(
By tomppi on 7/29/2011 6:15:17 PM , Rating: 1
I used to trust dailytech and enjoy the articles.
After reading this (and ~150 comments) I am completely baffled.
I will never click the science tab on this site again.

Big thanks to all the rational commentators who actually gave me some hope for humanity!

By Alchemy69 on 7/29/2011 7:21:09 PM , Rating: 1
...and this is really nothing like unbiased journalism. Hell, it's not even journalism, it's a blog by someone with journalistic pretensions. The good news is that Murdoch would give you a job tomorrow.

No, no, no
By gglenn on 7/30/2011 3:38:41 PM , Rating: 1
You've got it all wrong. The models don't need to be fixed. Clearly the data needs to be "adjusted".

By cactusdog on 7/31/2011 5:19:07 PM , Rating: 1
This article looks like it came directly from a right-wing think tank to smear climate science.

Its also the kind of article you read on conspiracy theorist websites.

What was the official response to this "study"? Why does Mick accept his study is accurate?How do we know the guy who did it isnt being paid by climate deniers and conservative groups? It has come to light that Mining companies are behind Lord Monkton's work, paying for him to fly around the world to spout unscientific nonsense.

How does 1 mans opinion overule 99% of the scientific community?

Why do we assume the global warming advocates are cashing in and making money but anyone on the opposing side is just doing honest science?.

How do we know they are not being paid by mining and petroleum companies to smear the science.?

This is one of the worst articles on this site and thats saying something...

so it's kind of like
By inperfectdarkness on 7/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: so it's kind of like
By inperfectdarkness on 7/29/2011 11:40:01 AM , Rating: 2
...or a CNN reporter doing a piece critical of entitlements.

i'm an equal opportunity hater. and i do think that there's been quite a bit of subversion going on with global warming studies that don't support gore's wild accusations.

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki