Slashdot Mirror
New NASA Data Casts Doubt On Global Warming Models
bonch writes "Satellite data from NASA covering 2000 through 2011 cast doubt on current computer models predicting global warming, according to a new study. The data shows that much less heat is retained by carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere than is assumed in current models. 'There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans,' said Dr. Roy Spencer, a co-author of the study and research scientist at the University of Alabama." Note: the press release about the study is somewhat less over the top.
This is just a plot by Bush Cheney & Big Oil to destroy the world!! Now hurry up with the organic hempseed paint so I can finish my sign protesting Nuclear power plants and solar power plants that despoil Nature's beauty and wind turbines that spoil the views of multimillionares in Nantucket!! We won't save the world until China produces everything because there's no pollution in China!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
We should follow wherever the data leads. That's science. Up till now, the data has suggested that global warming is very real.
I really wish the people at the Heartland Institute are right. I really do. I'd hate to witness major migrations because farming conditions dramatically change across the globe. But I also really, really wish they'd drop the sensational language (alarmist models, etc), because I'd able to actually take them seriously. Not to mention that I also would like to see them actually properly quote the papers they reference. For example, the abstract in this particular paper is actually far less strong than what the venerable James Taylor says.
Abstract:
"The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains
the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.
Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is
largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,
probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and
likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite
and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While
the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of
lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we
find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy
in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that
atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due
primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in
satellite radiative budget observations. "
James Taylor: "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism"
Go fuck yourself with a chainsaw, James Taylor.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
A few notes about TFA:
1) The data comes from satellites put into space by NASA, but NASA is in no way involved in this study.
2) If this study actually significantly contradicts our knowledge of global heating, why has it been published in Remote Sensing, and not a more reputable journal?
3) They only interviewed the guy from the University of Alabama who lead the study
4) The author works for The Heartland Institute
5) They seem to have replaced the words "accurate" and "accepted by the scientific community" with "alarmist"
6) Source on UN's involvement? Seems like they threw that one in just to go for the "UN = bad" reaction that a lot of people have
Alarmist marklar!
Alarmist alarmist alarmist alarmist, marklar alarmist alarmist alarmist.
Marklar.
The guy who wrote this article is a little biased. The original paper is available online for those who want to see what it really has to say.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
Look more noise from Dr. Roy Spencer intelligent design proponent global warming denier. I would feel guilty if I was using this person's history on the subject and ignore the science but it looks again like he's ignoring the science to push an agenda. Who gave us this wonderful article? Why our own timothy, Slashdot's barely literate "editor". We need to buy him more paste to eat so he'll stop posting this bullshit.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
In other words, bullshit from a libertarian think-tank. Par for the course.
Anyone who is inclined to give a lot of weight to this "alarmist" press release should first read this, on a previous paper from Roy Spencer. Note this
what he gets through peer-review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you’d think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere.
Now, also read the paper, and note this
It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.
Hmm, doesn't sound like the press release or the Forbes article much, does it ?
Use the above and your judgement to figure out just how much weight to give the above.
So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?
Someone can give all the contrary (and unliked) opinions they want on subjects they have no credential or authority in. Hell, we do it all the time on ./
OTOH, the man had to have posted his hypotheses and proofs somewhere... why not attack those, instead of attacking him?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The author of this fine piece is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that seems to think global warming is some sort of fairy tale. This is the same group that worked with Phillip Morris to deny the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. It would be fantastic for Forbes, Yahoo!, or maybe even Timothy make some effort to mention that this is essentially an OpEd posing as a news report. Instead we get this bullshit that's going to pull in the teenage libertarian "See global warming is made up!" short bus riders.
Slashdot: News for nerds, some of our editors are actually retarded.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Actually climatological modellers, the only people who can really speak authoritatively on the subject have been conflicted for a while. That's actually the best argument against global warming, but most deniers are so mindnumbingly stupid they miss that. Based on what I've read on the subject I am unconvinced of warming; but the risk is sufficiently high that the relatively low costs and side benefits of moving to alternative fuels and capping emissions is worth it.
The cost of capping carbon emissions is 'low' relative to what? You understand that carbon emissions are involved in EVERY act of production and distribution in the world. Just building a system to assess the appropriate fees is a huge expensive undertaking... and the frictional costs (it will surely be like a VAT)... and the fact that when everything is more expensive to make and use, we will make and use less of everything... and the corruption and distortions of giving regulators a new stranglehold on all economic activity... and the fact that alternative fuels are all much more expensive than the traditional choices*. THIS is what you call "relatively low cost"?!
I am not making any statement here about the reality of AGW. We ordinary citizens can't know that, at least not yet... but we already do know what is necessarily involved in a planetwide carbon tax. Your state is just epically wrong, so much so that I think you are practicing deception with an agenda.
*Yes yes I know about oil wars. I also know about wars over the next set of choke points: selenium, lithium, uranium, cadmium, etc.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
I don't have the scientific background to assess his work on climate change.
But I do have the scientific background to assess his work on evolution, and from that I know he is some combination of a) a really crappy scientist, and/or b) someone willing to lie/misrepresent science to further their own beliefs.
Either criteria gives me ample reason to doubt any article he's published. If some qualified and credible scientists investigate and vouch for his paper than I may be willing to give it a second thought. But until then I'm not going to take the word of a known quack just because I'm not trained to disprove his particular brand of quackery.
I stole this Sig
So? Did anyone check his facts? Is he right? I'm so sick of ad hominem attacks from people who can't even write coherent sentences...
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?
It casts doubt on his ability to reason. We're not talking about some abstract religious notions, he's opposing what is globally accepted in the scientific community, and is backed up by countless, independent research initiatives. These days, it's on par with being geocentric.
I agree that the right thing to do is "attack" the research, and not the author, but in some cases it's relevant to be aware of where the data is coming from.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Even when looking at graphs that "any child" should be able to interpret, you've got it backwards. If you look critically, you'll find that CO2 increases trail temperature increases.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
We don't live in an ideal world where all scientists treat data objectively. We live in a world where some scientists have a religious and political agenda. In this real world, not all ad hominem arguments are ad hominem fallacies.
When someone has a history of publishing peer reviewed articles that do not make very bold or striking claims, and then making press releases that do make bold and unsubstantiated claims, it is necessary to point that history out, lest uninformed readers conclude that the unsubstantiated claims are what has been peer reviewed.
Any claim that CO2 is not causing global temperature increase is an unsubstantiated claim and is not what has been peer reviewed here.
Evolution is much more obvious than climate change. If he's a creationist, he's rejected overwhelming evidence in favor of his own beliefs. That does call into question his abilities to interpret data.
If the model is flawed, then one should show the flaw in the model... casting doubt on his ability to reason intelligently by referring to the man's beliefs, believing them to be those of a person not capable of clear and cogent thought, as a means of creating doubt for his presentation is not a genuinely valid logical refutation for his conclusions.
I'm not saying the guy's right... I'm just saying it's not a valid argument to attempt to discredit him by referring to his other beliefs. If he's wrong, then evidence should discredit his model... not him.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You can have that same argument next time your pulled over...
A blood alcohol level in the same range as the CO2 concentration 0.0391 is legal most places, go over 0.08 (just a touch over double) and your facing a drunk driving conviction in most of the world.
A few hundredths of a percent can actually make a big difference sometimes.
The ozone layer at its GREATEST concentration is 2 to 8 ppm, yet its generally accepted that its a "pretty big deal"...
the Tea Party is wrong
Yes.
the trillion of new debt spent on "stimulus" was actually very effective
It created millions of jobs, as intended. So yes. It just wasn't big enough to stem the rising tide of unemployment entirely.
the key to economic growth actually is to hugely increase deficit spending
Yup. The government can borrow at lower rates than the rest of us, and use the money to provide us with a safety net so that we can take risks in spending more, helping to break the self-sustaining cycle of a recession. Just look at how poorly austerity plans have worked out when used.
to raise the rate at which we tax the economy
Not until the recession is over, ideally, but yes. You need to raise money in the good times to pay for the bad times.
then this guy will also be wrong
He's a creationist (i.e. prone to believing what he wants to believe) and on the payroll of people who have a pre-existing interest in casting doubt on global warming. So yeah, he's probably wrong.
NASA's data will show the exact opposite of what he says it does
Quite possibly. We'll have to wait for other, more trustworthy scientists to evaluate it. But we'd be fools to take this guy at his word.
Remote Sensing (ISSN 2072-4292), an open access journal about the science and application of remote sensing technology, is published by MDPI online monthly.
Were the reviewers qualified to review this paper? I don't know.
Is this a high quality journal? I don't know.
Did he submit this to a zillion journals until he got lucky and one finally accepted it? I don't know.
What I do know is that if it is a crank paper, it wouldn't be the first one to get into a peer reviewed journal. Peer-review doesn't automatically make something "science", standing up to continued scrutiny by critical and qualified people makes something science. Peer-review is just one of many filters.
I stole this Sig
The paper doesn't do anything close to what the summary suggests, nor what either story suggests. The submitter is basically trolling it up.
The paper is available for all to read here: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
Basically, they are talking about lack of model sensitivity for non-radiative feedback, which is something that was already known. The models on a MONTHLY basis don't go high enough on the maximums and don't go low enough on the minimums (and there is a lag). Or in other words, the models get the general predictions right (warmer temperatures) but don't capture shorter term variability as well (heat waves, cold snaps).
Of course, it's already well known that climate models don't capture short term variability very well. However, this paper helps quantify that and provides some insights on how to better improve that aspect of modeling.
Or if you don't want to read the whole paper just skip to the conclusions sections, which mention nothing about invalidating global warming or the science thereof.
How that gets translated into "New Study Trashes Global Warming" is beyond me.
~X~
And I did not say that it did.
Gregor Mendel was a monk in a monastery.
I wouldn't say "reduces".
If a scientist cannot tell that an unfalsifiable claim is not science then he is not to be trusted with any other "scientific claims" he makes.
I'm saying that both should be done.
His "science" should be dismissed because he's demonstrated that he either does not understand it or is willing to sell his "professional" claims.
And there is nothing wrong with any data being reviewed by any scientist at any time.
The problem with dealing with fake science is that it is useless. The practitioners keep "moving the goal posts" and will mis-quote anyone who critiques their work.
The Intelligent Design "debate" is a great example of that.
Here's more: Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast
Slashdot editors, please try to remember that a single paper normally doesn't overturn scientific understanding, and try to avoid habitual hype sources. Thanks.
mt
Yes, they have.
Basically, he is using a simplified model from other climate scientists, and uses inputs that seem to be chosen to get the result he wants, not based on any evidence.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
If this is truly the case you can pretty much just blame the skeptics for it. We could have reached this conclusion much earlier had they not been making jack asses of themselves and standing in the way of research.
Similar for stem cell research, putting up roadblocks to research doesn't change reality, it does however slow the process of determining the truth.
The article in Forbes is written by a fellow for the Heartland Institute, one of the numerous front organizations for the coal and oil industries alongside other such groups as "CO2 is Green". The study is not peer reviewed, it has been published *for* peer review, there is a dramatic difference between the two. Beyond that, you have the issue that the study argues 180 degrees opposite to the articles claims. In short, the article is complete bunk, written by a fraud with an attempt to reinforce the positions of those who wish to kill scientific progress and research.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.