New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[riverrat373]

Please, do tell how we avoid climate change?



Who gains? The government who charges taxes gains, the people who sell the carbons swaps gain? Foreign countries who could care less about carbon and who will be gladly sucking up the displaced jobs gain. Do you think these people running carbon swap derivatives will be the super rich or the poor?

OK since I answered your question here's one for you, who do you think losses with schemes like Cap and Trade? or have you given that any thought?

Feel free to address all those points and not just the "convenient" points.

Yes Trlsmn, there is a giant conspiracy among "liberals" to raise taxes on everyone in this country by claiming that the planet is warming and that the Human race (who now numbers about 7 billion people) is having a significant effect with its' millions of cars, planes, boats ,lawnmowers, coal fired power plants, steel mills, paper mills, chemical plants, massive deforestation and flatulent cows! Why, any reasonable, educated person should be able to see through such deception! Why would anyone want to believe those "liberal, tree hugging hippies" when we know that the industrialists and mega corporations have told us that "liberals" lie just so they can increase our taxes! I mean, certainly those paragons of wisdom who own this country would never lie to us!

 

[Trlsmn]

Yes Trlsmn, there is a giant conspiracy among "liberals" to raise taxes on everyone in this country by claiming that the planet is warming....

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."~Hanlon's Razor

Where did I say it was a Liberals conspiracy? Liberals seem more gullible, that much I see as true.

and that the Human race (who now numbers about 7 billion people) is having a significant effect with its' millions of cars, planes, boats ,lawnmowers, coal fired power plants, steel mills, paper mills, chemical plants, massive deforestation and flatulent cows! Why, any reasonable, educated person should be able to see through such deception! Why would anyone want to believe those "liberal, tree hugging hippies" when we know that the industrialists and mega corporations have told us that "liberals" lie just so they can increase our taxes! I mean, certainly those paragons of wisdom who own this country would never lie to us!

All that talk and you didn't address my points you just used sarcasm as a diversion so you could take the easy way out without addressing my questions.

 

[NoAim]

Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast - Yahoo! News

Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast
LiveScience.comBy Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
LiveScience.com | LiveScience.com – 1 hr 18 mins ago


New research suggesting that cloud cover, not carbon dioxide, causes global warming is getting buzz in climate skeptic circles. But mainstream climate scientists dismissed the research as unrealistic and politically motivated.

"It is not newsworthy," Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.

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. The paper's author, University of Alabama, Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, is a climate change skeptic and controversial figure within the climate research community.

"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.

Cloud chaos

Spencer's research hinges on the role of clouds in climate change. Mainstream climate researchers agree that climate change happens when carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun in the atmosphere, much in the same way that a windshield traps solar heat in a car on a sunny afternoon. As the planet warms, a side effect is more water vapor in the atmosphere. This water vapor, known to most of us as clouds, traps more heat, creating a viscous loop. [Earth in Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points]

Spencer sees it differently. He thinks that the whole cycle starts with the clouds. In other words, random increases in cloud cover cause climate warming. The cloud changes are caused by "chaos in the climate system," Spencer told LiveScience.

In the new paper, Spencer looked at satellite data from 2000 to 2010 to compare cloud cover and surface temperatures. Using a simple model, he linked the two, finding, he said, that clouds drive warming. His comparisons of his data with six Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models showed, he said, that the models are too sensitive (meaning some variables, such as warming, increase at the slightest change in other factors) and that carbon dioxide is not likely to cause much warming at all. [Image Gallery: Curious Clouds]

Disagreements

However, no climate scientist contacted by LiveScience agreed.

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."

Other researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an "unrealistic" model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the temperatures observed by the satellites. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results being real, as opposed to chance fluctuations unrelated to the other variables in the experiment.

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

Several researchers expressed frustration that the study was attracting media attention.

"If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime," Schmidt said. "Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record."

Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a "gray science."

Politics and science

The science of Spencer's work proved inextricable from the political debate surrounding global warming. The paper was mostly unnoticed in the public sphere until the Forbes blogger declared it "extremely important."

Dessler, the A&M climatologist said that he doubted the research would shift the political debate around global warming.

"It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science," Dessler said. "It's essentially a debate over the role of government," surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation.

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.

 

[iomatic]

Can someone who believes global warming is not human-caused please politely answer these questions/issues:

A) How is it that (re: the paper above) 10 years of surface temp. data roughly correlating nonvariance is, somehow, more valid than centuries of data from the larger majority who have proven a direct correlation of human-caused global warming?

B) Furthermore, it seems the author has been pandering for this position for years; this seems like a straw-man, but his journalistic integrity comes into question:
forbes james taylor - Google Search

C) Also, wouldn't a more conservative (and somehow contradictory to the arguments against) approach to global warming actually be to curb human pollution? Being conservative? Being careful? Why is this somehow so strangely bordering on hypocritical (i.e., conservatives laughing off human-caused global warming)?

I really want to hear your fact-based comments in answer to the above, free from vitriol and spite (please).

io

 

[Trlsmn]

Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast - Yahoo! News

The Global warmist's here say it doesn't count because even though the guy is a PHD and worked for NASA since his information is counter to Global warming he's lying. What can I say, forum guys with no PHD's or NASA on their resumes know better than PHD's.

Nice try though...

 

[Trlsmn]

Can someone who believes global warming is not human-caused please politely answer these questions/issues:

A) How is it that (re: the paper above) 10 years of surface temp. data roughly correlating nonvariance is, somehow, more valid than centuries of data from the larger majority who have proven a direct correlation of human-caused global warming?

Centuries of data? do tell who these large majority are? You don't have to go back the full 300 years of names 250 years of names will suffice for me.

B) Furthermore, it seems the author has been pandering for this position for years; this seems like a straw-man, but his journalistic integrity comes into question:
forbes james taylor - Google Search

Ad homineim attack, you're not attacking the data just trying to impeach the man.

C) Also, wouldn't a more conservative (and somehow contradictory to the arguments against) approach to global warming actually be to curb human pollution? Being conservative? Being careful? Why is this somehow so strangely bordering on hypocritical (i.e., conservatives laughing off human-caused global warming)?

I really want to hear your fact-based comments in answer to the above, free from vitriol and spite (please).

io

Since you are the one selling Global warming I turn that question over to you. Please answer your own question.

 

[chemist]

What a waste of time. Do you really think that one Creationist's publication stream makes a difference in the scheme of things?

It's called science, guys, and it's full of inconvenient complications. How many thousands of peer-reviewed papers have you Denialists brushed aside over the years (decades) because Rush knew better than those dumb old scientists? And now all of a sudden you discover one or two guys' work and hallelujah you've finally found respect for peer review.

Pick any topic and you will find outliers, both in the data stream and in the consensus of published work. Whether it's HIV not causing AIDS, the entire observable Universe coming into being in a 144-hour period during the Middle Paleolithic, or free zero-point energy, there will always be somebody muddying the waters. Reality's that way too: there are always confounding data, but they don't make a whit of difference to the general conclusion.

I just think it's funny that youse guys who sneer at peer reviewed publications when they conflict with your personal prejudices should now hoist the flag as if you respected the process all along. As if!

I'm a chemist and a scientist, and I have no dog in this fight. I'm ready to change my mind yet again when the overwhelming mass of data and scientific opinion points in a new direction. But what I have is respect for the people and the process which have given us every aspect of our modern, civilized world. It's no small irony that comfort and convenience have enabled the willfully ignorant to cling to their blindness, sheltering them from all-too-obvious reality.

 

[Trlsmn]

What a waste of time. Do you really think that one Creationist's publication stream makes a difference in the scheme of things?

It's called science, guys, and it's full of inconvenient complications. How many thousands of peer-reviewed papers have you Denialists brushed aside over the years (decades) because Rush knew better than those dumb old scientists? And now all of a sudden you discover one or two guys' work and hallelujah you've finally found respect for peer review.

Pick any topic and you will find outliers, both in the data stream and in the consensus of published work. Whether it's HIV not causing AIDS, the entire observable Universe coming into being in a 144-hour period during the Middle Paleolithic, or free zero-point energy, there will always be somebody muddying the waters. Reality's that way too: there are always confounding data, but they don't make a whit of difference to the general conclusion.

I just think it's funny that youse guys who sneer at peer reviewed publications when they conflict with your personal prejudices should now hoist the flag as if you respected the process all along. As if!

I'm a chemist and a scientist, and I have no dog in this fight. I'm ready to change my mind yet again when the overwhelming mass of data and scientific opinion points in a new direction. But what I have is respect for the people and the process which have given us every aspect of our modern, civilized world. It's no small irony that comfort and convenience have enabled the willfully ignorant to cling to their blindness, sheltering them from all-too-obvious reality.

So you're saying man made Global Warming is not a theory?

 

[boxer13]

Well nice to see that there is still some individuals on this site that listen to reason.

I have a question for the skeptics:

Lets say that climate change/global warming is a hoax/wrong/natural/not man-made, yet we take measures to reduce our output of pollution in order to have a better, cleaner, healthier earth?

How exactly is that terrible? You realize that its going to be your children and grandchildren that will have to live with our choices.

Now lets say that its true and we don't take any measures to prevent climate change and we hit a threshold that there is no going back from, sending ecosystems into complete disarray and harming billions of animals (us included).

How in any way, shape, or form is that desirable? Would you want to live in a world like that? Do you want that for your kids? And their kids?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

What is a shame here is how you seem willing to suspend all reasonable validation of a source simply because it supports your ill informed agenda. You could have very easily have done some research on this guy and found that not only does he continually ignore critics when they destroy his finding, but he has also changed his own presentation on multiple occasions with no transparency as to how he comes to his conclusions. You could have easily seen he was a creationist with faith based beliefs on global climate and that he regularly accepts money to promote his rejected claims. He even glosses over the fact that he has stated on many occasions that man-made warming probably does exist but that we would be better off to adapt to the change than to try and prevent it.

 

[Trlsmn]

Well nice to see that there is still some individuals on this site that listen to reason.

I have a question for the skeptics:

Lets say that climate change/global warming is a hoax/wrong/natural/not man-made, yet we take measures to reduce our output of pollution in order to have a better, cleaner, healthier earth?

How exactly is that terrible? You realize that its going to be your children and grandchildren that will have to live with our choices.

Now lets say that its true and we don't take any measures to prevent climate change and we hit a threshold that there is no going back from, sending ecosystems into complete disarray and harming billions of animals (us included).

How in any way, shape, or form is that desirable? Would you want to live in a world like that? Do you want that for your kids? And their kids?

It's not a bad idea to live conservatively and to not waste resources. I've lived this kind of non wasteful life as long as I can remember and I'd put my conservative lifestyle/carbon signature up against anyone posting in this thread. The problem I have is with the insistence on bad legislation like Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade will be the last nail in the coffin of the middle class in this country.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Well nice to see that there is still some individuals on this site that listen to reason.

I have a question for the skeptics:

Lets say that climate change/global warming is a hoax/wrong/natural/not man-made, yet we take measures to reduce our output of pollution in order to have a better, cleaner, healthier earth?

How exactly is that terrible? You realize that its going to be your children and grandchildren that will have to live with our choices.

Now lets say that its true and we don't take any measures to prevent climate change and we hit a threshold that there is no going back from, sending ecosystems into complete disarray and harming billions of animals (us included).

How in any way, shape, or form is that desirable? Would you want to live in a world like that? Do you want that for your kids? And their kids?

It has nothing to do with reason or anything resembling reason or rational thought. It is all about corporate profits and people willing to be fed false beliefs by said corporations and then worked up to falsely believe that their is somehow something to gain by acknowledging climate change by the government or the left.

 

[Trlsmn]

What is a shame here is how you seem willing to suspend all reasonable validation of a source simply because it supports your ill informed agenda. You could have very easily have done some research on this guy and found that not only does he continually ignore critics when they destroy his finding, but he has also changed his own presentation on multiple occasions with no transparency as to how he comes to his conclusions. You could have easily seen he was a creationist with faith based beliefs on global climate and that he regularly accepts money to promote his rejected claims. He even glosses over the fact that he has stated on many occasions that man-made warming probably does exist but that we would be better off to adapt to the change than to try and prevent it.

Dude I answered your questions and asked you my own and you have ignored them. Not to worry, you're among good company because every single person in this thread who is pro Global Warming has ignored every single question I have asked them!

 

[Trlsmn]

It has nothing to do with reason or anything resembling reason or rational thought. It is all about corporate profits and people willing to be fed false beliefs by said corporations and then worked up to falsely believe that their is somehow something to gain by acknowledging climate change by the government or the left.

And when Global Warming legislation is passed who do you think will pay?

 

[boxer13]

It's not a bad idea to live conservatively and to not waste resources. I've lived this kind of non wasteful life as long as I can remember and I'd put my conservative lifestyle/carbon signature up against anyone posting in this thread. The problem I have is with the insistence on bad legislation like Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade will be the last nail in the coffin of the middle class in this country.

Ok, but in lieu of legislation such as Cap N Trade (that for this discussion I'll make no value judgment on):

If the problem you have is with this legislation, then why do you need to search out scientists of questionable (and let's face it, Dr. Taylor hardly seems like an objective participant) in order to justify that a theory that has nearly universal support that claims that we should be taking steps to prevent waste and save resources for the betterment of the world at large?

It seems you're all ready on board with reducing waste, no? It sounds like you may be against the current methods of reducing waste but not the idea of it, correct?

And if that is correct, if thousands of highly educated people in the field were telling you, "hey you should keep not wasting resources, and maybe adapt more efficient ones as they become available." and "if we all help, this problem will fix itself."

So what exactly is wrong about trying to prevent climate change then? I have no doubt that you make an effort for whatever personal reasons you have. But it seems like the majority of people wish to say "**** it, I'm going to do whatever I want because **** them, they aren't me."

It seems you aren't said person, so why the skepticism? Why believe this peer-reviewed study but not the numerous others that came before it?

 

[deen_ad]

And just how is acknowledging the fact that the earth is warming, the climate is changing, and that man-made contributions to said change are possible and therefore possibly avoidable? Just who stands to gain from promoting climate change if it is not happening? We all know who is clearing financially benefiting from pretending it isn't happening.

But only a few thousand scientists actually signed onto the so called scientific study, that vast majority saw the truth and didn't sign on. This has been known for years. The earth goes through cycles no matter what we do, it's in a cooling period now. It's a natural cycle.

 

[Trlsmn]

Ok, but in lieu of legislation such as Cap N Trade (that for this discussion I'll make no value judgment on):

If the problem you have is with this legislation, then why do you need to search out scientists of questionable (and let's face it, Dr. Taylor hardly seems like an objective participant) in order to justify that a theory that has nearly universal support that claims that we should be taking steps to prevent waste and save resources for the betterment of the world at large?

It seems you're all ready on board with reducing waste, no? It sounds like you may be against the current methods of reducing waste but not the idea of it, correct?

And if that is correct, if thousands of highly educated people in the field were telling you, "hey you should keep not wasting resources, and maybe adapt more efficient ones as they become available." and "if we all help, this problem will fix itself."

So what exactly is wrong about trying to prevent climate change then? I have no doubt that you make an effort for whatever personal reasons you have. But it seems like the majority of people wish to say "**** it, I'm going to do whatever I want because **** them, they aren't me."

It seems you aren't said person, so why the skepticism? Why believe this peer-reviewed study but not the numerous others that came before it?

Because I'm naturally skeptical. When the stakes of legislation will be punishing to our way of life and could very well kill the middle-class everyone should be very skeptical. I still have seen no proof that man made Global Warming is anything more than a theory.

 

[Mark W.]

I believe in Global warming BUT I think it is caused by all them Goobers standing next to you. Think about it all them people making 98.6 degrees 24/7

there how many people now? currently estimated to be 6.93 billion thats 6.93 BILLION little Milk house heaters plugged in and running 24/7

GLOBAL WARMING IS PEOPLE !!!!






so is Soylent Green

 

[ZeroRing]

 

[SPU]

The Global warmist's here say it doesn't count because even though the guy is a PHD and worked for NASA since his information is counter to Global warming he's lying. What can I say, forum guys with no PHD's or NASA on their resumes know better than PHD's.

Nice try though...

Actually the second Yahoo report quoted multiple experts:

"It is not newsworthy," Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.

"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.

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.

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



"Dessler, the A&M climatologist said that he doubted the research would shift the political debate around global warming.

'It makes the skeptics feel good, it irritates the mainstream climate science community, but by this point, the debate over climate policy has nothing to do with science,' Dessler said. 'It's essentially a debate over the role of government," surrounding issues of freedom versus regulation.'..."


Seems the nice doctor's paper was peer reviewed and subsequently dismissed.
This entire thread has nothing to do with science, but about policy and how personal belief systems should shape that policy.