E46Fanatics

E46Fanatics (http://forum.e46fanatics.com/index.php)
-   Political Talk (http://forum.e46fanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=61)
-   -   Uh oh, global warming models wrong? *gasp* (http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=860228)

Act of God 07-29-2011 07:10 AM

Uh oh, global warming models wrong? *gasp*
 
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html
Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
They've certainly had their fair share of issues and incorrect modeling for science based off a "consensus" haven't they?

mistrzmiasta 07-29-2011 07:57 AM

well i for one am shocked :rolleyes:

Act of God 07-29-2011 08:05 AM

Polar bears dying - wrong
Glaciers melting - wrong
Earth continually getting hotter - wrong
Record hurricanes - wrong
Rising oceans - wrong

So we've gone from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" since that whole warming thing didn't happen even though CO2 continues to exponentially rise. What's next? "Climate Change" will now be referred to as "Overfeeding Flora", think about the trees man!

Penguin Koolaid 07-29-2011 08:48 AM

I can't wait for people to use this as an excuse to pollute more.

BimmerFerret 07-29-2011 08:59 AM

You guys should read Gore's book. He just posts pictures. Mountains from 50 years ago and the same ones now. Major melting of glaciers has happened from 50 years ago to now. I definitely believe it exists.

2000_328CI 07-29-2011 09:16 AM

Global warming (now climate change) is nothing more than a money making scheme aimed at profiting off hippies and yuppies who bastardize those who believe it to be anything but "the truth".

When I learned that Al Gore, climate superstar and mother nature's favorite liberal, had his hands DEEP in the Chicago Carbon Exchange (which was poised to act as a stock market for carbon credits should cap and trade legislation go as planned), I lost any and all faith in the concept. As more and more evidence came out which directly disproved previous global warming theories, every thinking man should have given up on the notion. When Climategate occurred, and it came out that the foremost global warming experts were full of sh*t, everyone should have dropped their support. Those who haven't are drinking far too much kool-aid.

Now, is it beneficial to drive hybrid cars? Of course. It reduces our dependency on a limited natural resource and is thus bettering our chances to live on as a species. If it helps reduce pollution, all the better. But to push for hybrid cars to avoid climate change.. :lmao:
Quote:

Originally Posted by BimmerFerret (Post 13425654)
You guys should read Gore's book. He just posts pictures. Mountains from 50 years ago and the same ones now. Major melting of glaciers has happened from 50 years ago to now. I definitely believe it exists.

Read up on the Chicago Climate Exchange and Gore's involvement in it. Then read up on the downfall of CCX (took place shortly after it became apparent even the democratic super majority wouldn't be able to pass carbon trading.. aka cap and trade). Ironically, you haven't heard much from Gore since CCX went downhill. I guess he doesn't care about the climate anymore? Or could it be that he realizes he isn't going to be able to make billions running what would be one of the largest exchange groups in the world?

Act of God 07-29-2011 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Penguin Koolaid (Post 13425635)
I can't wait for people to use this as an excuse to pollute more.

I certainly hope that isn't what people would do. GW/CC or not, we should all be making an effort to keep the environment cleaner.

Personally, I do not see C02 as a pollutant given that it is necessary for all life on this planet. Anything in large amounts can do harm, even water...that doesn't make it pollution.

217Bimmer 07-29-2011 09:30 AM

if you don't believe that human activity is contributing to a change in the earth's climate, you are an idiot. simple as that.

evolved 07-29-2011 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI (Post 13425689)
Global warming (now climate change) is nothing more than a money making scheme aimed at profiting off hippies and yuppies who bastardize those who believe it to be anything but "the truth".

When I learned that Al Gore, climate superstar and mother nature's favorite liberal, had his hands DEEP in the Chicago Carbon Exchange (which was poised to act as a stock market for carbon credits should cap and trade legislation go as planned), I lost any and all faith in the concept. As more and more evidence came out which directly disproved previous global warming theories, every thinking man should have given up on the notion. When Climategate occurred, and it came out that the foremost global warming experts were full of sh*t, everyone should have dropped their support. Those who haven't are drinking far too much kool-aid.


He's just using the free market to his advantage, though, right? ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 217Bimmer (Post 13425722)
if you don't believe that human activity is contributing to a change in the earth's climate, you are an idiot. simple as that.

Very true, but it's a question of the impact that we are having.

Lair 07-29-2011 12:42 PM

LOL Forbes.

Quote:

Taylor has criticized climate change science through both his own publications and op/eds, and the Heartland Institute, which has consistently received funding from ExxonMobil. While Taylor espouses through Environment and Climate News that climate change is neither a significant nor man-made problem, and that scientists who say it is are environmental extremists, others argue that a "major purpose of the publication has been to look at global warming from industry's perspective" rather than through the viewpoint of real science.


SLVR JDM 07-29-2011 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 217Bimmer (Post 13425722)
if you don't believe that human activity is contributing to a change in the earth's climate, you are an idiot. simple as that.

To what degree? What do you make of the conclusions that have been presented as "fact" and then later disputed (as in this article)? Are you using those as your guidepost or your spidey senses?

'busa 07-29-2011 01:09 PM

:rofl: One guy, one report. Turns out he's a denier. Shocking. Stop the presses. But wait, it gets better. I'm going to take scientific advice from a guy who denies evolution?

Quote:

Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design as the mechanism for the origin of species.[25] On the subject, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[25] In The Evolution Crisis, a compilation of five scientists who reject evolution, Spencer states: "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[26]
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3Gkw74t9y4...-laughing1.jpg

Act of God 07-29-2011 01:20 PM

Peer reviewed son, isn't that what the AGW battle cry was? The stats are legit and so is the analysis. Bringing in a man's religious belief has no bearing on this topic, but I applaud your awesome pic and attempt at a distraction.

I really do admire the libtard peanut gallery going straight to invalidating the source versus looking at the content. You guys would make Saul Alinsky proud. A+

Lair 07-29-2011 01:28 PM

Please.

The "source" takes money from ExxonMobil.

You want to call that "credible"?

'busa 07-29-2011 01:31 PM

This really doesn't deserve this much attention, but against my better judgement:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Act of God (Post 13425503)
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow...192334971.html

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted

It's NASA data, but not NASA research. The research is done by Roy Spencer, climate change denier, conservative activist and creationist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Act of God (Post 13425503)
reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

Glad you highlighted "peer-reviewed". The study has not been peer reviewed. It has been submitted for peer-review. Remote Sensing Journal? Whatev.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Act of God (Post 13425503)
The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Alarmists? Someone's bias is showing! ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Act of God (Post 13425503)
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, (...) at the (...) and (...) for the (...) flying on (...), reports that real-world data from (...) contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

Once you take out the long names of organizations and stuff, it's really neither a convincing argument nor an impressive sentence anymore. The guy's credentials should include creationist. He has no business doing science. Really not holding back on the alarmist thing, though, are we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Act of God (Post 13425503)
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

That says nothing. Even if overlooking the flaws and bias in the article, the study provides nothing of consequence. It is not important, and it is unclear why Forbes says it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Act of God (Post 13425503)
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

Alarmist again? CREATIONIST!!!

I like how they're throwing the NASA name in there, as if NASA had something to do with this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Act of God (Post 13425503)
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

They are not and they shouldn't. :rofl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Act of God (Post 13425503)
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

This is such fluff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Act of God (Post 13425503)
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

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

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

They've certainly had their fair share of issues and incorrect modeling for science based off a "consensus" haven't they?

This is laughable.

A few more notes from elsewhere (not mine):
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

'busa 07-29-2011 01:35 PM

More:

Prof Bickmore of BYU has been working hard at debunking Spencer's endless efforts to find nothing where there is something (after all, an easier task than the other way around). The latest is here [wordpress.com], and a catalog of Bickmore's readings of Spencer is here [wordpress.com]. Here's more: Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast [livescience.com]
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."


'busa 07-29-2011 01:36 PM

But we should ask real experts what they think. Anyone have Kirk Cameron's number?

http://earthfirst.com/wp-content/upl...rk-cameron.jpg

2000_328CI 07-29-2011 01:44 PM

Why does him being a man of faith discredit his scientific findings or views? Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galilei, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, and Einstein all believed in God.

'busa 07-29-2011 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI (Post 13426494)
Why does him being a man of faith discredit his scientific findings or views? Many of the world's most influential scientists were very devoted to their faith.

If anyone knows how to twist my words, it's you, Chase. I'm impressed.

I didn't say that being a man of faith discredits his scientific findings or views. I am saying that statements like this "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world..." should preclude him from even holding a beaker in his hand. That is a dishonest statement.

Furthermore, the reason why his paper went ignored is because it's erroneous and insignificant. A conservative blogger reports on it with the words "extremely important" and all of a sudden it is? :rofl:

Come on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI (Post 13426494)
Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galilei, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, and Einstein all believed in God.

I don't really care to look up each individual person, but Einstein was a deist at best:
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Einstein

2000_328CI 07-29-2011 01:57 PM

What is dishonest about his statement? Watch any show on creation v evolution and they will present countless top names from the science world who believe strongly in intelligent design. I think the simplest (and therefore more profound) explanation I have heard deals with the probabilities. Is it really easier to believe that the big bang (probabilities of which have been calculated as infinitesimal) occurred as described in children's books or that something somewhere somehow was involved in the establishment of what we have today? I put myself in the later camp both as a person with religious beliefs and one who has evaluated both arguments and RATIONALLY come to a conclusion.

My views aren't based on what a man in a black suit with white collar told me.. it's based on the odds. I use the same reasoning when discussing aliens... It's just easier for me to acknowledge that somewhere out in the infinite realm of space, there is something. Seems significantly more probable than for us to be the only case of life.

I don't find his statement to discredit him in the least nor do I believe his findings to be as insignificant as you suggest. Again, my views on global warming are based on what seems like a long history of dishonesty. I think Gore was dishonest in his motivation for getting involved (let's be honest, he was the one who spearheaded and brought this to light to the mass public), I think his rhetoric was based on dishonest data (several scientists he referenced in his movie came out later to say they disagreed fully and never agreed to be part of his film... view the great global warming swindle), the scientists credited with much of Gore's later points came out to be frauds and liars (Climategate), and more data has been presented as of late disproving CC than bolstering it. Again, I think it's a huge money making scheme supported by big business only because it was profitable.... Do I blame companies for playing into the desires of americans to demonstrate their care for the eco system by buying cheap hemp bullcr*p items? Absolutely not. Free market FTW. Do I laugh at those who subscribe to CC and call me an idiot for thinking it's an over-hyped cash cow? Absolutely.

Note: to those who believe in climate change, that's perfectly fine. Busa, if you believe that we are destroying the eco system and, as a DIRECT RESULT of gasses we produce we are deteriorating the ozone, causing temperatures to spike, and destroying our planet, that is fine. It's your view on an issue. So can we please keep this conversation mature, respect one anther's "opinions" and discourse like gentlemen.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use