global warming models proven "huge"-ly wrong

Page 1 of 5 [ 71 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

29 Jul 2011, 11:15 am

ruveyn wrote:
number5 wrote:
So I read a good chunk of the actual study and the article and headline are tremendously misleading. I have a B.S. in Atmospheric Science and a background in remote sensing and can say with confidence that this new finding does not, in any way, debunk global warming (or climate change, which is more appropriate). It is, however, a very helpful breakthrough that will help scientists improve on their modeling capabilities.

.


I have stated more than once that modelling can fit -any- set of data, be it true or false. This discovery about radiation rates underlines the fact that our physical grasp of climate is far from complete. In short, the underlying science is deficient. If that is the case, one must wonder just what the models are worth.

One of these days we may be real climate science as opposed to climate models. But today is not that day.


ruveyn


That day will never come, unless of course time travel is possible. Nothing is certain until it is occurring or has occurred. I for one enjoy educated predictions. They help us to plan. But predictions will never be perfect. No scientist would ever make a claim otherwise. They can only be improved upon through scientific research and study which is always ongoing. Your quest for certainty on this matter will never be satisfied.

I think it is more wise and prudent to take a pragmatic approach here. The benefits of green energy and technology far outweigh cons, with respect to both the environment and cost. I think the focus on CO2 emissions is slightly misguided, but reducing overall pollution and dependance on oil is a very good thing.

We live in a landfill. We over consume and we're wasteful. When we throw something away, do we stop and think about where "away" is? How many soldiers and civilians have died over finite energy resources and is it really worth it? I don't think so. We can do a heck of a lot better, so why not try?



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

29 Jul 2011, 9:34 pm

"A lie told often enough becomes truth”

Vladimir Lenin



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Jul 2011, 12:49 am

Raptor wrote:
"A lie told often enough becomes truth”

Vladimir Lenin

I normally see that quote attributed to Goebbels. Do you have a source attributing it to Lenin?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

30 Jul 2011, 8:37 am

Orwell wrote:
Raptor wrote:
"A lie told often enough becomes truth”

Vladimir Lenin

I normally see that quote attributed to Goebbels. Do you have a source attributing it to Lenin?


There are multiple sources that attribute it to both but more to Lenin than Goebbels.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Jul 2011, 8:45 am

number5 wrote:

I think it is more wise and prudent to take a pragmatic approach here. The benefits of green energy and technology far outweigh cons, with respect to both the environment and cost. I think the focus on CO2 emissions is slightly misguided, but reducing overall pollution and dependance on oil is a very good thing.



Pave North America over from coast to coast and North to South with fast breeder reactors and we will never have to burn coal or oil again to make hot water.

ruveyn



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

30 Jul 2011, 10:46 pm

Avengilante wrote:
You know and I know that 'climate change' is a political myth - a scare tactic for manipulating the gullible - but don't waste your time trying to tell them that. Their scientists have said it, they believe it and that settles it. They'll figure it out thirty years from now when the world has not become the hellish oven they were expecting.

Sorry Avengilante, you ARE the one who who know nothing. Man-made global warming is what is closer to what say the actual data. And don't tire me with "it's in the interest of the govnerment that peoples believe global warming" because that's certainly not true of the govnerments we got. This is more a expose of the incompetency of the powers-that-be to react in fornt of incoming catastrophes.

Anyway, this study has been completly debunked.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


Nil_Nil
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 196

01 Aug 2011, 3:49 am

John_Browning wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Dr. Spencer also advocates for intelligent design.

The science is consistent with other satellite data that does not rely on computer predictions so his beliefs about the creation of the universe are irrelevant. Believing in God does not affect the interpretation of data about present day events and data that doesn't change, like physics and chemistry.

Quote:
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.


One could argue that the belief in man-made climate change has affected the interpretations and furthermore the corruption of data and science to fit the socio-political-religious world of climate change.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

01 Aug 2011, 8:24 am

Nil_Nil wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Dr. Spencer also advocates for intelligent design.

The science is consistent with other satellite data that does not rely on computer predictions so his beliefs about the creation of the universe are irrelevant. Believing in God does not affect the interpretation of data about present day events and data that doesn't change, like physics and chemistry.

Quote:
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.


One could argue that the belief in man-made climate change has affected the interpretations and furthermore the corruption of data and science to fit the socio-political-religious world of climate change.


What are you even talking about?



TheygoMew
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,102

01 Aug 2011, 3:05 pm

I wonder if dinosaurs would have been better off with SUV's.



Artros
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 646
Location: The Netherlands

01 Aug 2011, 3:50 pm

I really dislike this debate because it all seems so senseless to me. Whatever the cause is, we're currently observing a significant rise in temperature and climate-related disasters. This might be directly caused by man. This might not be. Since we lack a good control group, you cannot be sure.

Personally, I can't imagine that the amount of pollution man is throwing into the environment has a positive effects, and I can easily imagine it having very real negative effects for all of us. Even if climate change is not man-made, it would be better if we would all try to be less wasteful.



oldmantime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 522

01 Aug 2011, 6:03 pm

oh, i never said pollution wasn't bad. we do need to do something about it. I'm just arguing that our co2 output is causing it.




this argument never does go anywhere though, does it? one side always says it's debunked the other and that goes back and forth with no stop it seems.

the real problem i see with the whole thing is that some people want to tax other people for it (which is a swindle by the way. i mean really, they're giving people carbon credits for killing camels in Australia now. WTF?) which then leads to this horribly defensive attitude we all have. It would be better if we merely concentrated our energies on creating better tech and ways to clean up the chemical mess this planet has become. but no, we sit about fighting over whether or not we should get carbon credits for killing animals.


the real disturbing thing about this whole mess is that the people who are most inclined to push this alarmist mentality are the same ones in control of our banking system (david de rothschilde would be a good example). could that be why our economy is really crashing? is this the result of a sort of new age Malthusian-ism?



oldmantime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 522

01 Aug 2011, 6:04 pm

number5 wrote:
Nil_Nil wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
Dr. Spencer also advocates for intelligent design.

The science is consistent with other satellite data that does not rely on computer predictions so his beliefs about the creation of the universe are irrelevant. Believing in God does not affect the interpretation of data about present day events and data that doesn't change, like physics and chemistry.

Quote:
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.


One could argue that the belief in man-made climate change has affected the interpretations and furthermore the corruption of data and science to fit the socio-political-religious world of climate change.


What are you even talking about?


he means that people find the data that they want regardless of whether or not it's correct.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Aug 2011, 6:34 pm

oldmantime wrote:

he means that people find the data that they want regardless of whether or not it's correct.


Or even worse, with the appropriate adjustable parameters one can fit the model to any data.

Real theories cannot be arbitrarily adjusted. If the don't fit the facts, one has to toss them and think of a better theory that will fit the facts.

ruveyn



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

01 Aug 2011, 7:17 pm

ruveyn wrote:
oldmantime wrote:

he means that people find the data that they want regardless of whether or not it's correct.


Or even worse, with the appropriate adjustable parameters one can fit the model to any data.

Real theories cannot be arbitrarily adjusted. If the don't fit the facts, one has to toss them and think of a better theory that will fit the facts.

ruveyn


Which is exactly what scientists do. This whole notion that somehow scientists want global warming to be proven is total crap. Scientists - the real ones, not the ones hired by private corporations with a clear agenda - are only trying to find the truth here. Their motivations are pure. There is no win either way. Wins only occur with discovery, regardless of what that discovery is. If the data shows that CO2 is less of a concern than previously thought, then fantastic.

The only people searching for a specific outcome here are the big oil companies. They have a clear motivation because their profits are a direct result of our dependency on oil. They have a heck of a lot to lose here. Green technology has the potential to ruin their empire. Of course they're going to fight the science, just like the tobacco companies did.

As far as the banking industry goes, one has nothing to do with the other. That's truly tinfoil hat territory.



oldmantime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 522

01 Aug 2011, 10:52 pm

you do realize that there is huge potential for investors to make money off carbon credits, right? there is money to be made on either side. the fact that there have been warmer periods with less man made co2 and periods of the same temp with MANY times the amount of co2 proves to me that it's a hoax. that and the fact that their models are never right.



Nexus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 833
Location: On I2

02 Aug 2011, 12:20 am

oldmantime wrote:
you do realize that there is huge potential for investors to make money off carbon credits, right? there is money to be made on either side. the fact that there have been warmer periods with less man made co2 and periods of the same temp with MANY times the amount of co2 proves to me that it's a hoax. that and the fact that their models are never right.


Funny because 30 years ago, climate change was considered a utter joke when scientists were originally warning about it. If this was all an elaborate scam, why now than 30 years ago? Think of all the money that could have been obtained over the course of several decades if they started promoting it sooner.


_________________
"Have a nice apocalypse" - Southland Tales