New NASA Data Casts Doubt On Global Warming Models 954
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.
It's all a lie! (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Eventually it will cause enough warming to be a serious problem. So we're dealing with which form of pollution is preferable...can't stop coal 'if' it's the only thing keep the planet slightly cooler [BIG if there], but can't keep doing it because it
Re: (Score:3)
Well except for the quite recent study that showed the gap between projected warming and actual warming was likely do to the increased coal power plants in China which are polluting the atmosphere so much that light is being reflected out before it gets in.
(Emphasis mine). Here's where part of the problem lies. None of these studies can prove it one way or the other.
But its irrelevant. We probably should recognise that there are measurable ill-effects of polution and try to cut down on it anyway.
Why does the world need to be near-ending before companies will do something about cleaning things up?
Re:It's all a lie! (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that alarmists need to put a lid on it. Running around like your hair is on fire certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the logic of anothers arguments, and it's the thoughtful objective response that intelligent people are more often swayed by. By the way, you should notice the source of the first link in this article is from the leading conservative think-tank opposing the existence of Global Warming. Not exactly the first place I would have gone to for an unbiased opinion.
The wise person looks a scientific consensus (and yes, makes some accounting for political leanings in either direction.) One looks at many disciplines, meteorology and long term climatology, chemistry, oceanography, biology, ecology, geology. One investigates all the signs, looking for impacts in hydrology and everything from frequency of drought, flood, and changing global micro-climates to large scale animal migrations and the changing timing of spring and fall do the shorter, warmer, wetter winters. You can't argue the ice in the Arctic is vanishing. You can't argue that the chemistry of the ocean is changing (decreased salinity from fresh water melt and rising acid levels from carbonic acid due to rising CO2 levels.) Heat trapping and reflection is incredibly complex. A a single large volcanic eruption (like Mt. Pinatubo) can emit enough SO2 to completely skew the results for any specific decade. That's why you need to look at long term trends over decades and centuries to see where the planet is heading.
I continue to hear critics of "global weather change" cherry pick items to rail against. I see nobody from that camp providing a cohesive response to tens of thousands of different phenomena all pointing in the same direction. There is sadly little informed debate to the contrary, more and more those arguing against the existence of something serious happening to our environment sound like relics from the flat earth society. I won't apologize for people's shoddy work on either side of the issue. When you deal with people there will always be clowns. I will say that folks with personal axes to grind on this topic simply can't address tens of thousands of intelligent, professional, scientists all over the world who've created a consistent, cohesive body of theory and information that concludes with near certainty that we are dangerously close to destroying our environment through the wanton burning of fossil fuels.
I have an open mind, show me a body of work with even 10% of the depth, breadth, and diversity, and I will gladly concede that there is good reason the worlds experts on the topics (many topics) touched by this issue.
Re:It's all a lie! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have an open mind, show me a body of work with even 10% of the depth, breadth, and diversity, and I will gladly concede that there is good reason the worlds experts on the topics (many topics) touched by this issue.
The body of work has some holes in it. The debate is far from over, as this paper demonstrates.... But... The real problem is the proposed solutions. The proposals create a global framework that is so strict and so rigid that it requires the creation of a global government to enforce it. In order to be effective, such a government would require teeth. No regional or national government is willing to place themselves under such a regime, and individual people are often horrified at the thought of having yet another government they can run afoul of. One that is completely antagonistic, necessarily undemocratic, and unresponsive to their wishes.
Which is why nothing is going to get done about it. Learn to swim.
Re:It's all a lie! (Score:4, Insightful)
"The proposals create a global framework that is so strict and so rigid that it requires the creation of a global government to enforce it."
Ahem... quite a coincidence, don't you think?
Re:It's all a lie! (Score:5, Insightful)
The wise person looks a scientific consensus
The wise person looks objectively at the evidence, not merely following the herd. Scientific consensus has been proven both right and wrong many times throughout history and shouldn't be considered an effective measure of how true or not a theory is.
Re:It's all a lie! (Score:4, Funny)
"Now hurry up with the organic hempseed paint"
Wait, can I smoke it? I have Glaucoma... Cough Cough... Wait, Glaucoma has a cough right?
Re:It's all a lie! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, a lie is exactly what it is. Or, more accurately, it's hysterical propaganda (originally published in that prestigious scientific journal Forbes Magazine) by a pretend scientist [sourcewatch.org] (who uses the term "alarmist" no fewer than 14 times in this 567-word, 9-paragraph pile of fresh, steaming nonsense) who quacks on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute (an organization whose "work" has been funded [sourcewatch.org] by an array of right-wing billionaire's foundations, tobacco companies, and Exxon Mobil), based on junk science [livescience.com] by a well-known climate skeptic and "intelligent design" advocate [wikipedia.org] who has made a fundamental scientific error by confusing correlation with causation.
Nothing to see here. Move along,
Re:It's all a lie! (Score:5, Insightful)
Very good skewering of all of those electricity-hating, pro-Chinese hippies I've never seen or heard of. If they are real, and are somehow reading that (maybe pedal-powered computers?) they must feel pretty stupid.
He was probably talking about those Apple products hippies like so much.
Re: (Score:3)
Hillbillies and white trash aren't kept down by calling them that. They've got the power...
If you've ever met either one of those groups, you would quickly realize how ridiculous your statement is.
Follow the data! (Score:5, Insightful)
We should follow wherever the data leads. That's science. Up till now, the data has suggested that global warming is very real.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it didn't. Computer models suggested that global warming was very real.
Re:Follow the data! (Score:5, Insightful)
Computer models were based on the data. Apparently, they were based on insufficient data.
Re: (Score:3)
Computer models were based on the data. Apparently, they were based on insufficient data.
Or the algorithms used in the models were wrong. Or both.
Re: (Score:3)
GIGO, computer models assumed that mortgage derivatives would never crash and just make money.
Re: (Score:3)
Computer models were based on the data. Apparently, they were based on insufficient data.
Oh My GOD! This is a nerd site. Get your definitions correct!
There is input, output and logic.
Input, in this case was the collected data from weather stations, satellites, ice cores, tree rings, etc.
The model is a computer simulation program. It is a set of logic rules (algorithms) we feed the input to produce the output.
The output is the climate prediction.
The output, or the global warming prediction is flawed because the logic (the model) is flawed.
Of course, there are many that will challenge the data
Re: (Score:3)
Computer models were based on the data. Apparently, they were based on insufficient data.
There is input, output and logic. Input, in this case was the collected data from weather stations, satellites, ice cores, tree rings, etc. The model is a computer simulation program. It is a set of logic rules (algorithms) we feed the input to produce the output. The output is the climate prediction.
The output, or the global warming prediction is flawed because the logic (the model) is flawed.
Of course, there are many that will challenge the data (input) as well (weather stations located inside an active volcano, etc).
It appears as though it is not so much the logic as the magnitude of one of the input variables of the model looks to be incorrect. In this case, the incorrect input is the size of the Earth's energy loss. I believe the new data will allow for a correction on this input magnitude.
Re:Follow the data! (Score:5, Informative)
Input, in this case was the collected data from weather stations, satellites, ice cores, tree rings, etc.
The historical weather record is not used as input it is used to test the model via hind-casting. The inputs to the models are things such as the strength of gravity, the composition of the atmosphere, the absorption spectra of GHG's, the shape of the Earth's geode, etc. The 'logic" is the laws of physics and chemistry. The algothim that brings them together is called finite element analysis and is used on everything from designing casts for engine blocks to building bridges for them to drive across.
As for TFA, the author of the paper, Roy Spencer [wikipedia.org], is a creationist quack who has expanded his quackery into AGW, his claims on anything scientific should be taken with a truckload of salt.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Data suggests that global warming is very real. Models suggest a certain future continued warming.
The two should not be confused. The historical record is not a model.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Follow the data! (Score:5, Insightful)
That data indicates that Earth is warming up, for a particular period of time. It does not directly indicate that the world is going to continue warming up, nor does it by itself tell why it's warming up (which you need to know to answer the first question).
Hence why you take the data and build a predictive model. Of course, if you have insufficient or incorrect data, then your model is also incorrect, and so are its predictions. Of course, there are varying degrees of "wrong" - it may be that a model based on this new data would simply show a lower rate of warming, for example; or it may be that it completely demolishes the warming positive feedback loop. We'll see.
Either way, that's how science works. It starts with data, and a hypothesis based on that data; but you have to continue with predictions based on your hypothesis, and experimentally verify them. And, of course, you should always verify the data as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Couldn't have said it better. I wish I had mod points.
Re: (Score:3)
3. earth warming, but in the future will cool by itself
#3 means we're fine, no matter what.
Not quite. It might warm to 400 degrees and then cool down to 80. Everything still dies at that 400 peak. Just because it has been warmer in the past doesn't mean 'we' can survive during a natural swing [which irrelevant since this isn't a natural swing].
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry if it came out as an attack; I was merely trying to point at the flaw in the reasoning. Certainly, there are several possible outcomes, and you can generalize them into broad categories - but you cannot arbitrarily assign equal probabilities to them.
For current existing, verified and peer-reviewed data, your option #2 is actually most likely, so we should keep pursuing goals that help us with that (reduction of carbon emissions etc). This data - if it is verified - may or may not significantly shi
Re: (Score:3)
I apologize as well. I was unnecessarily combative.
Re: (Score:3)
Good. One anecdote. One that isn't even worth considering, because it's false:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/ [wattsupwiththat.com]
Now, a citizen of Greenland might associate higher temperatures that allowed agriculture with good, and cooler temperatures and no agriculture as bad.
Want to trade another set of anecdotes? Or shall we play the science game and come up with a falsifiable hypothesis?
Re:Follow the data! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Follow the data! (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine you're standing in front of a big paper graph, depicting temperature variations over a timeline. The timeline is about 400 thousand years in length, and there is a dramatic spike in the graph every 100 thousand years or so.
Now, you're holding a dart, and that dart is labeled "industrial revolution." You close your eyes, your friends spin you around a couple times, and you throw the dart at the graph.
Now, what are the odds that your dart lands less than 200 years away from one of the aforementioned graph spikes? Go on, make a guesstimate.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you get to pull out the dart and throw it again every time you hit an ice age or other industrial revolution suppressing factor? Changes the odds.
Re:Follow the data! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not by that much. Go ahead and double or triple your guesstimate if it'll make you feel better, but global warming deniers are still asking us to believe in a several-hundred-to-one coincidence by positing that the Earth would pick this particular century to warm up, almost immediately(in geoclimatic scales) after we began an unprecedented worldwide project of mass fossil energy extraction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Then you get 3 extra lives and infinite ammo.
Re: (Score:3)
Humans must have created the Earth!
Re:Follow the data! (Score:4, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif [wikipedia.org]
Ice age durations and the breaks between them have varied by as much as 50% over the Pleistocene period. This kind of periodicity is not even close to periodic enough to make predictions with accuracy on the order of a decade or a century.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you are. Judging by the timings of previous warming events, we can really only say something about as specific as "we're due for another one sometime in the next 10 or 20 thousand years." I don't think that's what you meant by "near future."
The notion that such an event would line up this closely with such a radical one-time shift in human behaviour (not to mention a 3 or 4 fold increase in the human population over one century, following millennia of far slower growth) entirely by chance, is a
data can be misleading (Score:3)
Up till now, the data has suggested that global warming is very real.
Data can show anything you want, based on what you want to "prove". This is called Confirmation Bias [wikipedia.org] ("a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true").
It's sorta like the parable about the blind men and the elephant:
Re: (Score:3)
Global warming probably is real... it's just not cause by the carbon dioxide. Which means there's nothing we can do, we're doomed to burn. :(
Re: (Score:3)
The large body of existing data is unaffected and still strongly suggests that anthropogenic climate change is at work.
This new data suggests that one proposed mechanism to explain the changes may not be correct. That does not somehow magically reverse sea level rise, glacial retreats, decreases in permafrost, more extreme weather, and so on.
A car analogy: the mechanic has just reported that the carburetor (remember those?) is probably okay. But the car is not fixed; it still does not run right.
Here's to hoping Climatologists are dead wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here's to hoping Climatologists are dead wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Europe is burning similar amounts of "biofuels", so we're burning something on the order of 10% of the world's grain harvest - and people wonder why Somalians don't have enough money to buy food. More artificial demand through biofuels means higher prices, because when you burn food, food is getting scarce.
Basic economics.
We're killing people to save them from the "deadly effects" of global warming (and shove billions of dollars into farmers pockets who benefit a whole lot from the huge increase in food prices). And you'll wonder where the next Jihad came from
Peer review (Score:3)
How did this anti-science crap end up on slashdot? (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Alarmist marklar! (Score:4, Funny)
Alarmist marklar!
Alarmist alarmist alarmist alarmist, marklar alarmist alarmist alarmist.
Marklar.
the actual paper (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf [mdpi.com]
Timothy strikes again! (Score:5, Insightful)
Look more noise from Dr. Roy Spencer [climatecrocks.com] 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.
"Alarmist" press article (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone who is inclined to give a lot of weight to this "alarmist" press release should first read this [realclimate.org], 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 [mdpi.com], 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.
Which explains why Greenland is melting (Score:3)
It must be the heat from the armies of the Dark Lord Sauron building their underground weapons factories.
Pay no attention to the droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and scorching summers the agency that couldn't plan a new heavy lift rocket program says everything is hinky dinky.
And yet, the neo-cons try to kill earth science (Score:3)
An article on Pielke's website... (Score:3)
Very useful guy if you're making a fortune generating greenhouse gases...you can use him to argue that you should be left alone until such time as slash-and-burn agriculture is outlawed.
Reading Comprehension Fail (Score:5, Informative)
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 [mdpi.com]
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.
Re:Reading Comprehension Fail (Score:4, Insightful)
How that gets translated into "New Study Trashes Global Warming" is beyond me.
Simple: The author of the article is a well-funded climate denier working for the Heartland Institute. Same folks who tried to convince people that there was no link between second hand smoke exposure and cancer.
Barry Bickmore has the Scoop (Score:4, Informative)
Here's more: Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast [livescience.com]
Slashdot editors, please try to remember that a single paper normally doesn't overturn scientific understanding, and try to avoid habitual hype sources. Thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
It's about page hits, not journalism.
Keep it up (Score:3)
We'll see your climate model and raise you one. And while both sides are busy bluffing, maybe an actual useful model can be developed. In the mean time, its all a stalling tactic.
This is a serious issue about which we really haven't got much of a clue. There are those who don't want anything done. There are those who have invested in various investment scams and are waiting for them to begin paying off. And there are those who would like to get something locked down in law and treaty that we'll be stuck with for generations after we realize it was all based on bad, or poorly informed science.
The economic consequences of whatever we do will be major. So the last thing we need is to make irreversible laws based on incomplete science. On the other hand, we can take steps to evaluate some of the possible fixes now, keeping in mind that the work done might have to be thrown out if refined models suggest that we really need to regulate something else.
So why link the "over the top" article... (Score:3)
when the press release would have done quite nicely.
That is the problem with climate "journalism", the truth is not enough, it has to be tweaked by an agenda, just a little. Then the next "Journalist" picks up the story, and tweaks it a little more. In the end it's picked up by a Murdoch paper in an illegal phone tab, and once it hits Fox news, it's a whole new story.
No one bothers to go back and check the sources any more.
It is sad that truth have to take a back seat to sensationalism. If the truth is even allowed in at all.
Check the sources (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought the evidence was pretty clear that global temperatures are already rising significantly. This only seems to affect predictive models - global warming may not continue to increase as much as we previously thought, although temperatures are already pretty elevated.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, GW evidence by itself is irrefutable. However, if carbon is much less of a factor than previously thought, then this would make human contribution less significant. Also, remember that we're talking about very complex systems here, with a lot of boundary conditions. It may be possible that e.g. previous estimates resulted in models with a positive feedback loop (warming leading to more warming), where in the new model there isn't one - which would significantly revise down the predicted long-term tempe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should they be conflicted?
http://www.wmich.edu/corekids/Climate-Change.htm [wmich.edu]
Any child in the audience for that webpage can take one look at the graph of temperature vs. CO2 and tell how well-correlated they are.
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp [koshland-s...museum.org]
The same child can tell from this graph that CO2 began rising sharply at the beginning of the 1900s and was followed by a very well-correlated rise in temperature.
These aren't models, they're data. If modellers have any problems, it
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Author is a little biased (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, bullshit from a libertarian think-tank. Par for the course.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have the scientific credentials to question either. However, the article throws around statements like "warming caused by carbon dioxide (not much)" without any material backing it up. I find the average article about alien landings in National Enquirer more compelling. How does this guy rate a /. post?
Invest some time and money in fixing this. (Score:3)
Evolution is the basis for all modern medical and biological science.
For some "scientist" to claim that Intelligent Design is a science (hint: it cannot be falsified so it is not) does call into question all their other "scientific" claims.
And before anyone goes into "religious beliefs" ... that's irrelevant. Even the Pope and the Catholic Church have accepted the evidence of evolution.
Re: (Score:3)
Being religious does not make you a bad scientist.
Claiming that ID is a valid scientific theory *does* make you a bad scientist - and reduces your credibility across the board.
Certainly this new data should be examined, and I'm not saying Dr Spencer should be dismissed out-of-hand, but clearly he's not the sort of guy who's conclusions we should be taking on faith (pun not intended).
I didn't say that. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (Score:4, Insightful)
Remote Sensing (ISSN 2072-4292), an open access journal about the science and application of remote sensing technology, is published by MDPI online monthly. [mdpi.com]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
A did you read the link?
Yes I did. And I know from experience I don't have the expertise to separate the BS from the facts when given a source like that.
And B."If some qualified and credible scientists investigate and vouch for his paper than I may be willing to give it a second thought. "
Well again if you had read the link with an open mind.
In the first paragraph ", reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. " A peer reviewed journal means that the paper was reviewed by a panel of qualified and credible scientists!
As I noted in another comment there's plenty of crank papers that have made it into peer reviewed journals, the question is how its received once it's given a wider exposure.
I really think that the term alarmist should be be used because it is an un needed and dismissive term that shows a bias. It is almost as bad as your personal attack on the author and the use of the term Quack and other personal attacks because you have "faith" in the global warming caused by increased man made CO2.
Let me make this one thing clear. Any personal attacks on the author completely blows any creditability you have as a so called "rational" thinker. Being a true rational thinker means just looking at the data in a scientific way.
If I attacked the author because he liked to dance around in pink women's undergarments that would be poor thinking.
But if I attack the author because he has a proven record of pushing bad science when it come
Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
If a scientist of any field rejects evolution and supports intelligent design then I will consider that scientist either wholly dishonest or a crank and I'll ignore all and any work by that scientist.
It's just a very simple and effective heuristic that weeds out many dishonest people and cranks without significant number of false positives. It is possible, like I assume you are suggesting, that some morsel of valid work might get left out, but that is the much more acceptable outcome. I can't even read ever
Re: (Score:3)
It is a valid argument. Intelligent Design is not purely a belief, it purports to be science. Creationists have conclusions, and they spend all their "scientific" efforts on trying to make data fit those conclusions. Anyone who doesn't understand that this is completely backwards, and is most emphatically not science, is not to be taken seriously as a scientist.
You might as well say that just because a person can't do basic arithmetic is no reason to be dismissive of the likely validity of their mathem
Re: (Score:3)
No, but his repeated ineptitude regarding his own work should cast a bit of doubt on what he says.
Re: (Score:3)
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 ./
Such a totally bogus opinion in any field does tend to cast suspicion on his ability to separate fact from his own fantasy. But then again, I once saw a man argue passionately that he had found the genetic basis for, the proof positive of, inferior intelligence of certain races. His argument was laughably bogus, even to me with my very thin background. Can't remember the guy's name, but he had won a Nobel prize for his work in chemistry...
Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So this is supposed to cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist... how, exactly?
His views on Intelligent Design don't cast doubt on his credentials as a climate scientist. It's mostly just an interesting talking point.
What does cast doubt on his views as a climate scientist is the fact that he signed the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming [cornwallalliance.org]. This declaration basically states that the signers believe that God created a planet far too resilient for mere mortals to possibly mess it up, and that we must continue our reliance on fossil fuels. So, essentially, it doesn
Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dr. Roy Spencer... (Score:5, Informative)
The author of this fine piece is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute [wikipedia.org], 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.
Re: (Score:3)
While I'm pretty certain that you are a troll that doesn't actually care about science that will contradict his world view. I'm going to post a citation for you anyway. I can't link to the article directly since it will be behind a paywall however it's not like you were going to read them anyway (and if you did you wouldn't understand it). You can find the abstract if you google for the article name for most of them (an abstract is a summary of what the article says) in case you're genuinely curious.
Pope,
Re: (Score:3)
Newton and Woo-Woo (Score:3)
Given Newton's involvement in alchemy, I'm pretty sure if he were born in the late 20th century he'd be calling up J.Z. Knight and asking her to channel the ancient Atlantean warrior Ramtha to get his advice on things.
Seriously.
Newton was a fine mathematician, a fine physicist, and a grade-A first-class believer in all the woo-woo the 17th century had to offer him [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Here is another article [space.com].
Re:Creationist are not qualified to be scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Creationist are not qualified to be scientists (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, they have. [wordpress.com]
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.
And who has been wrong? (Score:3)
Certain denialist-friendly scientists from Alabama (Christie & Spencer) put out results which appeared to "deny" the mainstream results, claiming that the mismatch indicated that the ground measurements were contaminated by "heat islands".
The scientifically honest community found the problem, it was an error in processing the satellite calibration (orbital parameters), once corrected, the satellite data matched the ground data (which was not especially contaminated, this effect is well known and calibra
Re: (Score:3)
"Satellite data" is always calibrated with ground data. That's how it works.
Re: (Score:3)
Dr Roy Spencer is a legitimate scientist and also global warming critic. The stuff he publishes is based on real science and real data. Critics of any scientific hypothesis are important as they help refine or disprove the science which ultimately makes the result stronger.
People who try to discredit him by bringing up his views on evolution or his sources of funding are engaging in logical fallacies. The only legitimate arguments are to evaluate his ideas in a scientific context.
Are his ideas popular or ma
Re: (Score:3)
Troll?
Here's a citation for my statement that there's a wide range of values believed possible for CO2 sensitivity:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-3.html [www.ipcc.ch]
Researching someone before trusting them is inarguable basic critical thinking,
Re:Why is this not surprising? (Score:4, Interesting)
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"...
Re:Beware the source (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh well (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Simply not true -- e.g.: Spencer himself. (Score:3)
It is obvious
Did Roy Spencer get no funding? Christie? Soon and Baloonis?
It is easier to get funding if you are against the consensus on climate change, because institutions like the heartland institute will throw money at the most remotely implausible weak arguments of the aforementioned published authors.
If there was a grain of truth in what these guys said, then they would be rock stars in the scientific community. But science relies on cogent arguments, and not political
Re: (Score:3)
Wait -- our leaders are taking the problem of global warming seriously and are tackling solving the problem?
Could have fooled me. I thought they were ignoring global warming and arguing about an arbitrary self-imposed debt limit in an attempt to gain political points while not actually addressing the root issue in any meaningful way.