Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Global Warming Research Center Hacked (Page 32)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  ...  29  30  31  32   
Author Topic: Global Warming Research Center Hacked
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Since we presumably want to keep living on this planet, shouldn't we be concerned about the time in which we've lived here? Don't we want to, say, keep it livable?

If large scale drivers outside of human control drive global temperatures, as they have for billions of years, how do you propose we override those? I don't see any scenario where we might control solar output or cosmic rays or atmospheric water vapor.
No problem. That's a 'kill two birds with one stone' scenario in my book.

We build a significant space launch capacity. We launch large, very light weight, mesh tarps into space. Either in a high geo-synchronous orbit or even further out. The tarps don't need to hit the same spot continuously. You design the tarps to reflect some portion of the sunlight that hits them with the rest of the portion passing through.

Designed properly you could have them blocking 10% of the sun over a few thousand square miles in the hotter periods of the year primarily over the oceans. So you gradually drop Earth's net solar irradiance by some fraction of a percent. You do it slowly enough to be reasonably sure that you don't over compensate and send the tarps into deep space or crash them into the moon when you don't need them anymore.

Of course, there is no way that the Greenies wouldn't go ape **** over that concept. But it's certainly feasible and a lot cheaper than de-industrializing. Plus it builds a significant space launch capacity for other uses.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
G2 said:

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I chose the last 150 years since that is the period when we have actual measured temperature data.

No, you didn't because that's simply not true. You chose it because that's the time frame that's fed to you through the consensus. The consensus likes 150 years because it coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age which makes things look likes it's worse than it's ever been but when you look at the full history you see that the planet is running well below historical averages right now.
No, as a matter of fact, I chose it because it is a period of time when we have been measuring temperature, with actual thermometers [Smile] , on a regular basis. If you'd prefer to examine a longer period of time, be my guest. I'm sure you'll still see similar variations.

And it still shows that the Earth has warmed since "the Little Ice Age." Regardless of how you try to wiggle around it, the Earth has warmed in the last 150 years. Just deal with it.

quote:
G2 stated:
That's simple human arrogance and is a position to deny how the planet really works. You want to snip a nearly insignificant time frame out of the global history and say that's normal.

100,000 to 400,000 years is normal for human beings. We simply haven't been around for longer than that. [Smile] So while it is true that temperatures have varied wildly over the entire history of the Earth, the only ones we are concerned with are the temperatures we have evolved wtih. All others are only important for the species that lived through them.

And, again, just because temperatures have varied in the past, due to solar variation, orbital changes, changes in the atmosphere, etc., does not mean those changes are causing the warming now. And since most of those changes occurred over thousands, if not tens of thousands, of years, saying that they are responsible for the current changes in the last 100 years, without the data to support it, is disingenuous at best and a con game at worst. You keep thinking that if you can only blame something else that you can ignore the most likely candidate. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
And remember that climate is a chaotic system. There are numerous feedback loops which make the system inherently unpredictable over the short-term. Only AGW deniers and those unfamiliar with the science believe that temperatures should rise steadily, year-by-year. Heck, just looking at the chart shows that temperatures haven't done that in the last 100 years! And you believe that the scientists didn't notice that?

Yes they did notice it, that's why the temperature record over the last 100 years or so is under constant adjustment to make the past look cooler and the current look hotter.

Interesting response--and completely ignoring my point. [LOL]

To reiterate, you tell us that the Earth is not warming because temperatures have not risen in the last decade (but merely have held steady). I point out that there have been similar temperature fluxes in just the past 150 years-- even actual decreases-- and yet temperatures have obviously increased.

And you say that scientists have been monkeying with climate record making the increase look worse.

Nevertheless, my point still stands. There were times the just the past 150 when overall temperatures have decreased over a decade, and yet there has been a significant temperature increase in that time. The facts do not support your position that the Earth is cooling. And no amount of distraction or denial can change that.

quote:
You have a faith based concept of what the theory is. It is not surprising that you cannot recognize the facts no longer fit your theory. [Wink]
As the Good Books says, you really should work on getting that steel girder out of your eye before criticizing the dust speck in someone else's. [LOL]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Faith, you got it brother! [DOH] [LOL]

[ July 25, 2011, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm curious, G2: at what point did you believe that man-made climate change was happening before you saw research that changed your mind?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDeamon
Member
Member # 551

 - posted      Profile for TheDeamon   Email TheDeamon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
I don't see any scenario where we might control solar output or cosmic rays or atmospheric water vapor.

in regards to water vapor we have some other proverbial fish in the fryer.

Between irrigation of land that if left to nature would have been arid, and several methods of Power Generation(and manufacturing) that we use which happen to result in the release of significant production of water vapor--something that even Nuclear power is guilty of.

But that is something that even the majority of the AGW crowd don't really want to touch. If Water as well as Carbon Dioxide become listed as "greenhouse gases" the western world is going to be in an even bigger realm of hurt.

Of course, their "tidy" solution to that problem is that nature already has a readily available means of scrubbing excess water from the atmosphere. (Although that can also be pointed to as "making weather more extreme")

Posts: 505 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
New evidence that current global warming models have overstated the amount of warming likely to occur:
quote:
According to the University of Alabama:

Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

Link

UAH Paper

Hopefully this new information will result in some better modeling. It's been pretty clear to me for some time that the current models have been inaccurate.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
J, the only conclusion one should come to from that is that the measured data has to be wrong. It has to be! Because, you know, the theory is 100% perfectly correct and those models proved it already, we got a consensus™ that is proof of that. Facts about actual measured performance only prove the theory or theses facts are lies. It's the only way ...

[ July 28, 2011, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The sad thing about your latest post, G2, is that you're being smug and snarky about exactly the same scientific process that you're trying to claim isn't happening.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry I hurt your feelings, I was providing a satirical summary of how this kind of news is generally greeted (see upthread for the source material).

I am curious, where in the scientific process does it establish consensus as constituting proof?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you arguing that people here have conflated "consensus" with "proof," or have simply argued that a scientific consensus is generally actionable?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is the best news I've heard in a long, long time regarding AGW.

It would be great--wonderful--stupendous if AGW is not as bad as we expect. And now we have a strong indication that it may be so.

Of course, this is one study that has just been released. It will need to be examined, tested, incorporated, considered, etc. before it is considered valid, just like any other study. There have been many a study in the past that has promised radical changes in our understanding, only to fizzle out under closer scrutiny. But the others... [Smile]

And this is the only way to disprove AGW. By coming to a better understanding of our climate system. Not by ignoring our current, best understanding, or by impugning the character of those working in the field, or by denying that anything is happening at all. Rather, by increasing our knowledge and understanding.

I have high hopes for this study. It would be wonderful to get to stop worrying about our impact on the climate and get back to other pressing problems. [Big Grin]

Of course, ice is still melting all over the world, which means we're not out of the woods, yet. [Frown]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It would be wonderful to get to stop worrying about our impact on the climate and get back to other pressing problems.
While I know you're being sarcastic, discovering that AGW is happening more slowly due to a model that was improperly valuing atmospheric radiation would not mean that we can safely ignore AGW. But of course that's precisely how it would be presented.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Unfortunately, it does not look good that this paper will have a major impact on our understanding of the climate system.

The authors of the paper, Roy Spencer and William Braswell, have been roundly criticized in the past for sloppy work on interpreting climate data.

Hopefully, they have done much better work this time--good enough that other scientists will embrace their results. But I am not very hopeful anymore.

Damn. So close... [Frown]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't read the paper but just use the authors as keywords for search on RealClimate so you can discredit them with an ad hominem. Haven't seen that before ...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Read the criticism, G2. If they manipulated data as described, then they have no support from those whose reputation rides on being right.

I've looked at their paper, but I have neither the time nor expertise to evaulation it properly. It looks good, but good looking studies have been wrong before.

And please note that I have not discredited the paper itself. I still hope that it will hold up. But if they have manipulated data in the past to make the results look better than they are, I they may do it again, or make some other error in trying to prove their thesis. Let's hope not.

The experts in the field will decide for themselves.

[ July 28, 2011, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Read the criticism, G2. If they manipulated data as described, then they have no support from those whose reputation rides on being right.

I've looked at their paper, but I have neither the time nor expertise to evaulation it properly. It looks good, but good looking studies have been wrong before.

This is a peer reviewed study, RealClimate is not exactly the bastion of objectivity you know - it's an AGW activist site.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
And please note that I have not discredited the paper itself. I still hope that it will hold up.

No, you tried to discredit the author - that's known as poising the well. Yet another in a long list of logical fallcies you and the AGW crowd rely on.


Meanwhile, in related news:
quote:
A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. …

When Dr. Roy Spencer is put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues” then you might be able to successfully poison the well.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is a peer reviewed study, RealClimate is not exactly the bastion of objectivity you know - it's an AGW activist site.
So what objections to you have to the article I linked to--other than that it was from RealClimate? [Wink]

quote:
No, you tried to discredit the author - that's known as poising the well.
It would be poisoning the well only if I argued that the paper was therefore discredited. I am not. I only advise having a bit more cautious skepticism about this new paper than usual because the authors apparently have made exagerations in the past.

ALL just-released papers should be only tentatively endorsed, since only time allows any problems with the papers to be seen. Since the authors have a slightly questionable past, I would use an extra dose of caution.

I still hope that this paper will hold up, though.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[G2:] "This is a peer reviewed study..."

It's good to know that G2 is coming around to a respectful attitude regarding peer reviewed papers [Smile]

On a related note, it turns out that ATW (Anthropomorphic Temperature Change) may also be a hoax. Apparently, Rush Limbaugh (noted expert in the science of meteorology alongside his cohort G2) says that the recent heat wave *did not* break any temperature records.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
I still hope that this paper will hold up, though.

Indeed, me too. [Cool]
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TheDaemon,

quote:
Between irrigation of land that if left to nature would have been arid, and several methods of Power Generation(and manufacturing) that we use which happen to result in the release of significant production of water vapor--something that even Nuclear power is guilty of.

But that is something that even the majority of the AGW crowd don't really want to touch. If Water as well as Carbon Dioxide become listed as "greenhouse gases" the western world is going to be in an even bigger realm of hurt.

Water vapor is only a feedback, not a driver. It can't stay up in the atmosphere without other sources of heat trapping. Nor can you 'scrub' it from the atmosphere since it will just evaporate from the oceans, lakes, and greenery and be replaced about as fast as you can scrub it.

JWatts,

Regarding 'how bad will it be' most of the recent research I've seen suggests we are probably significantly underestimating, not overestimating potential warming.

Unfortunately don't have the time or mindset right now to analyse the paper you provided.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, the criticism of Spenser and Braswell's paper is in all ready, and it don't look good.

Real Climate has some pointed remarks, mostly coming down to Spenser's basic model:

quote:
The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point...

The interannual global temperature variations were not radiatively forced, as claimed for the 2000s, and therefore cannot be used to say anything about climate sensitivity. Clouds are not a forcing of the climate system (except for the small portion related to human related aerosol effects, which have a small effect on clouds). Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they do not cause the weather systems. Clouds may provide feedbacks on the weather systems. Spencer has made this error of confounding forcing and feedback before and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results.

Even the Fox News story points out that Spenser's theory is not accepted by most climatologists:

quote:
Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, called Spencer a "controversial figure" within the climate research community. He argued that Spencer's paper is neither new nor correct.

"He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," Dessler told LiveScience.com.

Many scientists believe that as the planet warms, more water vapor moves into the atmosphere. This water vapor exists as clouds, which trap more heat, creating a vicious loop.

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.

So while it is an interesting paper, it is far from a game-changer for climate science.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And to put the final nail in the Climategate canard, the final report (I assume there are no other on-going investigations into the e-mails) is out: the National Science Foundation found no evidence of research misconduct as alleged from the stolen e-mails.

So after how many inquiries--five? six? I've lost count--there has been no finding that the research is bogus. None. Nada. Zip. Zippo. Null set. There ain't no there, there, baby.

So either all these boards of inquiry, in several different countries, with all the members on them, are somehow stupid and/or corrupt, or the allegations that the e-mails undeniably prove global warming is a myth is way, way overblown.

Which do you think is the reasonable bet. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
So either all these boards of inquiry, in several different countries, with all the members on them, are somehow stupid and/or corrupt, or the allegations that the e-mails undeniably prove global warming is a myth is way, way overblown.

I don't recall any allegations that "the e-mails undeniably prove global warming is a myth". Do you have a source for that?

I was under the impression that the e-mails showed an attempt to silence the opposition and to hide certain data from a series of FOIA requests.

I think it's pretty clear that the inquiries prove that the people involved didn't commit any Official misconduct.

[ August 23, 2011, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't recall any allegations that "the e-mails undeniably prove global warming is a myth". Do you have a source for that?
Let me refer you to page 30 of this very thread, where one of our members said:

quote:
The emails that prompted this thread show this [AGW is a hoax] to be the case (data hidden, destroyed and literally fabricated ). Go back to the beginning and you'll see it all laid out.

You can still advocate AGW - everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts and the facts are in, AGW is a hoax. No amount of whitewashing, personal attacks or outright denial will change that.

Good enough?
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, good enough.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 32 pages: 1  2  3  ...  29  30  31  32   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1