NASA satelitte data casts doubt on gl...

NASA satelitte data casts doubt on global warming theories

There are 82 comments on the The Daily Advertiser story from Feb 20, 2013, titled NASA satelitte data casts doubt on global warming theories. In it, The Daily Advertiser reports that:

Vic Hummert references a NASA report in 1988, but I guess he missed the NASA report in 2011, which came to different conclusions than the 1988 report.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily Advertiser.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1 Feb 20, 2013
How nice, a letter from Roder to cast doubt on climate science!

We should enquire who pays a business guy to grow an anti NASA story in Youngsville, Lousiana.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#2 Feb 20, 2013
This story has been out for a couple of years, it doesn't match the AGW bias of the media so it won't get much press time.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#3 Feb 20, 2013
Oh, Louisiana? Sure.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#4 Feb 20, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
This story has been out for a couple of years, it doesn't match the AGW bias of the media so it won't get much press time.
Or, in the real world, it was so full of errors the editor who published it felt he had to resign.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Journal-edito...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#5 Feb 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Or, in the real world, it was so full of errors the editor who published it felt he had to resign.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Journal-edito...
Spencer & Christy are known distorters who can't be trusted to give accurate & reliable data. Others discovered their systematic error in compensating for satellite temps, but they've been devious about correcting them.
SA Kiteman

Alexandria, VA

#6 Feb 21, 2013
Let's do a giant experiment. Let's replace all coal burning plants with cheaper, cleaner, no-carbon Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) and see if the climate gets cooler. If it does, well that pretty much proves AGW. If not, well at least we have cheaper cleaner power.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#7 Feb 21, 2013
SA Kiteman wrote:
Let's do a giant experiment. Let's replace all coal burning plants with cheaper, cleaner, no-carbon Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) and see if the climate gets cooler. If it does, well that pretty much proves AGW. If not, well at least we have cheaper cleaner power.
Thorium has the advantages of being more plentiful on the earth than uranium, & spent fuel from these kinds of reactors would be much less dangerous for a much, much shorter period of time than current uranium reactors.

However, there are still kinks to be worked out in the construction & operation of these (liquid thorium) plants, & this, plus construction, would require lots of government support & long lead times.

The other option is fast neutron "breeder" reactors. These could actually use what we currently call "nuclear waste" as fuel, ultimately rendering it much less dangerous. Again, government support & lead times would be needed, but perhaps not as much as for thorium reactors. There might also be a greater risk of nuclear terrorism.

At present, for thorium reactors, the mining/refining of ore, & for both types of reactors, the construction & decommissioning of plants, are highly carbon-intensive activities.

Still, it's possible that one or another type of nuclear plant could be part of the mix of lower carbon energy sources than we have now. At least we should continue research into these things.(Clinton killed some research in the 90s.)

Unfortunately, I believe that even if we did this & warming stopped, AGW/CC deniers would come up with another explanation & still not believe the science.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#8 Feb 21, 2013
Say what you want but it has been well known that the UN models were proven wrong within a couple of years when the real climate departed from the modeled climate. According the those UN models the NYC subway system should of been flooded during every lunar high tide.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#9 Feb 21, 2013
tina anne wrote:
Say what you want but it has been well known that the UN models were proven wrong within a couple of years when the real climate departed from the modeled climate. According the those UN models the NYC subway system should of been flooded during every lunar high tide.
Pure, unadulterated NONSENSE.

Since the IPCC made its corrections for aerosols in 1995, their mid-range projections have been very close to what's happened. if you think otherwise, post the links.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#10 Feb 21, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Pure, unadulterated NONSENSE.
Since the IPCC made its corrections for aerosols in 1995, their mid-range projections have been very close to what's happened. if you think otherwise, post the links.
How about the models they posted with the AR4. They were already starting to depart reality by 2007 and were totally off by 2011. Which says that they were extremely poorly written.

To give you an idea of how to properly test a model. You should be able to feed it the data from 1850 to 1985 and it should still be within 95% by 2015. I expect that the latest IPCC (AR5) will suffer from the same problems and be off by 2015. Then again, those who are writing climate models are either poorly paid or have little experience in writing such models. The best and the brightest are going where the money is which is writing games.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#11 Feb 21, 2013
Our future is melting before our very eyes.

Fiddling With The Data While The World Burns

Today, there is simply no excuse for the denial of climate science, often exemplified at its most egregious in the UK by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, influential newspapers with large circulations of around two million each. Columnist James Delingpole and reporter David Rose can lay claim to being the worst and most persistent offenders. Delingpole wrongly asserted last October that the UK Met Office ‘has finally conceded what other scientists have known for ages: there is no evidence that “global warming” is happening.’ Rose pushed the same anti-science line that ‘global warming stopped 16 years ago’. Despite the Met Office explaining the science personally to Rose, last month he continued to publish the same discredited nonsense, even warning that ‘the Thames will be freezing over again‘. The Met Office has repeatedly rebutted error-strewn articles by these propagandists in the Mail and Mail on Sunday, pointing to ‘a series of factual inaccuraces‘,‘misleading information‘ and journalism that is ‘entirely misleading‘.


When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing, and indeed pushing, climate ‘skepticism’, is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 “clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.”

Powell said:


Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

Adding:


Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

The notable US science writer Phil Plait “marveled” at Powell’s “persistence in unearthing the facts and figures”, saying:


His premise was simple: if global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

But Powell’s findings were clear, says Plait:


There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#12 Feb 22, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
How about the models they posted with the AR4. They were already starting to depart reality by 2007 and were totally off by 2011. Which says that they were extremely poorly written.
Temperatures are within model projections, although at the lower end.

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2012/global...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-co...
No warming

Waverly, OH

#14 Feb 23, 2013
That story is a re-release of a report Forbes did in 2011. This one has more detail and links.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-h...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#15 Feb 23, 2013
No warming wrote:
That story is a re-release of a report Forbes did in 2011. This one has more detail and links.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-h...
This is ancient history, more than a year & a half old. Spencer et al deliberately distorted some data. The Editor of the journal (Remote Sensing) who'd published the paper hadn't obtained proper peer reveiw, so he resigned in disgrace.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/201...

Try to stay a BIT more up to date, OK?
No warming

Waverly, OH

#16 Feb 23, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
This is ancient history, more than a year & a half old. Spencer et al deliberately distorted some data. The Editor of the journal (Remote Sensing) who'd published the paper hadn't obtained proper peer reveiw, so he resigned in disgrace.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/201...
Try to stay a BIT more up to date, OK?
I said it was a re-release ass, read much ?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#17 Feb 23, 2013
No warming wrote:
<quoted text>
I said it was a re-release ass, read much ?
How about you? You read much?

After the initial release of the paper you cited, the editor of the journal where it was published had to resign in shame. Did you bother to read my link?

<<The editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing has resigned over the publication of a paper questioning the reliability of climate models. Wolfgang Wagner of Vienna University of Technology concluded that reviewers of the paper, published 25 July in the open-access journal, failed "to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims," and the paper "should therefore not have been published.">>

Here's the link AGAIN:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/201...

In science, that's called embarrassing. Spencer et al distorted data that would have been caught by adequate peer review.

Instead of the editor resigning, Spencer SHOULD have resigned his position at UAH, but no, the lying creatard has no shame. Puh-leeze. You should have been embarrassed to post that Forbes cr*p here.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#18 Feb 23, 2013
Sorry - neglected to include later paragraphs:

<<The paper, by remote sensing specialists Roy Spencer and William Braswell of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, drew plenty of media attention. Forbes trumpeted it as, "New NASA data blow gaping hole in global warming alarmism."

... Spencer and Braswell had drawn on NASA satellite data to try to show that the atmospheres in climate models retain more heat than the real atmosphere does, causing the models to predict too much warming under a strengthening greenhouse. But climate researchers such as Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, argued that "clouds don't do what they claim they do," that is, they don't react to cool the atmosphere.

Wagner came to agree with the critics. "The problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell," he writes in his editorial, "is not that it declared a minority view ... but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal." So he resigned "to make clear that the journal Remote Sensing takes the review process very seriously.">>

So you see, Spencer & Braswell should never be taken seriously as scientists because they've been caught being deliberately deceptive.
No warming

Waverly, OH

#19 Feb 23, 2013
It appears your interest in the subject is primarily along the political lines rather than the issue itself. Write us the story of Prof. Robert Watson please, I'd like to see your version.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#20 Feb 23, 2013
Note that Spencer & Braswell were decptive IN A SCIENCE JOURNAL. That's the cardinal sin. That's why they can't be trusted.
SpaceBlues

Pasadena, TX

#21 Feb 23, 2013
Again, a NASA investigation of Dr Spencer's team is past due.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 1 hr SoE 6,645
4 Biggest Challenges Microsoft RDS Users Face 10 hr gnasrof 1
News Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 18 hr Earthling-1 28,244
How to recover deleted data from samung? (Oct '14) 21 hr lpou 15
Transfer Music/Songs from iPhone to Android pho... (Apr '13) Mon EricMorren 31
News Rep. Cummings blasts Politico for running a bog... Mon SirPrize 2
How to recover deleted files from HUAWEI Androi... (Sep '12) Mon Emanuel 33
More from around the web