The Great Global Cooling/Warming Thread

Evil Genius · August 28, 2011

Alright guys, we just decided that the best way to deal with all the climate related topics is to make one big Thread and merge everything that has to do with it in there. Thats why i just renamed the "Global Cooling" Thread that was once posted by Slybacon and pinned it on top of the Chill Space forum. In the future, we will merge EVERYTHING that is somehow related to that issue including everything about Carbon Tax and Global Warming in here. If you have something to say about it, please post it directly in here! There wont be any more Threads about it. If someone posts a Thread that we consider to be part of the Issue, we will move it here and send a pm to the OP. This should take care of the Climate related Troll Problem as well. I think its a good way to give people a thread to discuss this and leaves also plenty of room for non-interested members to simply overread it. bye Eg

tripsis · August 28, 2011

Good call on merging all the threads, but can you please change the title? Global cooling is a little biased, no? How about "The Great Climate Change Thread"?

Evil Genius · August 28, 2011

Hi Tripsis, thanks for the suggestions. We just decided this few hours ago and we´re still in the process of talking about it. Maybe we change the title again. We´ll see. bye EG

Slybacon · August 29, 2011

Good Call. Hopefully people will trawl through this before they post.

FancyPants · August 30, 2011

^^^ Agreed! It benefits a healthy discussion from both sides

FWIW, I still hold to the opinion I shared from the first page.

And much better to keep this topic on the one thread

Dolos · September 4, 2011

It seems to have become a battle between "real world data" and "forecast models".

Article
On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from

Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance

Roy W. Spencer * and William D. Braswell

ESSC-UAH, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Cramer Hall, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA;

E-Mail: [email protected]

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected];

Tel.: +1-256-961-7960; Fax: +1-256-961-7751.

Received: 24 May 2011; in revised form: 13 July 2011 / Accepted: 15 July 2011 /

Published: 25 July 2011

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.

More here

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

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

More here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

WoodDragon · September 5, 2011

Ah, Dolos, up to your usual tricks, I see.

You seem to have a pathological inability to check your sources before you post. Spencer and Braswell have been completely blown out of the water, months ago, and the climate change denialists are squealing like stuck pigs because their one remaining hope of an unchallenged paper has evaporated under the merciless refutation of professional scrutiny.

Real Climate has ripped Spencer another one over this junk paper.

So has Barry Bickmore.

Spencer's paper has been so thoroughly shown to be rubbish even before Andrew Dessler's peer reviewed rebuttal which comes out tomorrow, that Wolfgang Wagner, the Editor-in-Chief who let Spencer's paper past scrutiny and published it without cottoning on the the fact that is was garbage, resigned in contrition when he realised what he'd done. And Spencer, and his denialist cronies like Bolt, Anthony Watts, Roger Pielke Sr, and Jonova for starters, are absolutely foaming because they have nowhere to go.

To help those rabid, disappointed climate change deniers, many people are explaining why the whole Spencer paper and its lack of import are nothing but smoke and mirrors:

Physicist Joe Romm.

Leo Hickman at the Guardian.

The BBC.

Ars Technica.

Stephan Lewandowsky.

Unfortunately it seems that you can take a scientifically untrained, non-educated, inexperienced denialist horse to the water of knowledge, but you can't make it drink.

Spencer's paper is dead, Dolos - it's just the denialist lobby pulling on strings to make you think that it's still going. It's passed on! This paper is no more! It has ceased to be credible! It's expired and gone to meet its shredder! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If the denialist blogosphere hadn't nailed it to the perch it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now history! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PAPER!!

[Edit: spelling]

Edited September 5, 2011 by WoodDragon

Dolos · September 5, 2011

Thank you for your links....

Do editors have the final say on peer review or do the reviewers?

Good to see Dr Wagner had the good sense and courage to resign though if all you are saying is true.....some others at the IPCC should take note of what you do when ya done wrong.......

Interesting to note that http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574

Roy Spencer, however, told BBC News: "I stand behind the science contained in the paper itself, as well as my comments published on my blog at drroyspencer.com.
"Our university press release necessarily put our scientific results in lay language, and what we believe they mean in the larger context of global warming research. This is commonly done in press statements made by the IPCC and its scientists, too, when reporting on research which advocates the view that climate change is almost entirely caused by humans.

"The very fact that the public has the perception that climate change is man-made, when in fact there is as yet no way to know with any level of scientific certainty how much is man-made versus natural, is evidence of that."

Dr Spencer is one of the team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville that keeps a record of the Earth's temperature as determined from satellite readings.

Is it ALL wrong? Or are the big boys just shutting them down as quick and as hard as possible? You claim a paper was refuted months before it was even published in a peer reviewed journal. And interesting that. The normal way a rebuttal is handled is to allow the writers of the paper in question a chance to answer before opposition publishes. Add this to the fact that skeptic papers can take years to be published (if ever) and this does not pass the smell test. But we shall see.

It does seem the only people denying the evolution of climate science are the carboners.

Your take is interesting though and once again, thank you for your links........

Edit:

Spencer's reply

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/

Edited September 5, 2011 by Dolos

Dolos · September 6, 2011

Hope this has not been posted before...a check on the search engine come up blank and it will take a while to skim through all 18 pages.

Part 1 of 5......

The series is worth a watch....

qualia · September 6, 2011

dear dolos: whats your point?

what's your end game? what do you hope to "prove" by showing agw by co2 emissions is incorrect?

Dolos · September 6, 2011

dear dolos: whats your point?

what's your end game? what do you hope to "prove" by showing agw by co2 emissions is incorrect?

TRUTH....I would think this community more than most would be seekers of truth. Why are people afraid to question this? Is it taboo? Over generations the science on things tends to change. Anyone who has any respect for scientific method expects their work to be challenged. Why not the AGW crowd? Surely we can discuss this as rational adults with different view points. Who knows what we all may learn?

Evil Genius · September 6, 2011

Dolos, i dont like the way you articulate everytime someone tries to actually discuss this with you. If you post information, you have to live with people asking critical questions. I have been very patient with this in hindsight of the fact that i am still not convinced your not a climate troll, you can either start having a real discussion or dont post at all. Theres nothing wrong with this community and i dont want you to verbally shoot people down who ask uncomfortable questions and make them look like they are part of some giant Conspiracy just because they wanna known where your heading with this. Is that clear? You asked about being able to discuss this here so you should really come up with something that doesnt sound like your just here to copy and paste. bye EG

Edited September 6, 2011 by Evil Genius

qualia · September 6, 2011

eg: it's fine, i don't take too much on the web seriously.

dolos: truth you say: if you were so hell bent on the truth you would find multiple sources for what you're putting forward. you remind me of so many "sceptics", that is, find what you want to believe and end there. it's not a yes or no answer, which it seems to me you wish it to be. w.dragon showed you many rebuttals to your article yet, to me, it seems you still continue with your original tact. if you were really after the truth you would question everything, and not display a line of reasoning which supports your (apparent) ideology as the "proof" that agw doesn't exist.

WoodDragon · September 6, 2011

You claim a paper was refuted months before it was even published in a peer reviewed journal.

Huh?! :blink:

Goodness gracious me Dolos, I do believe that you have profoundly misperceived the reality of the meaning of my comments! Perhaps you should carefully re-parse the relevant passage, and reassess your initial misplaced interpretation of my words.

I said that the paper was "...completely blown out of the water, months ago...". I made no mention of it being refuted before it was published, for the simple reason that this did not happen - except in your history-revising mind. The scientific community did not respond to Spencer and Braswell until after it was published - which was months ago. However, the subsequent scientific response was rapid in the scientific blogosphere, and today marks the first peer-reviewed rebuttal, in Geophysical Research Letters.

I offer well-meant advice that stands most folk in good stead - consider establishing a higher coefficient of friction for your objective universe parameter.

The normal way a rebuttal is handled is to allow the writers of the paper in question a chance to answer before opposition publishes. Add this to the fact that skeptic papers can take years to be published (if ever) and this does not pass the smell test. But we shall see.

The reason that "this does not pass the smell test" is that you have your head up your arse.

You see, I know this because I've published in the scientific literature. Some papers go through in a few months. Some take a year or more, even if they are uncontroversial. It all depends of the resources of the journal, and on the number of manuscript submissions, and on the availability of reviewers.

"Skeptic papers" rarely get published because they are almost universally crap. On cursory professional scrutiny this one of Spencer's was no different - it was only because he recommended, to the editor of Remote Sensing, three of his denialist mates as reviewers that it scuttled through the review process without being caught out for what it was. When Wagner realised that the editorial process had allowed this to happen, he resigned because he was responsible for this egregious break-down of review.

If the so-called sceptics actually had something they would be published in the best journals. Journals love overturning paradigms, so they'd all be up for publishing something that had meat. But nothing "sceptical" ever does. It's why denialists publish in low-reputation journals, or in pay-to-print journals**. And even then, when they do publish in the dirty back-alleys of print, they are soundly rebutted anyway.

And yet they, and the lay people who are suckered by them, just don't get the message...

And as of about 6 hours ago, Andrew Dessler's paper has been formally released, and it ain't pretty for Spencer and Braswell. There's a plain-language summary at Skeptical Science

[*Apologies to the rest of the board for my bad language, but really, Dolos is just a skanky troll who willing to lie through his teeth to push his garbage. I'm not copping his re-writing of history.

**Remote Sensing is not necessarily a bad journal, but it is a new one and its subject focus is not in climatology, so they have little expertise in assessing climatological manuscripts. Spencer knew this, and that's probably why he tried it on with that journal. As I said above, when Wolfgang Wagner, the Editor-in-Chief, realised that he had been conned, he resigned as a matter of course. He can't retract it because that's not how publishing works: once the paper's out it would take evidence of academic malpractice for the editor to retract without author involvement - the more usual response is a rebuttal, as Dessler has provided.]

Edited September 7, 2011 by WoodDragon

WoodDragon · September 6, 2011

On the matter of Spencer's claim, it essentially boils down to him saying that clouds cause the temperature changes of the atmosphere. Anyone who is familiar with the physical properties of water vapour know that it operates as a feedback, and not as a direct primary forcing as Spencer is claiming.

For those who don't have the background to follow this argument, a crude metaphor would be to say that Spencer is claiming that babies cause sex, rather than sex causing babies.

I really don't know how Spencer and Braswell thought that their claim would stand scrutiny. Either they think that professional scientists are so stupid that they can't spot an error that a first year physics student would recognise, or they knew that they'd be sprung but they just wanted to score a publicity win.

And they certainly did the latter - Dolos is evidence of the fact that a denialist claim can be shown to be garbage, but the head will continue to chatter even after it's been sliced from its body by real science.

It's a propaganda war, and garbage pseudoscience side is winning it - all so that fossil fuel interests can continue to rake in a billions dollars profit per day, and self-indulgent Westerners can avoid having to clean up their wasteful lifestyles, and fundie Christians can avoid confronting the fact that a white-beared old dude on a cloud didn't actually give them the planet to do with as they choose.

Dolos · September 6, 2011

Huh?!

Fuck off, I did not claim that at all*.

Nice....

Dolos · September 6, 2011

Dolos, i dont like the way you articulate everytime someone tries to actually discuss this with you. If you post information, you have to live with people asking critical questions. I have been very patient with this in hindsight of the fact that i am still not convinced your not a climate troll, you can either start having a real discussion or dont post at all. Theres nothing wrong with this community and i dont want you to verbally shoot people down who ask uncomfortable questions and make them look like they are part of some giant Conspiracy just because they wanna known where your heading with this. Is that clear? You asked about being able to discuss this here so you should really come up with something that doesnt sound like your just here to copy and paste. bye EG

Breath easier Mr Genius. I do not want nor need the agro so will not post on this subject again. This is the domain of the mighty Wood Dragon... apparently....

Edited September 6, 2011 by Dolos

Evil Genius · September 6, 2011

Dolos, you need to understand that we just had a serious troll problem here and we are commited not to keep em around anymore. If you arent one, thats great. I have no personal problem with you. Participate in a normal discussion and we´ll have no problem. Talking of discussing like a normal person: Woody, you know what to do!

And you can surely discuss about the subject as much as you want. Its not about that. Just dont like copy&pasted stuff without actually having a real conversation. And thats how you came across. I already told you that numerous times. So if im wrong about you being a troll, enjoy your time being here.

Edited September 6, 2011 by Evil Genius

WoodDragon · September 6, 2011

Guys, I suffixed my language with an apology to the board in general at the time that I posted. I actually removed it completely first time that I typed it (most here know that I very rarely swear), but I replaced it because Dolos' statement was so rank a misrepresentation of what I had and had not said, and I believe that it warranted a strong response. I still do. Dolos knows full well that there was an apology for all but him, and yet he is now playing the concern troll card as well... nice.

And notice how he didn't actually address the original problem, which was that he lied about what I had said?

Anyway, for those who want to have access to Dessler's destruction of Spencer and Braswell, the paper is here, and he has a

.

WoodDragon · September 7, 2011

A cogent discussion for those who can't understand why Wagner resigned.

botanika · September 7, 2011

past, present, future predictions?

I world war (civil, train wars) : 600.000 death. Stock markets at 100 value.

II world war (fascist wars): 60 million deaths. Stock markets at 1,000 value.

III world war (terminator wars?): 6 billion death?: stock markets at 10,000 value?

'Abstract Science ignores bio-ethic concerns about the future of life and mankind. Instead it is searching for higher levels of energy (global warming, weapons and super-colliders) and information (robotics), which can push life species, including mankind, into extinction.

The end of human labor and our obsolescence to robotic weapons as workers and warriors means only one thing in a Darwinian Universe in which species fight each other: our extinction. Only the ‘religious beliefs’ of go(l)d bankers and scientists, with their dogmas about the human ‘intelligence’ and importance in the Universe, blurs this obvious conclusion, especially in America, where the most advanced military machines are built. We are a fragile species. Despite our claim to be the center of the Universe, professed by most religious people that believe in a God ever attentive to man, or by most scientists who think humanity is the only intelligent species of the Universe, the position of man relative to the cosmos is similar to that of a bacterium relative to a human body: insignificant and rather expendable. In scientific terms that insignificance implies that we could easily disappear from the World, leaving few traces behind and the Universe would not even notice it. This is what happens to us as individuals, despite our intense struggle against death and our creative attempts to leave behind a trace of our in-form-ation—our work and genes in our sons. Death erases information, returning all beings to the initial dust of space-time from where they departed. So it will happen to the human species if we do not take seriously, as we do with our individual lives, the protection of the collective, social super-organism we call History — the life of the human species from the first ‘cellular human being’ who reproduced and colonized the Earth, to the last group of men that will inhabit it. In organic terms, all in the Universe evolves towards higher degrees of self-organization and cooperation, following the Law of Survival of Species that makes individual cells collaborate for the common benefit. Thus, what we observe since the arrival of machines and weapons is a reversal in the evolution of history, from religions of social love that translated those Universal laws of biology into human jargons, into religions of death, hidden with numbers that ‘count corpses’. The mechanical world is killing life first and then human life. So history is no longer evolving but devolving — History is dying.

History today is dying, cannibalized by the economic ecosystem of machines. Only a mechanist, shallow vision of the cycles of life and death, evolution and extinction of the Biological Universe, prevents mankind from observing the obvious: machines are killing this planet, feeding on life, destroying us. And they do so with the same laws and processes we observe in the death of any organic system of the Universe.' A Biological Science of History and Economics

Is another tax really going to help?

WoodDragon · September 7, 2011

For those who may be following the story, here is more well-presented deconstruction of Spencer and Braswell, with a bit of Lindzen and Choi dismantling as well:

Barry Bickmore.

And Bickmore again.

Scholars and Rogues (includes a nice comparison of one of the S&B graphs with Skeptical Science's clarification).

Scott Mandia.

The Great Global Cooling/Warming Thread

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites