The climate models, or the lying empirical evidence?
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
But let’s not let a little pesky science get in the way of social justice.
[Update a while later]
Gee, whaddaya know? A “climate researcher” who implied that our SUVs were drowning polar bears is being investigated for “integrity issues.”
It’s just the ninety percent of them who make the rest look bad.
[Update late afternoon]
Weep not for the polar bears: James Delingpole piles on.
That’s not exactly an unbiased source, Rand. Let’s wait to see what actual scientists derive from this new data.
Where are you going to find one of those…at this time of night?
Both the article to which Rand linked, which cites the actual journal article, and the University of Alabama press release include this quote, Justin:
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show….There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
The author of that quote is Roy Spencer, whose credentials (from the link) are:
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
He certainly qualifies as a climate change and climate modelling skeptic, and he’s not a geophysicist, but he also qualifies as a bona fide scientist and non-fool by any reasonable measure.
And his article appears in the peer-reviewed journal, Remote Sensing. We’ve all been told the importance of peer review, haven’t we?
When your model doesn’t match reality, it isn’t reality that’s wrong.
That’s not exactly an unbiased source, Rand.
What are you referring to, Forbes, Remote Sensing, Spencer? (Yahoo?)
I really don’t understand the blind faith that people continue to have in climate models, given both their inability to model the past and the atrocious coding that we’ve seen in them since the East Anglia leak (not to mention Mann’s mendacity of the hockey stick). You’d almost think in some cases that there’s an emotional attachment to the idea for some reason.
It’s hardly just climate modelling, Rand. Wide swathes of people believe any number of theories and models of the results in complex systems — e.g. the climate, the national economy, the health of an individual or nation — of this or that input tweak.
If a man believes that $1 trillion in shovel-ready stimulus will keep unemployment below 8 percent, or that a carbon tax will create millions of green jobs, or that nationalized health care will increase lifespan and reduce health care costs, or even that abolishing the Federal Reserve will prevent recessions and eating fish-oil capsules will stave off heart disease, then he is equally in the grip of faith as a man who believes that burning fossil fuels will cause the seas to rise 2 cm per year for the next century.
Nor am I necessarily knocking faith per se. We all have to have some guide in how we approach complex systems, and frequently enough guessing and faith is all we have. They’re complex, after all. Not easily understood.
But it does mean that people with certain faiths about complex systems should not be allowed to pretend they actually understand them, and it means even more importantly that they should not be allowed to impose their faith on others. There’s nothing wrong with me acting on my faith that drinking green tea will prevent bowel cancer by downing a gallon a day of the stuff. But if I were to tell you you were illogical or insane not to agree with me, and, worse, if I were to seek to use the power of government to compel you to act as I do, that would be wrong.
“Documents provided by Ruch’s group indicate questioning by investigators has centered on observations that Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason made in 2004, while conducting an aerial survey of bowhead whales, of four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. They detailed their observations in an article published two years later in the journal Polar Biology; presentations also were given at scientific gatherings.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/charles-monnett-investigation-scientific-misconduct-polar-bears_n_911996.html
Four dead polar bears after a large storm somehow got translated to all of the polar bears are in danger of drowning because of global warming. Wasn’t the storms fault.
Did you read the original article or the Forbes pseudo-journalism that reported what the Forbes guy wants it to say? I don’t think the conclusions and discussion section says quite what you think it does.
Reading you guys I am reminded of the Creationist who explained to me that Radio-Dating methods didn’t work because of a scientific paper that showed that one of the radio-dating methodologies was flawed in certain situations.
Funny thing. It was, but it didn’t alter the facts that a) radio-dating works and b) picking the right tool for a specific job is important.
Meanwhile, I’m sure you’re insisting that what’s happening at the moment is merely weather…
My thoughts exactly, Daveon.
“That’s not exactly an unbiased source, Rand.”
Yes, Roy W. Spencer lives in Alabama, a well-known hotbed of racism. He must, therefore, be biased, and consequently not a scientist…as anyone but a racist TP/JBS member can plainly see.
When Dave O’Neill’s thoughts are “yours exactly,” you might want to reconsider…
I was talking about the Forbes article, not Spencer. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Taylor is making a claim that fits his Institute’s agenda even before the rest of the climate science community has had a chance to weigh in. The Spencer paper is only part of the process, one that I sincerely expect will lead to a refinement of the science and an improvement of the theories involved.
What Forbes published is no different than Al Gore cherry-picking data to fit his preconceptions. The science is evolving and will improve with time. Unfortunately, given the entrenchment on both sides of the political debate, I have reservations about the willingness of either the deniers or the true believers to listen.
The main conclusion of the Spencer article is that there is too much uncertainty to make feedback predictions with our current models. That, in and of itself, does not “blow a gaping hole” in the idea that humans are having an effect on the climate through our carbon emissions and land use, as the computer models are not the only line of evidence.
It blows a gaping hole in the idea that we have enough certainty to justify destroying the growth of the industrialized world to minimize it.
I’ve never been an advocate of those policies. I tend to agree more with Roger Pielke, Jr. and Richard Mueller that the problem will only be solved by innovations that allow us to reduce our emissions while also improving our economic status.
Glad to hear that, but many worship Saint Al, and any ammunition we can get to fend them off is useful.
“Taylor is making a claim that fits his Institute’s agenda…”
James Taylor is a well-qualified, highly experienced commentator. Heck, he’s seen fire AND he’s seen rain…
Taylor is making a claim that fits his Institute’s agenda
And you are assessing the value and probale truth of what he says entirely on the basis of his Institute’s agenda. You don’t even need to read the words, do you? It comes from someone at an Institute with “an agenda,” so ipso facto it’s worthless.
Which of you is the blinkered intellectual fraud, again?
even before the rest of the climate science community has had a chance to weigh in.
Oh right. Don’t speak before the bishops have spoken. Do you even realize you’re acting like a medieval monk genuflecting before the throne of St. Peter? That this is about as far as one can possibly get from the Enlightenment ideal of vigorous empirically-based irreverent of “authority” debate that is supposed to characterize sicence?
Speaking as a scientist in a closely related field, all I have to say is that with friends like you the climatologists hardly need enemies. Blech.
the problem will only be solved by innovations that allow us to reduce our emissions while also improving our economic status.
What “problem” are you referring to? CO2 emissions? What evidence can you point to that indicates that is a “problem”? It’s hot outside? No? It’s hotter now than 50 years ago? Tornados, hurricanes and droughts?
Without runaway feedback, the numbers just don’t point to anything worth spending a dime on. And any science that indicates there is no runaway feedback can expect to be attacked. (And your statement that the “problem” can be “solved” is illuminating.)
Or is the “problem” more related to the endless conflict between the “deniers” and the “true believers”? To the extent that conflict keeps elected officials occupied, I would call that a feature. And to the extent that conflict keeps Al Gore in the news, I would call that free entertainment.
I was referring to the fact that science is a process, not just one paper, and we don’t fully know what this one paper’s implications for the field are yet. Other scientists can and will weigh in, debate its merits and flaws, and something that improves the state of the science will emerge. Taylor simply jumps to conclusions that cannot necessarily be supported by Spencer’s paper, but are convenient for his Institute’s position.
Carl, accusing me of being an “intellectual fraud” and making an appeal to authority just makes me inclined to ignore you, not debate you. It is precisely that sort of condescension and browbeating that leads me to typically avoid topics other than space on Rand’s blog.
Curt, frankly, I don’t think we necessarily want to be breathing all that crap we’re putting in the air. Given our history with upsetting other natural cycles, I’m hesitant that imbalancing the carbon cycle is something we should just ignore.
If we can figure out ways to produce the energy we need less expensively and/or improve the efficiency of our energy use, it only makes sense to do so. The way I see it, pollution is ultimately an indicator of the relative inefficiency of the process. Just capturing the pollution and sticking it somewhere else doesn’t solve that problem.
sure wish this could put pressure on this administration to revoke the EPA controls on CO2
It blows a gaping hole in the idea that we have enough certainty to justify destroying the growth of the industrialized world to minimize it.
DITTO. Our host wins the thread.
Using models to support a position is to use the shakiest stool in the room. Results are extremely dependent on initial conditions and potentially false premises.
It’s not at all difficult to create a model to support a pre-existing prejudice. As a matter of fact, since contrary evidence is likely to be ignored, it’s also likely to turn up missing in any model created by any with such bias.
pollution is ultimately an indicator of the relative inefficiency of the process.
Ab. So. Lut. Ly. This is true. Hallelujah. Fireworks.
AND. Are we more efficient today than yesterday? Were we more efficient yesterday than last year. Does our capitalistic, evil, consumer-centric, democratic system PUNISH inefficiency? That would be a yes. Not only that, we PUNISH inefficiency in a very efficient way. More efficiently than anyone ever has. And as long as we’re left alone, we will continue to do so.
Sir.
If we can figure out ways to produce the energy we need less expensively and/or improve the efficiency of our energy use, it only makes sense to do so.
What does this have to do with the fiction of “Climate Change”?
“I was referring to the fact that science is a process,”
It is a process but we are told this is a settled matter, that it is unquestionable. This study points out that the climate models have major flaws in them. Major enough that it calls into question all of the predictions made thus far.
“The way I see it, pollution is ultimately an indicator of the relative inefficiency of the process.”
To some degree, you are conflating pollution with global warming. The two are not necessarily related.
More efficient engines would produce less CO2/mile traveled, so if you considered CO2 a pollutant higher efficiencies would lead to less pollutants. Ditto with the sulfur compounds. Nitrous oxides might be a different story–more efficient engines might produce more nitrous compounds, so you might need some sort of non-market force to keep those down.
Gas is still cheap enough that getting more MPG (and consequently less pollutants per mile) is going to be a secondary or tertiary factor for most people.
Oddly enough, I woke up at 4am, and decided to listen to Coast to Coast, and they dedicated 2 hours to exactly this thing today with “Dr. something or other.” and Noory, who loves conspiracy theory’s is TOTALY opposing AGW. In fact, supporting expansion of CO2 volume since “it’s the start of the food chain.”
I usually listen to this show for a giggle while they are talking about the shadow people or chemtrails, but this time, it was actually INTERESTING!!!
No disagreement there, Curt.
wodun, I think there are plenty of other reasons to get pollution under control, even if we decide that global warming really isn’t a serious problem. I was expounding on that to better clarify my position to Curt re: emissions.
wodun, I think there are plenty of other reasons to get pollution under control, even if we decide that global warming really isn’t a serious problem.
Mr. Kugler, Do you consider CO2 “pollution”?
You can call CO2 crap if you like. I call it plant food, which begs several questions:
Are you an anti-plantist? Why are you attacking the basis for life on this planet? Or are you anti-life?
To the extent that our production of atmospheric CO2 “causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem,” yes.
I’d be willing to wager that volcanoes have been responsible for human deaths and property damage than anything attributable to human induced increases in CO2. Call me when we’ve exceeded natures propensity for killing us all.
To the extent that our production of atmospheric CO2 “causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem,” yes.
That is not the conventional definition of “pollution.” By that definition, water is, too. To call CO2 a pollutant is to steal a rhetorical base.
Daveon says:
I know that radio-dating works because the science behind it is also the same science behind the operation of nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. Since these products work, we have confirmation that the peer-reviewed science of Nuclear Physics is sound. Ditto for Quantum-Mechanics and their products, computers.
The engineers are the final confirmation of a scientific theory, not the scientists. To me, the “Peer-Review” label is no longer sufficient to convince that it is to be believed.
Well we all know that global warming “science” is really more or a philosophy. The philosophical impact of a humans producing some pertubation into a static system seems more there concern. It’s why they often argue from the fallacy of the slippery slope.
The true irony of this “global warming” hoax is that its perpetrators, in their holy zeal and apocalyptic rantings, are systematically destroying the reputation and stature of the very thing they cling to as ultimate authority, i.e., “science.” Pretty soon the phrase “90% of scientists believe in global warming” will carry the same weight as did those bygone Lucky Strike commercials in which it was claimed that 60% of doctors believed that smoking was good for your health.
The funny thing is, I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing.
Justin Kugler Says:
“wodun, I think there are plenty of other reasons to get pollution under control, even if we decide that global warming really isn’t a serious problem.”
I agree but it often seems that proponents of global warming use any type of pollution as a cause of global warming. In some ways the global warming alarmists have polluted the anti-pollution movement.