69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

[Dexter Sinister]

Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely...

I don't see any reason to believe that what the general population thinks scientists are up to has anything to do with reality. Most people haven't the slightest idea of what science is or how it works.

I love how you use words that allow variables.

That's the nature of the scientific enterprise, Bear, that's how scientists think and speak and write, there are caveats on all knowledge but the trivial.

 

[mentalfloss]

So I should get my **** in knot and start taxing the snot out of everyone in hopes it fixes natural cycles? Is that how the Roman Optimum ended through taxation?

How did they fix it with taxes and policy?

Yikes.

Well there's a clear indication that despite natural changes in the climate, that there is a human element to it. The nature and scope of any possible ramifications should be balanced with appropriate (and I stress appropriate) investments to reduce our dependency on oil.

That's it.

No crazy greenie enviro scam or draconian tax methodology.

We should be well beyond the acknowledgement of AGW by now, and moving on to what the scope of the repercussions are.

 

[Bar Sinister]

There are more cows on the planet than people and if you have ever been on a farm, you know cows fart a lot. People who eat cows fart a lot more than those who don't. Methane is far more volatile a green house gas than CO2 and probably causes more global warming. The scientists are not that far off the mark.

Actually it is the gas from the other end that is the problem so far as cows are concerned. Most methane from cows is burped.

 

[petros]

Is there an echo in here? Bar fella, soil bacterias produce more methane than all animals and autos on the planet combined.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Uh huh....

More likely things like this had something to do with it.....

Rex Murphy: Climate scientists make a mockery of the peer-review process | Full Comment | National Post

Oh right - I had forgotten how many Americans take note of that renown authority on climate, Rex Murphy.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Is there an echo in here? Bar fella, soil bacterias produce more methane than all animals and autos on the planet combined.

I live in a bunkhouse, five days a week, with up to five other guys, who's only
hot meals are once a day in the evenings in whatever small town bars that
have kitchens. On top of that, our food (lunch meats, etc) are in a fridge
that only has power from 7am to 7pm-ish while the generator is running,
so they get pretty nasty by the end of the week. Lots of methane is
released under those conditions. By Thursdays, we can compete
with cattle and soil bacterias, I'm sure.

 

[petros]

Have you ever considered an ozone generator? You can store dead people in the basement and host a dinner party without anyone smelling anything.

 

[Sparrow]

Do any of you believe what NASA have to say?

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.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - James Taylor - Endpoint Analysis - Forbes

I am more inclined to believe NASA's satellite data than the computer models. After the Ice Age there had to be a global warming our we wouldn't be here. Humans did not cause that warming because there weren't any. To me this global warming hoax was created so that we would not see what was really happening. Can you guess what it is?

 

[petros]

To me this global warming hoax was created so that we would not see what was really happening. Can you guess what it is?

Currencies backed by a carbon market instead of oil?

 

[Cliffy]

Global warming, economic meltdown, Nuclear fallout from Japan, etc.... Bad news - a constant diet of bad news produces... what?

Fear! How do you keep people from doing something positive in their lives? Keep them in a constant state of fear.

There is something going on that they don't want you to pay attention to that will make the ruling class, governments and the economy useless. We don't need them and they know it.

 

[petros]

Fear sells better than tits and ass.

 

[Tonington]

I am more inclined to believe NASA's satellite data than the computer models. After the Ice Age there had to be a global warming our we wouldn't be here. Humans did not cause that warming because there weren't any. To me this global warming hoax was created so that we would not see what was really happening. Can you guess what it is?

Yes, well before everyone gets too excited, there's some problems with Spencer's study. First, the results are sensitive to which satellite data set get's used, in other words the findings are not robust. Second, there was no statistical analysis of the results, no error bars. On the first point, this might have been caught by the review process, if it was published in a climate journal, but it wasn't. On the second point, it's just bad science to publish without a proper statistical analysis of your hypothesis. Their observational data covers ten years, but the model output is 100 years.

There are actually many models out there, and some of them are better suited to certain conditions than others. Spencer's model of choice to compare to his observations is a simple model, a model that has no ocean, no ENSO cycle, no hydrological cycle. It's not surprising that an unrealistic model would therefore be so out of tune with observations.

Our planet has an ocean, has an ENSO cycle, has a hydrological cycle, and lots of heat get's radiated from the tropical oceans into space.

He also makes some errors in forcing and feedbacks. Clouds aren't a forcing, they are a response to forcing, a feedback.

I can see why the denial blogosphere is so excited. More crappy science with a provocative title has been published. But it's not very good science, at all.

 

[petros]

From a modeling standpoint, this lack of progress is evidence of
the complexity of the myriad atmospheric processes that combine to determine the sign and magnitude of
feedbacks. It is also due to our inability to quantify feedbacks in the real climate system, a contentious
issue with a wide range of published feedback diagnoses [1] and disagreements over the ability of
existing methods to diagnose feedback [3,4].

Isn't the bulk of the paper on comparing quantified measurments from 2000-2011 to what models have predicted and not an actual model it'self?

The title of the article is misleading I'll agree to that. If feedback can't be quantified in real world then the parameters the models use aren't reliable.

 

[mentalfloss]

Do any of you believe what NASA have to say?

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.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - James Taylor - Endpoint Analysis - Forbes

I am more inclined to believe NASA's satellite data than the computer models. After the Ice Age there had to be a global warming our we wouldn't be here. Humans did not cause that warming because there weren't any. To me this global warming hoax was created so that we would not see what was really happening. Can you guess what it is?

I hope you noticed the censored discussion that took place in the comments section.

That should be ringing a lot of red flag alarms already.

There's always an inevitable follow up to correct these sensational articles...this one's no different..

The study, published July 26 in the open-access online journal Remote Sensing, got public attention when a writer for The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank that promotes climate change skepticism, wrote for Forbes magazine that the study disproved the global warming worries of climate change “alarmists.” However, mainstream climate scientists say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor correct.
​

Pappas interviewed climatologists Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Andrew Dessler, who eviscerated Spencer’s shoddy science:

The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. “What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear.”
“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer’s new study.
“I cannot believe it got published,” said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
​

In his paper, Spencer relies on a toy model of the climate system which geochemist Barry Bickmore (a Republican) had previously exposed as being one that could “give him essentially any answer he wanted, as long as he didn’t mind using parameters that don’t make any physical sense.”
This case is an excellent example of how the right-wing climate disinformation media machine works. Roy Spencer, one of the handful of publishing climate scientist ideologues, gets his work into an obscure journal. Then James Taylor, an operative for a fossil fuel front group, claims it is “very important” on Forbes.com, a media website owned by a Republican billionaire. The Forbes blog post was redistributed by Yahoo! News, giving the headline “New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism” a further veneer of respectability, even though the full post is laughably hyperbolic, using “alarmist” or “alarmism” 15 times in nine paragraphs.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011...-in-nasa-data-paper-by-ideologue-roy-spencer/

also..

I did some poking around on the web, and sure enough a lot of far-right blogs are diving on this red meat, simply repeating the claims of the Forbes article. I wonder how many of them actually read the paper or sought outside opinions?
And in this case, those outside opinions are very important. Why? Because of Dr. Spencer’s background: you may find this discussion of him interesting. He is an author for the über-conservative Heartland Institute (as is James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article), which receives substantial funding from — can you guess? — ExxonMobil. He is also affiliated with two other think tanks funded by ExxonMobil. Seriously, read that link to get quite a bit of background on Dr. Spencer.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...low-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

 

[petros]

Hillarious! Absolutely hillarious. Personal attacks rather than attacking the data....

Did you read the comments on the Forbes site too? Priceless.

 

[Tonington]

Isn't the bulk of the paper on comparing quantified measurments from 2000-2011 to what models have predicted and not an actual model it'self?

Not exactly. He needed a model, the toy model that one of Mentalfloss' posts mentioned, to examine the difference between forcings in the models, feedbacks, and the actual temperature change. But he treats clouds as a forcing instead of a feedback.

You also have to ask, is it appropriate to compare a decade of observations to a century of model output? More to the point, if your ocean doesn't behave like a normal ocean, with an ENSO cycle, then you shouldn't expect to have similar results to observations. The clouds will modulate the energy escaping to space, and clouds respond to ENSO.

Further, since he hasn't used radiative forcing to estimate feedback parameters, the changes in temperature between years (he used a 9 month filter in his model to tune for inter-annual changes) cannot reflect the climate sensitivity, as climate responds to forcings, the feedbacks are a response to forcings...

In the end, this is truly ironic given the title of his work. It would more aptly be titled "Misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance".

By the way, feedbacks can be quantified without models:
AMS Journals Online - The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data

 

[darkbeaver]

The Electric Sun – How it Actually Works

​

Energy Balances

Posted on January 7, 2012
Interesting discussion going on Anthony Watts’ blog and Tallboy’s about the energy balance of the earth system. It seems the prevailing view that electromagnetic radiation is the only energy input into the earth-system, the solar constant and Wikipedia has a basic explanation of it. In itself you can’t object to it, but this explanation is somewhat incomplete, for it totally omits the energy entering the earth system via the polar Birkeland Currents, and which energy exits the earth-system via the equatorial atmospheric low pressure systems, as well as via the occasional volcanic eruptions as electric leaks from the earth that seems to behave as a leaky electric capacitor. Electric currents passing through matter in the solid/liquid/gas states respectively generate diminishing heat and increasing kinetic effects. Further more it is clear that while we have an enormous body of knowledge about the passage of electricity through solids, and plasma, we seem to have a dearth of knowledge of that phenomenon though the other states of physical matter, liquids and gases.
It is quite likely that the thermal anomalies climate science is trying to grapple can be explained by including solar electric currents (Birkeland currents) into the energy balance of the earth system.
And mainstream science has another shackle in the form of its Lyellian legacy to deal with as well, before much scientific progress can proceed.

 

[Cannuck]

That makes the claim that polar bears are more abundant now than 40 years ago, therefore the scientists are wrong, a non-sequitur. It does not follow logically.

Unfortunately, that doesn't matter to some people.

 

[#juan]

• About us
• Issues
• What you can do
• Blogs
• David
• Donate

Close
Sign up for our newsletter and get the latest environmental news and green-living tips in your inbox.



Issues » Wildlife & habitat » Science & policy » Critical species
Issues

• Climate change
• Health
• Oceans
• Wildlife & habitat
  • Our projects
  • Take action
  • Science & policy
• Freshwater

Polar bear fact sheet

Canada is home to nearly 60 per cent of the world's polar bears.

Polar Bear Facts

• Nearly 60 per cent of the world's polar bears live in Canada.

• Polar bears spend so much time on ice and in the water that some scientists consider them to be marine mammals.

• Polar bears can swim up to 100 kilometres.

• Polar bears use sea ice as a hunting platform to catch seals and other marine mammal prey. Without sea ice, they have difficulty meeting their dietary needs.

• Male polar bears can be two to three times larger than females—one of the greatest differences between sexes in all mammals.

• The largest recorded polar bear weighed a whopping 1,002 kilograms (2,209 lbs.) and measured 3.7 metres (12 ft.) long.

• Polar bears are so well insulated that they easily overheat and sometimes swim in frigid waters to cool down.

• Six out of eight members of the bear family are now considered endangered in Canada.

• A recent study disproved the theory that the hollow hairs of the polar bear's coat carried light to its dark skin to warm the bear.

• The Canadian two-dollar coin or "toonie" features a polar bear.

• A polar bear can eat up to 46 kilograms (100 lbs.) of food at one sitting.

Sea Ice and Polar Bears

Temperatures are rising far more rapidly in the Arctic than in the rest of the world. Since 1978, sea ice cover has declined by approximately nine per cent per decade, and the rate of melting appears to be increasing each year. This loss of sea ice threatens Canadian wildlife, like the polar bear, which are wholly dependent on the Arctic sea ice habitat for survival.
Sea ice is so important to polar bears that scientists have defined seven types of sea ice habitat and have documented different preferences for each.
Polar bears use sea ice for a variety of purposes including hunting, seeking out mates and travel.
Temperatures are rising far more rapidly in the Arctic than in the rest of the world. Since 1978, sea ice cover has declined by approximately nine per cent per decade, and the rate of melting appears to be increasing each year. This loss of sea ice threatens Canadian wildlife, like the polar bear, which are wholly dependent on the Arctic sea ice habitat for survival.
Scientists have identified a strong correlation between the decline in polar bears and the reduction in sea ice in Western Hudson Bay, which is breaking up on average seven to eight days earlier per decade. When the sea ice melts earlier, the population of polar bears in the Western Hudson Bay are forced to come ashore, where they do not eat until their return to the ice.
Recent studies show that the increased time on land is leading to weight loss, physical deterioration and decreased rates of reproduction. Scientists have predicted that by 2012 most females in the Western Hudson Bay population will be below the minimum required weight for successful reproduction.

 

[captain morgan]

I never knew that the Suzuki Foundation were the definitive experts in so many areas.