Study: Part of Global-Warming Model May Be Wrong

[eldermike]

The researchers compared predictions of 22 widely used climate "models" — elaborate schematics that try to forecast how the global weather system will behave — with actual readings gathered by surface stations, weather balloons and orbiting satellites over the past three decades.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html

What do you think?

 

[horuhe00]

I think foxnews.com

And of course the model won't be perfect.

 

[LutheranChick]

I think foxnews.com

And of course the model won't be perfect.

Fox just reported what it got from this site:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

 

[chaim]

Which is a press release from the authors claiming how good their study is. In the press release they forgot to mention that their study also shows that climate models get a more important factor, surface temperature, right.

Fox just reported what it got from this site:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

 

[eldermike]

So no thought?

 

[chaim]

I have a thought - this paper has been blown way out of proportion by the climate change skeptics. Why is it that a paper that shows a descrepency between models and observations in a relatively small part of the atmosphere (the paper is only talking about a descrepancy in the upper tropical troposphere) makes it onto Fox News and has two threads started about it - yet the dozens of other papers that show agreement between models and observations are never mentioned?

Why is it that the other conclusion - that models and observations of surface temperature agree - gets no mention in the Fox article?

I agree that climate models aren't perfect and don't capture every variation in every part of the atmosphere. There is certainly more work to be done in the field of climate modeling. However I also think that the agreement between climate models and surface temperature (which is the metric that is used in the IPCC and that has the most effect on humans) is undeniable - even the skeptics who wrote this paper came to the same conclusion.

So no thought?

 

[BlackAndy]

When Chaim speaks people better listen.

 

[BlackAndy]

His footprint may be small.... but its DEEEEEP.

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t213/epugsley/al_gore7.jpg

 

[chaim]

Asinine comments like yours are much more productive than actually commenting on the issue. Thanks for your input.

When Chaim speaks people better listen.

 

[simplicity]

I would like to post something before mod-hat goes on.

I would like to say that fortunately we don't have long to wait to find the results on this one. If indeed a large number of scientists are proven wrong, I will be among the first to write to our own government officials to have the such individuals dismissed or their funding drastically cut.

The problem here is that the social engineering required to implement widespread reductions in emissions would really devastate the lives of real people. Ordinary folks just working hard to make ends meet. I really feel for them because manufacturing is already in the gutter. It's just so sad to see their jobs snuffed out because some bureaucrats and braniacs want to lie and make stuff up to get funding. That would be a terrible crime.

However, for the time being it is only right to believe them. As long as these scientists and researchers realize what is at stake in terms of their reputations.

 

[OneKickinGuy]

There is no Global Warming!

some people find it easier to believe so do to the weather or what a few people who have no credibility and are running around telling you only a fraction of the truth. Sadly, many people eat this up like its candy with out doin research and looking at reliable sources.

Global Warming has become almost a religion for some people.

I dont buy it and i dont sell out.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Global Warming 'A Big Cash Grab'

Meteorologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, called the Newsweek article part of a “coordinated assault” on skeptics.

“[Newsweek] alleges that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming,” Spencer wrote in an August 15, 2007 blog post. (LINK)

James Spann, a meteorologist certified by the American Meteorological Society, suggests scientific objectively is being compromised by the massive money flow to proponents of man-made climate fears.

"Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story," Spann wrote on January 18, 2007. (LINK)

"Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab," Spann added.

LINK

 

[Christian Soldier]

UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!

"Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the United Nations, former Vice President Al Gore, and the media engineered “consensus” on climate change.

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.

“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),” (LINK)

In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009” because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability."

LINK

 

[horuhe00]

There is no Global Warming!

I was waiting for someone to scream it.

 

[eldermike]

I would like to post something before mod-hat goes on.

I would like to say that fortunately we don't have long to wait to find the results on this one. If indeed a large number of scientists are proven wrong, I will be among the first to write to our own government officials to have the such individuals dismissed or their funding drastically cut.

The problem here is that the social engineering required to implement widespread reductions in emissions would really devastate the lives of real people. Ordinary folks just working hard to make ends meet. I really feel for them because manufacturing is already in the gutter. It's just so sad to see their jobs snuffed out because some bureaucrats and braniacs want to lie and make stuff up to get funding. That would be a terrible crime.

However, for the time being it is only right to believe them. As long as these scientists and researchers realize what is at stake in terms of their reputations.

That's the best post I have seen on this issue, to date.

My opinion is the same, they better be right.

 

[cyberfugue]

I think foxnews.com

That was a simplistic response. You can do better.

Debate the argument, not the source. Of course that type of kneejerk jingoism is way easier, isn't it?

 

[cyberfugue]

I would like to post something before mod-hat goes on.

I would like to say that fortunately we don't have long to wait to find the results on this one. If indeed a large number of scientists are proven wrong, I will be among the first to write to our own government officials to have the such individuals dismissed or their funding drastically cut.

The problem here is that the social engineering required to implement widespread reductions in emissions would really devastate the lives of real people. Ordinary folks just working hard to make ends meet. I really feel for them because manufacturing is already in the gutter. It's just so sad to see their jobs snuffed out because some bureaucrats and braniacs want to lie and make stuff up to get funding. That would be a terrible crime.

However, for the time being it is only right to believe them. As long as these scientists and researchers realize what is at stake in terms of their reputations.

Best summarization I've seen anywhere.

 

[cyberfugue]

Global Warming has become almost a religion for some people.

It has become the religion for many. No almost about it. It's a full-fledged church, replete with sinners, saints and indulgences (the carbon offset).

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/INDULGE.HTM

In other words, pollution (or sin) is ok as long as you're willing to pay a lot of money to "offset" (or be forgiven) for it.

Those who think independently might think about looking into how much of that "carbon offset" money goes to firms that Gore and other environmentalist loudmouths have interests in.

The Carbon Offset Scam

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2007/02/carbon-offset-scam.html

In its original story, The Tennessean newspaper in Nashville reported that Gore buys “carbon offsets” to compensate for his home’s use of energy from carbon-based fuels.

So far, so good. So, where does Gore buy his ‘carbon offsets’? According to The Tennessean newspaper’s report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management. a company he co-founded and serves as chairman:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe…

As co-founder and chairman of the firm Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

The man-made global warming model is trash science.

 

[horuhe00]

That was a simplistic response. You can do better.

Debate the argument, not the source. Of course that type of kneejerk jingoism is way easier, isn't it?

I'm sorry for you if my knee jerk reactions to the same threads with the same sources that never have any hard evidence and are pushing an agenda that is, by far, evidenced to be false make you annoyed.

 

[horuhe00]

It has become the religion for many. No almost about it. It's a full-fledged church, replete with sinners, saints and indulgences (the carbon offset).

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/INDULGE.HTM

In other words, pollution (or sin) is ok as long as you're willing to pay a lot of money to "offset" (or be forgiven) for it.

Those who think independently might think about looking into how much of that "carbon offset" money goes to firms that Gore and other environmentalist loudmouths have interests in.



The man-made global warming model is trash science.

That's cute. Wrong, but cute.