[NatureNS] Fwd: New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
References: <4E3421A6.8080705@hfx.eastlink.ca> <4E34955F.1010102@hfx.eastlink.ca>
From: Bob Farmer <farmerb@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 21:19:56 -0300
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects


What struck me about that article was its repeated use of charged
language, especially its overuse of "alarmist computer models" (used
11 times in the article).  Forbes is, naturally, a business-centric
magazine.

So I went to the source article (free here:
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf ) and had trouble seeing
the "gaping hole".  I'm not a climate scientist, but the abstract
implies only that they can't seem to nail down just how much the
cloud-protective effect (I think!) matters to the models.  It's much
more subdued than the Forbes article leads us to believe.  I'm still
digging for the press release, which should be easier to interpret,
but in the mean time, I've found that Roy Spencer (the lead author),
believes in Intelligent Design and acknowledges a prior bias in
regards to climate science, signing a declaration which reads

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent
design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —
are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably
suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's
climate system is no exception"

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

But if he presents good evidence for a problem with climate change
issues (i.e., if his personal views don't affect his scientific
objectivity), let's have a look.  One major principle of scientific
progress is having somebody else repeat your results.  So if (and I
say "if", because I think the Forbes article took a lot out of
context) there's a problem with current climate models, they should
indeed be revisited.

In the mean time, however, even the Forbes article didn't say that
climate change isn't happening, only that "increases in atmospheric
carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed".  So,
warming is happening, but maybe our predictions aren't spot-on.  That
doesn't surprise me.

Glad you brought this into the mix, Lois.
--Bob Farmer


On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 20:35, Lois Codling <loiscodling@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
> Are the scientists who are always ready to drop a theory in face of
> evidence, ready?
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
>
> Lois Codling
>

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects