next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects --Apple-Mail-56-951912245 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi folks, On 31-Jul-11, at 8:52 AM, Flora Johnson wrote: > This article gives an overview based on interviews with a large > number of climate researchers: > http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html There are many excellent points in this rebuttal including: i. The paper's author Roy Spencer, is a climate change skeptic and controversial figure within the climate research community; ii. The paper itself got scant attention until James Taylor, a writer for The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank that promotesclimate change skepticism, blogged for Forbes magazine that the study was "extremely important" and disproved the global warming worries of climate change "alarmists." iii. Mainstream climate scientists say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor correct. "(Spencer has) taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. The discipline of climate science is a fantastically complicated area, and perhaps no more so then in trying to understand human-induced changes in the climate - a phenomenon without historical precedent. Knowledge about this will not instantly and perfectly spring into creation. Scientists have been studying the fossil record for a couple of centuries and our understanding is still imperfect and new discoveries still continue to challenge some of our ideas. Nevertheless, despite periodic mistakes or misinterpretations, there's nothing that causes any serious scientist to doubt the role of evolution. Similarly, climate change science, a much newer enterprise, is still continuing to develop, it is imperfect, and there have been and will continue to be mistakes. However, as Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist said in the Live Science article: "If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime. Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record." It is vital to recall that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the probably largest scientific endeavor ever undertaken with the participation of thousands of climatologists throughout the world. It has been working on the issue of climate change since 1988. It's conclusions have been endorsed by the worlds joint scientific academies, the European Geosciences Union, the International Council for Science, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Research Council, the Royal Meteorological Society, the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, etc., i.e., virtually every credible scientific body in the world that has any expertise in relation climatology and meteorology. For a quick introduction to the IPCC initiative visit their website at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ Or the Wikipedia page about the IPCC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change Which also includes a section on some of the mistakes that have surfaced through the history of the IPCC reports, some of the criticisms that have been leveled at their conclusions, and how scientists have responded to these critiques. Our understanding of climate change is still imperfect, but at this stage it has moved well beyond being "dismissed on a dime". We need to perfect our knowledge, but even more importantly, we need to take decisive action to halt and reverse this trend which threatens the environmental integrity of the planet - and humanity together with it. Best wishes, Chris > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM, 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 > Christopher Majka 6252 Jubilee Rd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 2G5 c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra --Apple-Mail-56-951912245 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; = -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi folks,<div><br><div><div>On = 31-Jul-11, at 8:52 AM, Flora Johnson wrote:</div><br = class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>This = article gives an overview based on interviews with a large number of = climate researchers: <br><a = href=3D"http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html">= http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html</a></div>= </blockquote><div><br></div><div>There are many excellent points in this = rebuttal including:</div><div><br></div><div>i. The paper's author = Roy Spencer, is a climate change skeptic and = controversial figure within the climate research = community;</div><div><br></div><div>ii. The paper itself got scant = attention until James Taylor, a writer for The Heartland Institute, = a libertarian think-tank that promotesclimate change skepticism, blogged = for Forbes magazine that the study was "extremely important" and = disproved the global warming worries of climate change = "alarmists."</div><div><br></div><div>iii. Mainstream climate scientists = say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor = correct. "(Spencer has) taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it = to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not = correct," said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at = Texas A&M University.</div><div><br></div></div><div>The discipline = of climate science is a fantastically complicated area, and perhaps no = more so then in trying to understand human-induced changes in the = climate - a phenomenon without historical precedent. Knowledge about = this will not instantly and perfectly spring into creation. Scientists = have been studying the fossil record for a couple of centuries and our = understanding is still imperfect and new discoveries still continue to = challenge some of our ideas. Nevertheless, despite periodic mistakes or = misinterpretations, there's nothing that causes any serious scientist to = doubt the role of evolution.</div><div><br></div><div>Similarly, climate = change science, a much newer enterprise, is still continuing to develop, = it is imperfect, and there have been and will continue to be mistakes. = However, as Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist said = in the Live Science article:</div><div><br></div><div><div>"If you want = to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people = jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science = gets dismissed on a dime. Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the = last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather = the paleoclimate record."</div><div><br></div></div><div>It is = vital to recall that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change = (IPCC) is the probably largest scientific endeavor ever undertaken with = the participation of thousands of climatologists throughout the world. = It has been working on the issue of climate change since 1988. It's = conclusions have been endorsed by the worlds joint scientific academies, = the European Geosciences Union, the International Council for = Science, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, = the National Research Council, the Royal Meteorological Society, = the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of = London, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric = Sciences, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, = etc., i.e., virtually every credible scientific body in the world that = has any expertise in relation climatology and = meteorology.</div><div><br></div><div>For a quick introduction to the = IPCC initiative visit their website at:</div><div><br></div><div><span = class=3D"Apple-tab-span" style=3D"white-space:pre"> <a = href=3D"http://www.ipcc.ch/">http://www.ipcc.ch/</a></span></div><div><br>= </div><div><span class=3D"Apple-tab-span" = style=3D"white-space:pre"></span>Or the Wikipedia page about the = IPCC:</div><div><br></div><div><span class=3D"Apple-tab-span" = style=3D"white-space:pre"> </span><a = href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Ch= ange">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Chan= ge</a></div><div><br></div><div>Which also includes a section on some of = the mistakes that have surfaced through the history of the IPCC reports, = some of the criticisms that have been leveled at their conclusions, and = how scientists have responded to these = critiques.</div><div><br></div><div>Our understanding of climate change = is still imperfect, but at this stage it has moved well beyond being = "dismissed on a dime". We need to perfect our knowledge, but even more = importantly, we need to take decisive action to halt and reverse this = trend which threatens the environmental integrity of the planet - and = humanity together with it.</div><div><br></div><div>Best = wishes,</div><div><br></div><div>Chris</div><div><br><blockquote = type=3D"cite"> <div><br></div> <div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul = 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Lois Codling <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a = href=3D"mailto:loiscodling@hfx.eastlink.ca">loiscodling@hfx.eastlink.ca</a= >></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote style=3D"border-left-color: rgb(204, = 204, 204); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; margin-top: = 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; = padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; " = class=3D"gmail_quote"><br>Are the scientists who are always ready to = drop a theory in face of evidence, ready?<br><br><a = href=3D"http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-al= armism-192334971.html" = target=3D"_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-<u></u>data-blow-gaping-hold-= global-<u></u>warming-alarmism-192334971.<u></u>html</a><br> <font = color=3D"#888888"><br>Lois = Codling<br></font></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div><br></div><br>= <br><div apple-content-edited=3D"true"> <span class=3D"Apple-style-span" = style=3D"border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: = 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: = normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: = normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: = none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; = -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: = 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: = auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div style=3D"word-wrap: = break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: = after-white-space; "><div><p align=3D""></p><p align=3D""></p><div = align=3D"">Christopher Majka</div><div align=3D"">6252 Jubilee Rd., = Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 2G5</div><div align=3D""><a = href=3D"mailto:c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca">c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca</a></div><= div align=3D""> </div><i>In theory there's no difference between = theory and practice. In practice there is.</i><span = class=3D"Apple-converted-space"> </span>- Yogi = Berra<p></p><p></p></div></div></span> </div><br></body></html>= --Apple-Mail-56-951912245--
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects