Even NASA doesn't believe in man-made global warming (article)

America is in the shi tter? That is an interesting claim about a country that, while having a number of pressing problems and serious inequalities, basically enjoys the most prosperous economy and highest standard of living of any civilization in history

okdoc wrote:

The thing about global warming is that it is not true. I feel bad for all the muppets who buy into it and think they are superior.

Well, thank you for your assertion. I guess because the assertion is, you know, *yours*, that that should be good enough for anyone, and I'll just go ahead and change an opinion that I'd formed over the course of several years' examination of evidence and debate. What was I thinking?

While you're making assertions based (apparently) on no evidence beyond your own say-so, why don't you tell me that there's a "god"?

the used to be cancer guy wrote:

I've always wondered about the distribution of monitoring stations is relative to populated areas. How many are close to cities?

I had a college course on weather and climate and did a project on urban heat island. I had a lot of graphs that showed increasing temperature in cities that experienced significant population growth, which supported the concept of urban heat island. Many of the weather stations were at airports or rural areas that were slowly being surrounded by urban structures such as buildings or pavement. Not one single person commented about global warming (including the professor), and not a single person in the class did a project related to global warming. This was 1997. Less than 10 years later it was one of the biggest environmental topics discussed.

Great, so wrote:

We know that increased CO2 contributes to raising temperatures in a system, and we know that we are releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

We also know that increasing temperature causes biological activity to increase which will cause CO2 levels to increase. Who came first, the CO2 or the temperature increase?

rolo wrote:

Great, so wrote:

We know that increased CO2 contributes to raising temperatures in a system, and we know that we are releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

We also know that increasing temperature causes biological activity to increase which will cause CO2 levels to increase. Who came first, the CO2 or the temperature increase?

You appear to not understand what "Great, so" wrote. Either that or you are being disingenuous.

Please go back and reread this:

"We know that increased CO2 contributes to raising temperatures in a system, and we know that we are releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere."

and then come back and attempt to say something that pertains to this statement of fact.

Thanks.

Most idiots obviously responded without reading the article. Anyone who has worked with simulations and models, you have to be a so called climate scientist, knows how inherently inaccurate they are. Models are only somewhat accurate in predicting things that have already happened. Predicating outside the data points is unpredictable.

Can someone do me a favour and define "climate scientist" for me. What specific education background does one require to be considered a climate scientist? Thanks

Well, I think this may be part of the problem. I'm not so sure about the "extreme minority group" moniker. It seems to me that this minority has been manufactured, as it were, by first shoving everyone aside that isn't a "climate scientist." So this is, I think, quite misleading. My point is simply this: there are plenty of people who are not climate scientists who are very capable of reading and understanding the research and who shouldn't be marginalized because they don't work as a climate scientist. Do you disagree with that point? Are climate scientists the only ones who are able to understand the research and come to reasonable conclusions?

Actually, this is the barrel that I can put you over. I read the linked article, but not the following links or the full letter. In the article they simply mentioned empirical evidence without citing anything. But, as you say, if that is all there really is, only a vague charge, then why would these people make it? The point is that, whether accurate or not, they really believe that there is empirical evidence that is contradictory to the current consensus. So the scenario is reversed. You and others need to find out what they are referencing and then rebut it. I agree. That's how it works. In this thread, however, all we were getting (and are continuing to get), is, "but they're not climate scientists", which obviously isn't the type of rebutting you are speaking of here, but more of an ad-hominem.

But here you are way out on a limb, assuming that those who signed the letter were attempting themselves to do the relevant research. The wording of the letter, however, seems to imply that that is not the case, but that they have reviewed relevant research (see my first points above), and have found empirical research that is contradictory. Are you saying that there is zero published work that would or can cast doubt on current thinking?

some random dude wrote:

Can someone do me a favour and define "climate scientist" for me...

Chemist: Scientist who dedicates his/her professional efforts to the study of chemistry

Physicist: Scientist who dedicates his/her professional efforts to the study of physics

Marine Biologist: Scientist who dedicates his/her professional efforts to the study of marine biology

Archeologist: Scientist who dedicates his/her professional efforts to the study of archeology

Climate Scientist: Scientist who dedicates his/her professional efforts to the study of climate

Now that wasn't too difficult was it?

the used to be cancer guy wrote:

I've always wondered about the distribution of monitoring stations is relative to populated areas. How many are close to cities?

shows the position of monitoring stations in the US. It's an effort that grew out of concerns similar to what you suggest. It's also a good example of legitimate skepticism concerned with improving the state of climate science as contrasted to efforts like this letter to congress which is nothing more than propaganda designed to influence public opinion.

in general, people with doctoral degrees in climatology, aerology, oceanography, hydrology, ecology, chemistry, statistics, applied mathematics and other related fields of study who work and publish in climate research

I went back to click the link to the full letter. I didn't read it before because I assumed it was probably lengthy and detailed so I wouldn't have time to read it. That's not the case, however. It was short and general. So, one will have to find out what research and climate scientists and other scientists they are referencing.They added:

"For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you."

Do you think this is bluffing? That'd be pretty ballsy.

Henery the Ath wrote:

You appear to not understand what "Great, so" wrote. Either that or you are being disingenuous.

Please go back and reread this:

"We know that increased CO2 contributes to raising temperatures in a system, and we know that we are releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere."

and then come back and attempt to say something that pertains to this statement of fact.

Thanks.

CO2 increases temperature due to the greenhouse gas effect... and rising temperatures increase CO2 output due to increased biological activity. To the casual observer it looks like a positive feedback loop. Nothing disingenuous about it.

Here's a tool for those inclined to prove/disprove global warming. Have at it.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/next/archive/2012/04/20/earth-day_3a00_-microsoft-research-fetchclimate_2100_-puts-big-climate-data-in-the-hands-of-many.aspx

I don't know. Looks like the whole point of the letter to NASA is because NASA *does* believe "in man-made global warming".

What happens when man produces a lot of CO2, and at the same time substantially reduces the number of plants?

dumb wrote:

in general, people with doctoral degrees in climatology, aerology, oceanography, hydrology, ecology, chemistry, statistics, applied mathematics and other related fields of study who work and publish in climate research

Is he a climate scientist?

Great, so wrote:

I would frankly trust the experts, who after all, know best, rather than attacking them with childish conspiracy theories over their impartiality.

Then you, sir, are a fool! plenty of cult-like mindsets have suffered at the hands of "those who knew best". And making a false appeal to authority (in the form of "The Experts") is fallacious reasoning. People are flawed and you cannot safely assume that the altruistic mindset of the "Expert" is to do the best by the data at hand when you don't even know the core beliefs that drive their viewpoints. People, even "Experts", will skew information to fit a desired result because it butters their bread. It is a hard reality of life but it is a fact nonetheless. Your agreement or disagreement of this point doesn't change the flawed reality of human nature. So if your enjoy the music the piper is playing, by all means continue to dance in step.

rolo wrote:

I had a college course on weather and climate and did a project on urban heat island. I had a lot of graphs that showed increasing temperature in cities that experienced significant population growth, which supported the concept of urban heat island. Many of the weather stations were at airports or rural areas that were slowly being surrounded by urban structures such as buildings or pavement. Not one single person commented about global warming (including the professor), and not a single person in the class did a project related to global warming. This was 1997. Less than 10 years later it was one of the biggest environmental topics discussed.

The urban heat island can have an effect, but stations that are affected can be removed from the data by comparing them to rural stations and seeing if their readings are falling out of sync. The areas of the globe that have seen the largest increase in temperatures are found in sparsely populated areas of Northwestern Canada, Alaska and Siberia. The heat island effect has certainly had zero impact on these temperatures. There are specific criteria that weather stations have to meet in order for their data to be considered valid and allowed to be used in research.

"It's well established that urban areas are warmer than surrounding rural areas. However, does Urban Heat Island (UHI) contribute to the global warming trend? Short answer, no. Two thirds of global temperature data comes from ocean records, free of UHI effect. For land records, urban trends are compared to nearby rural data - anomalous urban trends are homogenized to match rural records (Hansen 2001). However, in most cases, the urban temperature trend is observed to be little different to the rural trend."

I think there was implied sarcasm.