Study Finds "Huge Discrepancy" Between Hard Data and Warming Models

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by dime21, Jul 29, 2011.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    #1
    A new study by former NASA climatologist find huge discrepancy between climate models and hard data. I'm surprised the Climategate criminals didn't try and suppress this somehow. :rolleyes:

    http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Find...Hard+Data+and+Warming+Models/article22301.htm
     
  2. macrumors G3

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #2
    Hilarious, now that you have some data that supports your viewpoint, suddenly you believe in the scientific method.

    How very credible of you. :roll eyes:

    Keep in mind this is one study. One.
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #3
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

    He's also on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank, and is on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.
     
  4. StruckANerve, Jul 29, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2011

    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #4
    I am going to be keeping an eye on this one. It seems like legit research. And attacking his associations in his personal life is petty. Let the science stand on its own.
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #5
    I'm glad that you see the necessity for much more research in this area. The purpose of these satellites is to understand the physics better.
     
  6. macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #6
    Meanwhile, I can count on one hand how many days it's been below 89 in my area in the past month, where 85 was considered hot, ten years ago.
     
  7. macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Yep- same here. I was talking to some of the guys on my hockey team about how they used to play hockey outside on ponds in the winter here. They said it's not been possible for over ten years now, because it never gets cold enough, long enough anymore. Wonder why that is?
     
  8. macrumors 603

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #8
    Small sample size. In the 16 years I've lived in Texas, this past winter was the most brutally cold we've ever had, by far (by our standards, of course). Six snow days resulting in school closings - I've never seen more than two before. Temperatures in the single digits when the 99.6% design condition is 17°.

    Does that mean the Earth is getting colder? Of course not; this summer has been equally brutal for us, even for what we're used to.
     
  9. macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #9
    Okay, first, the University of Alabama in Huntsville is not the University of Alabama. Completely different schools. Spencer does not work for UA. He works for UAH.

    He's also a complete nut. He's been playing this same tune in various forms for years now, often using statistical trickery to cook data consistent with his pre-formed religiously-driven conclusion that humans do not affect the climate. It's actually a sign of how his position is eroding that the new finding says only that warming is happening more slowly than models indicate, not that it isn't happening.

    Spencer is not doing science right. He's hardly doing it at all.

    EDIT: Oh, and by the way, the last paragraph -- or should I say hagiograph -- of the article the OP posted is hilarious. Can we get a picture of him staring off into the distance with an American flag waving behind him to go along with that?
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #10
    Oh no! Mother Earth is spewing out heat faster than scientist previously thought. It's the dawn of a new Ice Age. It's The Day After Tomorrow.:p I should work for Faux News.;) Have the gotten hold of the story yet? They better not steal my Ice Age angle.:p
     
  11. macrumors G4

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #11
    It is not even necessary to mention his conservative political connections. Just look at his work on climate change - it's sloppy and extremely suspect. Most of his work output is geared toward getting his controversial opinions out to the general public, rather than winning over the scientific community. He is a partisan shill.

    Classic tactic nowadays...if your professional peers think you are a quack, write a popular book and try to fool the ignorant.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #12
    50 years ago, conservatives were saying that we had to develop nuclear power because of global warming. Now they are saying that there is no global warming. I guess conservatives aren't what they used to be.
     
  13. Lord Blackadder, Jul 29, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2011

    macrumors G4

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #13
    Nothing is what it used to be; the validity of an approach should be measured in part by its ability to adapt to a changing world. Yesterday's progressives may be today's reactionaries.
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    Sure, I mean there's thousands of research projects that continue to find strong evidence for climate change, let's focus on one that presents some doubt.

    Being a skeptic is fine, but I find it interesting to watch a single Forbes article—not known for its science coverage—wend its way through the conservative media-sphere based on a flawed scientific article.

    Second, this isn't Spencer personal associations we're talking about, rather we're discussing associations that may motivate and polemicize his scientific work. I disagree with Discover on this, it's not an ad hominem to discuss his motivations. He is an avowed skeptic who works for Exxon.
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #15
    Don't get me wrong, I am fairly convinced of the negative impact humans are having on the climate and I do believe the planet is warming. I am not, however, completely opposed to the idea that the effect we are having might be exaggerated. After a bit of digging I did find that Dr. Spencer has repeatedly put forth papers with very flawed methods of calculation, so his reputation and motivation is very questionable. Let's just say I will await the scientific communities assessment of this new paper.
     
  16. macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #16
    Cormorants have been sighted in flocks, just off Toronto harbour.

    First time in many moons, Ke-mo sah-bee.

    Just sayin'. ;)
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #17
    You are aware that it was determined that no wrong doing or manipulation of data occurred during the contrived "Clmategate" scandal?

    In other words Climategate never actually happened....
     
  18. Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #18
    Exactly. If the science is legitimate then his personal opinions/ beliefs are irrelevant.

    The key word I saw was 'peer reviewed journal'. If there are issues I'm sure we'll hear about them.
     
  19. macrumors G4

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #19
    Only if you listen.
     
  20. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    Last time before the last year or two there was serious snow here was 1990.
     
  21. Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #21
    I'm sure someone will relish posting that development to this thread. I eagerly anticipate its arrival.
     
  22. Lord Blackadder, Jul 29, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2011

    macrumors G4

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #22
    At this point I'm not rejecting his paper out of hand, but people who desire to give his position undue weight are loudly trumpeting a single article in a journal. He is currently badly outnumbered, and if you give his single article in a peer reviewed journal a great deal of credence than surely you are willing to give a correspondingly greater credence to the large number of articles in peer reviewed journals (easily available though a cursory search of journals on the web, though Google, or in any universary library) that suggest evidence for anthropogenic climate change? Why is his single article more important than a large number of at least equally credible articles that you may disagree with?

    If his work results in a major reversal of the scientific consensus, then he is vindicated. If not, we can legitimiately declare his position fringe science at best.
     
  23. Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #23
    Of course.

    I think you've mistakenly assumed I have an opinion on Global Warming. FWIW I'm not a science and math guy. I'd rather leave that stuff to the experts; who ever they may be.
     
  24. macrumors 6502

    Daffodil

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Location:
    In a sunny state of mind
    #24
    For all of you who haven't already, I very strongly urge you to read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes. As a historian of science, she analyzes the whole climate debate from a historical point of view and demonstrates pretty convincingly how it's been settled by science for a good long time in favor - if you wish to call it that - of ongoing anthropogenic climate change.

    She draws a very convincing parallel to the tobacco industry's decades of denial and deliberate deception in light of mounds of evidence to the contrary. It's an excellent summary of how ridiculous the whole climate "debate" is at this point, and how we desperately need to shift our focus to how to combat it. Heaven knows there'll be enough to argue about as far as implementing real policy, let alone this petty squabbling and putting your fingers in your ears pretending that the problem doesn't exist.

    Although it's written in such a style that she sort of hits you over the head with the main arguments, it's still a fantastic, enlightening, very evidence-based read.
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #25
    His personal opinions are influencing his science. As nmrrjw66 noted, his calculations are often flawed and that's really the problem with men like Spencer feign iconoclasm when they're really just bad scientists.

    Not many scientists get glowing essays in Forbes magazine and the reason is entirely politics.
     

Share This Page