If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsMax)   "Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change... attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless -- but very costly"   (newsmax.com) divider line 544
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

12412 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2007 at 1:12 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



544 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-12-11 09:15:28 AM  
There's a doctor in Australia who can help.
Linky
 
2007-12-11 09:24:53 AM  
If anything we should try even harder to increase CO2 emissions on the theory that whatever doesn't destroy the planet will make it stronger. I'm no scientician, but that just makes good old fashioned sense.
 
2007-12-11 09:25:17 AM  
Solar variability is definitely an element but it doesn't explain all of the warming. ISTR there's evidence debunking it as the prime mover with reference to Mars' ice caps and archived gases from glaciers, but I'm probably wrong if NewsMaxxxxx is reporting otherwise.
 
2007-12-11 09:32:44 AM  
Mordant: If anything we should try even harder to increase CO2 emissions on the theory that whatever doesn't destroy the planet will make it stronger. I'm no scientician, but that just makes good old fashioned sense.

I'm making it a cornerstone of my presidential campaign to mandate that all hybrid engines be replaced with Hummer engines. So, that should help.

/vote Pocket Ninja in 2008. Vote early, vote often.
 
2007-12-11 09:38:19 AM  
A little background on the authors:

Dr. Douglass appears to have no background in atmospheric physics. His area of expertise is experimental condensed matter physics, and seemed to pick up climate change as a side project.

Dr. Christy (of Alabama-Hunstville, not Tuscaloosa), on the other hand, is a well-respected climatologist and was a contributor to the IPCC. He has mixed views of global warming, believing that human activity is contributing to climate change, but not through the greenhouse effect.

Dr. Singer...Well... (new window)
 
2007-12-11 09:43:10 AM  
Aren't these the Exxon-funded guys who come out with variations of the same "report" every other year or so?
 
2007-12-11 09:57:01 AM  
Yes, I get all my science news from a neocon tabloid.
 
2007-12-11 09:57:49 AM  
It's funny how they only believe the research when it's convenient for their greed. Sure, maybe 99% of real research came to the exact opposite conclusions, but they're sure this is the only one that's actually true.
 
2007-12-11 10:04:17 AM  
Took 30 minutes for the reflexive squawk...and a few minutes more for trashing the source of the report with no reference to the report itself...

You guys are slipping.
 
2007-12-11 10:06:06 AM  
7of7: It's funny how they only believe the research when it's convenient for their greed. Sure, maybe 99% of real research came to the exact opposite conclusions, but they're sure this is the only one that's actually true.

Except that probably 80-90% of the people attacking the science aren't even remotely sharing in any of the profits. They are getting reamed just like everyone else, but just know that they are programmed to attack "Libs" on command and not ask any questions.
 
2007-12-11 10:10:36 AM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Took 30 minutes for the reflexive squawk...and a few minutes more for trashing the source of the report with no reference to the report itself...

You guys are slipping.


You give me the $25 I need to buy a copy of the report, and I'll read it and give you my opinion as a multi-degreed environmental engineer.

Deal?
 
2007-12-11 10:16:38 AM  
I'd pay for a copy of the report if it came on the back of an ExxonMobil stock certificate. May as well get in on the deal if you're going to take the time to work for them.
 
2007-12-11 10:17:35 AM  
PurplePimpSaber: You give me the $25 I need to buy a copy of the report, and I'll read it and give you my opinion as a multi-degreed environmental engineer.

I'm not the one trying to discount it...Burden is on you, pal.
 
2007-12-11 10:24:18 AM  
Hey PurplePimpSaber, I'm e-mailing you a copy of the PDF report. (to the e-mail in your profile)

Have at it!
 
2007-12-11 10:27:20 AM  
Mordant: If anything we should try even harder to increase CO2 emissions on the theory that whatever doesn't destroy the planet will make it stronger. I'm no scientician, but that just makes good old fashioned sense.

Mordant for prez, 2008
 
2007-12-11 10:30:49 AM  
Unright: Hey PurplePimpSaber, I'm e-mailing you a copy of the PDF report. (to the e-mail in your profile)

Have at it!


Sweet. You folks have a subscription over at USF? UCF's library blows. :-P
 
2007-12-11 10:32:37 AM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Took 30 minutes for the reflexive squawk...and a few minutes more for trashing the source of the report with no reference to the report itself...

You guys are slipping.


In fairness, it's a pretty technical report. It'll take some time to read it, digest it, and find the flaws.

Here is the Abstract:

ABSTRACT: We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 'Climate of the 20th Century' model
simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era).
Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by
more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than
observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with
those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright  2007 Royal Meteorological Society


It looks like they just have a model that disagrees with most accepted reports based on altitude. Some of the math they use for the modeling is a bit beyond me, but in the event everything is kosher, it's still a single report that disagrees with a lot of currently accepted data. Much more modeling, testing, and measuring needs to be done. It's hardly a "a blockbuster report published in a prestigious scientific journal insists that the evidence shows that climate warming is both natural and unstoppable and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant." as NewsMax claims.
 
2007-12-11 10:36:30 AM  
PurplePimpSaber: Sweet. You folks have a subscription over at USF? UCF's library blows. :-P

Everytime our football team beats yours we take some of your journal subscriptions as a trophy. ;)
 
2007-12-11 10:37:01 AM  
Well...after reading the abstract and the intro, I can go so far as to say that the NewsMax media coverage is spun to Mars...the study is confined to the tropics. I have a feeling that extending the results a study of the middle 22% of the planet to the entire atmosphere would be just a wee bit invalid.

Long paper...very technical...gonna take me some time, but I'll give y'all my thoughts later.
 
2007-12-11 10:42:35 AM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Took 30 minutes for the reflexive squawk...and a few minutes more for trashing the source of the report with no reference to the report itself...

You guys are slipping.


Meh.
 
2007-12-11 10:44:14 AM  
I don't understand why anyone is still doing research on climate change. Al Gore has already announced that the debate is over, so there is absolutely no good reason for anyone on either side of this issue to do research or write papers.
 
2007-12-11 10:44:46 AM  
satchel13: I don't understand why anyone is still doing research on climate change. Al Gore has already announced that the debate is over, so there is absolutely no good reason for anyone on either side of this issue to do research or write papers.

Idiot.
 
2007-12-11 10:50:50 AM  
i27.photobucket.com

"I'm the NewsMax Floorhumper and I don't let the liberal media attempt to control my C02 emissions. Send for my free booklet today!"
 
2007-12-11 10:57:25 AM  
PurplePimpSaber Dr. Christy (of Alabama-Hunstville, not Tuscaloosa), on the other hand, is a well-respected climatologist and was a contributor to the IPCC. He has mixed views of global warming, believing that human activity is contributing to climate change, but not through the greenhouse effect.

I thought that all climatologists were of one mind on this. At least that's what the "experts" here on Fark were claiming. Again, reality, their worst enemy. Let's blast the report anyway because we don't like someone messing with our reality.
 
2007-12-11 10:59:28 AM  
NewsMax: a blockbuster report published in a prestigious scientific journal insists that ... carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.

Number of times that carbon dioxide (CO2) is mentioned in the report: none.
 
2007-12-11 11:06:21 AM  
The NewsMax article fails entirely. And the quotes given by the scientists involved in the study, if quoted correctly, are all kinds of intellectually irresponsible.

The only conclusion reached by this study is that observed temperature trends in the troposphere, as measured by satellite, are inconsistent with model trends. The study appears to confirm that surface temperature trends are consistent with the models, indicating that the surface is warming faster than the troposphere, which is an interesting development that is contradictory to the current models of the greenhouse effect.

What does this mean? It may mean that scientists will have to re-evaluate the greenhouse theory to ascertain how the various levels of the atmosphere will respond to climate forcing. Does it invalidate the greenhouse theory? Absolutely not. Does it follow from this study that CO2 is not a pollutant and all of that other garbage quoted in the link? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
 
2007-12-11 11:08:13 AM  
satchel13: I don't understand why anyone is still doing research on climate change. Al Gore has already announced that the debate is over, so there is absolutely no good reason for anyone on either side of this issue to do research or write papers.

PurplePimpSaber: Idiot.

You're starting to get it!
 
2007-12-11 11:10:38 AM  
Dancin_In_Anson: satchel13: I don't understand why anyone is still doing research on climate change. Al Gore has already announced that the debate is over, so there is absolutely no good reason for anyone on either side of this issue to do research or write papers.

PurplePimpSaber: Idiot.

You're starting to get it!


No one ever claimed the debate was over. For a scientist or engineer, the debate is NEVER over. For everything.
 
2007-12-11 11:11:36 AM  
satchel13: I don't understand why anyone is still doing research on climate change. Al Gore has already announced that the debate is over, so there is absolutely no good reason for anyone on either side of this issue to do research or write papers.

PurplePimpSaber: Idiot.

Although your response to my comment is very insightful and borders on being poetic, please be kind enough to expound your thought. Being an idiot, I don't actually understand what you are saying to me.
 
2007-12-11 11:20:22 AM  
PurplePimpSaber: No one ever claimed the debate was over.

You're new here aren't you?
 
2007-12-11 11:23:12 AM  
Dr. Douglass appears to have no background in atmospheric physics.

Neither does Al Gore, but he DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
2007-12-11 11:23:59 AM  
PurplePimpSaber No one ever claimed the debate was over. For a scientist or engineer, the debate is NEVER over. For everything.

I thought the Patron Saint of Climate Change was inerrant. I suppose when Al Gore said: "the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate." and "There is no more scientific debate among serious people who've looked at the evidence." and "Well, I guess in some quarters, there's still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the earth is flat instead of round." - Gore was actually saying that the debate is ongoing and worthy of discussion.
 
2007-12-11 11:25:25 AM  
satchel13: Although your response to my comment is very insightful and borders on being poetic, please be kind enough to expound your thought. Being an idiot, I don't actually understand what you are saying to me.

Uh, he expounded on it just above your comment. A public figure announcing a conclusion hardly means that all science on the subject has to stop. Your original comment was laced in sarcasm, so the charge of idiocy should not really surprise you.
 
2007-12-11 11:29:28 AM  
satchel13: I thought the Patron Saint of Climate Change was inerrant. I suppose when Al Gore said: "the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate." and "There is no more scientific debate among serious people who've looked at the evidence." and "Well, I guess in some quarters, there's still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the earth is flat instead of round." - Gore was actually saying that the debate is ongoing and worthy of discussion.

Oh, I see. You're only interested in attacking Al Gore. You do realize that very few environmentalist believes that Gore is infallible.

/But.. But Gore!
 
2007-12-11 11:39:59 AM  
PurplePimpSaber: What does this mean? It may mean that scientists will have to re-evaluate the greenhouse theory to ascertain how the various levels of the atmosphere will respond to climate forcing. Does it invalidate the greenhouse theory? Absolutely not. Does it follow from this study that CO2 is not a pollutant and all of that other garbage quoted in the link? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I interpreted the report as basically saying that since the data sets that the IPCC use don't correctly model temperatures at the troposperic level, then the entire data set should be discarded in favor of a different data set that does model the troposphere correctly and also has a opposite view of what's going to happen to surface temperatures.

/WARNING: UNRIGHT IS NOT AN EXPERT ON ATMOSPHERIC MODELING
 
2007-12-11 11:48:33 AM  
Your carbon monoxide non-pollution theories are intriguing, please test them by sitting in your closed garage with the car running.
 
2007-12-11 11:59:52 AM  
brap: carbon monoxide

Eh?
 
2007-12-11 12:02:24 PM  
The problem is that we simply do not know enough about how the planet works to construct a reliable simulation. We are making educated guesses at everything we do as there is simply no way to run anything other than a computer model that may or may not have every factor calculated in.
 
2007-12-11 12:03:44 PM  
PurplePimpSaber: No one ever claimed the debate was over

There's an Al Gore thread down the page a little that needs some attention.
 
2007-12-11 12:07:33 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: PurplePimpSaber: No one ever claimed the debate was over

There's an Al Gore thread down the page a little that needs some attention.


Some of us have work to do.

Potable water supplies to protect, wetlands to restore. All in a day's work for...ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER!!!
 
2007-12-11 12:16:05 PM  
If Al Gore is not to be taken seriously, why do so many global warming skeptics choose to argue with him and not, you know, actual scientists?
 
2007-12-11 12:19:40 PM  
PurplePimpSaber: No one ever claimed the debate was over. For a scientist or engineer, the debate is NEVER over. For everything.

UN Calls Climate Debate Over Link (new window)
 
2007-12-11 12:23:36 PM  
Fark is boring today.
 
2007-12-11 12:27:11 PM  
satchel13 makes a great point. Everyone can understand that the planet is warming up. It did before too. That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of political opportunists out there trying to cash in on this whole situation by turning it into a crisis. Some academics are into it for the government funding and others are in it for the political power. The trouble is that as long as the hucksters and liars are on the same side as the inconclusive science, people will have a hard time taking that science seriously. The debate is NOT over. It never has been. Those claiming it is are only hurting their own argument and making the real scientists look bad by association.

Crosshair The problem is that we simply do not know enough about how the planet works to construct a reliable simulation. We are making educated guesses at everything we do as there is simply no way to run anything other than a computer model that may or may not have every factor calculated in.

Another good point. Good luck trying to convince the "scientists" that are in it for the funding.
 
2007-12-11 12:34:49 PM  
a248.e.akamai.net

Herbal boner pill ads are a sure sign of a reputable news source.

*Thinks GW is real but overblown.
 
2007-12-11 12:35:03 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: brap: carbon monoxide

Eh?


Okay, I get it.

Internal combustion emits sunshine, lollipops, and the old dioxide vs. monoxide chestnut.

Well paint me pink and call me embarrassed, reading IS fundamental.
 
2007-12-11 12:46:33 PM  
NeoAnderthal: That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of political opportunists out there trying to cash in on this whole situation by turning it into a crisis. Some academics are into it for the government funding and others are in it for the political power.

A fair point. A scientist with an agenda is a poor scientist. But many of the climate change de-bunker scientists are tainted by the facts that their results nearly always support the position of the corporations who fund them.
 
2007-12-11 01:27:01 PM  
www.barberelectronics.com?
 
2007-12-11 01:29:12 PM  
This website needs to have its name changed to Little Green Farkballs.
 
2007-12-11 01:29:36 PM  
If the military of a country incinerates a town in another country, which country gets charged for the CO2 emissions?
 
Displayed 50 of 544 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report