Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
AudioGuy writes:
"You heard it here first. According to Natural News, a NASA report has verified that carbon dioxide actually cools the atmosphere.
Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence."
[Ed. note] I'm going to post this, because why not argue science that has been settled? Also, we needed to test the algorithm that generated mod points by sparking conversation. This was as good a way as any to get posts quickly. Sorry if you thought SoylentNews really endorsed this. ~Mattie_p
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2014, @12:00PM
The climate models are inaccurate because of the level of granularity we can measure/compute and the many missing elements. It's like doing physics problems on relativistic particles with a Bohr model. Climate Change is obviously happening and has throughout the planet's history. No-one doubts that. What frustrates me is that 'scientists' quote consensus when there we are flat out guessing about the differences attributable to each component of the thermodynamics of the mixed solid/fluid/radiant system that is our planet within the context of the solar system. It could be that, like the Bohr model, we are in a range where the assumptions made by the models are valid approximations for what's happening. That is what the theory supporters believe, and they have compiled empirical evidence to support that point of view. But when they say things like The Science Is Settled, well that is obviously incorrect. Model performance over the last 20 years demonstrates the need for improvements.
The truth is, our best effort to predict future climate indicate we should be concerned human activities are affecting global equilibrium. But our understanding is too incomplete to Scientifically prove anything. There is also no clear-cut method forward to change that path. If we cut C02 emissions by some percent but increase methane output, are we better off? If we spray sulfides into the upper atmosphere but lose our pine forests which absorb CO2 to acid rain, is that a net win? It's a complex system so unintended consequences will abound.
The posted article covers one aspect of the energy balance. What's thermal conductivity between the lower atmosphere and this level? Can we measure the energy flow between them? How accurately? Those would be useful things to know. Saying that this disproves Global Warming is pure sensationalism. It is interesting and measurements like this are certainly the first steps towards modeling it. And so forth.
Want to end the arguments? Put all the research completely into the public domain. All the code, all the methods, all the data, everything. Then start picking things apart, addressing issues, and improving them. If a study is missing original data, it is discarded or repeated to proper scientific standards. And stop claiming The Science is Settled because if it's settled, it's not science.
As an aside, the incredible irony of Al Gore calling the nay-sayers the Flat Earth society when arguing for consensus and against scientific method is mind boggling.
(Score: 1) by ArhcAngel on Monday February 17 2014, @01:06PM
Your sane, thoughtful, and concise discourse on this site will not be tolerated! You are either a Global Warming conspirator or a Flat Earther you incentive clod...
I don't have mod points or I'd give them all to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2014, @05:32PM
And stop claiming The Science is Settled because if it's settled, it's not science."
Pure genius that comment, thank you - but on the aside, how can you have "science" if you can't test your hypothesis.... this is where the climate change junkies miss the mark - climate-statistics-gathering ISN'T "Science" - hypothesis, theory, test, conclusion - it's just data-gathering. Or in stock-speak: "Past performance does not equal future results."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2014, @05:35PM
Past performance doesn't GUARANTEE future results, that is - self edit!!! Good day sir!
(Score: 1) by Maow on Thursday February 20 2014, @08:02AM
So, you have determined that the models are inaccurate, but then you admit you haven't personally accessed the data nor the models? Are you psychic then?
Ars Technica has covered climate models [arstechnica.com] quite thoroughly:
Apologies for the extensive quote, but I think it covers the climate model objections rather nicely.
Also, "All models are wrong. Some models are useful."
Finally,
Ahem. The truth is, our best efforts are projections of future climate, and very thoroughly take into account various human activities as inputs. They do this by re-running different models with various CO2 outputs, forest coverages (and types and ages), and many, many other variables, then averaging the outputs and using statistics to assign confidence levels. Like one would expect actual scientists to do.
Final finally: I get quite distrustful when Al Gore is mentioned in climate science discussions: he is not a scientist, he makes no claims of being a scientist, and "how fat" he is, or how his house is huge == no global warming are disingenuous, at best.