NASA study disagrees with climate change models

[CosmicCowboy]

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

By James Taylor | Forbes – 22 hrs ago


New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Silly CC.

The debate is over.
Love,
Al

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.heartland.org/

LOL..The Heartland Insititute.... :lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Interested to look over the actual info but in the meantime LOL at any "news article" that uses the term "alarmist" over and over. Love me some non biased journalism.

Roy Spencer is good with many aspects of satellite observation, but he's also come out in the past and said it was cooler after having made mistakes. Once the mistakes were fixed he then had to turn around and say MY BAD. Credit to him to admit the mistake, however.

[CosmicCowboy]

George Gervins Afro

LOL :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, I see. This is a response to another study (Dressler 2010) and it was just accepted for publication. Will wait to see it once its out.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Interested to look over the actual info but in the meantime LOL at any "news article" that uses the term "alarmist" over and over. Love me some non biased journalism.

Roy Spencer is good with many aspects of satellite observation, but he's also come out in the past and said it was cooler after having made mistakes. Once the mistakes were fixed he then had to turn around and say MY BAD. Credit to him to admit the mistake, however.

why would you be bothered by that? this is a well balanced article by a reputable objective website.

[CosmicCowboy]

why would you be bothered by that? this is a well balanced article by a reputable objective website.

You dumbass. It was Yahoo news, from forbes. The study was by a NASA scientist in a peer reviewed scientific journal. It was an article reporting on the study. You are SUCH an ignorant ass.

[MannyIsGod]

Its an op ed published in Forbes and then carried by yahoo. Its not a news article, though. The study hasn't been published yet, its only going to be published so its hard to remark on what is actually in it.

[DarrinS]

I don't know why they're still studying this issue because there's already a consensus -- a CONSENSUS. It is already known that all the polar ice will melt and the sea level will rise by 20 or more feet, leaving many parts of the country under water, and killing most polar bears. It was in a movie.

[MannyIsGod]

Who ever said a consensus meant you stopped studying? Oh, strawman. Got it. :tu

[Sec24Row7]

This is what was published... no?

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

[Wild Cobra]

This is what was published... no?

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
Yes, your point?

[RandomGuy]

Yes, and I'm sure I can depend on a "senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News" to give me unbiased, clear, and objective interpretations of environmental data.

What do you do for an encore?
Ask a creationist "scientist" to interpret the latest genetic studies?
Ask a holocaust denier to evaluate a collection of holocaust biographies?

Pardon me while I turn up the volume on my skepticism.

[DarrinS]

Yes, and I'm sure I can depend on a "senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News" to give me unbiased, clear, and objective interpretations of environmental data.

What do you do for an encore?
Ask a creationist "scientist" to interpret the latest genetic studies?
Ask a holocaust denier to evaluate a collection of holocaust biographies?

Pardon me while I turn up the volume on my skepticism.


What about Roy Spencer?

[Wild Cobra]

Random, what's your beef?

The data presented clearly indicates that changes in warming isn't as much as modeled by the IPCC and other alarmists.

[RandomGuy]

A bit from a press release concerning the paper.


The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/new-paper-on-the-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedbacks-from-variations-in-earth%E2%80%99s-radiant-energy-balance-by-spencer-and-braswell-2011/


Bad:

"This is a nail in the coffin of global warming alarmism".

Better:
"This is another incremental step aimed at explaining the unkown variances between what we think we understand and what we do".

OP sounds just like the 9-11 wankers when they discover some new "scientist" or "architect" willing to commit to controlled demolition.

[RandomGuy]

Random, what's your beef?

The data presented clearly indicates that changes in warming isn't as much as modeled by the IPCC and other alarmists.

No beef. It is hopefully a good study that advances our knowledge.

If warming turns out to be happening slower than it "should" be, then great, that makes me happy that things might not turn out as bad as some predictions have made it seem.

(edit)
What I do have a beef with is the rather blatant political agenda being spun on this, by someone with every reason to half-truth it into something that is a lie.

[Wild Cobra]

No beef. It is hopefully a good study that advances our knowledge.

If warming turns out to be happening slower than it "should" be, then great, that makes me happy that things might not turn out as bad as some predictions have made it seem.

(edit)
What I do have a beef with is the rather blatant political agenda being spun on this, by someone with every reason to half-truth it into something that is a lie.
You know, the numbers do reflect closer to what I have been saying rather than what the IPCC has been saying...

[MannyIsGod]

Random, what's your beef?

The data presented clearly indicates that changes in warming isn't as much as modeled by the IPCC and other alarmists.

Will you explain to all of us how the data provided does just that?

[boutons_deux]

If You Wish To Make Up Facts From Scratch...

The claim that scientists predicted an imminent "ice age" in the 1970s is a common myth employed by conservative media outlets who invariably cite headlines in "news magazines" rather than scientific literature. A 2008 paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society actually reviewed the climate research published in the 70s and concluded that "global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus" and "emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107280027?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+County+Fair%29

[MannyIsGod]

I thought this was actually new but its actually the same model Spencer has been using for quite some time. This is not news and has already bee taken apart. That being said, I'm looking forward to WC's post telling us why this is so good. I'll explain why its not but first I really want to see that WC post.

[InRareForm]

http://www.raviolirecipe.net/images/Ravioli.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

I thought this was actually new but its actually the same model Spencer has been using for quite some time. This is not news and has already bee taken apart. That being said, I'm looking forward to WC's post telling us why this is so good. I'll explain why its not but first I really want to see that WC post.
Just refer to my previous posts on GW. You'll have to wait till tomorrow for more detail from me. i have to leave soon.

[tlongII]

I don't know why they're still studying this issue because there's already a consensus -- a CONSENSUS. It is already known that all the polar ice will melt and the sea level will rise by 20 or more feet, leaving many parts of the country under water, and killing most polar bears. It was in a movie.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/apnewsbreak-alaska-researcher-who-documented-polar-bears-demise-in-artic-is-placed-on-leave/2011/07/28/gIQALNfPeI_story.html

APNewsBreak: Alaska researcher who documented polar bears demise in Arctic is placed on leave

JUNEAU, Alaska — Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.

Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.

The federal agency where he works told him he’s being investigated for “integrity issues,” but a watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear.

The group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, filed a complaint on his behalf Thursday with the agency, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Investigators have not yet told Monnett of the specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, the watchdog group’s executive director.

A BOEMRE spokeswoman, Melissa Schwartz, said there was an “ongoing internal investigation” but declined to get into specifics.

Whatever the outcome, the investigation comes at a time when climate change activists and those who are skeptical about global warming are battling over the credibility of scientists’ work.

Members of both sides, however, said that it was too early to make any pronouncements about the case, particularly since the agency has not yet released the details of the allegations against him.

Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the case reinforces the group’s position that people should be more skeptical about the work of climate change scientists.

Even if every scientist is objective, “what we’re being asked to do is turn our economy around and spend trillions and trillions of dollars on the basis of” climate change claims, he said.

Francesca Grifo, director of the scientific integrity program for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said she’s not alarmed by the handling of the case so far.

Grifo said the allegations made in the complaint filed by Ruch’s group are premature and said people should wait to see what, if anything, comes of the inspector general’s investigation.

Beyond the climate change debate, the investigation also focuses attention on an Obama administration policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.

The complaint seeks Monnett’s reinstatement and a public apology from the agency and inspector general, whose office is conducting the probe.

The group’s filing also seeks to have the investigation dropped or to have the charges specified and the matter carried out quickly and fairly, as the Obama policy states.

BOEMRE, which oversees leasing and development of offshore drilling, was created last year in the reorganization of the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, which oversaw offshore drilling.

The MMS was abolished after the massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The agency was accused of being too close to oil and gas industry interests. A congressional report last year found MMS Alaska was vulnerable to lawsuits and allegations of scientific misconduct.

[Nbadan]

LOL the heartland institute...only wing-nuts can't see the forest from the corporate 501 trees...in the 90's the heartland institute tried to tell us second hand smoke was safe


the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms.[5][6][7] More recently, the Institute has focused on challenging the scientific consensus on climate change, and has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics.[8]

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute)

[Nbadan]

I'm surprised Breitbart not on this dole...


In its early years, the Heartland Institute focused on policies relevant to the Midwestern United States. Since 1993 it has focused on reaching elected officials and opinion leaders in all 50 states. In addition to research, the Heartland Institute features an Internet application called PolicyBot which serves as a clearinghouse for research from other conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the libertarian Cato Institute. The Institute's president and CEO is Joseph L. Bast

Wik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute)

[SnakeBoy]

Random, what's your beef?


People get upset at things that may disprove their dogma.

[boutons_deux]

"PolicyBot which serves as a clearinghouse for research from other conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the libertarian Cato Institute."

VRWC? nah, no communication, no message synchronization, no message discipline, no secrecy, by anybody, nowhere. They're all honest, authentic, open people who never take secret money from the corps and capitalists nor shape their message to their contributors' financial objectives.

[MannyIsGod]

People get upset at things that may disprove their dogma.

THIS is ironic as hell considering how much foam at the mouth this op ed has caused on the web over the past day. This research is not new at all. Its an incredibly simplistic climate model that Roy Spencer has brandied around in the past.

So that being said, the author of this op ed decides to write this a couple of days ago because Spencer's model is actually published. That doesn't mean its new, by any means. In the climate world, its pretty much not news yet you would never know that by looking at the - mostly conservative - blogosphere. There's no new information provided here by a climate scientist at all but rather just an opinion piece provided by someone with a very very poor understanding of the science (might as well have been written by WC tbh). You don't need to know anything about the author or his organization and still have alarm bells ringing by the time you're done simply because of his poor word choice.

Yeah - I definitely think that people do whatever they can to prove their dogma. Look at the reaction this article has gotten.

[MannyIsGod]

My favorite Roy Spencer moment comes on this forum, tbh. WC tried to use one of his old studies showing that the temperature record according to satellites was cooler than what the other data sets were showing. WC jumped all over that one.

Too bad that Roy Spencer had already admitted his mistake for YEARS prior to the point WC wanted to use the study as proof. Nothing proves your point like using a study the author himself has said was flawed.

[RandomGuy]

People get upset at things that may disprove their dogma.


No beef. It is hopefully a good study that advances our knowledge.

If warming turns out to be happening slower than it "should" be, then great, that makes me happy that things might not turn out as bad as some predictions have made it seem.

(edit)
What I do have a beef with is the rather blatant political agenda being spun on this, by someone with every reason to half-truth it into something that is a lie.

Please explain how my statement is dogma.

If you can't:

Fuck you, quit making shit up, you hypocritical asshat.

[RandomGuy]

THIS is ironic as hell considering how much foam at the mouth this op ed has caused on the web over the past day. This research is not new at all. Its an incredibly simplistic climate model that Roy Spencer has brandied around in the past.

So that being said, the author of this op ed decides to write this a couple of days ago because Spencer's model is actually published. That doesn't mean its new, by any means. In the climate world, its pretty much not news yet you would never know that by looking at the - mostly conservative - blogosphere. There's no new information provided here by a climate scientist at all but rather just an opinion piece provided by someone with a very very poor understanding of the science (might as well have been written by WC tbh). You don't need to know anything about the author or his organization and still have alarm bells ringing by the time you're done simply because of his poor word choice.

Yeah - I definitely think that people do whatever they can to prove their dogma. Look at the reaction this article has gotten.



OP sounds just like the 9-11 wankers when they discover some new "scientist" or "architect" willing to commit to controlled demolition.

Yup. This is akin to allowing Baghdad Bob to give you the truth about the Iraq war.

"There are no Americans in Baghdad, and our brave forces are easilly repelling them with heavy losses."

:rolleyes

Is it false simply because they said it? No.
Should you be skeptical? Fuck yes.

Unless of course, you are simply clutching at straws to confirm your own dogma, as the usual suspects readily lined up to do.

[Wild Cobra]

People get upset at things that may disprove their dogma.
True.

I forgot about the dangers of questioning other people's religion.

[MannyIsGod]

Waiting for your explanation.

[Wild Cobra]

Waiting for your explanation.
Why, you've already disagreed with it in the past. Why should you change your mind?

Now refresh my memory though. What study did I support that was later admitted as wrong? I don't recall such a thing happening. I think you're making that up.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Not only did you use it after it was known to be wrong, you then tried to claim it was a "test". So fucking classic. I'm actually LOLing.

Doesn't surprise me you've backed away from your statement last night that you would provide more details today.

[RandomGuy]

Why, you've already disagreed with it in the past. Why should you change your mind?

Now refresh my memory though. What study did I support that was later admitted as wrong? I don't recall such a thing happening. I think you're making that up.

Ninja please. You latch on to anything you find emotionally appealing, and you know it.

If you want to backpeddle though, one of these might be helpful:

http://www.atbshop.co.uk/images/unicycle/trainer20_iso.jpg

Just trying to help. :D

[RandomGuy]

LOL the heartland institute...only wing-nuts can't see the forest from the corporate 501 trees...in the 90's the heartland institute tried to tell us second hand smoke was safe


Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute)

Oooh, yeah. I had almost forgotten about that little turd that the denier crowd would like everyone to overlook.

[MannyIsGod]

Anyhow, since its clear WC is going to run away from this I'll provide some info on why this isn't new and why its not really doing anything to detract from AGW. Spencer's whole schtick regarding this rides on the notion that clouds are the main driver of GW. Most scientists regard them as a feedback mechanism but not an actual cause.

Because of this, Spencer has developed a model to explain the warming and make predictions. This model is simplistic as hell. Its just an equation. I'm sure this is the point where Darrin tells us how this model is poor due to its lack of nuance since this has been a favorite claim of his in the past.

Here is a really good breakdown of Spencer's poorly performing model:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-3/

Key excerts:


The key to understanding Spencer’s choice of a 700 m mixed layer depth is in Figure 6. My best-fit values for alpha and beta at h = 700 m were 3.71 W/m^2/°C and 1.55 W/m^2, respectively. My technique was somewhat different from Spencer’s–for some reason he averaged together thousands of different curves that seemed to fit the data pretty well, and I assume he averaged the adjustable parameter values from these different model runs, as well. Therefore, he obtained similar, but not identical, values: alpha = 3.0 W/m^2/°C and beta = 1.17 W/m^2. Remember that for Spencer’s hypothesis to work, he needed to obtain an alpha value corresponding to negative (alpha > 3.3) or weakly positive feedback. The value alpha = 3.0 corresponds to positive feedback, but it is much weaker than the range Spencer gives for the IPCC models (alpha = 0.9-1.9). So why not choose a mixed layer depth of 800 or 1000 m, and obtain an even larger alpha value? Because the graph in Figure 3 dictates that Spencer also needed a beta value close to 1 W/m^2. And guess what? His ad hoc statistical method automatically gave him answers in the right range!

Did he purposefully manipulate his method to produce just the right values? I actually don’t think so. Roy’s computer program may have generated just the right values simply due to luck, combined with a marked misunderstanding of his model system and a flawed statistical method. When I generated the 24 model curves in Figure 5, which all fit the data equally well using widely different parameters, I collected the averages of all the best-fit parameters and got: alpha = 3.3 W/m^2/°C, beta = 1.38 W/m^2, h = 625 m, and ∆To = -0.66 °C. Wow, those are close to Roy’s preferred parameters, right? Well, the truth is that at first I ramped the ocean depth from 50 to 1000 m, and some of my average parameter values were too low. All I had to do to get what I wanted was change the upper bound to 1200 m. But that’s the point, isn’t it? I could get whatever I wanted by judiciously choosing the right boundary conditions… or by dumb luck.

This discussion brings up another intriguing question. What if we were to choose a realistic mixed-layer depth? What kind of alpha and beta values would we obtain then? In Figure 6, the values for h = 100-200 m are alpha = 0.53-1.06 and beta = 0.22-0.44. In other words, the feedback would have to be just as positive as, or more positive than, that assumed by the IPCC models. And as for beta, Ray Pierrehumbert pointed out that if it were as high as Roy Spencer wants it to be, it would produce fluctuations in the net radiation flux that are much larger than actually observed via satellite. He instead suggested a more reasonable value of 0.25 W/m^2 for beta. So what do you know? By assuming a reasonable mixed layer depth, you can obtain a beta value that is consistent with satellite observations, and an alpha value that indicates feedback that is at least as positive as the IPCC asserts. But then, they wouldn’t be consistent with Roy Spencer’s method for estimating beta shown in Figure 3, or with his hypothesis that climate feedbacks are more negative than the IPCC estimates.

[MannyIsGod]

To put it in a very simple way, if I give you the equation that X+Y+Z = 72 and put no restrictions on X Y but only on Z is it had to achieve X and Y values that you want? Not at all.

[Blake]

LOL the heartland institute...only wing-nuts can't see the forest from the corporate 501 trees...in the 90's the heartland institute tried to tell us second hand smoke was safe


Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute)

You dumbass. It was Yahoo news, from forbes. The study was by a NASA scientist in a peer reviewed scientific journal. It was an article reporting on the study. You are SUCH an ignorant ass.

[Blake]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/apnewsbreak-alaska-researcher-who-documented-polar-bears-demise-in-artic-is-placed-on-leave/2011/07/28/gIQALNfPeI_story.html

APNewsBreak: Alaska researcher who documented polar bears demise in Arctic is placed on leave

JUNEAU, Alaska — Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.

Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.


Oops.

Quite an inconvenience for Al Gore.

[RandomGuy]

You dumbass. It was Yahoo news, from forbes. The study was by a NASA scientist in a peer reviewed scientific journal. It was an article reporting on the study. You are SUCH an ignorant ass.

It was an editorial piece from Forbes.

There is a distinction between an editorial piece and an article.

That Yahoo news didn't stick it in the editorial section was probably an unintentional oversight.



Mr. Taylor has no degree in science that I could find, making him ill-suited to provide cogent analysis on scientific studies concerning atmospheric studies.

He is, however, a lawyer.

http://www.heartland.org/about/profileresults.html?profile=D48A01A1EBE050FE3B85E4 D47FFD65E7&directory=26A394AD86DF0BB9C8E9925B64B54655

His biography very coyly says "bachelor's degree" but did not specify.

Given that he went on to law school, and his political proclivities, I would say that "political science" is the most likely "bachelors degree", especially since they/he would be trumpeting any science degree quite loudly.


Do you always get your scientific analysis from political science majors' editorial pieces, or is it just this one time?

[MannyIsGod]

Just to expand a bit on the above, the model Spencer used in this paper is different form the one that is torn down in the blog post I mentioned. That being said, he has even MORE fully adjustable parameters in the newer one. If you're truly trying to model the earth, why would you not use actual constraints on those parameters that reflect the real world?

Darrin, what do you think?

[DarrinS]

Just to expand a bit on the above, the model Spencer used in this paper is different form the one that is torn down in the blog post I mentioned. That being said, he has even MORE fully adjustable parameters in the newer one. If you're truly trying to model the earth, why would you not use actual constraints on those parameters that reflect the real world?

Darrin, what do you think?

A model is only as good as it comports with measurements.

It's interesting that the two guys who developed the satellite temperature record, John Christy and Roy Spencer (Christy actually being an author of IPCC's 2001 report) are such outspoken critics of catastrophic AGW.

[DarrinS]

People can keep bitching about some guy at the Heartland Institute (who didn't even write the paper) OR they can actually read the paper.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

[Blake]

It was an editorial piece from Forbes.

There is a distinction between an editorial piece and an article.

That Yahoo news didn't stick it in the editorial section was probably an unintentional oversight.

Do you always get your scientific analysis from political science majors' editorial pieces, or is it just this one time?


You dumbass. It was Yahoo news, from forbes. The study was by a NASA scientist in a peer reviewed scientific journal. It was an article reporting on the study. You are SUCH an ignorant ass.


You dumbass. It was Yahoo news, from forbes. The study was by a NASA scientist in a peer reviewed scientific journal. It was an article reporting on the study. You are SUCH an ignorant ass.

just having some jolly ass fun

[SnakeBoy]

Fuck you, quit making shit up, you hypocritical asshat.

Relax, you don't have to get so upset.

[MannyIsGod]

A model is only as good as it comports with measurements.

It's interesting that the two guys who developed the satellite temperature record, John Christy and Roy Spencer (Christy actually being an author of IPCC's 2001 report) are such outspoken critics of catastrophic AGW.

And there in lies the main problem with this model.

[ElNono]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

[MannyIsGod]

Ugh, he brought up the ID things. I knew that about Spencer but refused to bring it up as the author of that blog should have as well. Its unnecessary to point that out and he even goes as far to say why. All that matters is that Spencers model's are not very good at all - and that's being kind.

[RandomGuy]

just having some jolly ass fun

aaaah. D'oh! Or should I say duh!

I thought that seemed a bit out of charactor for you, and was a bit puzzled when I read it.

[MannyIsGod]

Via RealClimate

To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple (Einstein says that things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler): well this has gone way beyond being too simple (see for instance this post (http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/) by Barry Bickmore). The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point. The clouds respond to ENSO, not the other way round [see: Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O'Dell, and T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TFOW_LC_GRL2010_GL042314.pdf). Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314.] During ENSO there is a major uptake of heat by the ocean during the La Niña phase and the heat is moved around and stored in the ocean in the tropical western Pacific, setting the stage for the next El Niño, as which point it is redistributed across the tropical Pacific. The ocean cools as the atmosphere responds with characteristic El Niño weather patterns forced from the region that influence weather patterns world wide. Ocean dynamics play a major role in moving heat around, and atmosphere-ocean interaction is a key to the ENSO cycle. None of those processes are included in the Spencer model.
Even so, the Spencer interpretation has no merit. The interannual global temperature variations were not radiatively forced, as claimed for the 2000s, and therefore cannot be used to say anything about climate sensitivity. Clouds are not a forcing of the climate system (except for the small portion related to human related aerosol effects, which have a small effect on clouds). Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they do not cause the weather systems. Clouds may provide feedbacks on the weather systems. Spencer has made this error of confounding forcing and feedback before and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results.
The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).

[DarrinS]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

That blog is trying WAAAY too hard. If "deniers" are quacks, why go to this effort to refute them?

[DarrinS]

I'll let the data decide. I do think the satellite record is superior to the terrestrial record, especially to GISS.

[ChumpDumper]

That blog is trying WAAAY too hard. If "deniers" are quacks, why go to this effort to refute them?
Because people breathlessly write shitty op-eds for Forbes.

[ElNono]

That blog is trying WAAAY too hard. If "deniers" are quacks, why go to this effort to refute them?

I'm just the messenger... I found it on another site and just merely passing it along. I didn't read the OP nor the blog.

[MannyIsGod]

That blog is trying WAAAY too hard. If "deniers" are quacks, why go to this effort to refute them?

Um, look at the response that stupid ass op ed has generated. Its pretty funny and in the end no amount of bad science changes whats happening but I really don't think there's much effort put into a blog post with a few links.

[DarrinS]

Um, look at the response that stupid ass op ed has generated. Its pretty funny and in the end no amount of bad science changes whats happening but I really don't think there's much effort put into a blog post with a few links.

I don't think clouds are a climate driver either, because they are too transient. It does seem that clouds would have some albedo effect. I don't think this is any groundbreaking research.

I do like how that blog blasts Heartland Institute and then cites ThinkProgess. Lol

[ElNono]

Maybe boutons has a blog? :wtf

[Wild Cobra]

Manny, it has to do with lag and energy out. The longer the lag is and smaller the outgoing heat vs incoming changes, the more the global temperature increases for a given change. This is because the earth stops heating up when equilibrium is reached. This shows a quicker response than the IPCC claims, hence, the heating the IPCC says will happen is more than what will.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think clouds are a climate driver either, because they are too transient. It does seem that clouds would have some albedo effect. I don't think this is any groundbreaking research.

I do like how that blog blasts Heartland Institute and then cites ThinkProgess. Lol

Clouds definitely have an albedo effect but they are more insulator than anything. The point that Spencer keeps trying to drive is that cloud patterns drive large climatic patterns which there is NO evidence for and virtually no one agrees with. I know I've discussed his views on ENSO and clouds before here and its just not good science.

I wish that posts concerning papers on blogs would stick to analyzing the papers. I don't care if dude believes in ID and have 6 toes - I just care about how sound the science is. Luckily blogs like the one I linked above and RealClimate will simply stick to the science.

I do think the op ed linked in OP was FOS though.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, it has to do with lag and energy out. The longer the lag is and smaller the outgoing heat vs incoming changes, the more the global temperature increases for a given change. This is because the earth stops heating up when equilibrium is reached. This shows a quicker response than the IPCC claims, hence, the heating the IPCC says will happen is more than what will.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't expect anything differently though. Parroting things like that doesn't change the fact that the way energy is measured in Spencer's model is absolutely worthless considering the parameters can be changed in order to give whatever result Spencer wants to prove. If I want to show that the earth is heating up slower then I can do so by changing parameters in that model that have no real world bearing what so ever.

[ChumpDumper]

Manny, it has to do with lag and energy out. The longer the lag is and smaller the outgoing heat vs incoming changes, the more the global temperature increases for a given change. This is because the earth stops heating up when equilibrium is reached. This shows a quicker response than the IPCC claims, hence, the heating the IPCC says will happen is more than what will.What if we flooded Black Canyon?

[Wild Cobra]

You have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't expect anything differently though. Parroting things like that doesn't change the fact that the way energy is measured in Spencer's model is absolutely worthless considering the parameters can be changed in order to give whatever result Spencer wants to prove. If I want to show that the earth is heating up slower then I can do so by changing parameters in that model that have no real world bearing what so ever.
Well... If you don't backward engineer observation, then you cannot make a viable model. I guess you would say using the same arguments that the IPCC models are all full of shit too.

I don't care what you say. You dismiss anything that doesn't fit in the boxes given to you by others. Science means looking into all possibilities.

[Blake]

I don't care what you say. You dismiss anything that doesn't fit in the boxes given to you by others. Science means looking into all possibilities.

irony rich

[MannyIsGod]

Its not about backward engineering observation. You don't seem to understand what I've posted about this model and how its parameters - unlike IPCC modeling - are not constrained to real world physical situations.

As an example, its as if I wrote a model to explain why planes can fly and instead of looking at lift as a force I simply wrote in parameters where I could lower the force of gravity in order to make it seem as though the reason planes can fly was that gravity was weaker than it actually is.

So yes, I dismiss everything that requires the world to function in a way that it does not and instead function in a way necessary for their simple models to work. In science, one is not allowed to invent parameters in order to make their hypothesis correct.

[MannyIsGod]

Backward engineering a model that requires you to use the mixing depth of the ocean means using the actual mixing depths of the ocean and not some arbitrary number that makes your model work. Thats kind of the entire point.

[MannyIsGod]

Spencer's own words to describe his modeling




Since we don’t know how to set the four [parameters] on the model to cause it to produce temperature variations like those in [the 20th century temperature record], we will use the brute force of the computer’s great speed to do 100,000 runs, each of which has a unique combination of these four [parameter] settings. And because spreadsheet programs like Excel aren’t made to run this many experiments, I programmed the model in Fortran.
It took only a few minutes to run the 100,000 different combinations…. Out of all these model simulations, I saved the ones that came close to the observed temperature variations between 1900 and 2000. Then, I averaged all of these thousands of temperature simulations together…. What we see is that if the computer gets to “choose” how much the clouds change with the PDO, then the PDO alone can explain 75 percent of the warming trend seen during the twentieth century. In fact, it also does a pretty good job of capturing the warming until about 1940, then the slight cooling until the 1970s, and finally the resumed warming until 2000.
If I instead use the history of anthropogenic forcings that James Hansen has compiled…, somewhat more of the warming trend can be explained, but the temperature variations in the middle of the century are not as well captured. I should note that the “warm hump” around 1940 and the slight cooling afterward have always been a thorn in the side of climate modelers. (p. 115)


The problem? NO proof that clouds/the PDO are forcing agents dealing with the climate. None. Zero.

[Wild Cobra]

I see you are arguing against something else, and not the new paper.

Just your style.

Consider those from one of the links in the OP:


Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”




In research published this week in the journal “Remote Sensing” http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf, Spencer and UA Huntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.




“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.

Wow... All these IPCC models, and they ignore this?


Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

Hardly fits what you are saying is wrong Manny.

[DarrinS]

Spencer's own words to describe his modeling




The problem? NO proof that clouds/the PDO are forcing agents dealing with the climate. None. Zero.

[/INDENT]


From the piece you quoted, sounds like he's running a Monte Carlo simulation on an empirical model. Nothing wrong with that. To quote George Box: "all models are wrong, but some are useful". He does bring up a good point about the cooling between 1940 and 1970.

[DarrinS]

Manny is right that, if his model is based on physics, and he uses a parameter that, let's say, violates some thermodynamic principle, then that model is pure shit.

[Wild Cobra]

Spencer's own words to describe his modeling




The problem? NO proof that clouds/the PDO are forcing agents dealing with the climate. None. Zero.

No proof the IPCC is right either.

He is trying to get somewhere, and you criticize scientific methodology?

I see you are harsh with anyone that dare question your religion.

[ElNono]

No proof the IPCC is right either.
Me is trying to get someone, and you criticize scientific methodology?
I see you are harsh with anyone that dare question your religion.

This is pretty rich coming from the resident apologist...
When are you publishing your Black Canyon theory?

[Wild Cobra]

Waiting for your explanation.
Do you have ADHD? I had to go to work, made a quick visit to ST this morning before going to sleep. I also spent time trying to find where I was "all over" a previous Spencer study.

My favorite Roy Spencer moment comes on this forum, tbh. WC tried to use one of his old studies showing that the temperature record according to satellites was cooler than what the other data sets were showing. WC jumped all over that one.

Too bad that Roy Spencer had already admitted his mistake for YEARS prior to the point WC wanted to use the study as proof. Nothing proves your point like using a study the author himself has said was flawed.
I couldn't find such a thing that you claim.

What I find is that you bring up Spenser (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4809240&postcount=552), and he claims clouds behave differently than modeled.

Post #590 in the same thread is the only place I find myself referring to Spenser being mentioned. I say:

Speaking of satellite record of surface temperatures...

Lets not forget, that when satellites first started tracking temperatures, we have an unquantified level of cooling from atmospheric particulates. As the first world powers, being responsible for most of it, and primarily us... the USA... we formed the EPA, and started cleaning up our act.

That said...

This 20+ year trend from the 70's to the early 2000's definitely has a component of relative warming increases, because of a cleaner atmosphere.

Manny....

What the fuck are you talking about, saying I was "all over" Spenser's work?

When will you stop slandering those you disagree with?

[MannyIsGod]

I see you are arguing against something else, and not the new paper.

Just your style.

Consider those from one of the links in the OP:






Wow... All these IPCC models, and they ignore this?

Hardly fits what you are saying is wrong Manny.

I can't facepalm enough. Its clear you have no idea what the new paper is about considering I talking about the analysis IN the new paper. Read it then come back.

[Wild Cobra]

I can't facepalm enough. Its clear you have no idea what the new paper is about considering I talking about the analysis IN the new paper. Read it then come back.
It's about what has been unanswered for years. Radiative imbalance. He says "probably" when it comes to clouds. To model something with assumptions of thinking outside the box is not a bad thing.

What don't you think I get?

[MannyIsGod]

WC, you ready?

First, you post this:


Manny...

May want to read this:

Reducing Noise in the MSU Daily Lower-Tropospheric Global Temperature Dataset (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281995%29008%3C0888%3ARNITMD%3E2.0.CO%3B2)

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/Christyetal1995.jpg

Average TSI is also lower over that same time frame.

I then post this:


WC you know how I know you don't know AGW theory well at all (aside from the fact that you contradict yourself on a constant basis, improperly use incomplete equations, and provide graphs that are blatantly made with agendas)?

You post a study done over 15 years ago that has errors in it acknowledged by the authors themselves. The UAH satellite observations were done incorrectly, have been corrected, and are now one of the four main data sets used to show the warming.

I've discussed this very data set with Darrin in the recent climate threads yet you're asking me to read one of the initial studies that has now been shown to be incorrect?

Awesome. You couldn't make this stuff up.

YOU should read this and stop trying to google your way to disproving AGW theory.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/



Yes, I know. I actually tried to pull the wool over your eyes on that one. The corrections go on to talk about the satellites not being the same place every 24 hours.

You passed that test.

Any idea how many I have brought up that you failed?

Even the corrected data is no proof that the temperature changes are caused by any one thing. They are simply data points.


Slandering? No I'm merely reminding you of how little you know on this subject and how you've repeatedly claimed to be able to understand the science yet you very obviously don't.

[MannyIsGod]

Dupe.

[MannyIsGod]

It's about what has been unanswered for years. Radiative imbalance. Her says "probably" when it comes to clouds. To model something with assumptions of thinking outside the box is not a bad thing.

What don't you think I get?

There is no probably. There is NO link. Please provide me with the data that shows that clouds are anything but a feedback of the climate system. Please show me how clouds drive large scale climate patterns please. I would love to see that data and I'm pretty sure every meteorologist and climatologist on the planet would as well.

[MannyIsGod]

WC, how do you think the analysis in the paper was carried out?

[Wild Cobra]

I see. Bringing up an article and doing very little with is "all over it." OK...

Invalidate everything for something found in error. Well then, I invalidate the whole IPCC.

Even though the satellites don't track the exact same paths daily, or when return, are at the same time. Its still more accurate than the musical chairs played with surface temperature sites. Long term data is still useful. I wasn't going to dig that deep on the article over something I was real uncertain of. However, radiative imbalance is real. At least having others look over ideas bring in thoughts and considerations one person or a small team misses.

I find it amazing that you will entirely throw out relevant information when a single item disagrees with your Dogma. Must suck being you.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, how do you think the analysis in the paper was carried out?
More carefully than previously with the satellite data.

these satellites orbit the earth about ever 2 hours, but may take a few days to cover the same view of the earth. It doesn't take long for them to see the same spot of earth, and develop same time frames to see differences. Long term data can be parsed out pretty accurately.

[MannyIsGod]

More carefully than previously with the satellite data.

these satellites orbit the earth about ever 2 hours, but may take a few days to cover the same view of the earth. It doesn't take long for them to see the same spot of earth, and develop same time frames to see differences. Long term data can be parsed out pretty accurately.

Um, more carefully? What does that mean? Do you understand the steps Spencer used in order to analyze the data or do you not? If you do, can you explain them to me?

[MannyIsGod]

I see. Bringing up an article and doing very little with is "all over it." OK...

Invalidate everything for something found in error. Well then, I invalidate the whole IPCC.

Even though the satellites don't track the exact same paths daily, or when return, are at the same time. Its still more accurate than the musical chairs played with surface temperature sites. Long term data is still useful. I wasn't going to dig that deep on the article over something I was real uncertain of. However, radiative imbalance is real. At least having others look over ideas bring in thoughts and considerations one person or a small team misses.

I find it amazing that you will entirely throw out relevant information when a single item disagrees with your Dogma. Must suck being you.

:lol

You used a study that you found via Google to try to back up your point and when I called you on how that proved how liittle you knew on the subject you fell back on the "I was just testing you" routine that I've never even seen anyone try to pull off outside of a sitcom.

Now you're just rambling because when you said I was slandering you on this subject, I provided you with your own words proving I was doing no such thing.

What relevant information am I discarding?

[ElNono]

lol tests
:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not going to wait for WC's next Palinesque response regarding how the analysis was done. I'm just going to explain what Spencer's models do and how the analysis was done in this paper in as simple a way as possible.

What Spencer has done with these simple models is take temperature data from the TERRA sat's CERES instrument and plugged it into his model in order to figure out what the climate sensitivity is. So, there is no direct measurement of out going radiation here but rather an analysis of temperatures, forcing, feedback, and heat capacity in Spencer's model in order to derive what the values for the variables are.

So back to my simple algebraic example, its the equivilant of knowing that your answer is (as an example) 232 and you have four variables that add up to that.

X + Y + Z + A = 232.

That is what is known. Now, if each of these variables is meant to display a real world item then that variable should have constraints that are placed on item in the real world. As an example, if X is depth of the ocean where heat is easy distributed then the value of X in the model should be at the very least near the real wold value of such a layer. So when the real world value of X is 50m, the value of X in your model should never be 700m.

Thats exactly the problem with Spencer's models. They don't have these realistic constraints. You can't say that the climate sensitivity is low according when you're making the available energy heat up a much larger volume of water than it actually has to in the real world! Its not realistic! You can't use a diffusing system of distributing heat through that water in later models when the actual system of heat transfer is convection! Its not accurate.

Aside from those obvious oversights, the fact that the other parameters are completely open and free to manipulation renders the model pretty worthless. If there are infinite ways to reach the same conclusion according to your model you can't use it to prove that a variable - in this case climate sensitivity - is an absolute because there are infinite solutions.

I mean this is no advanced than high school algebra. Its pretty shoddy work.

[scott]

This is one of those "Gotcha" Threads aimed at making WC look bad...leave him alone guys...

[Wild Cobra]

No, Manny looks bad. If you actually read all the material, and what words are used instead of changing the intent, the study stands pretty well. Like most studies, it furthers the advance of the geosciences.

Manny. You should put as much effort in finding the holes in AGW theories.

[MannyIsGod]

Told you a Palinesque comment was coming. You can't even explain how the analysis was done - even after I just told you.

Explain how this study advances anything?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, Manny looks bad. If you actually read all the material, and what words are used instead of changing the intent, the study stands pretty well. Like most studies, it furthers the advance of the geosciences.

Manny. You should put as much effort in finding the holes in AGW theories.

No, its been pretty well established that you're a dumbass. Go change some capacitors, parts changer.

[DarrinS]

No, its been pretty well established that you're a dumbass. Go change some capacitors, parts changer.

You add a lot of great content to the forum.

[Winehole23]

Coming from someone who contributes nothing but inane youtubes and glib partisan propaganda, that observation must really sting.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You add a lot of great content to the forum.

Oh you. Having fun entering code at work? Well lets talk about your contribution to this thread.

First your brain comes up with this:


From the piece you quoted, sounds like he's running a Monte Carlo simulation on an empirical model. Nothing wrong with that. To quote George Box: "all models are wrong, but some are useful". He does bring up a good point about the cooling between 1940 and 1970.

Then the same brain within 5 minutes comes up with this:


Manny is right that, if his model is based on physics, and he uses a parameter that, let's say, violates some thermodynamic principle, then that model is pure shit.

First of all that is not what Manny is saying at all. He is not saying that it violates anything. What he is saying is that the additional parameter has with no basis in observable phenomenon and is only inserted to make the numbers work. Why do you think he keeps on asking for the data?

What I really liked though was how you quote Mr. Box so that you can tout his 'good point' on cooling and then immediately follow with the latter and your brain thinks they jive.

You are a good minion aren't you?

[Wild Cobra]

You add a lot of great content to the forum.
These idots don't amuse me any longer. Fuzzy thinks he knows electronics... NOT! Manny likes to use his indoctrinated education, thinking he's the shit, but then cannot come to criticize the AGW crowd for the same type of shit he disqualifies other studies for.

Beam me up Scotty...

There's no intelligent life here.

[Wild Cobra]

Coming from someone who contributes nothing but inane youtubes and glib partisan propaganda, that observation must really sting.
How is that different from You, Dan, and a few others posting links?

[MannyIsGod]

WC avoids explaining things again. WC, would you like to point me to a paper I didn't give appropriate criticism to? I'd be more than happy to EXPLAIN IT and my views on it.

[boutons_deux]

Science and evidence bitch slaps ideology every time.

[scott]

Man, WC is owning all of you in this thread.

[Winehole23]

How is that different from You, Dan, and a few others posting links?Quality of contribution. Is subjective.

[Winehole23]

Man, WC is owning all of you in this thread.Par for the course. WC is the best troll ever.

[Blake]

These idots don't amuse me any longer. Fuzzy thinks he knows electronics... NOT! Manny likes to use his indoctrinated education, thinking he's the shit, but then cannot come to criticize the AGW crowd for the same type of shit he disqualifies other studies for.

Beam me up Scotty...

There's no intelligent life here.

Idots!

[boutons_deux]

GOP War Against Climate Adaptation


Some people naively believe we can get DC politicians to support adaptation funding if only we stop talking about climate science. They call themselves “climate pragmatists.” The true realists among us call them hopelessly naïve.

The fact is that if you reject science, if you think climate science in particular is some sort of liberal plot, then the last thing you would do is spend money “planning” or “adapting” for climate change.

The anti-science extremists who now run the House, of course, are not merely climate science deniers, of course. They believe slashing all forms of government spending is more important than, say, voting to preserve the full faith and credit of the United States.

So other than faux pragmatists, the rest of us aren’t surprised in the least that the GOP-led House has been voting to gut climate adaptation efforts across the federal government — including even the most minimal planning efforts. TP Green has a list:

NOAA CLIMATE SERVICE: In the Commerce, Justice, and Science committee report, “It is the Committee’s intention that no funds shall be used to create a Climate Service at NOAA.”

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CLIMATE READINESS: Language in the Energy and Water appropriation committee report offered by Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) prohibits spending on response to climate change in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects, with $4.9 million cut from their budget and transferred to the Spending Reduction Account. Approved by a House vote of 218-191.

AGRICULTURE CLIMATE READINESS: A rider in the Agriculture appropriation (Sec. 755) blocks the Agriculture Department (USDA) from carrying out its Policy Statement on Climate Adaptation. The rider by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) would prevent the USDA from even assessing what impacts climate change might have on farmers, foresters and other landholders. Approved by a House vote of 238-179.

HOMELAND SECURITY CLIMATE READINESS: A provision in the Homeland Security appropriation (H.R. 2017, Sec. 707) offered by Rep. John Carter (R-TX) prevents the Department of Homeland Security from running its Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. Approved by a House vote of 242-180.

Yes, that’s right the Army Corp can’t plan for climate change in its projects.

And the Department of Agriculture can’t either! Here’s more on that from Greenwire:

The amendment, which passed 238-179 and was offered by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) to the fiscal 2012 Agriculture spending bill, would prohibit USDA from using funds to implement its June 3 departmental regulation calling for an assessment of how increased occurrence of severe weather events linked to climate change may affect the department’s operations — and the farmers it serves. A final assessment of USDA’s vulnerabilities to climate change is due to be completed by March 2012.

“Climate change adaptation is a critical complement to mitigation,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in the June 3 policy statement. “Both are required to address the causes and consequences of climate change. Through adaptation planning, USDA will develop, prioritize, implement, and evaluate actions to minimize climate risks and exploit new opportunities that climate change may bring.”

So we know that climate change makes certain extreme weather events that are particularly harmful to farmers — heat waves, droughts, floods — more likely and more severe. But the House doesn’t want anyone planning for that.

And that’s not all. If you think the deniers care that the richest countries – who got rich releasing most of the greenhouse gases responsible for climate change to date — feel any responsibility whatsoever to help the poorest in other countries deal with the mess we created, well, you must be a climate pragmatist:

A panel of the US Congress on Thursday moved to bar foreign assistance related to climate change, defying President Barack Obama’s calls to contribute as part of an international accord.On a party line vote, the Republican-led House Foreign Affairs Committee voted to ban funding in next year’s budget for Obama’s initiative to support poor nations in adapting to climate change or pursuing clean energy….


http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/31/274666/the-gop-war-against-climate-adaptation/

[scott]

I should also point out that Manny should really start an appropriate thread instead of trying to hijack this one. Bad form all around from the Ankle Biters.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Man, WC is owning all of you in this thread.

On what points is he 'owning' anyone?

Mindless support is great but do you have any basis?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Idots!

Alright that made me :lol.

Thank you ,sir.

[MannyIsGod]

bump