Digg

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Global warming forecast: Partly cloudy

usatoday.com — A new study finds that natural variations in how clouds form could actually be causing temperature changes, rather than the other way around, and could also lead to overestimates of how sensitive the Earth's climate is to greenhouse gas emissions.

Bury

LeadOffMan 71 days ago

15 diggs
digg it

BigManOnCampus, on 06/18/2008, -1/+2lol, everyone seems to tip-toe around reality, unwilling to come out and declare the emperor naked...

FTA: 'Spencer and his co-author William Braswell point out that the paper doesn't disprove the theory that humans are causing global warming. Instead, they report that "it offers an alternative explanation for what we see in the climate system which has the potential for greatly reducing estimates of mankind's impact on Earth's climate." '

I see, so since your study seems to say that mankind's influence on climate has been highly exagerrated, that doesn't disprove the theory that mankind is directly responsible for the climatic changes over the last, oh, 50 years or so. What a joke. Just say it! Human-induced climate change is utter hogwash.
- greenfyre, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Hey BMC, I keep asking for some real science to support your assertion "Human-induced climate change is utter hogwash." ... still waiting (in case it slipped your mind)
  - BigManOnCampus, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Did you RTFA?
    - greenfyre, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1Yes, that is why I posted a comment with relevant references to the model, addressing it's robustness and predictive value, instead of some generic statement of my politic.
      
      So, some evidence?
    - BigManOnCampus, on 06/19/2008, -1/+1You don't even see yourself greenfyre. You do this:
      
      1) You assume you are correct. to do this you appeal to authority. You appeal to other people who the media quotes and say, "see I'm correct because these people say the same things I do."
      2) You then require that someone else provide evidence that you are incorrect.
      
      You haven't even proven to yourself that you are correct. You've simply assumed that what people say or are quotes as saying in the media is accurate. You assume that AGW is a proven fact. Then you shift the burden of proof on everyone else to prove you are incorrect. The reality is that noone can prove that man is causing global warming, making claims that man is warming the planet with emissions utter hogwash.
    - greenfyre, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1So ...
      Media reports are ***** +
      The original post is a media report =
      the original post is *****
      
      Which is what I have been saying all along; see, we agree.
      
      If what I have posted is actually wrong you will have no trouble finding credible sources that refute it.
      
      Five min on google and you win ... if I am wrong
      
      The evidence is out there and knowledgable people accept it. You and your crowd say it is wrong, so it falls to you to show how it is wrong. Here it is, show us http://realclimate.org/ http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
greenfyre, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2
I will acknowledge that the jury is still out on this one, but some warning flags:

1) "the work is the first step in demonstrating why climate models produce too much global warming." Except that the empirical data we do have suggests that warming is advancing much faster than even the worst case scenarios that the models predicted (eg
Greenland melting faster than predicted http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/la ...
Arctic sea ice melt 'even faster' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7461707. ...
Antarctic breaking up even though it is winter http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/08061 ...
All of the IPCC models now know to be way too optimistic http://digg.com/environment/Recent_Climate_Observa ...

so their model is departing even more severely from reality (never a good sign for a model)

2) "that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes" No one sensible ever disputed that and it is built into the models. The problem is -ve feedback systems always have multiple stable states since the forcing functions are not unbounded, such that past a particular threshold the system 'tips' into a new equilibrium, hence the talk of 'tipping points' http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...

From methane clathrate mobilization to albedo reversal to the amazon we seem to be on the verge of a half a dozen of these.

3) Spencer's reputation is not without ... problems http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008 ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/22/104417/ ...

In sum, the model is not doing well at reflecting reality and it misinterprets multi-stable state systems, so wait and see what happens when the scientific community get's its teeth into this one, but until then there are reasons for skepticism (the real kind, not climate change denial)
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Global warming forecast: Partly cloudy

Login or register to add a comment