Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 16:07:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2011 10:23:42 GMT -5
You collect climate model-data disparity articles? you need to get out more.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 2, 2011 10:31:10 GMT -5
You don't store up bookmarks to interesting articles you come across?
Sa-a-a-a-a-a-ad panda.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 2, 2011 10:42:24 GMT -5
Actually air is cleaner today than 100 years ago. Yes it is. It is cleaner today than it was just 40 years ago. This is thanks to clean air legislation & the EPA.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Aug 2, 2011 11:27:45 GMT -5
I have never understood that argument. Mother nature does it, so we should be able to do it to. Sounds like the logic of a child. It seems to me that regardless of how much of an impact you believe our emissions have on the environment, the fact is they have an impact. I would think a reasonable person would want to lower the impacts we have on the environment & our earth. Whether or not you believe in global warming, I don't see the logic behind the argument that pollution is acceptable. IMO the argument comes about because there are monetary (and perhaps aesthetic) costs associated with going green. If people believe that those costs exceed the environmental benefits received, they will choose to avoid going green.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Aug 9, 2011 17:06:04 GMT -5
The OP study was debunked: www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html Disagreements However, no climate scientist contacted by LiveScience agreed. The study finds a mismatch between the month-to-month variations in temperature and cloud cover in models versus the real world over the past 10 years, said Gavin Schmidt, a NASA Goddard climatologist. "What this mismatch is due to — data processing, errors in the data or real problems in the models — is completely unclear." Other researchers pointed to flaws in Spencer's paper, including an "unrealistic" model placing clouds as the driver of warming and a lack of information about the statistical significance of the observed temperature changes. Statistical significance is the likelihood of results being real, as opposed to chance fluctuations unrelated to the other variables in the experiment. "I cannot believe it got published," said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Several researchers expressed frustration that the study was attracting media attention. "If you want to do a story then write one pointing to the ridiculousness of people jumping onto every random press release as if well-established science gets dismissed on a dime," Schmidt said. "Climate sensitivity is not constrained by the last two decades of imperfect satellite data, but rather the paleoclimate record." Spencer agreed that his work could not disprove the existence of manmade global warming. But he dismissed research on the ancient climate, calling it a "gray science."
|
|