Skeptic's small cloud study renews climate rancor

Jul 30, 2011 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer

(AP) -- A study on how much heat in Earth's atmosphere is caused by cloud cover has heated up the climate change blogosphere even as it is dismissed by many scientists.

Several mainstream climate scientists call the study's conclusions off-base and overstated. Climate change skeptics, most of whom are not scientists, are touting the study, saying it blasts gaping holes in theory and shows that future warming will be less than feared. The study in the journal Remote Sensing questions the accuracy of climate computer models and got attention when a lawyer for the conservative Heartland Institute wrote an opinion piece on it.

The author of the scientific study is Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama Huntsville, a prominent climate skeptic. But even he says some bloggers are overstating what the research found. Spencer's study is based on satellite data from 2000 to 2010 and is one of a handful of studies he's done that are part of an ongoing debate among a few scientists.

His research looked at cause and effect of clouds and warming. Contrary to the analysis of a majority of studies, his found that for the past decade, variations in clouds seemed more a cause of warming than an effect. More than anything, he said, his study found that mainstream research and models don't match the 10 years of data he examined. Spencer's study concludes the question of clouds' role in heating "remains an unsolved problem."
Spencer, who uses what he calls a simple model without looking at ocean heat or El Nino effects, finds fault with the more complicated models often run by mainstream climate scientists.

At least 10 reached by The Associated Press found technical or theoretical faults with Spencer's study or its conclusions. They criticized the short time period he studied and his failure to consider the effects of the ocean and other factors. They also note that the paper appears in a journal that mostly deals with the nuts-and-bolts of and not interpreting the .

"This is a very bad paper and is demonstrably wrong," said Richard Somerville, a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. "It is getting a lot of attention only because of noise in the blogosphere."

Kerry Emanuel of MIT, one of two scientists who said the study was good, said bloggers and others are misstating what Spencer found. Emanuel said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback. He said what's being written about Spencer's study by nonscientists "has no basis in reality."

Explore further: The relationship between the movement of wind turbines and the generation of lightning

3.4 /5 (14 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Climate models make too hot forecasts of global warming

Jul 29, 2011

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."

Study could mean greater anticipated global warming

Nov 22, 2010

Global climate models disagree widely in the magnitude of the warming we can expect with increasing carbon dioxide. This is mainly because the models represent clouds differently. A new modeling approach successfully ...

Mystery Climate Mechanism May Counteract Global Warming

Apr 12, 2005

A new study by two physicists at the University of Rochester suggests there is a mechanism at work in the Earth’s atmosphere that may blunt the influence of global warming, and that this mechanism is not accounted for in ...

New study validates hurricane prediction

Apr 17, 2008

Hurricanes in some areas, including the North Atlantic, are likely to become more intense as a result of global warming even though the number of such storms worldwide may decline, according to a new study by MIT researchers.

Recommended for you

How productive are the ore factories in the deep sea?

9 hours ago

About ten years after the first moon landing, scientists on earth made a discovery that proved that our home planet still holds a lot of surprises in store for us. Looking through the portholes of the submersible ...

NASA image: Volcanoes in Guatemala

14 hours ago

This photo of volcanoes in Guatemala was taken from NASA's C-20A aircraft during a four-week Earth science radar imaging mission deployment over Central and South America. The conical volcano in the center ...

User comments : 92

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hush1
3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2011
Seth
When bloggers see:
Spencer, who uses what he calls a simple model without looking at ocean heat or El Nino effects, finds fault with the more complicated models often run by mainstream climate scientists. - Seth Borenstein


Conjecture is allowed. Those interested are left hanging.
What became of the "Skeptic's small cloud study?"

One says "very bad", the next says "the study was good"?
And questioning is label "noise"?

If labeled as "renewed climate rancor", then where does that leave the world of journalism, news, and reporting?

And on it continues...
http://www.physor...bal.html
SteveL
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2011
Seems to me that Mr. Spencer's research and conclusions are simply that satellite data for the last 10 years is indicating that clouds seem to procceed an increase in temperature rather than follow an increase in temperature as has generally been assumed in larger climate models.

Both sides on this issue appear to be assuming more than what Mr. Spencer's studies indicate. This happens when emotion and ego begin to become more important than the findings from data.
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2011
Re: "Emanuel said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback. He said what's being written about Spencer's study by nonscientists "has no basis in reality.""

Actually, what is being written by the resident experts as well -- like Phil Plait -- seems just as irrelevant ...

http://blogs.disc...larmism/

From that blog ...

"Stephanie Pappas at LiveScience contacted several climate scientists about Spencers paper, and their conclusions were quite harsh. They say Spencers model is "unrealistic", "flawed", and "incorrect". As ThinkProgress points out, a geochemist has shown that Spencers models are irretrievably flawed, "dont make any physical sense", and that Spencer has a track record in using such flawed analysis to draw any conclusion he wants."

For the record, that is NOT a response to pointing out complexity with feedback.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2011
The proper response by the public with regards to the large importance of the uncertain feedback system should be to DOWNGRADE CERTAINTY, and provide better funding for such investigations (even if they don't agree with the consensus).

Furthermore, the electric joule heating model should be funded to a greater extent, as that line of investigation offers a possible additional input to the system. The Socratic methodology to the scientific method is directed inquiry, and thus to compensate, climate scientists should occasionally be willing to go out of their way to investigate potential causes for the warming which do not just confirm the existing gravitational scientific framework. Theorists must be willing to also accept the notion that their framework is wrong, even if they don't personally believe it.
hush1
2.4 / 5 (11) Jul 30, 2011
"DOWNGRADE CERTAINTY" - HA
When mainstream research and models don't match the 10 years of data Spencer examined?
Forget Spencer.
Generalize.

When mainstream research and models don't match the years of data examined what happens?

Is this question "rancor"?
Is this question "noise"?
Is this question "without basis"?
Is this question "without reality"?

Every scientist owns me an answer to the generalized question.
From the media, all media, I expect nothing.
Go ahead. Upload the next climate 'article'.
gmurphy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2011
hush1 to media: "all your climate articles are owns by me"
gmurphy
4.4 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2011
On an additional note, I've seen so many climate science articles trashed on physorg on 2 main points: 1) The time scale is too short, 2) The models are too simple, but as soon as a paper comes out that "vindicates our skepticism", the fact that the paper uses a simple model, over a timespan of only a decade and that wasn't even published in a climate journal, all these criticisms are conspicuous only by their abscence, (deniers != skepticism == utter hypocrisy), that's the boolean expression for what we have here :P
Nik_2213
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2011
The decade he's used doesn't seem to cover a solar cycle or even a full el Nino / la Nina cycle. Setting up a simplified model and claiming it does not match complex models is a 'straw man' stratagem. Surely he realised that he'd be lighting a storm with this ??
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2011
lol gmurphy.
data = owes
model (in my head) = owns
OGM! mismatch! Quick insert the typological correction!!
Too late! Good catch, gmurphy. lol
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2011
Roy Spencers Great Blunder

http://bbickmore....-part-3/
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (20) Jul 31, 2011
This is a very bad paper and is demonstrably wrong"


No, the entire story of Anthropologic Global Warming (AGW) is wrong.

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

http://dl.dropbox...oots.doc

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Skepticus_Rex
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2011
Even if Spencer's paper sucks golfballs through garden hoses, it still would be instructive to see what happens to the models when the satellite data is taken into consideration.

If the satellites do show additional radiation out from the atmosphere during times of warming (if true, most likely from convection below the tropopause to above the tropopause combined with the radiative cooling action of CO2 in the upper atmosphere), we need to make sure that the models take all of that data into account and see wherein, if anywhere, the models vary from current predictions.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2011
One VD supplement to: http://bbickmore....-part-3/

is this:

http://climatecla...erature/

Repeated thanks for all links, and, if included, the accompanying comment threads - that often cite even more extensive detailed research.
Polymathes
3 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2011
http://public.web...-en.html

I'm surprised the CERN Cloud experiment wasn't mentioned. There are those who still have an open mind about AGW and are curious if cosmic rays might be a contributing factor to climate change. But it seems that any data outside of the supposed man made effects doesn't get much attention these days.
Noein
3 / 5 (10) Jul 31, 2011
Spencer's study affirms my deep religious faith in global warming denialism. Praise be to our lord and savior, Big Oil.
MikPetter
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2011
GCM models do use sattelite data and have done since the 1980's
BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY,
Vol. 64, No. 7, July 1983
The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP):
The First Project of the World Climate Research Programme
R.A. Schiffer and W.B. Rossow
"The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) has been approved as the first project of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and will begin its operational phase in July 1983. Its basic objective is to collect and analyze satellite radiance data to infer the global distribution of cloud radiative properties in order to improve the modeling of cloud effects on climate.. The main and most important characteristic of these data will be their globally uniform coverage of various indices of cloud cover. The research component of ISCCP will coordinate studies to validate the climatology, to improve cloud analysis algorithms, to improve modeling of cloud effects in climate models.."
Sanescience
1.2 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2011
Climate change skeptics, most of whom are not scientists


Ouch, the article claiming faulty science uses an unscientific presumption. Could not one claim that most AGW supporters are not scientists?

Regardless, articles about the people discussing articles discussing a published study... the height of derivitism.

As someone who has written a lot of software, I am prone to distrust software models for a long litany of technical reasons and an understanding of the limits of gross approximations of fine structure processes.

We need more and better observations. We need to free up the funding for more satellites and start funding some mega sized atmospheric cavern chambers to improve our understanding/modeling of thermal radiance and convection transportation of heat.

It would probably cost a fraction of a modern particle accelerator and be far more relevant to benefit of mankind.
jyro
1 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2011
Fighting global warming us useless, prepare for climate change. The only constant in climate IS change.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2011
GCM models do use sattelite data and have done since the 1980's


If I recall correctly, GCM models are not used by the IPCC. Too many flux corrections necessary just to get a stable climate model, or something like that.

So, in that case, the new data has not been included in such modeling.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Aug 01, 2011
Fighting global warming us useless,
I take then that you are just fine with all the port cities being underwater in the future.

I saw in another post that you think that the Sun has a black hole in it as well.

I think that it would be wise to ignore you on this and go for a little prevention, if there really is global warming, instead of the destruction of all the port cities.

Ethelred
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
Well, maybe not all port cities. TIdal records for some of them show sea level decreases rather than increases. Just saying... :)
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2011
I take then that you are just fine with all the port cities being underwater in the future.
Ethelred, you're better than this ridiculous fear-mongering.

"Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era."

http://wattsupwit...in-2010/

"So how are the V&R2009 predictions holding up?

...not well. ...the observations showed an actual sea level rise that is below the lowest of the V&R2009 estimates from the lowest of the IPCC scenarios.

Actual observations are lower by four standard deviations than the V&R2000 best estimate, and are two standard deviations lower than their lower estimate."

http://www.worldw...a-level/
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
This image is constructed from proxy data, covering also the RWP and MWP:

http://icons.wund...2000.png

It is compared to sea level rise data from 1980 to 1999.
lairdwilcox
1.6 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2011
Does anyone get the impression that there is a huge amount of knee-jerk reaction going on about this guys paper?

For many years I thought the anthropologic account of global warming was reasonable and sound and I still think many of its explanations make sense. However, over the years I began to see that the AGW movement was beginning to take on some of the characteristics of a millenarian religious cult. I've studied extreme movements most of my life and one of the most frightening elements of the AGW phenomenon is their sheer intolerance of skeptics and critics. They've even adopted terms like "denialism" to marginalize and stigmatize others who find fault with their arguments.

I don't think a movement that takes these measures is wholly confident of its own claims or this kind of response simply wouldn't be necessary.

Laird Wilcox, co-author (with John George) of Nazis, Communists, Klansmen and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America (Prometheus, 1992).
omatumr
1 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2011
For many years I thought the anthropologic account of global warming was reasonable and sound and I still think many of its explanations make sense. However, over the years I began to see that the AGW movement was beginning to take on some of the characteristics of a millenarian religious cult.

Laird Wilcox, co-author (with John George) of Nazis, Communists, Klansmen and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America (Prometheus, 1992).


Thanks, Laird.

You are on target.

Anthropologic Global Warming (AGW) is the "politically correct" form of climate science.

The "Evil Empire" - that President Ronal Reagan symbolically destroyed with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1990 - was reborn in climate science as AGW.

That is the inescapable conclusion to five decades of research on Earth's heat source - the Sun:

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

http://dl.dropbox...oots.doc
MikPetter
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2011
Extract from Cilmate Models and Their Evaluation. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC
"Climate models are based on well-established physical principles and have been demonstrated to reproduce observed features of recent climate ...and past climate changes.. There is considerable condence that Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales...
... Most AOGCMs no longer use flux adjustments, which were previously required to maintain a stable climate..."
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2011
Ethelred, you're better than this ridiculous fear-mongering.
What fear mongering? If the glaciers on Antarctica melt then ALL the port cities will be under water. Every single one.

Sea levels go up and down with temperature as well as melt. The glaciers ARE melting.

Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era.
What a millimeter?

The oceans are truly the best indicator of climate.
That is a denialist's opinion. I am only talking about the glaciers. I don't give a damn about what bullshit the wankers put out as long as the glaciers keep shrinking.

If the ocean levels dropped in 2010, then there is something very wrong with the IPCC projections.
Utter and complete bullshit. We have a had a decade, expected based on the Solar cycle, of steady temperatures.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2011
The temps should have gone done for the last 10 years yet the ice kept melting and the temps did NOT go down as much as they normally due during the Solar down cycle.

Let me know when the glaciers start advancing instead of retreating then you will have something. In the meantime its just nonsense from denialists. The same guys are now claiming CO2 is a good thing that previously claiming it wasn't happening. Funny about that. Except now the Sun has begun the delayed up cycle so we will see in the near future. That is over the next ten year. If temperatures stay steady or go down then the denialist will have something to support them. If the longterm upward trend starts up again then will they actually quit denying or just get snorkels.

I already need hipwaders on this thread.

Ethelred
jsdarkdestruction
4 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2011
Have you read any of the posts where people attack scientists and say they are all lying and in on a global conspiracy about climate change and hiding this or that data that proves they are wrong? those are the "critics and skeptics" who are called negatively denialists for the most part.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
The sad thing is all the wording of reports of glacial melting is virtually identical to the same kinds of reports from the 1920s by people who noticed that various glaciers were gone compared to some years previous.

As to Antarctic, I am most concerned with the Western peninsula since the other regions don't seem to be affected as much. But, the Western peninsula is an interesting "animal." It has seismic zones, is affected by other seismic zones where Antarctica, Australia and South America interact, is affected by tides and vibration caused by waves sent there from thousands of mile away during storms in the Atlantic, has active volcanoes beneath, is undermined by currents as a result of geological changes, etc.

There is a lot of stuff going on over there on the west side of the continent. It should be interesting to see what comes over the next decades.

(Posted using Safari 5.1 [6534.50] on Mac OS X 10.6.8) :)
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2011
MikPetter,

From the same page:
Recent studies reaffirm that the spread of climate sensitivity estimates among models arises primarily from inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks. The shortwave impact of changes in boundary-layer clouds, and to a lesser extent mid-level clouds, constitutes the largest contributor to inter-model differences in global cloud feedbacks. The relatively poor simulation of these clouds in the present climate is a reason for some concern. The response to global warming of deep convective clouds is also a substantial source of uncertainty in projections since current models predict different responses of these clouds. Observationally based evaluation of cloud feedbacks indicates that climate models exhibit different strengths and weaknesses, and it is not yet possible to determine which estimates of the climate change cloud feedbacks are the most reliable.


Should be interesting to see what comes of this, if anything. :)
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 02, 2011
What fear mongering? If the glaciers on Antarctica melt then ALL the port cities will be under water. Every single one.
That's the fear-mongering I'm talking about. There's no evidence sea levels are doing anything unusual, and man can easily outpace rising sea levels with time-tested engineering.

Sea levels go up and down with temperature as well as melt. The glaciers ARE melting.
Some are melting, and some are growing.

What a millimeter?
So you didn't read my source? They're expecting between 2 and 3mm.

That is a denialist's opinion. I am only talking about the glaciers. I don't give a damn about what bullshit the wankers put out as long as the glaciers keep shrinking.
Specifically, what glaciers are you talking about?

Utter and complete bullshit. We have a had a decade, expected based on the Solar cycle, of steady temperatures.>>
Well, that's certainly debatable. You do know the world is typically even warmer during interglacials, right?
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 02, 2011
Let me know when the glaciers start advancing instead of retreating then you will have something.
Many are advancing.

http://thewatcher...-alaska/

I already need hipwaders on this thread.
Really? I've been breaking out the ski gear! LOL!

I've spent decades living along the coast. There's simply no perceptible difference in sea levels, or in the coastline from when I was a child. The same beaches I went to then, appear identical today.

And, I live in what once was an inland sea (during the last interglacial). It remains dry today.

Your alarm is unwarranted.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2011
Amusing to see all of these denialist Tards here insisting that Spencer's nonsense climate model that doesn't contain an ocean produces better results than the real thing.

Spencer has been using his nonsense model for years to show all kinds of things about climate - all dismissed by the scientific community as absolute nonsense.

Spencer doesn't care of course. He stopped being a scientist and became a Oil Industry Shill decades ago.

That is why his principle employer is the Libertarian CATO institute. CATO of course exists for the purpose of producing Pro-Corporate propaganda for the purpose of advancing Fascism (Corporatism) in America.
Sanescience
2 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2011
Come on, VD, you can at least read the related materials to know that Spencer is investigating one aspect of climate modeling, not *a* climate model. Plenty of models try to simulate regions over land with no ocean component.

Spencer is a bit of a publicity whore, but that seems to be what the people want these days. His support of Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation is, dare I say, corny. But his approach from thermal dynamics and conservation principles are taken seriously by lots of scientists.

Your outsized hatred of "the other team" is not how science should be conducted, in fact science demands the assumption that our ideas might be completely wrong and should support active development of multiple avenues of investigation.

Then throwing in some class warfare propaganda is just distracting.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2011
The sad thing is all the wording of reports of glacial melting
I don't really care about the wording. I care about the amount of melting and the number of glaciers that are doing that even during the last ten years when the worldwide temperatures have been steady or even down a little. Which does fit what I would expect with CO2 as it should have more effect at the poles and high altitudes than water vapor does. There just isn't much water vapor over a frozen desert.

(Posted using Safari 5.1 [6534.50] on Mac OS X 10.6.8) :)
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spammity Spam wonderful spam.

Posted with Firefox and NoScript the best reason for not using other browsers. And yes that too is spam.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2011
That's the fear-mongering I'm talking about.
That is the reality that you don't want to accept.

Now aren't you the fearmonger that was mongering about miniblack holes and the LHC? At least I have some evidence on my side.

There's no evidence sea levels are doing anything unusual,
I didn't claim that. Though there a number cities with water level problems I think it is the cities going down and not the water going up. So far.

and man can easily outpace rising sea levels with time-tested engineering.
Hundred foot rises will put the cities underwater unless we build hundred foot barriers. And that is was the seas will rise if Antarctica goes the way it has in the past. No ice. Greenland is only good for a foot or three but it is showing strong signs of serious melting.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2011
Some are melting, and some are growing
Most of those changing are melting. Few are growing. I recall a discussion with some of the radical over a year ago where the idiot was claiming that ONE single glacier in Alaska was growing and somehow that magically made all the other glaciers not matter even though EVERY other glacier in Alaska was shrinking. Man did I get ones for pointing out the one does not make the many go away.

So you didn't read my source? They're expecting between 2 and 3mm
Your source was a wack job and expectations from a denialist aren't really of much interest. I don't really care about millimeters and that was my point. I care about one mile deep continental glaciers.

what glaciers are you talking about?
All of them. Except for Antarctica most glaciers are retreating. Even large sections of Antarctica are showing signs of warming of the ice.

Well, that's certainly debatable.
The time of day is debatable. Did you have a point?>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2011
You do know the world is typically even warmer during interglacials, right?
Did you know that is pretty much the definition of an interglacial EXCEPT that it has to be followed by a glacial period and we don't any evidence to support the idea that there is another one on the way.

Many are advancing.
Very few in comparison to those retreating.

Shasta? That is a volcano. The glaciers can grow if the ground temperature goes down. If the water vapor content goes up or winds shift.

Glaciers are growing in Alaska for the first time in 250 years. Two years ago in May,
Gosh 2 years out of 250. Such a trend during a down cycle that went on two years longer than expected. I truly stunned by the amazing occurrence. How about he tells us about that in five years which will be the middle of the up cycle. Then he will have a point. Not at the bottom of a long down.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2011
some positive values were reported from the North Cascade Mountains and the Juneau Ice Field.
And it also means SOME not most as he tried to imply. An honest site that is not.

Really? I've been breaking out the ski gear! LOL!
Bandini mountain no longer exists. So don't bother. Get the snorkel for that site you linked to as it piles it higher than Bandini ever did.

http://www.urband...=Bandini

Now that mural REALLY annoys the vegans. Something I was unaware of till I tried to find pictures of it just now.

There's simply no perceptible difference in sea levels, or in the coastline from when I was a child.
Where the hell did I claim otherwise?>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2011
Oops here are the links

http://www.urband...Mountain
http://www.lataco...l-vernon

Your alarm is unwarranted.
Uhh no. YOUR alarm on the LHC was clearly a crock. This one is real. The question is not whether CO2 contributes to the glaciers melting, which is occurring, the question is whether the Sun going to go into a long term minimum. If it doesn't and we continue to pump fossil carbon into the air eventually it won't just be mountain glaciers and Greenland, it will be Antarctica. The next ten years will make that clear to all but the most idiotic of deniers. Many of whom still think the Earth is 6000 years old. Just like Spencer who has signed an agreement to never accept global warming and evidence be damned.

Will YOU change your mind if the glaciers keep melting over this decade? I will if the don't. But the Sun has started an upcycle again so it is unlikely to get colder over the decade.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (12) Aug 02, 2011
Despite gallant efforts by Ethelred and associates, the climate scandal is unfolding today as hopefully the final chapter to the Watergate era of deceit.

See comments posted here:

http://judithcurr...-bottle/

The thirty-nine (39) year battle (2011-1972 = 39) to avoid servitude to the one-world government that Richard Milhous Nixon secretly agreed to on 21-28 Feb 1972 is finally ending.

I regret that NAS, PNAS, UK's Royal Society, UN's IPCC, Nature, Science, etc were not on the winning side of this hopefully final chapter to the Watergate era.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Skepticus_Rex
1.7 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2011
Seriously, I would not concern myself with Antarctica for the foreseeable future. I would opine differently if the entire continent were melting. The problem is that the temperature trends on the Eastern continent (the side with the most ice) has been dropping.

It is a different story than the western peninsula, where everyone seems to be placing their focus. A live volcano blasted its way through the ice in 325 BCE and we did not get a flooded planet.

I am not sure that we will see anything like that until the eastern continent sees actual, lasting, rising temperature trends everywhere, and all its ice starts sliding off into the water.

(Posted using Camino 2.0.7 on Mac OS X 10.6.8). :)
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 03, 2011
That is the reality that you don't want to accept.
Are you nuts? Are you asserting all the port cities are under 20 feet of water, right now? It seems you may have difficulty discerning reality from wild as__d speculation.

Now aren't you the fearmonger that was mongering about miniblack holes and the LHC?
Yes, and they modified their safety assessment as a result, and (apparently) modified the beams as well (there's apparently a built in safety margin).

At least I have some evidence on my side.
Fine. Which port cities are you asserting are flooded with seawater, caused by glacial melt as a result of AGW?

I didn't claim that. Though there a number cities with water level problems I think it is the cities going down and not the water going up. So far.
See? You can discern reality from your wild-eyed speculative fear. Why don't you go with that?

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 03, 2011
Hundred foot rises will put the cities underwater unless we build hundred foot barriers.
Okay, I'm going to have to challenge you on this. What evidence do you have that this is occurring?

Most of those changing are melting.
You mean: Most of those changing WERE melting. This past year, mid latitude glaciers were generally HAMMERED with snow!

I care about one mile deep continental glaciers.
They're doing just fine (particularly Antarctic glaciers).

All of them. Except for Antarctica most glaciers are retreating.
Didn't you read about mount Shasta and the North West glaciers?

Where the hell did I claim otherwise?>>
Your fear-mongering remarks about Antarctic ice melt belies this assertion.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 03, 2011
Uhh no. YOUR alarm on the LHC was clearly a crock.
As I already indicated above, it clearly wasn't.

This one is real.
Really? In what sense? What port cities are you claiming are inundated now?

The next ten years will make that clear to all but the most idiotic of deniers.
Strange that. This sounds exactly like the AGW claims of MORE than a decade ago. What happened?

Will YOU change your mind if the glaciers keep melting over this decade?
Ah, I see you misunderstand my position. I'm not denying the climate will change, as this occurs naturally. I just don't think it's anything to get overly excited about.

What I do object to is the assertion that climate change is necessarily and primarily anthropomorphic in origin. For instance, the seas have been rising steadily for far longer than man may have had an ability to influence the global climate. There's no indication that we've affected this process, whatsoever.

Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2011
one-world government that Richard Milhous Nixon secretly agreed to on 21-28 Feb 1972 is finally ending.
Some secret if you know of it. Then again it is much more likely that your are delusional on this. You and Otto.

etc were not on the winning side of this hopefully final chapter to the Watergate era.
So far they are correct as they are simply going on the evidence. Quite unlike you
going on your beliefs and prejudices.

People don't lose in science just because a fanatic makes silly posts on their blog. They only lose in science if they refuse to deal with real evidence. Much like you with Neutron Repulsion which you have no evidence for. And no that chart is not evidence UNLESS you can show a way to differentiate it from the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Ignoring this is why you have much experience with the losing side.

With kind regards
Making hypocritical signatures again I see.

With hope that reality will enter your thinking,
Ethelred
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2011
Are you nuts? Are you asserting all the port cities are under 20 feet of water, right now?
No. Can you READ? Why do you invent bullshit like that?

Yes, and they modified their safety assessment as a result,
Talk about fantasies. I am sincerely doubt they saw your posts.

(apparently) modified the beams as well
They are still slamming particles at VERY high energies and intend to increase those energies to the same levels they have always intended.

. Which port cities are you asserting are flooded with seawater, caused by glacial melt as a result of AGW?
I NEVER said any city was PRESENTLY underwater. LEARN HOW TO READ.

Why don't you go with that?
I am going on reality. It is you that are engaging in fantasies. Hell you are even trying to write my posts for me.

Okay, I'm going to have to challenge you on this.
How about you learn how to read. This is getting tiresome. Do you do this all the time?>>
omatumr
1 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2011
Sounds reasonable, doesn't it Ethelred?

For the past four decades you could be certain of victory if you simply align your "science" with the official dogma of NAS, PNAS, UK's Royal Society, UN's IPCC, Nature, Science, BBC, PBS, Time magazine, Newsweek, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, etc.

Since 21-28 Feb 1972 politically correct, consensus science was always right!

Regretfully for you and your associates, Climategate exposed the game plan adopted in secrecy by international agreement between East and West on 21-28 Feb 1972:

http://dl.dropbox...oots.doc

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

http://judithcurr...-bottle/

Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2011
What evidence do you have that this is occurring?
READ WHAT I WRITE. Are you deliberately lying about what I said or are you that staggeringly incompetent?

You mean: Most of those changing WERE melting.
No. I meant what I said. Not the crap you say I said.

This past year, mid latitude glaciers were generally HAMMERED with snow!
Mid latitude glaciers are tiny and I never talked about them. You did that.

They're doing just fine (particularly Antarctic glaciers).
No. Greenland is melting and the western part of Antarctica isn't doing so well either.

Didn't you read about mount Shasta and the North West glaciers?
Can't you read? I said ANTARCTICA AND GREENLAND. Shasta is tiny and mid latitude. CO2 has it primary effects at HIGH latitudes.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2011
Your fear-mongering remarks about Antarctic ice melt belies this assertion.
Dealing with reality is not fear mongering. Idiotic attacks on the LHC and then claiming YOU got things changed is delusional so I guess this STUPID set of incompetent posts is the best I can expect out of you at the moment.

As I already indicated above, it clearly wasn't.
No. That was bullshit.

What port cities are you claiming are inundated now?
LEARN HOW TO READ. I need a macro for this. SHOW WHERE I MADE SUCH A CLAIM.

This sounds exactly like the AGW claims of MORE than a decade ago. What happened?
I never made the claim. So I don't have to support it.

Ah, I see you misunderstand my position.
YOU don't understand how to read.

I just don't think it's anything to get overly excited about.
When the water reaches your upper lip perhaps that will get your attention.>>
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2011
What I do object to is the assertion that climate change is necessarily and primarily anthropomorphic in origin.
Too bad you can't read. Even Gore didn't make that claim. However the increase in CO2 that has been going on for decades is clearly related to the Industrial Revolution.

Now really, learn how to read. That was an awfull lot of crap you claimed I said when I did not say any such a thing. It is pitiful that you have to engage in major rewrites of my post to support yourself. We all have good days and bad days. That was an excreable day.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2011
To be fair, there is an issue that often crops up in such heated discussions which is: Some people can read scientific studies and some people can't. The latter not because they are unable to but because they read them like they would a tabloid newspaper or the TV news.

Tabloids train people to infer, speculate, and interpret what the article really meant (to get the hormones going which increases circulation/revenue).

Scientific papers, on the other hand, are very precise and anything that isn't EXPLICITLY mentioned is NOT the result of the paper and should not be inferred to be so.

this is not a failing in people (heck, I had the same problem before I started writing my own papers). It is just something people need to be made aware of.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2011
Sounds reasonable, doesn't it Ethelred?
No. It sounds typically delusional.

For the past four decades you could be certain of victory if you simply align your "science" with the official dogma
Not dogma. Actual functional testable science. Exactly unlike idiotic claims of a rigid iron surface that is 6000 degrees K and thus a PLASMA. With only traces of iron in it at that.

Since 21-28 Feb 1972 politically correct, consensus science was always right!
Just because you are full of crap that doesn't mean that politics can make bad science right. However GOOD science, like that done at places you hate, does tend to stand up under scrutiny. Even gets support from the scientist's student. Which you don't have. Not even one of your students is supporting you.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2011
Regretfully for you and your associates,
I work retail and I don't have 'associates' hounding you. However there are a lot reasonable competent people that see your crap and then point out that it is, very much, a steaming pile of crap that isn't even fit for fertilizer.

Independent thinkers agree, Oliver is full of it. There is no need for a vast paid conspiracy run by YOUR former employers for you have opposition. All that is needed is for you to keep making ridiculous claims and refusing to answer questions you would be able to answer if you were right.

Let me repeat a few of them for you.

What evidence distinguishes the Pauli Exclusion Principle from Neutron Repulsion. There would be lab evidence if you were right. Work has been done with cold isolated neutrons. Show how it supports you.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2011
How can a 6000 degree plasma made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium be a rigid iron shell?

Why should we expect helium to be in rocks that have xenon when helium is far more mobile than xenon?

Why hasn't the guy that first suggested the Sun MIGHT have a pulsar in it ever written a single word in support of you? Or that original article of his for that matter?

Ethelred
Skepticus_Rex
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2011
One thing I find most interesting in the comments left in this article thread and in others related to this study, is that a great many people, non-religionists especially, have gone out and used Spencer's religious views as a tool with which to bring additional discredit upon his work and as an additional reason why his work cannot be trusted in any sense.

Yet--and this is the most telling--they cite writings and blogs also written by religionists (the bbickmore article was written by a Mormon, no less!) as part of their attacks on the work rather than going out and looking into the matter further.

Even AR4 itself admits the uncertainties and differences between models that are grounds for concern. AR4 so much as admits that certain data is not included and that this data has differing results in the models.

But to use the work of religionists to attack the scientific claims of another religionist while using religion as a point of rejection is pretty funny, I think.
Skepticus_Rex
3 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2011
antialias_physorg,

I actually agree strongly with your comment about the importance of reading the scientific papers and being careful not to infer thing from the papers that are not explicitly stated. I think the comment is right on the mark. Thanks for making it.
Skepticus_Rex
2.1 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2011
I don't really care about the wording. I care about the amount of melting and the number of glaciers that are doing that even during the last ten years when the worldwide temperatures have been steady or even down a little. Which does fit what I would expect with CO2 as it should have more effect at the poles and high altitudes than water vapor does. There just isn't much water vapor over a frozen desert.


Yes, temps have ranged from steady to down. But, CO2 has nothing to do directly with glacier melt, and only theoretically so, indirectly. Additionally, CO2 has been seen as lending a cooling effect to the upper atmosphere.

Fact is, a number of glaciers melt in large part by direct sublimation and water vapor is of tantamount importance to glacier formation. In a number of places where high-altitude glaciers are disappearing the amount of necessary water vapor has decreased due to poor land-use management, such as in the case of Kilimanjaro.
Skepticus_Rex
2 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2011
This is something from last year's news but it still is relevant to the discussion of Antarctic ice.

http://www.news.c...00043191

I shall need to hunt down the actual paper presented on this, though. It may well make an interesting read in spite of the media coverage of the information.
Skepticus_Rex
2 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2011
Should have put "last year's news" in quotes. Technically, it was two years ago but it is a colloquialism that is likely to be misread without the quotes. Can't go back and edit it, though, so thought I would mention it before someone else mistook it and did so. :)
Skepticus_Rex
2 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2011
Hmmm... Yet another piece in this puzzle:

http://www.physor...ole.html

Thoughts?
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2011
antialias_physorg,

I actually agree strongly with your comment about the importance of reading the scientific papers and being careful not to infer thing from the papers that are not explicitly stated. I think the comment is right on the mark. Thanks for making it.
Hence my post waaay up at the top (post#2). These things tend to get bent out of proportion.
Skepticus_Rex
2 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2011
SteveL,

I agree with your post above and your post number 2 at the top, too. People get supercharged over this climate science stuff and tend to attribute things to papers that never were intended by the authors. Go figure. :)
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2011
is that a great many people, non-religionists especially, have gone out and used Spencer's religious views
Lets see. He signed an agreement to go on religion and NEVER admit that there could be Global Warming of ANY kind. And you are OK with that? He is not fit to discuss science of any kind after signing that agreement.

The rest of your post was more crap to support a guy that isn't fit to do science.

It is possible to be religious and do science. It is NOT possible to do science after you promise to do religion INSTEAD of science.

Is that clear enough for you as why Spencer's papers are completely worthless?

Do you have any more excuses for supporting this guy's bogus papers?

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2011
Yes, temps have ranged from steady to down.
For ten years not hundreds and mostly steady not down.

But, CO2 has nothing to do directly with glacier melt
And you base that on what?

and only theoretically so, indirectly.
The theory is based on the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That isn't indirect either and even if it was it would still be a real effect.

Additionally, CO2 has been seen as lending a cooling effect to the upper atmosphere.
Which is due to the CO2 RETAINING heat down low. Which is what the theory predicts. Heat is retained in the lower atmosphere. Where the continental glaciers exist.

such as in the case of Kilimanjaro.
Sure is funny how people keep trying to use mid latitude and even equatorial glaciers to avoid the high latitude CONTINENTAL glaciers that have almost all the water that is locked up in ice.

If the CO2 levels keep rising the temperatures at the poles will rise.

Ethelred
SteveL
3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2011
Despite Mr. Spencer's other statements. If nothing else, his findings should lead to "more credible" research into his findings. There is the chance that he has found something others were not specifically looking for. His study should be reviewed and verified without bias or dismissed without bias on its own credit.

Policies need to be made using all of the availble information, whether we like the messenger or not.
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2011
The author of the scientific study is Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama Huntsville, a prominent climate skeptic


So he doesn't believe in climate? harrrr

/sarcasm
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2011
Sounds reasonable, doesn't it Ethelred?

For the past four decades you could be certain of victory if you simply align your "science" with the official dogma of NAS, PNAS, UK's Royal Society, UN's IPCC, Nature, Science, BBC, PBS, Time magazine, Newsweek, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, etc.

Since 21-28 Feb 1972 politically correct, consensus science was always right!


The document has been updated to show that Henry Kissinger apparently made agreements with the Chinese to unite nations, avoid the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation, and end the space race in 1971, before Richard Nixon went to China in 1972.

See addendum (page 9):

http://dl.dropbox...oots.doc

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2011
Well Uvavontuba, I see you went berserk and gave me ones for every post on the thread. I only gave ones for the most deserving. You know I respond in kind to that sort of crap.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2011
Despite Mr. Spencer's other statements. If nothing else, his findings should lead to "more credible" research into his findings.
Why he didn't do anything except bad work? The usual complaint about simulations is that they are good enough and HIS were simplified even more than the stuff the denialists complain about. Did simplistic simulations become the right thing just because you agree with the results?

His study should be reviewed and verified without bias or dismissed without bias on its own credit.
So no one should do as he did. Everyone should pretend the paper was done honestly and without an axe to grind. They should just hold their breathe, put on a full divers suit and wade into the bullshit just as if it was honest science.

I don't think so.

Policies need to be made using all of the available information,
Yes. So why should we use intentionally dishonest work?

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2011
The document has been updated to show that Henry Kissinger apparently made agreements with the Chinese to unite nations,
Have you ever read the US Constitution? Henry couldn't make ANY binding agreements with anyone. That requires treaties and Congressional approval.

avoid the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation,
What a terrible thing to do. To bad it is meaningless without actual treaties with nuclear powers.

and end the space race in 1971, before Richard Nixon went to China in 1972.
You do know the space race ended when we landed men on the Moon in 1969 don't you? You did work for NASA AND you were at least partly responsible for the rocks. There is no way you cannot be aware that the space race was something WE won and the Russians lost, assuming the Russians were actually in competition with us, which is not certain.>>
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2011
There is no World Wide Government. There is no treaty for such a thing. We have had rabid anti UN Republicans in office for much of the time since Nixon. Nixon was the LAST Republican President that understood the value of a rational foreign policy. It was about the only thing he was good at.

And no he did not understand NASA. Few Presidents have, and neither does most of the public. Hell most of the Astronauts didn't. Too bad Buzz Aldrin isn't in charge. He has a clue.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2011
There is no way you cannot be aware that the space race was something WE won and the Russians lost,

Hmm...AFAIK the russians were the first to
- put a sattelite in orbit
- an animal in orbit
- a man in orbit
- a woman in orbit
- a probe on the Moon (impact)
- a probe on the Moon (soft landing)
- a probe in orbit around the Moon (pictures of back side)
- first orbit of Mars
- first probe on Mars (impact)
- first probe on Mars (soft landing)
- ...

The US won one category: "first man on the moon" that's it. That this should mean the US "won the space race" is a tiiiiiiny bit euphemistic.

SteveL
4 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2011
@Ethelred I neither agree nor disagree with Mr. Spencer's findings. However, if he is looking at an aspect of climate in a way that has not been considered before, or if his findings from NASA data represent a real aspect of the climate situation then we owe it to ourselves to ensure there should be follow-up research to determine the credibility of his claims.

The climate issue is too important to leave stones unturned because we just don't like a particular source of information. "Question everything" used to be a mantra for my generation.
omatumr
1 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2011
Earth's heat source - the Sun - has a rigid iron-rich mantle surrounding the pulsar that generates the brightly glowing sphere of waste products (91% H and 9% He) that emits photons and is called the photosphere.

That is the conclusion to experimental measurements

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

Former President Eisenhower warned on 17 Jan 1961 about the danger to our free society from government-sponsored "absolutely certain, pseudo-scientific, post-modern, politically-correct, consensus-science."

www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

Forty years ago, Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon apparently made international agreements that produced four decades of misinformation about the origin, composition and source of energy of the Earth and the Sun.

Is that why our economic system is collapsing today while leaders of the scientific community tell us anthropologic global warming (AGW) should be our first concern?

That question cannot be answered by those who ignore experimental data!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2011
No. Can you READ? Why do you invent bullshit like that?
I can read just fine. How about you?

You fear-mongered, "ALL the port cities will be under water. Every single one." then I said, "That's the fear-mongering I'm talking about." then you said "That is the *REALITY* that you don't want to accept." then I said, "Are you nuts? Are you asserting all the port cities are under 20 feet of water, right now?"

It can't be both a "reality" (meaning: current state of being) and a speculation (meaning: possibility). So, which is it?

Talk about fantasies. I am sincerely doubt they saw your posts.
When did I claim otherwise? Perhaps I was only one unheard voice, of many. It doesn't change the fact that my views were found to be correct, accepted, and compensated for.

And, this has nothing to do with the current discussion. Are your arguments really so weak that you have to play these games?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2011
I NEVER said any city was PRESENTLY underwater. LEARN HOW TO READ.
Then it's not a "reality" then, now is it?

I am going on reality. It is you that are engaging in fantasies. Hell you are even trying to write my posts for me.
Here we go again. Which port cities are you claiming are, in "reality," inundated with water?

How about you learn how to read. This is getting tiresome. Do you do this all the time?
Ah, so you couldn't support your position that hundred foot floods were coming. Why didn't you just admit it?

READ WHAT I WRITE. Are you deliberately lying about what I said or are you that staggeringly incompetent?
You said, "Hundred foot rises will put the cities underwater unless we build hundred foot barriers."

I'm only asking you to support your contention this is happening. Why is this so difficult for you?

No. I meant what I said. Not the crap you say I said.
Then support it with current data. Is this really too much to ask?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2011
Dealing with reality is not fear mongering.
Fine. Then support your "reality" with current science. Where are the flooded port cities you keep claiming as part of your "reality?"

Idiotic attacks on the LHC and then claiming YOU got things changed is delusional
When did I supposedly claim I was solely responsible for this?

so I guess this STUPID set of incompetent posts is the best I can expect out of you at the moment.
...says the fool who can't even understand the difference between reality and speculation.

Ethelred, I thought you were better than resorting to personal attacks. To your shame, I was obviously wrong.

No. That was bullshit.
Saying so, doesn't make it so.

LEARN HOW TO READ. I need a macro for this. SHOW WHERE I MADE SUCH A CLAIM.
Here again? I'm getting tired of this.

You really are the one who incessantly argued with me about the conservation of momentum in collisions, on the old site ...aren't you?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2011
I never made the claim. So I don't have to support it.
I didn't expect you would. You've shown you can't even support your own!

YOU don't understand how to read.
I think it's pretty clear you're the one having difficulty with comprehension here. I mean seriously, calling a wild speculation a "reality?"

When the water reaches your upper lip perhaps that will get your attention.
And here we go with the flood claims again. What current evidence do you have to support this?

Besides, it might get this high on you, but it would never get this high on me. I have sense enough to walk away.

Too bad you can't read. Even Gore didn't make that claim.
I saw the movie, and yes, he did.

However the increase in CO2 that has been going on for decades is clearly related to the Industrial Revolution.
Even if true, so what? It's non-toxic and it helps plants grow.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2011
Well Uvavontuba, I see you went berserk and gave me ones for every post on the thread. I only gave ones for the most deserving. You know I respond in kind to that sort of crap.

Ethelred
I rated a lot of writers, and gave them what I thought their posts deserved (mostly high marks).

I read every post of yours, and likewise gave it what I thought it deserved (based on its merits). It's not my fault your posts generally read like fanatic rantings. It's not my fault you regularly resort to personal attacks. It's not my fault you failed to back up even a single one of your claims with evidence.

And worse, it's not my fault this post looks like something I might have written to zephyr. You can do better. I've seen it. Please do better.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2011
The US won one category: "first man on the moon" that's it.
No. But that was the space race for Americans.

- a probe in orbit around the Moon (pictures of back side)
First USEFUL photos? No, that was the US.

- first probe on Mars (soft landing)
Got anything useful from it? Who has actual probes on the ground right now? The US.

First FUNCTIONAL probe on Venus. The US.

First Jupiter probe. US. First orbiter of Jupiter. US though it was nearly complete disaster.

First orbiter of Venus. US. Much more usefull than the landers.

- a woman in orbit
Yes and that was meaningless. Gagarin was meaningfull. First spam in a can both sexes. They also put three men up first, though it was just a gimmick, they jammed one more seat right on top of the other.

First deaths. The Russians won that one too. I think the US has passed on them on numbers but the Russians may have had some they kept secret.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2011
The Space Race was the race to the Moon and the US won that.

Right now we SUCK. Though we still have more and better robots than the Russians. For that matter more than all the rest put together. This is likely to change if the US doesn't quit the STUPID FFEIINNNNG idiocy with privatized space ONLY.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2011
It's not my fault you regularly resort to personal attacks. You can do better. I've seen it. Please do better.


I agree.

Today I was reminded that SSM, the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun, is the conclusion to an international study week held in the Bilderberg near Arnhem, Netherlands, from 17 through 21 April 1967 with the aim of obtaining an internationally acceptable model of the solar photosphere and low chromosphere [1].

1. O. Gingerich and Cees de Jager, The Bilderberg Model of the Photosphere and Low Chromosphere, Solar Physics 3, issue 1 (1968) pages 5-25]:

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

For 44 years (2011-1967 = 44) , climate studies have been handicapped by adherence to that 1967 SSM dogma.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Skepticus_Rex
2 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2011
Uh oh! We may not have to worry about the Arctic icepack hitting a 'tipping point' as much as some think. Check this out from the University of Copenhagen:

http://news.ku.dk...sea_ice/

Things that make one go "hmmm..."
Skepticus_Rex
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2011
Well, crap, this is going to make things difficult to assess in the Arctic.

http://denali.fro..._web.pdf

It is from 2000 but it is still applicable now that the new study has come out, as mentioned in the news article from the University of Copenhagen.

Still, too many unknowns...
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2011
Today I was reminded that SSM, the Standard Solar Model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun, is the conclusion to an international study week held in the Bilderberg near Arnhem, Netherlands, from 17 through 21 April 1967 with the aim of obtaining an internationally acceptable model of the solar photosphere and low chromosphere [1].

1. O. Gingerich and Cees de Jager, The Bilderberg Model of the Photosphere and Low Chromosphere, Solar Physics 3, issue 1 (1968) pages 5-25]:

http://adsabs.har....3....5G

For 44 years (2011-1967 = 44) , climate studies have been handicapped by adherence to that 1967 SSM dogma.


I will modify and post the historical review of Climategate to show the importance of decisions made at the Bilderberg Conference on 17-21 April 1967.
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2011
The sordid history of events that produced Chimategate, now updated (going back to the April 1967 Bilderberg Conference) and renamed - The Bilderberg Sun, Climategate & Economic Crisis - is now available at these links:

http://dl.dropbox...oots.doc
or
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

Comments would be appreciated,

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2011
Comments would be appreciated,
Any bets that Oliver will appreciate this?

There is no evidence to support your idea that the Sun has a neutron star in its core. The guy that came up with the pulsar in the Sun only wrote that one LETTER not article and never followed it up or supported you in any way.

Your table of isotopes supports the Pauli Exclusion Principle and you have posted nothing that can support your neutron repulsion vs the PEP.

Climategate was an illegal raid by untrustworthy people on emails that do NOT show any fraud.

The Economic Crisis was caused by Robber Financiers and incompetent non-regulation by people that were supposed to regulate but instead went on ideology rather then practicality. Much like the original Great Depression. Right winger that trusted men in private business to be honest and did not trust themselves while in government to be honest. In other words people that let their TESTED AND FAILED economic theories screw the country.

Ethelred
omatumr
1 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2011
Despite the best efforts of the Red Brigade, the public is seeing through the AGW scam to Big Brother's real motives:

www.quadrant.org....nt-klaus

Oliver
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2011
Gee Oliver you sure did show every error I made.

Zero.

Lying all the time must be a habit you simply cannot quit.

A right wing Australian magazine is NOT the public. It is a few ideologues with an ax to grind. Somewhat more reliable than you but that isn't saying much.

I do thank you for making it clear that this:
Comments would be appreciated,
Was yet another of your lies. Every bit as meaningful as that Kind Regards hypocrisy.

Ethelred
MikPetter
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2011
For a good discussion on clouds and climate look at http://e360.yale....rs/2313/
..concluding extract "Del Genio comes to pretty much the same conclusion. The only possible way to explain the warming weve experienced from 1970 onward, he says, is if the climate has a significant sensitivity to greenhouse gases. Weve monitored volcanoes, the sun, pollution aerosols, and despite all of these things [which would tend to slow temperature increases], weve seen systematic warming. Thats telling us that even if clouds end up being a negative feedback, it couldnt be large enough to offset the warming significantly.

More news stories

Untangling Brazil's controversial new forest code

Approved in 2012, Brazil's new Forest Code has few admirers. Agricultural interests argue that it threatens the livelihoods of farmers. Environmentalists counter that it imperils millions of hectares of forest, ...

Study links California drought to global warming

While researchers have sometimes connected weather extremes to man-made global warming, usually it is not done in real time. Now a study is asserting a link between climate change and both the intensifying California drought ...