Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mattie_p on Sunday February 16 2014, @07:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the conspiracy-or-consensus dept.

AudioGuy writes:

"You heard it here first. According to Natural News, a NASA report has verified that carbon dioxide actually cools the atmosphere.

Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence."

[Ed. note] I'm going to post this, because why not argue science that has been settled? Also, we needed to test the algorithm that generated mod points by sparking conversation. This was as good a way as any to get posts quickly. Sorry if you thought SoylentNews really endorsed this. ~Mattie_p

Related Stories

End of Day 1: Systems Update 149 comments

So, as I write this, day one has officially come to an end. I'm still somewhat in shock over it. Last night when I was editing the database to change over hostnames and such, I was thinking, man, it would be great if we got 100 regular users by tomorrow. Turns out I was wrong. By a factor of ten. Holy cow, people. I'm still in a state of disbelief, partially due to the epic turnout, but also because our very modest server hardware hasn't soiled itself from the influx (the numbers are, well, "impressive" is a way to put it). Anyway, I wanted to do a bit of a writeup of where we stand now, what works, and what doesn't. Check it out (and some raw numbers) after the break! Warning, it is a bit lengthy.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by mrbluze on Sunday February 16 2014, @07:48AM

    by mrbluze (49) on Sunday February 16 2014, @07:48AM (#220) Journal
    Anyone have a link to the NASA report in its fullness?? My friends at work will laugh when I tell them "I read on the alpha testing page of this awesome site we are making, which was quoting natural news, which was quoting NASA ... "
    --
    Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2014, @07:53AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2014, @07:53AM (#222)
      Since when do we read articles around here? Only editors do that! Shut up and start arguing, already.
      • (Score: 1) by Vanderhoth on Sunday February 16 2014, @10:26AM

        by Vanderhoth (61) on Sunday February 16 2014, @10:26AM (#249)
        Peeeewwwww!!! I thought things were going to be different here. I'm a little embarrassed I tried to read the article and just found a bunch of broken or circular links for the articles "sources".
        --
        "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
    • (Score: 1) by AudioGuy on Sunday February 16 2014, @07:57AM

      by AudioGuy (24) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 16 2014, @07:57AM (#223) Journal

      "As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere."

      Should be a cinch to find in such a respectable journal.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:38AM (#235)
      Since when do we RTFA around here? Get off my lawn, newbie!
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2014, @11:14AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2014, @11:14AM (#1527)

        and here i was thinking all along that RTFA stood for "ream that fucking asshole"

    • (Score: 1) by CoolHand on Monday February 17 2014, @01:40PM

      by CoolHand (438) on Monday February 17 2014, @01:40PM (#678) Journal
      The link for the nasa article is at the bottom of the article.. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-na sa/2012/22mar_saber/ [nasa.gov]

      (the link in the natural news article doesn't actually go there, but a copy and paste works)

      The article is from 2012, and draws no overarching conclusions on global warming itself, but the quotes in the natural news article seem accurate...

      --
      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
      • (Score: 1) by Namarrgon on Tuesday February 18 2014, @04:53AM

        by Namarrgon (1134) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @04:53AM (#1404)

        Having read the NASA article, it's pretty clear.

        A big solar storm sent a massive amount of infrared radiation our way. The CO2 and NO2 in the thermosphere blocked, absorbed, then re-radiated most of that infrared energy back into space. This is entirely as expected, based on CO2's well-known absorption spectra, and does not change any conclusions about global warming.

        In a nutshell: Greenhouse gases like CO2 block infrared frequencies specifically, but pass most other frequencies through. The majority of normal solar energy is in the visible spectrum [wikipedia.org], which passes unimpeded through our atmosphere and is partially absorbed by the surface. Much of this absorbed energy is re-radiated on infrared frequencies through black-body radiation [wikipedia.org]. Because atmospheric CO2 blocks and reflects infrared, this infrared energy that would have been radiated out into space, is instead returned to the surface, warming the planet further.

        In the case of this solar storm, much of the incoming energy was in the infrared spectrum and was blocked by our CO2 "blanket", which works in both directions.

        --
        Why would anyone engrave Elbereth?
  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by AudioGuy on Sunday February 16 2014, @07:53AM

    by AudioGuy (24) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 16 2014, @07:53AM (#221) Journal

    A legit publication.

    A paper in a a Real Scientific Journal.

    Unassailable data from NASA

    I've stocked up on popcorn to watch you AGW suckers try to deal with the TRUTH.

    BWah ha ha ha ha!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:52AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:52AM (#239)
      Your mom's globes are warming my popcorn after watching her suck my unassailable stock. And that's the TRUTH. Deal with that legit publication.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Sunday February 16 2014, @10:34AM

      by Vanderhoth (61) on Sunday February 16 2014, @10:34AM (#250)
      This doesn't appear to be a reputable article. The source links are either circular or broken. The closes thing it has to a source is a link to the science.nasa.government site, which says very little about CO2 cooling the earth.

      The closest it comes is:

      "Unfortunately, there’s no practical way to harness this kind of energy,” says Mlynczak. “It’s so diffuse and out of reach high above Earth’s surface. Plus, the majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO."

      --
      "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Sunday February 16 2014, @07:57AM

    by Appalbarry (66) on Sunday February 16 2014, @07:57AM (#224) Journal
    Yeah, like a publication tagged "Natural Health News and Scientific Discoveries" is my go-to source for science reporting..... then again the source [principia-scientific.org] of these claims does admit some minor bias:

    Principia Scientific International (PSI) was originally conceived in 2010 after 22 international climate experts and authors joined forces to write the climate science bestseller, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’

    Just because someone says it's science doesn't make it true.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by mrbluze on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:03AM

      by mrbluze (49) on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:03AM (#226) Journal
      That's true, but science in general is in trouble on that front. The number of retracted scientific papers is skyrocketing, and a large proportion of these are due to fraud.
      --
      Do it yourself, 'cause no one else will do it yourself.
      • (Score: 1) by AudioGuy on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:11AM

        by AudioGuy (24) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:11AM (#227) Journal

        And notice the bias of the editor here, just HAD to put a counter link at the end of me most excellent submission.

        • (Score: 1) by mattie_p on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:16AM

          by mattie_p (13) on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:16AM (#229) Journal
          All editors are biased. I just happen to be biased towards SCIENCE!
          • (Score: 2, Funny) by AudioGuy on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:19AM

            by AudioGuy (24) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:19AM (#230) Journal

            Admit it, you are just another member of THE AGW CABAL!

            Ruining perfectly good stories.

            • (Score: 1) by janrinok on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:37AM

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:37AM (#233) Journal

              'Ruining perfectly good stories'

              Hardly, in this instance!

              • (Score: 1) by mattie_p on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:38AM

                by mattie_p (13) on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:38AM (#234) Journal

                It was a perfectly ruined story before I ruined it.

                Wait, what?

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by similar_name on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:39AM

    by similar_name (71) on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:39AM (#236)
    New World Order: Implantable RFID chips capable of remotely killing non-compliant 'slaves' [naturalnews.com]

    Vaccines lower immunity [naturalnews.com]

    Jumping rope and 9/11 truth [naturalnews.com] - how the sheeple have been trained to avoid unpopular truth about WTC 7

    Not sure who this guy is and it's a couple of years old but this too. [skeptoid.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:40AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:40AM (#237)
      This is totally a legitimate news source. I am intrigued.
      • (Score: 1) by similar_name on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:43AM

        by similar_name (71) on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:43AM (#238)

        It's the legitimatest.
        • (Score: 1) by AudioGuy on Sunday February 16 2014, @09:02AM

          by AudioGuy (24) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 16 2014, @09:02AM (#241) Journal

          Many people with smarts swear by them.

          • (Score: 2, Funny) by AudioGuy on Sunday February 16 2014, @09:06AM

            by AudioGuy (24) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 16 2014, @09:06AM (#243) Journal

            IF we ever need a fund raiser, we can just start posting articles from this site until enough donations come in.

            Sure success.

      • (Score: 1) by unitron on Monday February 17 2014, @12:07AM

        by unitron (70) on Monday February 17 2014, @12:07AM (#346) Journal

        "This is totally a legitimate news source. I am intrigued."

        Put up or shut up. Subscribe to their newsletter.

        : - )

        --
        something something Slashcott something something Beta something something
    • (Score: 1) by sgleysti on Sunday February 16 2014, @03:40PM

      by sgleysti (56) on Sunday February 16 2014, @03:40PM (#272)
      How can I vote down an entire article?
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Khyber on Sunday February 16 2014, @09:11AM

    by Khyber (54) on Sunday February 16 2014, @09:11AM (#245) Journal

    I bet I could fix this whole debate by eating some cabbage and cheese, and drinking some beer.

    Then get about 50K of my compatriots to do the same. Watch as we beat out cows and end up making the world a worse place as global warming rolls harder than a Milankovich cycle.

    Fags.

    (Yes this is a test troll post. Mod plz)

    --
    Destroying Semiconductors With Style Since 2008, and scaring you ill-educated fools since 2013.
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2014, @09:12AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 16 2014, @09:12AM (#246)
      If I had mod points I would, you insensitive clod!
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Maow on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:07PM

    by Maow (8) on Sunday February 16 2014, @08:07PM (#295) Homepage

    WTF is this story doing here, I'm asking myself.

    Even Alexander Graham Bell, of telephone fame, recognised the potential problem, in the early 1900s:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Hi story [wikipedia.org]

    The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]

    In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]

    This story will eventually turn up in denialists' search results. Perhaps far down the list, but having pollution like this on their site is why Popular Science decided to end user comments entirely - having denialist snippets associated with PopSci in search results lends them credence.

    I'm finding this terribly disturbing. Even for April Fools' Day it'd be a bad choice, IMHO.

  • (Score: 1) by NecroDM on Monday February 17 2014, @11:32AM

    by NecroDM (376) on Monday February 17 2014, @11:32AM (#581)

    That's not what NASA reports at all.
    I tried to find NN sources but the only NASA link they have is to something irrelevant to the case.

    Here's NASA's article regarding GW: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWa rming/ [nasa.gov]

    The evidence shows that the Earth is warming not cooling.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Geezer on Monday February 17 2014, @01:30PM

    by Geezer (511) on Monday February 17 2014, @01:30PM (#667)

    This is a joke, right guys?

    Guys?

    (cue crickets chirping)

    • (Score: 2) by mattie_p on Tuesday February 18 2014, @07:34AM

      by mattie_p (13) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @07:34AM (#1468) Journal

      Yes, we needed to get some discussion going quickly. I modified the subject line to reflect that. Our apologies for not making that clear up front. Thanks for reading. ~mattie_p

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2014, @04:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17 2014, @04:00PM (#794)

    The climate models are inaccurate because of the level of granularity we can measure/compute and the many missing elements. It's like doing physics problems on relativistic particles with a Bohr model. Climate Change is obviously happening and has throughout the planet's history. No-one doubts that. What frustrates me is that 'scientists' quote consensus when there we are flat out guessing about the differences attributable to each component of the thermodynamics of the mixed solid/fluid/radiant system that is our planet within the context of the solar system. It could be that, like the Bohr model, we are in a range where the assumptions made by the models are valid approximations for what's happening. That is what the theory supporters believe, and they have compiled empirical evidence to support that point of view. But when they say things like The Science Is Settled, well that is obviously incorrect. Model performance over the last 20 years demonstrates the need for improvements.

    The truth is, our best effort to predict future climate indicate we should be concerned human activities are affecting global equilibrium. But our understanding is too incomplete to Scientifically prove anything. There is also no clear-cut method forward to change that path. If we cut C02 emissions by some percent but increase methane output, are we better off? If we spray sulfides into the upper atmosphere but lose our pine forests which absorb CO2 to acid rain, is that a net win? It's a complex system so unintended consequences will abound.

    The posted article covers one aspect of the energy balance. What's thermal conductivity between the lower atmosphere and this level? Can we measure the energy flow between them? How accurately? Those would be useful things to know. Saying that this disproves Global Warming is pure sensationalism. It is interesting and measurements like this are certainly the first steps towards modeling it. And so forth.

    Want to end the arguments? Put all the research completely into the public domain. All the code, all the methods, all the data, everything. Then start picking things apart, addressing issues, and improving them. If a study is missing original data, it is discarded or repeated to proper scientific standards. And stop claiming The Science is Settled because if it's settled, it's not science.

    As an aside, the incredible irony of Al Gore calling the nay-sayers the Flat Earth society when arguing for consensus and against scientific method is mind boggling.

    • (Score: 1) by ArhcAngel on Monday February 17 2014, @05:06PM

      by ArhcAngel (654) on Monday February 17 2014, @05:06PM (#838)

      Your sane, thoughtful, and concise discourse on this site will not be tolerated! You are either a Global Warming conspirator or a Flat Earther you incentive clod...

      I don't have mod points or I'd give them all to you.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:32PM (#1935)

      And stop claiming The Science is Settled because if it's settled, it's not science."

      Pure genius that comment, thank you - but on the aside, how can you have "science" if you can't test your hypothesis.... this is where the climate change junkies miss the mark - climate-statistics-gathering ISN'T "Science" - hypothesis, theory, test, conclusion - it's just data-gathering. Or in stock-speak: "Past performance does not equal future results."

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 18 2014, @09:35PM (#1939)

        Past performance doesn't GUARANTEE future results, that is - self edit!!! Good day sir!

    • (Score: 1) by Maow on Thursday February 20 2014, @12:02PM

      by Maow (8) on Thursday February 20 2014, @12:02PM (#3368) Homepage

      The climate models are inaccurate because ...

      Put all the research completely into the public domain. All the code, all the methods, all the data, everything.

      So, you have determined that the models are inaccurate, but then you admit you haven't personally accessed the data nor the models? Are you psychic then?

      Ars Technica has covered climate models [arstechnica.com] quite thoroughly:

      Steve Easterbrook, a professor of computer science at the University of Toronto, has been studying climate models for several years. "I'd done a lot of research in the past studying the development of commercial and open source software systems, including four years with NASA studying the verification and validation processes used on their spacecraft flight control software," he told Ars.

      When Easterbrook started looking into the processes followed by climate modeling groups, he was surprised by what he found. "I expected to see a messy process, dominated by quick fixes and muddling through, as that's the typical practice in much small-scale scientific software. What I found instead was a community that takes very seriously the importance of rigorous testing, and which is already using most of the tools a modern software development company would use (version control, automated testing, bug tracking systems, a planned release cycle, etc.)."

      "I was blown away by the testing process that every proposed change to the model has to go through," Easterbrook wrote. "Basically, each change is set up like a scientific experiment, with a hypothesis describing the expected improvement in the simulation results. The old and new versions of the code are then treated as the two experimental conditions. They are run on the same simulations, and the results are compared in detail to see if the hypothesis was correct. Only after convincing each other that the change really does offer an improvement is it accepted into the model baseline."

      Apologies for the extensive quote, but I think it covers the climate model objections rather nicely.

      Also, "All models are wrong. Some models are useful."

      Finally,

      The truth is, our best effort to predict future climate indicate we should be concerned human activities are affecting global equilibrium.

      Ahem. The truth is, our best efforts are projections of future climate, and very thoroughly take into account various human activities as inputs. They do this by re-running different models with various CO2 outputs, forest coverages (and types and ages), and many, many other variables, then averaging the outputs and using statistics to assign confidence levels. Like one would expect actual scientists to do.

      Final finally: I get quite distrustful when Al Gore is mentioned in climate science discussions: he is not a scientist, he makes no claims of being a scientist, and "how fat" he is, or how his house is huge == no global warming are disingenuous, at best.

  • (Score: 1) by Boxzy on Monday February 17 2014, @05:54PM

    by Boxzy (742) on Monday February 17 2014, @05:54PM (#893) Journal

    I know quite a few nutcases who would argue against AGW even with their hair on fire.

    I'm thoroughly sick of trying to explain simple science to unscientific dullards but I cannot ever see this going away, there are just too many people with ideological and religious reasons for why mankind simply cannot harm the planet, and if seriously pushed will claim that God won't ALLOW us to cause harm.

    I weep for Humanity.

    --
    Go green, Go Soylent.
  • (Score: 1) by Redcedar on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:04AM

    by Redcedar (986) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @12:04AM (#1182)

    The energy talked about in the NASA source is from a solar mass ejection not from regular sun light.