Hot news: NASA quietly fixes flawed temperature data; 1998 was NOT the warmest year in the millenium
Mind the gap.
Some big environmental news that you haven’t heard much about: NASA has revised much-publicized US temperature data that have been used to claim 1998 as a record-breaking hottest year in the millenium. Michael Asher at DailyTech reports:
My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or “jump” in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.
These graphs were created by NASA’s Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide [McIntyre ]with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.
[McIntyre] notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an “oversight” that would be fixed in the next data refresh.
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.
The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.
Then again– maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.
McIntyre’s blog is down at the moment. (*Update*: It’s down because his work has gotten some major media attention…no, not from the MSM, but from Rush Limbaugh.) His work on this is extraordinary and hopefully the website will be back up. (Another update: McIntyre also debunked the famous “hockey stick” analysis linking human activity to global warming, which turned out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.) In the meantime, see Anthony Watts, who walks you through McIntyre’s findings and adds some helpful charts:
Steve McIntyre, of Toronto operates www.climateaudit.org and began to investigate the data and the methods used to arrive at the results that were graphed by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
What he discovered was truly amazing. Since NASA does not fully publish the computer source code and formulae used to calculate the trends in the graph, nor the correction used to arrive at the “corrected” data. He had to reverse engineer the process by comparing the raw data and the processed data.
Here is one of his first posts where he begins to understand what is happening. “This imparts an upward discontinuity of a deg C in wintertime and 0.8 deg C annually. I checked the monthly data and determined that the discontinuity occurred on January 2000 – and, to that extent, appears to be a Y2K problem. I presume that this is a programming error.”
He further refines his argument showing the distribution of the error, and the problems with the USHCN temperature data. He also sends an email to NASA GISS advising of the problem.
He finally publishes it here, stating that NASA made a correction not only on their own web page, attributing the discovery to McIntyre, but NASA also issued a corrected set of temperature anomaly data which you can see here.
Bottom line:
According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is. Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)
In other words: Four of the top ten are in the 1930′s, before mainstream scientists believe humans had any discernible impact on temperatures.
Noel Sheppard wonders: “As global warming is such a key issue being debated all around this country and on Capitol Hill, wouldn’t such a change by the agency responsible for calculating such things be important to disseminate? When this correction was made by Hansen’s team at the GISS, shouldn’t it have been reported? In fact, it is quite disgraceful that it wasn’t, as it suggests that a government agency is actually participating in a fraud against the American people by withholding information crucial to a major policy issue now facing the nation. Think this will be Newsweek’s next cover-story? No, I don’t either.”
***
More reax on the James Hansen factor:
Ace: “So James Hansen, who claimed Bush was politicizing Global Warming, refused to provide his algorithms to other researchers so they could simply check his work, hiding his own errors from them and distorting the science he claims to care about oh-so-much until some persistent researchers went to the great trouble of reconstructing his algorithms themselves. Fire him. Immediately.”
Bryan Preston at Hot Air: “The discontinuity in the data should have been a serious red flag for Hansen et al, but what we’re probably seeing here is the effect of personality and agenda on the scientific process. They assumed they were right, and either discounted or didn’t even notice the discontinuity that occurred at 2000. When I say that personality had an effect, here’s what I mean by that. After Hansen became the most famous “silenced” scientist since Galileo and particularly since he was battling Bush, he became a titan to the vast majority of the people I worked with in the earth science field at NASA (an admittedly small slice of that field, but also the top couple of echelons of it at the Goddard Space Flight Center). Questioning him in any way invited hostile stares and could limit a career. When I say that agenda played a role, if you ever manage to get onto the GSFC and find yourself outside any of the couple of earth science buildings, take note of the bumper stickers on most of the cars. They’re faded and pealing and say in big, bold letters “Dean for President.”
Small Dead Animals has more.
From Rush’s show earlier today, with a sharp tie-in to Newsweek’s alarmist cover this week on global warming:
So Steve McIntyre, who lives in Toronto, began to investigate the data and the methods used to arrive at the results that were graphed by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. What he discovered was amazing. NASA doesn’t fully publish computer source code and formula they use to calculate the trends and the graph I have here nor the correction used to arrive at the correct data. So we had to reverse engineer the process by comparing the raw data and the processed data. And the bottom line is, that 1998 is no longer — you can say NASA made a reporting error or did they make a reporting error? Did they do this on purpose? How long have they known that it was erroneous and haven’t corrected it? But the bottom line of this is that 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record. Four of the top ten hottest years on record are from the 30s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939 while only three of the top ten warmest years on record are from the last ten years, ’98, 2006 and 1999. Well, you might say, “So what? What does this matter, Rush?”
Well, when 1934 was the hottest year on record, and NASA may know about it and doesn’t correct the data, and when a guy named James Hansen involved in all this, who is a political activist, then you have to figure there is a reason why they want 1998 continue to be reported as the warmest year on record. And voila, from a soon-to-be released Reuters story, “A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record.” So ladies and gentlemen, what do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA. The man-made global warming is in the scientific community with false data. This is irresponsible. This is supposedly scientific data. It is unchallengeable. It is inarguable. And it’s bogus. I don’t know how long they’ve known it. I don’t know if they intend to correct it or not. I doubt you’ll hear anything about this, other than this program. The Drive-By Media, this is not going to interest them. “Oh, Rush, irrelevant footnote. Everybody knows that global warm is happening out there.” All right, well, you see how this works.
…Newsweek has this story, current issue, that is the most irresponsible, one sided, no science in it, where they go after the global warming deniers. The use of the term deniers, global warming is on purpose. Holocaust deniers and so forth. It has gotten so bad here, I tell you what the Newsweek thing means. It means we are winning the debate…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Reminder: Global Warming Still Going to Cause Chocolate Shortage
February 11, 2012 02:31 PM by Doug Powers
34 Comments
Concrete Evidence Man is Causing Glacier Retreat
February 2, 2012 03:07 PM by Doug Powers
68 Comments
E-mail of the day: Media Matters coordinates with Capitol Hill “allies” on Keystone XL; Plus: 20,000 jobs “is not that many”
January 25, 2012 11:23 PM by Michelle Malkin
86 CommentsObama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 Comments
Obama Admin. Rejects Keystone Pipeline; TransCanada Can Reapply After Finding Alternate Route; Updated
January 18, 2012 12:13 PM by Doug Powers
159 Comments
GM to Call Back Chevy Volts
January 5, 2012 08:59 PM by Doug Powers
71 CommentsNew Light Bulb Standards Enforced Via Honor System… for Now
December 30, 2011 12:48 PM by Doug Powers
67 Comments
Categories: Enviro-nitwits
JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False ChoicesPundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dRedstate
» Media MattersHot Air
» Notre Dame faculty calls Obama so-called accommodation “grave violation of religious freedom”
“Reverse Al-gore-rithms”
Perfect timing. The Marxist City Government of Berkeley is launching the largest scam on the voters here using global warming as the reason for the season. The Kyoto Protocols are a treaty not ratified by Congress nor signed by the President. But in keeping with the selective adherence to federal laws, the City Government is pressing forward with developing programs that will cost taxpayers to create and maintain over the next 40 years based on that very treaty (and the farcical “accords” from Rio back in 1992.
*All* of it is based on this fudged “consensus” among “scientists”.
This is going into my letter to the editor of the local rag sheet, a shot across the bow.
Thanks, Michelle. The truth will set us free.
Whatever happened to the generation that couldn’t trust anybody over 30? THey have become a parody of themselves.
Check out Anthony Watt’s website Michelle linked to above. He has lots of pictures of other weather stations NASA uses to gather temp date that are located next to intense heat sources: asphalt, roofs, exhaust fans, etc.
Of course, it’s a UN agreement. With that said, over 160 countries have signed the agreement. The U.S. is (to the best of my knowledge) the leader is CO2 emissions.
Paris – “That’s hot.”
I can tell you that in England, people are taking climate change much more seriously than we are here. The floods there recently have really put an exclamation point on the effect humans have on the weather. When we had those string of hurricanes, people who long maintained that climate change wasn’t happening, started in question if there was indeed something going on. So I don’t think that it is a fallacy or conspiracy to draw attention that humans needs to start coming up with some solutions to deal with this issue. If that means more efficient cars, cleaner gas, more renewable energy resources becoming available, changing of light bulbs… this is something that I don’t think has to cause division. Quite the contrary, it can be used as a uniting issue.
Will there be things happening in the environment that we cannot control? Probably. But what if there are things we can control?
Some interesting statistics.
——————————
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Jan. 30-31, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).
Asked of those who believe global warming exists (N=737, MoE ± 4):
“Do you believe global warming is caused by normal climate patterns or by people’s behavior, such as driving and burning too much fossil fuel like coal and oil?”
Normal Patterns 14%
People’s Behavior 41%
Both 38%
Unsure 8%
———————————
ABC News/Washington Post/Stanford University Poll. April 5-10, 2007. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
“You may have heard about the idea that the world’s temperature may have been going up slowly over the past 100 years. What is your personal opinion on this? Do you think this has probably been happening, or do you think it probably hasn’t been happening?
Has Been 84%
Hasn’t Been 13%
Unsure 2%
The ‘man made global warming’ house of cards is getting very shaky.
Can we coin a new term? Much like Truthers – perhaps Scienters? Sure, the Al-gore-ithms (thanks AJ) are wrong, and so are the results, but there’s a deeper truthiness the Scienter has discovered, (but how is a secret) – the earth is a lot hotter since Bush/Rove became President, and will only cool when a Democrat is President again.
Thank you Michelle
Finally, some validation. I have posted here before that the dust bowl of the 30s was hotter. Now if we can only get them to take notice of the heat wave of 1948:-)
Dark, in this case, the polls only mean that the people that have not been offered facts have come to be mis-lead by the deceptions of others.
My own personal observations, if you tell a person they are stupid long enough, pretty soon they are.
Here, people have been offered only one side of the story, no factual data, and the left stated the debate was over before it began. No one has been ‘allowed’ a viable means of dispute. The group that approached the UN with the issue would not allow the participation of ‘anyone’ who did not agree with them.
I am going to have some fun with this at work tomorrow
Amongst professional software developers, the space shuttle software development is known as the gold standard of low error software with a current error rate of 1 bug in a 420,000 line program. The typical program that size has 5,000 bugs. It also among the most expensive software development projects on a dollars per line basis.
Obviously that mentality and expense is spared for non-critical projects like this one. I guess using the results to destroy our economy just isn’t “critical.”
To Darknight —
Do the statistics you cite have any significance to your position? What do public opinion polls have to do with the existence or lack of existence of a physical phenomenon? Just because a significant portion of the population thinks global warming is real doesn’t make it real.
Does this mean that NYC isn’t under water since 1980? Just wondering.
I recall in the 1960s and 1970s that we were either going to have an Ice Age in NYC or having to use kayaks to go back and forth on the Avenue of The Americas by 1980…had us worried.
I have been out of the loop.
LOL!
Darknight -
China is now #1 and they were never included in Kyoto.
http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html
I agree with dfern here – quoting opinion polls doesn’t change facts.
In 2006, almost all of the hurricane experts were predicting doom and gloom to follow Katrina in the U.S. – an anomaly just like the flooding in the UK and in Texas this year.
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0522-noaa.html
What happened?
Less hurricanes, I guess because of global warming exists.
While I may believe that global warming is happening, the question is : are humans responsible for it? Or should we ban the sun?
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/co2new.htm
This illustrates exactly why I don’t trust Global Warmists.
If I were told by my doctor that I was dying of cancer and then told a while later “oh, sorry, the tests were incorrect, you’re better off than we thought,” I would be overjoyed. I would, in fact, have been looking for just this kind of news. And when I heard it I’d be stopping people on the street and telling them “The tests were wrong, I’m gonna be okay!! (or at least I have a chance).”
Think about it, if any of us believed that we or our family, our country or our planet were headed for disaster, wouldn’t we WANT to be proven wrong? Wouldn’t we be on the lookout for news like this? Wouldn’t it be something that we rejoiced over and told everyone we could find?
Then why don’t the Global Warmists rejoice at stories like this? If they really think that the Earth is headed for destruction then this should be the best news ever to them. It should be the lead story on all of their blogs, it should be the best news they have heard all year.
But they don’t want to be proven wrong. They don’t want good news about the environment. I wonder why?
Duh! Remember when we had summer?
Here is a link to a 2,650 year global tempertaure study form core drilling in china.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.html
O and remember global freezing claims from the fourties into the seventies.
I should be typing this from under 10 feet or more of ice!
I don’t think ANY climate prediction model can be accurate – there are just far too many factors that need to be considered, and we problem don’t even know about half of them.
I’m in my 30s – I remember all the buzz about Global Cooling back in the 70s. Now, two to three decades later, it’s all about the Global Warming. I watch a lot of Discover Channel and whatnot. Seems to me the natural world (to include the sun), not humans, is what affects climate. Kind like the year without a summer that was the result of the eruption of Tambora in 1816 combined with low solar magnetic activity, or lesser global climate effects after Krakatoa in 1883. It just comes down to “We don’t know all of what we don’t know…”
Re: DarkKnight
The Times of London last week commented on “the surge of ignorant speculation as to its (seasonal UK flooding) causes”. Guess we know to whom they were referring. Disciples of pseudo-scientists such as Al Gore are leaping to unscientific conclusions, dangerously influencing naive/poll-driven public policy makers.
Devolving to a pre-industrial society, enacting unproven and unpredictable technological weather control experiments, or carbon-taxing ourselves into oblivion will not necessarily be of benefit. Climate change will inevitably happen both with and without our contribution. There are many reasons and methods to respect and protect our environment, but hysterically overreacting to a contrived crisis is not among them.
Ya know, I really should proofread before I submit….
problem = probably
palini
Great quote. Got a link?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1962439.ece
I have read reports where the U.S. was the leader. Even if we are a close second, I do not think it is something to be proud of.
————————————-
Palani:
Looks like the Prime Minister has his thoughts.
Brown: UK must adapt to climate change
Monday, 23 Jul 2007 12:27
The UK will need to reorganise its infrastructure to meet the challenges of climate change, Gordon Brown said today.
The prime minister admitted the UK must be better prepared for the heavy flooding which has devastated many parts of England in recent weeks.
“Like every advanced industrial country we are coming to terms with the issues surrounding climate change,” he said, in a monthly press conference dominated by the recent floods.
Many of the country’s 19th century infrastructures may be inappropriate in the face of climate change, Mr Brown said.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/opinion-former-index/housing-and-planning/brown-uk-must-adapt-climate-change-$476380.htm
——————————————-
Interesting you should mention the Times Palani:
From The Times July 31, 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2169802.ece
China climate change storms ‘have affected 200 million’
Experts said that global warming, driven by growing greenhouse gas emissions from factories, farms and vehicles, was fuelling more intense weather in China this year.
Dong Wenjie, director-general of the Beijing Climate Centre, said in an interview on the centre’s website: “The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events are increasing – records for worst-in-a-century rainstorms, droughts and heatwaves are being broken more often. This in fact is closely associated with global warming.”
Now, why cite opinion polls? Because I believe that the citizens recognize that they can conserve energy and find more efficient use of natural resources. This is regardless of whether or not you agree that man is the cause of it or not. If nothing else, you can cut down on your use of energy and demand more fuel-efficient cars… because it lessens our demand of oil from the Middle East (unless of course you work for the Oil Companies or have stock in them)!
Thus, as I said earlier, it is an issue we all can unite around… instead of calling people “Enviro-nitwits.”
By the way, if you believe that environment is God’s Creation and you want to preserve it from dangers to it produced in our society, I don’t think that makes you an “Enviro-nitwit.” I hope I’m correct in that assumption?
Sorry, should’ve differenciated between the end of the article and my own thoughts. My own thoughts begin with “Now, why cite opinions polls?…”
Apologies.
Alrighty, turning in. Will read comments in the morning.
Then, rise and shine and get all wound up again. LOL
Night all.
go to sleep
:/
People:
Use the blockquote function (it’s right there in your comment options).
Use the link function.
They are your friends.
Referring to the title of this thread, no one can say what year was the hottest of the old millennium, since we only started keeping records in the 1800′s. However, I don’t feel the science of climatology is developed enough to make any definitive statements.
During 40 years of working on and teaching thermodynamics at a major research university, I must say that I have heard enough Chicken Littles go clucking by my window to provide a good Sunday dinner for the 3rd infantry division. So I hardly nodded when the Warmists came along, excepting a passing envy toward Mr. Gore for the hundreds of millions he was raking in, and a nod of understanding toward those of my colleagues who seized this singular opportunity to secure their research budgets from the bushels of the taxpayers’ money that came falling from the sky.
This is the way the game is played. I am old enough that that no longer bothers me – it kind of resembles “earmarks”, but in this case for scientists and charletans.
What does bother me is that, like the Murthas of the world, these people are never called to account. When their pet cause is sufficiently discredited they just go away or, if they are among the more clever, transmogrify into the Chicken Littles of the next popular clucking.
Most of the “real” scientists of my acquaintance just laugh at them. “Global warming” has become a joke explanation for almost anythng that happens, sort of like “God’s will” among Moslems. But I am beginning to conclude, after all these years, that we are making a mistake letting them make a mockery of the science serious people practice. The public is palpably loosing faith in all of us
nbarry #28
Ummmmm….
Premise 1: 1998 was not the warmest year in the 20th Century.
Premise 2: The 20th Century was in the last millenium.
Conclusion: 1998 was NOT the warmest year in the millenium (the title of the thread).
Also:
I’d like to take this opportunity to thank my friend the blockquote function, without whom this comment could not have been written.
I’ve seen things where they can examine polar ice cores and things like that to make educated guesses as to pre-historic temperatures. Don’t know how accurate those guesses actually are.
A very long time and good friend of mine who isin the astonomical/related earth-sciences businesses has been poo-pooing global warming with the same broad brush he uses to define those people who think space launches effect the weather: in each case, it’s the same as saying that because you saw a man jump into the ocean in Florida and heard a title wave occured in China, that the former caused the latter. You have to do alot to cause the kind of long-term shifts necessary to even be having this discussion theoretically, let alone be warning the world of impending danger; even nuclear tests and giant erupting volcanos, throwing huge concentations of debris into the atmosphere all at once, many millions of times the effect, has only a short-term effect on weather patterns, and they’re all about blocking the sunlight with black ash.
I do, however, side with people who think there’s no harm in erring on the side of caution and simply making things cleaner across the board is a good idea. I won’t be buying any “carbon offsets”, however, to do it (“carbon offsets” – sheesh!)
And if you think that I won’t make this an issue about the prejudice of tyhe mainstream media (I’m tired of using the word bias with it’s comparitively positive, glass-half-full perception. It’s more than bias, it’s prejudice), sorry to disappoint:
“The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.
Then again– maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.”
Yes, and that’s a serious problem as the elections of ’08 loom before us.
“Think this will be Newsweek’s next cover-story? No, I don’t either.”
No, and that’s a serious problem as the elections of ’08 loom before us.
“Newsweek has this story, current issue, that is the most irresponsible, one sided, no science in it, where they go after the global warming deniers. The use of the term deniers, global warming is on purpose. Holocaust deniers and so forth. It has gotten so bad here, I tell you what the Newsweek thing means. It means we are winning the debate…”
That’s badly incorrect. A debate is a full measure of certain circumstances. The reality is that we have the right facts to better support our side of the arguement, but we are losing the debate badly, because the game has been fixed, the rules thrown out and when words cannot be put into the mouths of the those supporting dissent, then their microphones are cut off – so to speak -until they say something that can be spun in the opposition’s favor.
Obviously, the real story here has nothing whatever to do with global warming per se, which one way or the other can wait. It has to do with the greatest country on earth having it’s collective voice highjacked by a socio-political force determined to force it’s will upon the world, all in the name of peace and plenty, mind you – until you disagree with them, at which point if you’re effective enough they’ll do their best to personally destroy you – just ask Bill Clinton’s ex-girlfriend Monica Lewinski; if it hadn’t been for his repulsive DNA on her dress, her ex-boyfriend Bill would have dragged her through the mud intil there was nothing left of her, all because it was only sex, and the MSM still ignores that side of the story: Clinton’s horrific capacity for absolute betrayal.
It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that this is nothing less than emblematic of a society slipping into a new form of technologically supported tyranny. And yes, the democrat candidates not debating on Fox, the largest cable news outfit in the world because, they admit, it doesn’t favor them – and getting away with it – is probably the most badly disturbing example of that.
Forget warming; the tyrannical, USSR/Nazi Germany information handling methodology of the mainstream media (it’s an absolutely legitemate analogy) to support what they feel is right is as chilling a thing as has been seen in the last 50 years. And, like it or not, if we don’t find a way to reverse that, then global warming will be the very last thing on our minds.
Global warming is a farce. There is no data to support it. If global warming were true, a cursory glance at yearly temperature data should reveal an upwardly trend – e.g. every year should be warmer than the previous. After all, if the world is supposed to be growing warmer shouldn’t this be reflected in the temperature data?
Yet, you will find no such data available. Look at the corrected graph linked by this article. Is there an upwardly trend? Of course, you could then argue that extreme winters offset the extreme summers. Yet, if you take a look at the monthly average of temperature, you will see no such trend.
There is a reason why so many people are skeptics. If global warming is real, kindly explain to us (many who are trained in scientific methodology) why this is not reflected in the data?
And to Dark Knight, the recent floods that affected the UK (mainly Gloucestershire and Oxford where I’m at) were freak events. The last time it flooded so badly was in the 1940s. But then, human activity didn’t affect the weather then, did it? It’s irresponsible and ignorant to draw the link between global warming and that flood so quickly.
Empirical data about humankind’s damage to the environment is overwhelming. Ice caps, glaciers, Greenland’s ice, mountaintops were not melting in the 30s as they are now. Extreme weather all over the world was not happening then either.
Record years are not the main issue, the broad trend is what is critical. Global warming may be what we engineers call a bounded wave, with an envelop that is increasing over time.
Unfortunately, people would rather risk the destruction of the environment than be conservative and use it sustainably – even when it would be economical to do so. It seems that many people are so anti-eco-messengers that they become virtually pro-pollution, tree destruction, etc., similar to anti-Bush folks that are pro-weakened-national-security.
I know this is pointless, humankind will continue to increase its numbers, energy use, pollution, and its destruction of trees and other parts of the environment, and believe there will be no consequences. Dream on, folks, …
All of this is completely false, you are just repeating the lies of ALGORE and his ilk. There is tons of scientific data and evidence out there proving it all wrong.
Get a clue, and try to sell your kool aid some where else.
Save the Planet – Kill Yourself!
Thanks Michelle. Bryan nailed it right on the head. I love it when bad science is exposed as a left wing political agenda.
Like Reagan and others (lest anyone proceed with the idea that conservatives are anti-natural beauty-and-resouce) I genuinely love the splendor of natural beauty, respect the ecosystem’s natural interdependance of our environment and believe that it simply makes sense to work with the environment and not against it. Also as a Christian i don’t feel it’s entirely respectful of God to screw up the place he made for thousands of generations, not just ours. You never see fish draining their pond to make a quick buck.
All that having been said – just so you know I don’t fit into your anti-eco-messager steriotype (and that idea is becoming a steriotype to be sure)it seems to me that your post proceeds from the outset on an unsubstantiated false premise:
“Empirical data about humankind’s damage to the environment is overwhelming. Ice caps, glaciers, Greenland’s ice, mountaintops were not melting in the 30s as they are now. Extreme weather all over the world was not happening then either.”
Things have definately changed and will continue to do so, but there’s only circumstantial – not empirical – evidence that man might be involved enough to talk about and even then opinion and speculation run the gamut.
As so many scientists in various fields will be quick to point out, climate changes, large and small, long and short, have been going on for all of the time we can measure, either in the last decade according to the calendar or for millions of years according to carbon dating.
My problem with all this? The fact that when it comes to activists and the mainstream media, it is never not central to political issues. And invariably, the infuriatingly dull and easy to predict equation goes like this:
Climate change = man’s negative impact = irresponsible behavior = big business = finance-centric power players = conservative republicans = conservative republicans poisoning the planet = better vote for democrats who will raise taxes, damage the economy, give condoms to your 5-year-old and support free speech as long as you only agree with them and may not do anything for the environment anyway because Clinton didn’t. And speaking of statistics, if you do a lexus/nexus on this issue, you’ll find that the amount of media attention paid raises to a fever pitch in unison with US political election cycles. Surprise. Not.
So considering that the world won’t end in 2 years, here’s what I suggest: we take that grossly dishonest issue of conservatives hurting the environment because plenty of corporation and oil executives are registered democrats and get right back to debating the issue on the scientific merits and without political coloration very promptly – on Jan 1, 2009.
Incidentally, I’d love to hear what Democrats have to say on the issue in terms of specifics and not just Republican bashing, but since they’re afraid to debate on Fox News and the rest of the media won’t ask them the specifics, I guess without firm answers to those questions from Democrats we’ll all simply have no choice but to vote for Republicans.
Where to begin…
First of all, Greenland has been far “less icy” than it is now. You only have to go as far back as the Vikings to document this. Glacial melt in certain reasons might be very important… or it might mean nothing.
A bounded wave, again, is only useful if you have enough long-term data to see the longer wavelength trends. We don’t.
Even where we have “long term data,” it has been pointed out that the data collection devices have been – and still are – exceedingly unreliable in many locations. Meteorological data from Western Europe and the Eastern USA are reasonably reliable for approximately 200 years, but even those are being questioned as the impact of urban heat-sinks (from the recent sprawl around the collection devices) wasn’t taken into account. And that’s in places like Paris, London, NY, Boston, where they have tried to take this stuff seriously for the last couple of hundred years. I’m not sure the same care was taken in Kamchatka 200 years ago… In fact, there are few other locales where you should accept even temperature data as reliable for much more than 100 years.
It is thus quite possible that what we are seeing is the result of a long-term solar cycle or even a random solar phenomenon. We have nowhere near the data to recognize this, either way. Ice cores and such are the best we can do, and they clearly show that CO2 has been much higher than it is now.
And yet, even though the CO2 was much higher than it is now, we capture that in *ice.* Which is funny, since such crazy-high CO2 levels would, per the theory, prevent that very ice from forming…
The warming on Mars has been almost completely discounted by the man-made warming embracers, even though there is little dissension that it is real.
Sorry, but you *cannot* simply discount today’s data-correction as “not the main issue.” It moved quite a few data points, and it thus moved the whole trend. Shrill shriek-mongers have been hammering the media with this very data for the last two years. Chicken Little appears composed in comparison.
What if Manmade Global Warming is real, but far less aggressive than we first presumed? I’m not saying that’s true or not, but what if it is? What if we have far less impact on the climate – as many noted climatologists continue to claim – than the media claim?
A poll came out today indicating that most people don’t trust the media. Why, then, are we (not “we” here, of course) allowing them to lead us over what might be a cliff.
What boils my blood is that there are many environmental issues that are indisputable, but the media has completely obfuscated them with this shrill alarmism.
Ocean fisheries are dangerously depleted, and in some areas completely destroyed. That’s indisputable, and it has nothing to do with warming. The Oglala and several other major aquifers are depleting at what can only be viewed as an alarming rate, leaving the US West primed and ready for a catastrophic water shortage in the next 50 years. That’s indisputable. There are no computer models needed to show that the aquifers are getting shallower and shallower, at an increasing rate.
And yet this shrill “maybe” is where we place our attention?
Paging “Al Gore,” paging “Al Gore!” “Clean up in Aisle 12!”
Oh no… now its global cooling. Quick, give Al Gore another Hum-vee.
Hey! The data problem might be Y2K related. I back thought then VP Al Gore headed a Government Panel to stop Y2K problems in government. *Cha-Ching* way to go Al. Fail in one job and make money on the results…
I am going to let the great physicist Richard Feynman do my talking this time.
This is from “Cargo Cult Science” given in his 1974 Caltech commencement speech. It is worth reading the whole thing if you have not. I want to share a couple of paragraphs here.
I have nothing to add to that.
Guess this is why Gore has refused to debate global warming with people who disagreed with him on this issue. As many thought, his “facts” wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny. All Gore’s frothing at the mouth fanatic believers in the hoax must be very upset at all this information being made public. The alternate views have been there all along, but they are only now escaping the attempts to keep them silent.
Maybe the witch at the Weather Channel who screeched that those who disagreed with global warming should have their certification taken from them, should herself be given the boot.
Speaking of the big lie, yall have to watch these:
Penn and Teller ban water
Penn and Teller recycle hell
Hilarious, and spot on. Freakin SHEEPLE.
I have sent my Congressman, Duncan, as well as both Senators from Tennessee handwritten letters stating the obvious. Tennesseans should not have to pay the salary of loony left political hacks like James Hansen. I want the guy fired. If he wants to deal with warming he is probably qualified to warm my fries at the BK.
I’m going to keep my comments simple – based on some things I’ve heard and read lately about the current temps, local and national:
It’s August – it’s supposed to hot….it’s always been hot ….
As for the larger picture – why can’t we get guys like this to have a televised debate opposite Mr. Global Warming himself – Al Gore – and show him for the idiot he truly is?
Now in the Penn and Teller recycle hell. That lightly soiled toilet paper would be one square right. Don’t want to up set Ms.Crow or Ms. Davis, by throw more then one square away to be recycled, now would we.
Michelle,
Leftists will continue with CO2 being a problem?
See Dark Knight’s comments…..
If you couple this NASA correction story with this Yahoo story we can see two things. CO2 is highly irrelevant and the warming that was thought isn’t taking place.
When CO2 is .3% of the atmosphere and water vapor which is more prevalent than CO2 has a measurably higher effect as a greenhouse gas (let’s ban water vapor) you can start to see where Bjorn Lomborg’s point that spending our resources on global warming would HARM more people than it would help if we used those resources for other means like disease, health, food.
Michelle, another note: This president has spent MORE on climate change than ANY other nation on earth yet leftists make IRRESPONSIBLE accusations without doing due diligence. See this excerpt from the link above:
Reference #4 DarkKnight:
Kyoto – Few if any of the signers of the treaty have taken any action promised by signing.
Uplander,
AND… see comment 48. We’ve done more than any other nation….
The press has in the past tried to discredit science and scientists they do not understand. Just as they do today with those scientists that try to refute Gore, the press has made pronouncements based on their own lack of knowledge about science.
Here is an example from a 1920 editorial in the New York Times (figures)
By the way the NYT did not print a retraction until July 17 1969, the day after the liftoff of Apollo 11.
I’ve been watching this “Global Warming” farce unfold from Junkscience.com for the last of couple years now. I also enjoy his arguments for the poor scientific method that resulted in the banning of DDT to limit mosquito infestation and spread of disease. Malaria continues to kill millions around the world and now West Nile disease threatens many of us in this country. I am reminded by these semi-exact words from Mel Brooks Young Frankenstein, “Scientist they say they are working for us but they just want to take over the world, they can’t help themselves.”
How hot did it get between ice ages?
I have yet to hear or see that data from these perspicacious science types. Is it possible that it became tropical over most of the planet? How high would sea level be if ‘ALL’ the ice melted. Answers to such questions would be relevant if MSM and Tragedy TV et al were actually interested in fact and truth without panicky hype.
How low was sea level when so much water was tied up in polar glaciers?
Additionally, CO2 increases from 2000-2004 have been 1/3rd as much as Europe and/or Japan CO2 increases and less than 1/10th of Asia as a whole and China/India separately.
um. check out Norway on that chart !!
So… Leftist inaccurate characterizations of whether America or Bush “cares” about the environment shows once again…
… this just in… the left will have a press conference telling us when they stopped beating their wife at noon.
Um, I will admit that I never watched An Inconvenient Lie but I have watched the debunking videos and noticed when Algore was showing the chart of the increase in CO2 with the temperature change over time, the timeline went backwards near the beginning. Good science or someone having a laugh at Algore?
Ah, science. It was Science that gave us:
The world is flat.
The sun and sloar system rotates around the earth.
Living mater can spring up from dead.
Evolution.
Global cooling and an ice age (which we should be in the middle of by now!)
Global warming.
Shall I go on?
to Uplander
I would say that it might be possible that tropical temperatures could have been felt worlwide.
I say this because there is a theory that about 600 million years ago the entire Earth, pole to pole, was encased in ice. There is a good documentary out about it called “Snowball Earth.” The theory does have its detractors and the documentary does a good job of showing both sides. Unlike a certain movie that we all know about.
I could be wrong but I would assume that if the worldwide temps could go that low, they could also go to the other extreme.
Most people, hopefully not the one’s who frequent this place, do not really understand science or the scientific method.
a) Science is not a popularity contest. Just because a lot of scientists, maybe even a majority, agree with a theory does not make it correct. If it does not fit observation/data it is wrong it is as simple as that. So when Gore says all these scientist back me up, I say so what, show me the data.
b) It is self correcting and theories can be thrown out or revised when new data becomes available. For example, Aristole believed that the natural state of objects was to be at rest and that forces cause motion. That theory held until the 1700′s. Newton came along and showed that the natural state of objects was to be in motion and that forces cause change in motion. (Yes there is a difference). Newton developed the law of universal gravitation and it worked well until more data came in on the orbit of Mercury and errors cropped up in Newton’s theory. In 1905/1915 Einstein came along with the Special and General Theories of Relativity and the errors were explained. Was Newton wrong, no, in fact we only had to use Newtonian mechanics to get to the moon. So when Gore says the science is finished and we know everything he is WRONG. Science is never finished because…
c) Science can never prove anything 100% right. You can only prove something is wrong. It only takes one observation that counters your theory to show that it is not right or not right all the time. That one observation that counters your theory on the other hand makes it worng. It does not mean your theory is not useful, but you must understand the limitations of your theory when you use it.
Back to Newton, as long as you are not moving significant fractions of the speed of light and are not in close proximity to a LARGE massive object, Newton works just fine. If you find yourself in those conditions you must switch to Einsteinian mechanics.
Also both Newton and Einstein break down at the sub-atomic realm, then you move to quantum mechanics.
Finally,
d) Models are only as good as the data used to create them. A climate model is a joke. Why, the system is too complex for us to truly model. All kinds of simplifying assumptions must go into it and guess what, if I am prone to believe that GW is correct my assumptions may be skewed to come up with the result I want and not how nature really works. I may not even realize i am doing this but even scientists have their biases. That is why scientific papers are or should be peer reviewed and theories revisited when new data comes in.
I work in the world of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and it is difficult to correctly predict the relatively “simple” behavior of air flow through a jet engine or the airflow around an airplane. Simple of course relative to trying to model the climate of an entire planet.
That is why Feynman had it right in my post above, a scientist must present all the facts, all the data, even that which might cast doubt on his theory. Especially true the more complex the system you are trying to model.
Sorry this was long winded, just my 2 cents worth
Great post, Jah…. do I get continuing education credits for reading it?
Consensus is not a scientific term. It’s follow the leader.
I’ve never been more curious as to what the next cover of “News”week would be. Rush hit it on the head — the actual article is unscientific and to me is manipulative and alarmist.
I like the term “scienters” from Aloha Guy in post #8. Bump that!
Re: 29Victor #21
Sorry about not including the “ignorant speculation” link in my #19 entry. From The Times, July 25, 2007: Soggy Thinking.
Also, for your amusement, please see ManBearPig episode 145 from South Park. It provides some real insight into our beloved Al Gore.
Also,
palani
Thanks
Ditto
You smacked it on the head with “d)” concerning GW. We can’t even predict the weather let alone the future history of weather.
That’s very interesting. In fact, it reminds me of another poll I recently read about.
Facts aren’t democratic. Something is true or it isn’t, it’s supported by evidence or it isn’t. If global warming isn’t happening the way we’ve been told then all the polls in the world won’t make it so.
Five of the warmest years,out of ten,was before WWII.You see,during the depresion,Pre WWII,no one could afford ice.
The only thing to fear,is fear it’s self.
How exactly has the link between changing weather patterns and human activity been made? Did the last ice age recede because of human activity?
The fact is there is loads of evidence that the weather changed, and will change. However, there is nothing that supports the view that human activity has been the cause of said change. The fact that high temperatures are recorded prior to WW2, a period where scientists claim that human activity had “no impact” on climate substantially dents that theory.
You do your cause no good by lumping evolution in with a flat Earth and geocentric solar system. It creates the impression that you can’t tell the difference between science and nonsense.
The episode 145 from south park. I know it’s just a cartoon, yet the flags are hanging wrong in the class room. I guess they don’t know US flag etiquette.
I apologize for going off subject, it’s the Marine in me.
When I see our beloved flag not being diplayed right, it just gets me so… You know
Are you aware of the amount of “scientific” research that went into sustaining the geocentric solar system cosmology? Epicycles, deferents, equants? These were under constant revision by the scientific community for more than a thousand yeas, and taken quite seriously, I might add.
There you go again, Al Gore is your rebuttal. He is irrevelant, and his hypocrisy does not disprove global warming.
Gee, I wonder why the Greenlanders themselves report the melting and rising temperatures, and why the Aussies have told worried islanders they may relocate them when ocean level increases render their island uninhabitable, and why the Russians are expecting the north pole to melt, …
Valid discussion, RobM, unlike some other ‘rebuttals’ of my words.
I did say MAY BE a bounded wave: I agree that in terms of millenia there is insufficient data to reasonably claim that this definitely is the global termperature behavior over time. I have not heard any serious disputes of average temperature increase, however.
I like Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation. We are putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and warming is occurring when we are doing it. Since these gasses are not beneficial to the environment, who thinks coal and petroleum processing plant emissions are healthy?, why not stop them and avoid the -RISK- of man-induced global warming, and other environmental-damaging activies? Why not go with what worked beautifully before we industrialzed, sustainable use of the planet?
California just forced electric bills to be billed by customer usage of kwh in “usage tiers”. Any usage over a certain mystery amount, that the nuts in the state legislator determined would reduce Global Warming, results in a penalty rate being charged to the customer.
My bill this month was $400 higher than last month due to the fact I consumed into the penalty usage tier they call “energy hogs”.
From $200 to $600 even though most days were in excess of 100 F last month and I set my thermostat at 82 F.
I want a refund!
This is the kind of crap the global warming nut jobs are using to say we are wasting energy and increasing the temperature of the planet with fraudulent research by NASA.
My local barber said his bill was in excess of $1000, a $600 increase because of bogus science.This is a real world example of consensus science run amok. My barber will have to pass the cost along as well as all the other businesses in this state.
Pure insanity. How do I as a homeowner pass the cost along?
You are correct about misguided energy conservationists. The measures they conceive are sometimes impractical and may even increase overall energy use: they may not consider the NRE or initial energy cost of energy conservation equipment, etc . The figure of merit is the energy payback time: the time it takes for the energy plant or equipment to provide or save the energy used to construct it.
We are not all nut jobs, this sort of generalizing weakens your arguments. NASA data is not isomorphic with global warming, research it carefully and thoroughly before claiming that it is.
I think the CA legislature should have considered the difficulty of improving energy efficiency of existing homes and structures before setting these perhaps arbitrary tiers. Given the extra cost to you, consider adding insulation and a radiant barrier in your attic to reduce your cooling costs, and solar screens or reflective film for your windows. The cost of these may quickly be recouped if they lower your tier.
Good luck!
I apologize if this has been discussed before, as I haven’t had the chance to keep up. I found this report on the NASA site, which does have the correction and something (well, several, actually) but one in particular strikes me as interesting. The graphs used to show US and Global temperatures seem to indicate a wide difference between the two. But what they did was use 2 different scales on the y (vertical) axis to make sure that it looks dramatic. This is not the proper way to compare values in any scientific publication as far as I know, so it must be for the dramatic (ie political) effect.
greenLibertarian
I live in a brand new house so how can I improve the energy efficiency when all the things you mentioned have been done.I have a 16 SEER air conditioner.
The building codes should require PV in new housing and it would hardly increase the cost of the home.instead they effecting the economy based on junk science
I read the data and NASA cooked the books with their adjustments. They refuse to release the underlying data which is not science.
Breaking News: Recent US Temperature Numbers Revised Downwards Today
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/
Turns out the IPCC report was a big fraud too:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/KyotoAssessment.htm
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
They did that so that maximum detail would be visible, I suspect. If the us scale were the same as the global scale, the us temp fluctuations would be difficult to see.
This is obfuscation anyway: the global mean is clearly rising and the planet will be affected – e.g. ice melting. What responsible global warming folks are claiming the US temperature is significant in terms of critical issues such as ice melting: there are no significant amounts of ice in the continental us.
Nice try to avoid admitting the problem may be real, jcribbs.
Was just trying to help, sorry that I cannot, ScottyDog. I don’t know if NASA data was the main data used for the CA tiers, or even if the CA gov interpreted the data they had at that time correctly. But the data jcribbs refers to clearly shows that global temp is rising.
LOL. I know a fraud and a snow job when I see one. Let’s see whether you’re an honest Greenie or just a blowhard fanatic. Read this and tell me if you still believe that the science is settled and we should all act like lemmings.
Aye, aye, will read it, but are you saying you don’t believe the NASA data you linked us to???
I’m saying I don’t trust the underlying data. Nor do I trust models that assume (as the ones currently in use do) that the amount of energy put out by the sun is a constant. I also do not believe that we have the technology available to properly predict what will happen over time in a dynamic environment with as many variables as the Earth’s environment has. But I especially do not believe that the science is “settled”. We should know by now that science is never settled and continuing to ask questions and challenge the “accepted” assumptions of the day is how we fine tune our technology and science and our very ability to handle issues of this magnitude. Closing our eyes on dissent is pure nonsense, because that dialog is how our science, technology and our very existence expands and florishes.
But you still won’t admit that it is -possible- we are signficantly altering the climate and atmosphere of the planet with the massive amounts of pollutants and greenhouse gasses we are emitting, and that is what makes you uncredible, sorry to say. Look at Mexico City and Beijing: air so polluted that people can pass out while exercising due to lack of oxygen, have respiratory problems, … I visit China four times, and contracted lung infections twice. It is possible we are a problem for the planet, if you cannot admit that you are simply not credible. You seem to be reaching for reasons to not believe that it is possible, instead of seeking the truth and realizing how great the risk of ignoring the effects of what we do is.
greenLibertarian said
.
The problem is that he is not irrelevant. He is the main spokesman, self-appointed maybe, for man-made global warming. Too many people hangon his every word and most of them refuse to even allow for the possibility of other than man-made causes.
He does his case no good when he goes around saying that the concensus is in and the science over. As I explained in an earlier post, consensus is not science and the science is never settled. He is not alone Kennedy out there calling the other side traitors and Heidi Kellen (sp) stating that any meteorologist that denies man-made global warming should lose their certification. The problem is they will not show the data that shows there may be a problem with the theory. If you have not read it go back and read my post about “cago cult science”.
Now could there be Global Warming, yes.
What could be the possible causes?
1) Could it be manmade, yes
2) Could it be caused by natural forces we know about, but don’t fully understand, yes
3) Could it be caused by natural forces that we don’t know about, yes
4) Could it be casued by all of the above, yes
Could it be caused by the Global Warming Fairies, yes, but unlikely
The problem with those who blindly follow Al Gore, etc. is they try to stifle those who are researching the possibility of natural causes, even to the point of calling for trials and even death threats.
This is not how science works. All the data must be looked at all the research brought together and a theory based on the data must be developed. If that theory points to natural causes then that is the way it is, if it points to man-made then that is the way it is. Once we have the theory then we make the decisions on how to proceed, not before.
Based on what you have written I would definitely not put you in the category of blindly following Gore. The problem is that those who do are becoming more of a hinderance to finding the answer than a help. Think about it, if you are a climate researcher and your research shows a natual cause and you begin to get threats, even from your fellow researchers, how much of a chiiling effect that could have on you.
The problem, as I have stated before, is that the Earth’s climate is too complicated to rely on computer models. There are too many variables and too many assumptions that have to be made.
For example, obviously we need to include a solar model in our model, and we just do not know enough about the sun to know what to put into the model.
Another example, as the solar system circles the center of the Milky Way it passes in and out of dust clouds, could that cause a dimming and brightening of the sun?
Do you see how complicated this can become as you try to refine the model?
To be honest, I don’t think we will ever get an accurate model of the Earth’s climate. As I said in an earleir post, I am involved in CFD analysis and it is difficult to accurately model simple systems with a computer model due to the complexity of even small models.
jcribbs
I agree 100% and I think the Sun’s output is responsible but that is a wild guess.
Here is more evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not settled.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics 8 July 2007
Link
“The authors express their hope that in the schools around the world the fundamentals of physics will be taught correctly and not by using award-winning Al Gore” movies shocking every straight physicist by confusing absorption/emission with reflection, by confusing the tropopause with the ionosphere, and by confusing microwaves with shortwaves.”
Goto this site and scroll down for more of the translation:
NewsBusters
My bitch is with the State of California and Arnold passing legislation that will hurt people financially based on junk science.The electric rules are mandated after 7-2007 which I am going to vigorously fight legally.
Smog is certainly something that can be addressed as a health issue (can’t say I like breathing it either). There is evidence out there that refutes Global Warming. Reacting without knowing what the problem actually is could be even worse than doing nothing. As for China, I believe the Kyoto Accord left them alone to expand all they wanted, didn’t it?
Well said, jah, I meant he is no scientist and that what he says has no scientific relevance. He is influential, and yes I believe part of this influence is negative.
The modeling problem is quiet complex, but we do have the option of returning to conditions which have worked for at least thousands of years (creationists) or for millions of years (evolutionists).
And no, jcribb, doing that is no risk because it -has- worked, please open your mind.
My mind is open, Green. To be otherwise would be to refute all I have said about the science not being settled. I welcome debate, as I think that is healthy. Doesn’t mean I’m convinced by your arguments (or by those who tend to be more…strident…in their zeal). Nor am I convinced that the science supporting Global Warming is even good science (you know, the kind that welcomes healthy debate and is ready to take on all challengers on a nice level playing field…). Keep reading that series I linked earlier and let me know what you think.
Very good, at least we agree that we don’t -know- the science and nasa data is false or true, that is a start
I will definitely do the reading, but not know, I am working still. However, global warming is not the only concern, I do know atmospheric pollutants are bad, and don’t want to pin my hopes on offsetting effects of these pollutants. I want the environment to be able to support future generations, even though I am 50 and have no kids, so I only need it to last another 20-30 years.
Have a good weekend, do some pro-global warming reading in return, ok?
Lol. Like I said. It’s the “science is settled on global warming” garbage that irritates me. Fighting pollution for health reasons is perfectly logical. Have a good weekend. I’ll try to find some good reading. Wish me luck.
Yep, some Greenies are Weenies.
So much to respond to, I may just continue to recycle and try and save on gas usage (it helps my wallet at least)… and just pray God keeps me alive to enjoy the environment as long as He sees fit.
At least we can all agree to that… I hope.
Calling Prime Minister Brown ignorant… strong words indeed.
I’m interested in what poll Mr. Coulson was citing regarding Creationism… I mean, Intelligent Design… Wait, aren’ they the same thing?
Anyway, I’ve always been interested in this topic and see what people’s answers are when asked.
I think this says it all.
—————————————-
So a majority could be said of Americans to either case. This says to me that the jury is still out. Consistant poll numbers (like the ones used during the Presidential election) provide a much more accurate picture.
Now back to the topic at hand, I’m feeling that there might be some inconsistencies among readers…
What does Michelle think? Does Climate Change exist in her opinion… is it a farce (pgtips)… or a possibility (jar)?
I know I’m interested in an answer.
Let’s not forget that plantlife needs carbon dioxide to survive. Then, they give us oxygen.
to DarkKnight
Yes I did answer yes to my the question Could there be Global Warming.
Notice the question I asked and answered is “Could” there be Global Warming. I did not say there was Global Warming. I asked and and then answered the question in the affirmative so that I could go to the next part. The next part being, if I was right what could be the cause of it.
I then went on to make the point that if there is Global Warming there could be several causes. These and maybe more are the things we need to be looking into if there is Global Warming.
I am not speaking for Michelle, she is quite capable of doing that for herself.
I am coming at this issue as a trained engineer and scientist. I am trained to look for the truth in the data and present the facts. If those facts are not to someone’s liking, on either side of the debate, that is too bad. Opinions in science do not matter, data and observation matter.
So where are we in this? There is either Global Warming or there is not. We need to answer this question first
We will not find answers from pronouncements on high from those who have no idea what they are talking about. We need a clear unbiased look at the data by people who know about climatology.
Understand though, as I have said scientists are human and have biases. This is why a scientist must present all the data, not just that which upholds his theory. This is where Al Gore, Heidi Kellen (sp) and others show that they are really not interested in the science. They refuse to present all the data.
Once we have the answer to the question “Is there Global Warming” then we can proceed as follows.
If there is no Global Warming then we go on with our lives.
If there is Global Warming then we then need to determine the cause. If it is man-made there will be certain steps we will have to take, if it is natural there are other steps. In the end if it is natural we may not be able to do anyting but ride it out
Until we know for sure, a) that it does exit and b) if it does exist what is the cause, we do not know what steps to take. If we take steps before we know then we could do more harm than good.
I have also made the point and I stick to it that the so called climate models are a joke. I have given my reasons in earlier posts and will not repeat them here. Those using these models are really only getting gibberish. I am willing to bet that I could take those models and put in different but still reasonable starting assumptions and get totally different results. What they are trying to model is too complex for our current level of capability.
Let’s see, friend, conservation will work now, cleaner plants will work now, population control will work now, cleaner cars will work now, more energy efficient …s will work now, …
No good reasons to sit on our behinds, jah, when it is possible that we not know we have a serious problem it will be too late to fix it! Sustainable living will benefit us and the planet now!
You can spin fancily with your knowledge of what we don’t know, but doing nothing might doom us.
Question is GreenLibertarian,
What is your ideas for doing something?
It always comes down to solutions that will harm people economically because they are leftist in nature. That is why I bring up Bjorn Lomborg.
He has costed out what lefties are calling for and how much money governments would have to spend.
He says yes there are things that can be done that aren’t leftist oriented but governments aren’t considering those options.
They don’t understand economics 101 it seems….
Meanwhile he also talks about being able to do MORE good with resources being focused on other things like malaria (disease), shelter, health, water, etc.
Anyways, I won’t assume to know your ideas for doing something. Would love to hear what they are.
Respectfully…
greenLibertarian
At what price? That is the problem.
Conservation for the sake of conservation is the definition of Religion not Science.
The Science they teach in schools today is nothing but propaganda.The science at the UN is even worse. The IPCC report that started the whole debate is based on junk science and was a fraud according to many scientists that had their work deleted or out right changed in the final IPCC report to the UN.(Without their permission)
Believing something is true just for the sake of imposing change is fraud when the power of the Government extracts radical change using junk science.
“The IPCC report itself also underwent some remarkable editing between the time it was approved in December 1995 and printed in May 1996 [Seitz 1996]. The “scientific cleansing” involves the surreptitious deletion of several phrases that had been approved by the scientists working on the report — phrases that threw doubt on the idea of a “discernible human influence.”[See Note 2]
The international scientific journal Nature remarked in an editorial that governmental representatives made these later-discovered text changes so that the IPCC report would “conform” to the Summary, a politically negotiated document. This rather strange procedure, possibly illegal and certainly unannounced, was apparently made at the behest of the U.S. State Department. Nature mentions this letter, which indeed asked that the chapters be adjusted after the Summary had been agreed to [See Note3; Letter dated November 15, 1995 to Sir John Houghton, signed by Day Mount, deputy assistant secretary (acting)].
Note 2: Phrases edited out of the IPCC Report
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “While some of the pattern-based studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse-gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data-an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.”
3) “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
4) “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
5) “When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, ‘we do not know.’”
SOURCE
IMHO-This proves the whole report was a hoax and that the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is not supported by Science.
Another recap of the IPCC shenanigans can be read at JunkScience.com about 2/5 way down the page under the August 15, 2000, subsection “Re: Union of Concerned (Junk) Scientists” heading. It is a more humorous approach to the topic.
The profound irony of all this is that those leaders of the AGW movement, the ones that profess scientific integrity, are the actual heretics of science. The IPCC report is from a political body with a political agenda. The data and conlusions of the IPCC report were corrupted by politicians and certain supportive scientists (eg Mann, Hansen, Cullen). Bill Clinton’s own State Department officials may have been complicent in the corruption of the IPCC report. The media and Al Gore push the AGW agenda and reap tremenduous financial gains. Requests for data and methodology in order to replicate AGW conclusions, the cornerstone of scientific integrity being reproducibility, go ignored or condemned. Those that question AGW are denounced, threated or ignored.
SOURCE STRATMAN
Does that sound like good science to you?
As this thread winds down let me pull together all my points.
There are two separate questions that need to be addressed. There may only be one depending on the answer to the first question.
First — Is the Earth’s climate currently warming up. We first need to answer that question. Now based on the fact that the Earth has gone through weather extremes in the past it is very possible that we are in a warm up right now.
If and let me stress this IF we find out that the Earth’s climate is currently warming up then we must answer the next question. The question is, What is the casue if the warming. Natural, Man-Made, or a Combination of the two.
Both questions will be difficult to answer due the complexity of the climate.
The first will be the easier of the two, the second maybe so complicated we may never know to a high level of certainty.
My goal in my posts has not been to confirm one side or the other but to point out that a lot of what is being said and done on the man-made GW side is not scientific and could be counter productive.
How could it be counter-productive? Suppose that the Earth is warming up due to natural causes. If those like Gore intimidate others into silence and succeed in cutting off funding to research into natural causes we could be left with no way to lessen its impact.
I have my opinion on what is going on, but as I have said, opinion means nothing. Since I am not a climatologist I cannot go beyond opinion because I do not have the background to be definitive.
As Richard Feynman once said, A scientist who speaks on subjects outdside his own field has no more credibility than anyone else.
All I can do is educate on how science should work and on the limitations on scientific and engineering models.
Now if we ever have a discussion on how airplanes fly or how jet engines work or any topic in fluid or air flow I can be definitive. Why? That is my area of expertise. In my area of work I use a lot of models both based on empirical data and CFD models so I can talk about scientific and engineering models.
I find myself repeating things I have said before, so unless I see something new or if I see a new interesting question asked of me, this will probably be my last post. I always enjoy a good discussion/debate with intelligent people. This has been a good one. This is one of the first times I have posted here and this is the first time I have gotten into a prolonged debate. I thought it was a good one.
Have to get back to my real life before my wife throws the computer out.
Um, I have also said my peace, it has indeed been fun. You are obviously an intelligent and knowledgeable guy, jah, but – to quote Isaac Asimov – “such folly smacks of genius, a lesser mind would be capable of it”. Doing nothing to reduce our energy use, pollution, direct environment destruction e.g. massive tree cuttings, depleting and destroying top soil, population, …, will end in disaster(s) and is extreme folly. The planet can only support a finite number of people and cannot endure infinite abuse. We have destroyed, damaged, and significantly changed many parts of the planet and environment.
Exactly what we can do, comrades, is conserve energy and resources, stop using as many products as possible that require toxic chemicals for their production or are themselves toxic, stabilize our populations and begin to reduce them, stop cutting down virgin forests and reduce paper use, and work towards an economy and life style that reuses all materials and avoid the use of toxic ones. My hope is that we will use the finite and dirty (when used) resources we have, e.g. oil, as a stepping stone towards a rich and sustainable way of living.
Back to globalwarming: we can much reduce our greenhouse gas emissions if we do the above, and avoid the -RISK- of causing or precipitating devastating global warming. Given the consequences, why take such a terrible risk, common sense is to avoid such risks.
sorry, INcapable of it is the correct quote