The New Global Warming Thread

[leejo]

Thanks to the waybackmachine.org, I found the original data http://web.archive.org/web/200601101...aphs/Fig.D.txt

The original slopes were 0.004658883 for the 5-year and 0.00488941 for the Annual means. 0.000153806 from 0.004658883 and -0.000208455 from 0.00488941 respectively. Those are big downward revisions.

[Kerostasis]

Leejo, you missed your calling.

How many people can, with just one set of data and Excel prove that a subject as complex as global warming is really a non issue?

That degree of scientific insight is surely deserving of a Nobel prize.

I'll be happy to nominate him for this year's prize. Who will second me?

Really, it should be the Nobel Prize for Journalism though, not Physics or Climate Change (or whatever they give to people who try and prove Global Warming)--all the information was out there, just no one bothered to report it until Leejo collected it for us. Makes you kinda wary of the quality of news on CBS, doesn't it?

[GhostintheShell]

Oh god leejo, don't get them completely turned around on this issue by showing them downward temperature trends.

I really don't think I'm prepared to debate about the coming "Global Cooling Crisis".

Maybe we can start a thread called: "The New Global Cooling Thread"

[leejo]

Disaster, disaster, we're having a disaster. No matter how fast we run, disaster will run faster.

[AMosely]

Climate change, global warming, or just a natural cycle the likes of which humans have not seen in recorded history - this is not good. The loss of permanent arctic sea ice will have dramatic effects on ocean levels and sea temperature. The difference in mass between the below two images is an area greater than the states of California and Texas combined - 1.2 million square km of ice.



Source - University of Illinois Polar Research Group
Real climate.org discussion

[leejo]

Climate change, global warming, or just a natural cycle the likes of which humans have not seen in recorded history - this is not good. The loss of permanent arctic sea ice will have dramatic effects on ocean levels and sea temperature. The difference in mass between the below two images is an area greater than the states of California and Texas combined - 1.2 million square km of ice.



Source - University of Illinois Polar Research Group
Real climate.org discussion

"Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

...great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,...at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius

[TheFatKidDeath]

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius

Suggesting that global warming skepitcs are the sane who have escaped from the insane idea that human beings are the primary cause of global warming is laughable at best and at worst completely out of context.

[Kerostasis]

Hmmm, how best to respond to such an eloquent rebuttal of the idea...how about this?

"I disagree with your assertion good sir."

It's got about the same level of credibility, with a few less false dilemmas.

[AMosely]

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. - Marcus Aurelius

Another winner of a post. Read the documents posted instead of resorting to the reflex of throwing sand into the debate. These indicators have been compared to past observations - those at the beginning and mid-points of the 20th century as well as far back as the middle ages. Something is very different this time.

Again I find myself asking what the harm is in asking questions about the health of the planet. Do the naysayers believe that the planet is untouchable, and that there is nothing that humankind can do to harm, help or otherwise change it? Because that notion is simply false, having been proven false many times over. I agree that some environmental proponents use falsehoods and doomsday tactics, but on the other hand, is it not worse to so mockingly turn your back on the only complex system that supports human existence in the universe? Is it not logically correct to minimize the impact that you and your species have on that system?

[leejo]

Let me put my Sordavie hat on for a moment and state that I wasn't saying or implying that anyone is "insane", I was simply passing along a timeless piece of wisdom while quoting an old headline and news story that says basically the same thing as the picture AMosely passed along.

My position has been consistent all along - I don't know if we're experiencing global warming and if we are I don't know what's causing it or how bad it will get. However, I do suspect that in the final analysis we will learn that our abilities to both cause and correct Global Warming are dramatically less than is popularly believed now. I've been saying this from the beginning of these threads and continue to suspect that, as usual, we have over-hyped ourselves. However, I try to follow the data.

Sordavie hat off.

In investing, "dumb money" is overly-motived by two strong emotions - fear and greed. I see these same emotions impacting the science of global warming. The fact is that roughly 10% of our economy is now "green" (according to a friend of mine who is starting a "green" bank and I am assuming is up to speed on this) - if you look at almost any sector, roughly 10% is targeting the "green" economy and "green" consumers. So I think it's safe to say that greed has entered the mix. Fear - well fear is an obvious emotion when associated with global warming. If we don't do X then The Day After Tomorrow will happen, and this time it won't be hilariously stupid.

Throw in the political power at stake in this issue, and I tend to believe that the real science took a back seat to entrenched positions a long time ago.

So I'm not saying that Global Warming is or isn't happening, or that it is or isn't a man-exacerbated phenomenon, but I see a LOT of Dumb Money running around with their hair on fire over this, I see lots of people making money off of this story, and I am skeptical.

If you want to call my ideas laughable, that's fine, but given the fact that Mars is getting warmer, that NASA's satellite data show a slight cooling trend over the last two decades, and that these US surface data were recently shown to be bogus, your timing and confidence seem odd to me. Go ahead and build your ark and we'll see who has the last laugh.

[Kerostasis]

The loss of permanent arctic sea ice will have dramatic effects on ocean levels and sea temperature.

[Accompanying satellite pictures comparing 1979 with 2007]

To call that ice "permanent" is highly misleading, considering 1979 was one of the coldest years in recent memory, during a time when our media was widely warning us about the impending ICE AGE that would doom us all. Its interesting then that your site chooses 1979 as the start of their available data. Yes, 2007 is hotter than 1979. But its still cooler than 1934. The Long-Term trend requires looking at more than just the last 30 years.

These indicators have been compared to past observations...Something is very different this time.

Yes. What's different is that we have satellite data to measure it this time. We never had that before. So comparing today's highly accurate satellite data to the satellite data from, say, 1894 is...um...whats the word? Oh yes, "Impossible", thats it.

[Nikolas]

You're right. It requires looking at just the last 28 years.

[Kerostasis]

When an approximation will result in no change in actual meaning, I see no reason not to use that approximation.

[Nikolas]

Whatever you do, don't look at the last 30,000 years. Only suckers (and clearcutting oil companies!) do that.

[AMosely]

Throw in the political power at stake in this issue, and I tend to believe that the real science took a back seat to entrenched positions a long time ago.

I think this is a valid point and I agree with it to some extent. Defining 'real' science is increasingly difficult when entrenching sets in, and it certainly has in this area (it may have a long, long time ago). There are more sources spinning this debate than there are attempting to steady it.

I'm more interested in the philosophical elements of this debate, and I'm not seeing a lot of discussion of that here. If the science is unclear, on which side of the debate will your instinct bring you - to agree or disagree that humans are negatively impacting the Earth's climate and ecosystems? Why do so many treat the Earth as a garbage pit instead of the cosmic life raft that it really and truly is? What is economically, philosophically, or morally wrong with minimizing your personal (or your immediate family's) footprint on the planet? If the only effect is that you used 1 less barrel of oil for the year, or prevented twenty pounds of plastic from going to landfill, or contributed less toxicity to the groundwater and immediate environment by stopping your use of lawn pesticides - are those not worthy effects despite their seeming insignificant? No matter how small, such changes are far more worthy than their counterparts.