The New Global Warming Thread

[leejo]

Look, I didn't restate the data, NASA did. I didn't choose the sample size, NASA did. With regard to rationalizing why the 30s were hot and the 60s were cool to help make the data fit my prejudice - I didn't do that, you did. I merely took the entire set of data available to me and determined the slope - is it positive, indicating an upward trend, or is it negative, indicating a downward trend? What this OBJECTIVE calculation tells us is that there is an extremely slight upward trend in this data over the last 130 years - roughly 1 degree Celsius each 1000 years. It also tells us that the earlier data, quoted by Al Gore in his movie, was incorrect by roughly 97%.

I think it is fascinating to see how easily people like you dismiss NASA's restatement. I think it's sad that you react by attacking me for presenting it. This confirms to me that Global Warming is more a religion than a theory, with legions of faithful devotees ready to enforce the High Priest's commands.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

The funny thing is, Leejo, I basically agree with your overall opinion.

I think humans generally overestimate their impact and underestimate natures ability to control human activities. I am not convinced that humans are the main factor in what warming there is. I don't think that warming will be as bad as the the media and certain political persons say it will be.

It seems our main difference is that I don't reject any of it out of hand and as more evidence is gathered I must say my opinion is changing.

My main criticism is your methodology. Not just the calculation but the jumping to conclusions based on a very small thing. Even the guy that actually found the error (Steve McIntyre) in the NASA data says it "is no magic bullet" and doesn't really change anything major. He does believe there are further data errors to find and that the sum of all these errors will tilt the debate but he knows he is not there yet. His blog is actually quite interesting and revealing. Of course he only focuses on a very narrow part of the overall debate but that focus does reveal some serious issues.

And the change in the data does not effect what Gore said. Gore was talking about global data and I believe that referred to Mann et al. paper aka the hockey stick. That hockey stick chart was challenged and an investigation was carried out. Two independent investigators said that, yes, there was some errors in Mann's data but, according to this Wall Street Journal entry was not that far off.

So Gore, at least with what you pointed out, was not 97% wrong. He may be wrong but that data you point to is not as damaging as you claim.

[leejo]

Jumping to conclusions? I hate to quote myself (twist my arm!) but...

Is there cause for concern about global warming? Sure, I guess so. I'm glad there are so many people devoted to the science of learning more about our environment and the many variables that impact it. Is it a matter of irrefutable scientific proof that humans have caused this massive 0.000152806 up-tick over the last century, or this slight 0.000208455 decrease, depending upon whether you look at the annual or 5-year mean? It seems to me that the data suggests there is ample room for rational debate on that point. Is there evidence to justify drastic measures to avert certain catastrophe? Hardly. Is there any excuse for the media (who for, example, have recently run front-page stories calling those who disagree with human-induced global warming "well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change") failing to report this development? None.

Please forgive the metaphor, but cooler heads usually do prevail.

Again, my big gripe is not with the science but the lack thereof. I can't think of a single famous example of a certain scientific "fact" that was held above vigorous debate by the experts of the time that turned out to be correct. Global Warming has become popularized and dumbed down and beyond reproach, and that sends a lot of warning signals to me. That's my opinion, but as I said, I try to follow the data.

Is this change in the NASA data a slam dunk? No. But it does call into question the methodologies used to collect other data. Were global warming more science than religion we'd be reading about hordes of scientists reacting to this news by re-examining their own measurements and conclusions. Did they use the same algorithms? Do they need to revise their data in the same manner? Instead we read about how they're circling the wagons and immediately declaring this new information to be of no consequence. That's entrenched thinking, and it's dumb. Again, this sends warning signals to me.

Anyway, the earth may getting hotter, we may be the primary cause, but I'm skeptical. That's all. I think you've read more into my assault on the old data with the new data than I intended. I never said that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, I just looked at what the new data and the old data tell us and how they relate to each other. What is more interesting to me is the degree to which the MSM is silent about this new information and the degree to which people are defensive about it.

P.S. I didn't say Gore was 97% wrong, I said that this old NASA data was 97% wrong. I got that calculation by measuring the difference in the two slopes. The slope is a perfectly valid calculation, by the way. It is THE critical question in global warming. Is the slope of temperature over time positive or negative? That's really the only thing that matters.

[AMosely]

Again, my big gripe is not with the science but the lack thereof. Were global warming more science than religion we'd be reading about hordes of scientists reacting to this news by re-examining their own measurements and conclusions.

I don't understand how you can claim that there is a lack of scientific evidence on this matter. This is precicely what the IPCC has been working on for over a decade, now on their 4th report. Their simple goal is cooperative peer review and self assessment of climate science on an international scale. I've provided the links many times before, but here is all material from the 3rd report. This is factually the latest findings of the international scientific community regarding climate change - it is much more science than religion.

Anyway, the earth may getting hotter, we may be the primary cause, but I'm skeptical. That's all.

I don't think that's all. You've posted a lot of mockingly dismissive statements about data presented - most recently the ice melt data from the University of Illinois. If you were 'just skeptical', you'd at least be willing to admit that the data in the 'something is happening' pile is growing, while the 'nothing is wrong' pile remains a stack of conservative op-ed pieces.

All that said - I'll repeat that I am not an alarmist either. I do not think New York will go under water, or that all of midwestern America will plunge into severe drought within this century. I do, however, think that humans need to take a more active role in minimizing their impact on this planet - for climatological as well as ecological reasons. The main reason I am so adamant about this thread is that I see no logical reason for dismissing these responsibilities. The increasing evidence of climate change (however slight) only goes to support that logic, in my opinion.

[leejo]

I'm not skeptical about the data presented, I mock the conclusions to which people have leaped, or rather mostly been led. Something is definitely happening. Something is always happening. You have posted several times James Hansen's claim about how the Bush administration was censoring him, which claim he seemed to repeat daily to the reporters happy to parrot his proclamations. This is the same James Hanson who published the flawed data, who refused to share his methods with Steve McIntyre, who was therefor forced to reverse-engineer those methods in his work that ultimated showed Hanson's data was flawed. Is this scientific? Isn't that a form of censorship - Hanson seems to have been more concerned about his position than with peer review and healthy debate. Are you writing your condemnation of this sham scientist's shameful behavior now, or do you stick by the earlier posts about how the Bushies were gagging these poor objective workers?

The arctic caps may be melting but what does that mean? Has this happened before? How long will it continue? Why should anyone care? A picture with an OMG this is the size of Texas caption doesn't answer any of those questions, and frankly the whole thing sounds like Chicken Little. The focus is on the OMG look how big the area is.

The best anyone seems to come up with is that CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas largely responsible for Global Warming, except when it wasn't, in the 30's for example, or the middle ages, and except when it doesn't, when volcano dust "masked" the effects. The whole structure is beginning to look like the convoluted astrolabes developed to reconcile observation with theory before (and after!) Copernicus. When people like Hanson (and I lump the IPCC in the same group - their behavior has been utterly predictable, given that they are UN Bureaucrats - read up here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?cat=23), who damn well should know better and damn well should behave better, seem more concerned with hoarding data and shouting down dissent in order to protect the dogma/theory than with adjusting their thinking based on new evidence....well, yeah, I mock that. Don't we all?

I do, however, think that humans need to take a more active role in minimizing their impact on this planet - for climatological as well as ecological reasons.

You are perfectly entitled to this belief, but I submit that it is at least as much part of your ethos as it is a scientific position, and probably much more the former than the latter. You seem to accept as a foregone conclusion that humans ought to minimize their impact on the planet because...you know...it's the "right" thing to do.

[CingularDuality]

Their simple goal is cooperative peer review and self assessment of climate science on an international scale.

I was going to make a snide comment about how I didn't believe this to be the case, regardless of what they say their goal is... But I didn't have to, as their stated goal is quite different:

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"

So, climate change doesn't interest them, it's "human-induced climate change" that is the ENTIRE reason for their existence. Why would they possibly put out any assessment that would shorten the lifespan of their well paid organization?

[Kerostasis]

This is precicely what the IPCC has been working on for over a decade, now on their 4th report. Their simple goal is cooperative peer review and self assessment of climate science on an international scale.

I disagree. That is not the mission or goal of the IPCC. The mission of the IPCC is to provide backing for political adoption of global-warming alarmism, and specifically climate-change-related taxation. The IPCC had a conclusion before they even finished writing their charter.

[AMosely]

I was going to make a snide comment about how I didn't believe this to be the case, regardless of what they say their goal is... But I didn't have to, as their stated goal is quite different:

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm



So, climate change doesn't interest them, it's "human-induced climate change" that is the ENTIRE reason for their existence. Why would they possibly put out any assessment that would shorten the lifespan of their well paid organization?

And once again we are reminded of how drastically different a single piece of text can be interpreted. Their stated goal is to evaluate (through peer review) the risk of climate change brought on by humans. This risk could be zero, but we all know that it is, in fact, greater than zero (if you disagree with that, so state your reasons). If you look at their findings, you'll notice that a good deal of it has to do with non-human influenced systems - estimates, models and research. I don't hold the IPCC up as some kind of vatican of climatological science. I only present it as the best example I know of scientific review in the field of climate science.

So, if the IPCC is a waste of time (several hundred scientists would probably disagree with that) as you claim, please direct me to the larger consortium focused on reviewing naturally occuring climate change.

Minimizing your impact on anything, most especially your home planet, is the right thing to do. The great shame is that most religions do not adhere to such noble principles because it would prevent them from sustaining their very existence.

[Kerostasis]

Minimizing your impact on anything, most especially your home planet, is the right thing to do.

That is not an established position, thats simply your philosophical opinion. I propose a different philosophy: We should maximize our impact on the planet in such a way as to make it more useful to us as a species.

[leejo]

Minimizing your impact on anything, most especially your home planet, is the right thing to do.

This is fine. I only hope that everyone who shares your belief will follow your statement to its logical conclusion before they force their beliefs on me.

[CingularDuality]

And once again we are reminded of how drastically different a single piece of text can be interpreted. Their stated goal is to evaluate (through peer review) the risk of climate change brought on by humans. This risk could be zero, but we all know that it is, in fact, greater than zero (if you disagree with that, so state your reasons).

That's just it, we don't know that the risk of climate change brought on by humans is greater than zero. We all know that our world climate cycles and that this temperature upswing is a normal part of that cycle. What we don't know is whether or not humans are even capable of impacting that cycle with our relatively insignificant impact. The IPCC was founded on the assumption that global warming is an event caused by humans. I think that's a huge assumption.

[BigGaayAl]

I prefer to ignore the big, bad, poorly defined problem and focus on the obvious problem. We, as humans, are horribly wasteful and inefficient in our use of the planet's resources. We may not know how this will affect the planet in the long run, but we know we are using things up much more quickly than we need to.

I don't want people to take emergency measures. I only want them to lean more toward conservation. The free market will respond to this leaning in time, and that will, in turn, lead to more opportunities for reduction.

Your kids don't need 1000 plastic toys.

Excellent post. Whatever the science, it can't be bad to try and preserve your environment. We all know animals will exhaust their environment, leading to massive death, and some times extinction. Can we as a species be smarter?

[AMosely]

That's just it, we don't know that the risk of climate change brought on by humans is greater than zero. We all know that our world climate cycles and that this temperature upswing is a normal part of that cycle. What we don't know is whether or not humans are even capable of impacting that cycle with our relatively insignificant impact.

Are you saying that you believe that human emissions - namely CO2, CH4, N20 and other halocarbons - could have zero impact on atmospheric conditions, which in turn impact the climate? That's as scientifically false as claiming that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that humans co-enhabited the planet with dinosaurs (as the new 'creation' museum in Kentucky claims).

Leaving chemical and gas emissions out, airplane contrails alone have been proven to have a 1-3% influence on climate. Humans have an imact on the climate. That is not debatable. The net effects (such as climate change), especially when compared to 'natural' cycles, is unclear and therefore debatable. My main point is that regardless of the impact, it seems clear to me that positive change is needed from every human producer of unecessary waste emission of all kinds. I find it hard to rationalize the belief that we can continue on our incredibly wasteful course with no net effect on planetary health.

[War.mongeR1]

I find it hard to rationalize the belief that we can continue on our incredibly wasteful course with no net effect on planetary health.

Well said. I don't buy into the whole global warming thing, BUT our species is horribly wasteful and one day, it will come around to bite us if we're not careful. I don't see why we shouldn't all do our parts and put in an effort to improve.

[marstein]

I wanted to bring up a point here about the believe that the market will fix global warming. There were a couple of societies in the past that died out - whole peoples that recieved the Darwin award so to speak. ALl these are outlined in Jared Diamond's "Collapse" book. Sometimes the market takes it's time to catch up with reality. When the easter islanders felled the last tree and they could not build their canoos any more (to fish) and fell into cannibalism you culd call it a reaction of the market. The price for fish went way up and the price for human meat went way down.

I'd say if there is a chance for catastrophic change in climate that we can foresee is coming we better do something about it. Even if 5% of scientists say there are problems with that theory.