Must read from Hansen: Stop the madness about the tiny revision in NASA’s temperature data!
The nation’s top climate scientist is so frustrated over the nonsense racing about the blogsophere and mainstream media about the tiny flaw in NASA’s U.S. temperature database that he has already sent out two e-mails on the subject. In the first, James Hansen wrote:
Not bloody much of an effect. He goes onto say
The effect on global temperature (Figure 2) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.
Yes, the globe is still warming at an alarming rate — and we still aren’t doing anything about it — which is why in his second, more impassioned email, he writes:
The deceit behind the attempts to discredit evidence of climate change reveals matters of importance. This deceit has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change. The danger is that delay will cause tipping points to be passed, such that large climate impacts become inevitable, including the loss of all Arctic sea ice, destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet with disastrous sea level rise later this century, and extermination of a large fraction of animal and plant species….
Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important.
The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children. The court jesters are their jesters, occasionally paid for services, and more substantively supported by the captains’ disinformation campaigns.
Both emails are worth reading — since this nonsense probably won’t go away soon — as is this RealClimate post.
Other “must reads” from Hansen can be found here and here and here and here and, perhaps most of all, here.
If you liked this post and want to stay up-to-date with Climate Progress, go here.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I’m currently slamming my head against the table. It amazes me how the deniers will focus on any target, however insignificant, in attempts to discredit, confuse, and keep alive the fragments of doubt that still — remarkably — exist in the minds of some. When a company like Dell restates financials because of an accounting slip-up, do we rise up and stop buying Dell Computers??? No, mistakes happen, and in this case the error is so insignificant it’s painful to watch the amount of commentary taking place suggesting there’s an actual controversy here.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Tyler: No kidding. I’ve been saying for some time that the deniers will still be at it when there are palm trees growing in Alaska and 10 feet of water on the streets of NYC.
The deniers put winning their ideological wars ahead of everything, including common sense and their own self interest.
I haven’t a bloody clue as to how we overcome their efforts and make the changes needed, but until I do have it figured out there’s no way I’m giving up my efforts to spread the word and encourage people to vote for the most enlightened candidates and policies possible.
August 17th, 2007 at 8:41 am
So we’re looking at an increase of … less than 1 degree C per _century_?
By what context is that an “alarming rate”?
August 17th, 2007 at 9:05 am
The problem I see when somebody discuses about global warming and climate change is: Nobody gives a complete panorama of what and how is happening.
I think:
Is climate change happening? Yes, always being.
Is human species a principal culprit of it? I don’t think so.
Should we stop polluting (in general, not just CO2)? Yes of course.
Is CO2 the principal green house gas? No, it is water vapor.
Are human the principal generators of CO2? I think we aren’t. I think living organisms in general by breathing and decaying, volcanos and released by the oceans produce fare more CO2 and water vapor than we do.
Just put numbers to it.
Are we so powerful that we can change the fate of a planet for good or for bad? Isn’t this hubris?
August 17th, 2007 at 9:17 am
@Carl
The graph above clearly shows a gain of ~8 degrees in the past century. And even small gains cause widespread and irreversible changes to ecosystems.
@Ernesto
‘Just put numbers to it’ : you would do well to follow your own suggestions. What you think is very interesting, but is any of it true? Tossing out mere opinions into a scientific argument itself smells of hubris, methinks.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Ernesto is right - climate change is always happening. We live in a bubble of atmosphere on a small, unimportant rock. Our main source of light could change it’s output by a few percent and completely wipe life off the face of our planet. Should we crap in our nest? No, we should take every opportunity to reduce, reuse, and recycle. But the hysteria about global warming has to cease. It’s like a small child frightened of a thunderstorm, thinking that by singing ‘rain rain go away’ he can turn the thunderstorm away.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Ummm… Ernesto? CO2 and water vapor are apples and oranges. How the hell are you attempting to re-classify CO2 as -not- a greenhouse gas? And for the record, it don’t come out of volcanoes, neither. (Well, in trace amounts, but there’re lots of other gasses in far higher amounts “down there” than CO2, and usually involving sulphur.)
As for the hubris bit, that’s perhaps -the- question. And what most scientists generally say is, “Yes, it might be hubris: but, in the case that it isn’t — and there’s a fair bit of evidence that supports the possibility that it isn’t — shouldn’t we do our absolute best to protect the planet?”
August 17th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Ernesto,
While you’re busy talking about what you think and what you believe, scientists like Hansen are actually doing research and busy understanding what is going on. What you consider to be hubris is your choice to ignore the reality that mankind has developed the means to impact the entire planet. For example, we can use nukes to destroy all human life on this planet in a very short amount of time. Do you not believe in nukes? Why would our huge amount of pollution be any different? As far as CO2 being a greenhouse gas, it is according to science. Your beliefs don’t change science. Volcanoes and living organisms do create CO2, but until the industrial revolution we were unable to produce more than the oceans and plant life can absorb. Also you are wrong about the ocean producing CO2, it absorbs it, not releases it.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Go to this site and tell him to suck up to the truth. A blogger in major stages of Climate Crisis Denial:
http://bubbanear.blogspot.com/
August 17th, 2007 at 9:32 am
@SteveM: I think you missed the decimal point before all those degrees-C on the lefthand axis.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:32 am
SteveM: I believe you missed the decimal point in the degree scale on the left: it’s not ~8 Centigrade degrees, it’s ~.8 Centigrade degrees.
Because there’s a whole lot of FUD and hysteria about this issue (Hansen’s second email reads more like a polemic than like an hypothesis, for instance), we do need to be very, very careful with data and interpretations. All methods need to be triple-checked and open to public scrutiny, and peer-review is essential. This is how we’ll make sure that the science stays accurate in the face of tremendous economic incentives to dissemble.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Carl: The point you are missing is that the temperature IS increasing. In the ~160 that we have been recording temperatures, we have never seen an increase of 1 degree C. If we extrapolate that back to the last ice age, then we can say that in the last 10,000 years, the Earth’s temperatures have NEVER fluctuated more than 1 degree C. What that means is that the CO2 that makes up less than 1 percent of all the greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere is definitely the culprit and will cause temperatures to increase exponentially from 1 degree, to 2 degrees, to 4 degrees, to 8 degrees, to 16 degrees, etc. Also, global warming on Mars has nothing to do with this, it isn’t even global, and all that CO2 that is being released there will only cause regional changes, so don’t even think about bringing that up, you denier.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:41 am
John Doe, you are the child singing in the rain. You believe that singing “the hysteria has got to cease” and turning around three times with your eyes closed (um, “reduce, reuse, recycle”) will be enough to keep you safe even though your propeller beanie has a lightening rod with an aluminum kite tethered to it by a copper wire, and you’re on the top of the hill in a thunderstorm. Ah yes, but you can’t give up your toys! Life’s not worth it without your aluminum kite. Besides, there’s always electricity in everything; life depends on it for our nerves to work.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Ernesto, your responses to your own questions are also a form of denial.
Is CO2 the principal green house gas ? It isn’t, but increased levels of CO2 increase the temperature, thereby increasing water vapor concentration through the physical equilibrium with the open wator. So the increase of CO2 is indicrectly, but undeniable related to the increase in the important green house gases, even if itself is not that important. Also, we can control CO2 output, we can not change the H2O vapor pressure, nor the amount of H2O evaporating from the oceans at a given temperature. So: CO2 is an important (indirectly) green house gas.
Are humans the principal generators of CO2. No, they are not. But, of the 100% needed to reach the tipping point, 90% might be from natural sources, but its humans that knowlingly produce the excess 10% CO2 that will reach and overcome the typing points. Aside from which: organisms, oceans, etc first take their carbon from the air (indirectly) via photosynthesis and on average don’t change the concentrations much. Humans increase the total available carbon by emitting previously unaccessible carbon from far below the surface, and don’t take anything out. Only volcanos are a reasonable non-equilibrium source of CO2, but really large erruptions (Pinatubo, St. Helens) that can be seen to affect the climate are rare, and have a time-limited effect in contrast to the smaller, but continuous antropogenic emission of the last 150-200 years.
So is the human species the principal culprit ? They don’t emit most of the green house gasses, but they are responsible for that extra bit that will exceed the tipping points. And, they are the only ones that can consiously do something about it.
Humans are not all-powerful: if the natural balance was not as close to the tipping point, we would not be able to make it reach the tipping point even if we tried. But the distance to the tipping point is not that far, and then “(one) man can make a difference”. Pointing to Hubris in this respect is denying the non-linearity of the world around us, just like the lone skieer denying setting of an avalanche because the avalanche is much bigger then he is.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Ernesto, I think you’re on target. It appears that many in the scientific community, needing grant money for more research that will produce hand-wringing paranoia, will leap to the most preposterous conclusions - - i.e., New York City under 10 feet of water as a result of melting polar icecaps. I wonder whether these “scientists” are the same ones who were warning of the approach of the next ice age back in the seventies. Should we try not to poison our own drinking water? Of course. Should we ignore the fact that results and conclusions drawn from “scientific” studies contradict one another with shocking frequency, leaving us to wonder whom we should believe? I think we need always to take it into account and resort, when possible, to common sense and simple, factual evidence. The more the numbers are tweaked, the less they mean.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:59 am
@George
I feel dirty, just for having read some of that site.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:05 am
@Steve
Notice out the decimal points on the graph. It’s .8 degrees, not 8 degrees.
@Ken and Shawn
Ernesto never said CO2 wasn’t a greenhouse gas. He said it wasn’t the -primary- greenhouse gas, but that Water Vapor is. He is correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
“The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%…”
He also failed to mention that humans cause less than 5% of all carbon dioxide emissions in the world. http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html
@Shawn
The idea that humans have enough nukes to wipe out the -entire- human population is a myth spread during the cold war. Perhaps we could if the entire human population were crammed into a single, small area… and certainly we could have wiped many major metropolis’ off the map entirely… but thinking that we actually have the means to destroy the planet with nukes overestimenates our own control over Earth.
Again, I reiterate the idea that reducing pollution and recycling and all that jazz is a good thing. But we, as a race, simply cannot reduce our 4% of the CO2 emissions without drastically crippling the economy. Even the most drastic proposed changes to the US emissions would only limit CO2 emissions in this country by 20-30%… and even that would only be a small fraction towards the whole of human emssions. And such changes would cripple us economically. So what can we do? Have some people drive slightly cleaner cars that use 1/3 less gas? Please… the effects would be so insignificant and miniscule that its hardly worth it. So what are all these anti-SUV, anti-oil company proposals really aimed at? Politics. It’s all politics. If we were serious about reducing our 4% of total emissions, even by, say, 1/2 we would have to basically destroy so many powerplants and factories and modern farms as to bring us back to the colonial ages. No one wants that. No politican wants that. They just want money and votes based on scare tactics. That’s what its all about, and to think otherwise is to fool yourself.
So what do we do about it? The Earth is certainly warming, and there is the possibility that it’s us. Our choices, really, are to either go back to the colonial ages… or just forget it. We can hope it’s not us. We can realize that the Earth will adapt to an extra degree or so, since the Earth has been much, much hotter than it is now. We can hope technology catches up soon enough that it will reconcile this “problem,” Or we can delude ourselves and drive around in our Hybrid cars, taxing those driving around in trucks, worrying and losing sleep about an extra few degrees, and blaming everyone else for what is a problem that we all contribute to.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Ernesto Valderrama said, “The problem I see when somebody discuses about global warming and climate change is: Nobody gives a complete panorama of what and how is happening.”
In fact, this is precisely what climate scientists do. The problem is that the media is not terribly interested in delving into the boring details; they want a short and punchy headline. Global warming, like all science, isn’t something that’s dependent on any one measurement, on any single computer model, on any one warm year– the science is a picture that’s built up of thousands of measurements.
The media hype, however, wants to exaggerates it. The global warming deniers work to hype one direction, but the media hype primarly wants headlines, either direction– it’s the extremes that interest them, not the sober analyses. A friend of mine, a quite intelligent guy, asked the other day “What would you say that the consensus of climate scientists is on what percentage of climate variation is human induced? 90 percent?” Good God, no! The correct answer is that the contribution of human-induced warming to global climate is *detectable*! It’s measurably getting larger, but somehow the conclusion “we can detect it” has mutated into “90 percent” in the public imagination.
Addressing just two points, you mention that water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas. Well, yes, but water vapor goes in and out of the atmosphere based on evaporation and precipitation. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a RESULT of global temperature, not a prime cause. It is a feedback effect (one of many).
Second you say “Are human the principal generators of CO2? I think we aren’t. ” This depends; do you mean net carbon dioxide, or flux? Plants cycle carbon dioxide both in and out of the atmosphere; likewise carbon dioxide goes both into and out of solution in the oceans. These are both high fluxes, but the net generation is very little. Fossil fuel burning, on the other hand, puts about 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per year– to put that in perspective, it’s the equivalent of about a cubic kilometer of coal burned per year.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm has a brief tutorial on the carbon cycle.
The overall summary is that global temperature varies, and the variation has both human-induced and natural components. The natural components vary both directions, while the human-induced climate variation sums up to a continuous change in one direction, upward. No single hot summer, or warm winter, is significant, but the long-term trend is warming, and there’s enough data to show that this long term trend is due to human-induced greenhouse effect, not solar variations (which produce a different signature of warming vs altitude) or statistical noise.
But, do try to filter out the media hype in both directions. It’s not the end of the world; it’s not the cause of every single hurricane tsunami monsoon flood drought or failed harvest, and the ice caps aren’t going to be gone by next year. And, on the other hand, a cold winter in one place, a cooler than average summer another place, or fewer than average numbers of hurricanes another year, doesn’t “disprove” global warming either. In the long term, on the worldwide average, the cliimate is getting warmer, over a time scale of decades.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:08 am
There are bound to be paid shills astroturfing on both sides. This obscures the conversation. Don’t help them.
You think this issue is important? You want to convince more people?
Stop calling them ‘deniers’, it creates a divisive dichotomy that turns away more people. And you weren’t going to turn the shills anyway.
Address the issues.
As an example, consider this criticism of the use of Stevenson Screens. It seems to make some compelling points. So, what do the graphs look like if we use satellite data instead of the surface data? Note that this is a perfectly reasonable question. Shout at me and I’ll think you have something to hide.
If you think this is an important issue, you need to consider how your action are being received by those who are still looking at both sides. Treat me with respect and we can engage in discourse, maybe you can convince me. Yell at me and call me names and I’ll question both your judgment and your conclusions. This applies just as much to other people who are already so turned off that they don’t bother to reply.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Let’s bear in mind that we’re arguing about what is, in the long term, “noise”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg
And those of you who like to throw out “denier” as an epithet: Find another religion.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:22 am
As someone on the fence of the global warming/climate change issue, this discussion is an interesting read. Luc Vereecken’s message is well-argued and is perhaps one of the better explanations of the scenario I’ve read. Certainly much more useful than Dr. Hansen’s partisan-sounding rant, regardless of his research credentials.
Luc’s central point is a critical one — that humans may exert only a small influence on the climate, but the natural balance itself is so near this ‘tipping point’ that human influence can be just enough to disrupt the balance; plus, it’s the only contribution that is potentially changeable. But let’s get back to that point in a moment.
I think that for GW skeptics, one point of contention is a disbelief that human activity can so greatly influence the climate. In a sense, Luc’s response suggests they are not totally misguided — in fact, they’re somewhat right. Human activity exerts a small influence. The issue, as Luc frames it, is that even this small influence may be too much. That’s a fair point, and one that GW skeptics should not readily dismiss.
A second issue of contention is how much our influence can truly be remediated. We hear a lot of mixed messages; there are those who simply want to encourage more aggressive “green” behavior — the whole reuse/recycle/etc principle. There are others who shout, no, that’s all just a meaningless salve, that we need to take DRAMATIC action NOW!
What is less clear from the more dire voices is, what action? Specifically?
It seems unlikely that human civilization will suddenly drop its reliance on technology and all that entails. Is scaling back from 10% to 8% sufficient to avoid this ‘tipping point’ and the potential consequences? Or do people expect civilization to scale back to zero percent? Is this even possible?
Again, as someone willing to listen to all arguments, it is difficult to parse the alarmists’ call for radical action now — because it is unclear what they specifically want to happen. We hear a lot of talk of electing ‘more enlightened politicians’ and such, but boots on the ground, what radical actions are they looking for?
It is unfortunate that such a moralistic element has entered this debate, framing those who haven’t completely signed on to this vaguely defined ‘radical action’ as somehow murderers of the future. Let’s be more specific. It seems a lot easier to chant than to outline specific courses of actions and policies which are both feasible and effective, socially, politically, and scientifically.
Finally, an existential point. It is one thing to fear that climate change could lead to an environment unsuitable for survival of humans and other species. It is another to suggest that climate change is “harming the planet”. The planet itself could not care less what its climate is. For any given climate X, a set of organisms Y will adapt and thrive, and a set of organisms Z will fail and vanish. Such is the way of the universe.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:26 am
There’s a couple of things to consider, a rise of 5-8 degrees celcius probably caused the mass extinction at the end of the Paleocene period, and the rate at which the temperature is rising appears to be increasing, which is what we would expect as the more and more of the world industrializes.
The prediction for global warming over the next century is between 2 and 5 degrees which means at the current rate the worst cast prediction has the majority of wilderness life extinct by the end of the century if we do not take action to curb our greenhouse gas emitions. It’s not the most likely event, but it’s a lot like crossing the street. Sure you’re still not too likely to get hit by a care if you don’t look both ways, but hey why risk it if you don’t have to?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:30 am
@Ernesto:
Let’s ignore that you bring up the old “volcanos produce more CO2 than humans” bogeyman. It simply isn’t true.
It doesn’t matter whether “human the principal generators of CO2″, what matters is there is a more than obvious change in CO2 content in the atmosphere. Unless there were notable more non-noticed volcano eruptions and other CO2 sources in the last 150 years, its a good guess that humans are responsible. Yes, even for those changes that are caused by living organisms, because humans also had a big impact on them.
Now, all other factors being equal, more CO2 means it must be getting warmer. But are all factors the same? Here your friend “water vapor” comes to play. Because when it gets warmer, you get more water vapor, when you get more water vapor, its getting warmer. That’s called a positive feedback loop.
To conclude: when humans increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, its getting warmer - and by more than just the net effect from the CO2. Pretty easy to understand once you stop to resist thinking about it.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Luc - you are about a 100% right in everything you said but then again Ernesto was correct in most of what he stated as well. What is fact is that the principle green house gas (which blocks the most wavelengths in the infrared spectrum -traps heat-) is water vapor. Now we are adding more CO2 into the atmosphere, slightly trapping more heat and causing more water vapor. This is a escalating fact that cannot be changed. Reducing CO2 emissions isn’t going to change the water vapor in the atmosphere.
Also, global climate change to me seems very irrelevant. The climate shift in the arctic is melting ice that is drifting into the atlantic and disrupting the North Atlantic Current which is causing temperature decreases in europe causes a net affect of 0… Does that mean that nothing is happening or changing in the world. NO!
Now this is what i believe… we set forces into motion that we can’t change, the solutions don’t lie in stopping oil companies or CO2 emissions but falls on the brightest minds of all the world to attempt to think out of the box and solve and fix how much water vapor is in the atmosphere without disrupting all the rest of the world, or figuring out how to deal with this impending doom. I support Science and i support humanity and its ability to live with anything that is thrown in our way. The key is to make this not a political issue, but a realization that change is in order. From what we use, how we pollute, who we blame, when we stop blaming, how we heat our homes, and how we live our lives. The way we live our lives will change just as it changed during the last ice age, during the crusades or the industrial revolution. Hopefully with less death, a nyc not under water (as it is where i live), and less religion. Put your money into science, and let your beliefs translate into your life and how you live them.
Thank you for listening,
_d
August 17th, 2007 at 10:59 am
I still can’t get any of the so called climate deniers to tell me why we shouldn’t be looking at this as a better safe than sorry situation.
Even if you don’t believe humans are causing dangerous climate change to the globe, WHAT IF you are wrong? What’s the point of trying to stop people from reducing pollution and waste? Oh right, breathing in tailpipe when you walk down the street is fun…. sheesh.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:00 am
What about CH4 - methane is a greenhouse gas.
It is a byproduct of agriculture. When forests are clearcut, the termites, that that break down the waste wood, produce tons of it. Cattle also contrubute as a byproduct of their digestion.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Ken D’Ambrosio, can you say interglacial period? Being a “denier” myself, I often wonder how warm it was to have vineyards in England between 1000 and 1300 AD, as noted in historical records. I think that win production is a little thin in that area now, so we have a ways to go in temperature rise.
Having lived in Pittsburgh, PA during the 1950’s, clean the soot from the steel mills off of your vehicles every morning, one has an understanding of pollution, and cleaning up the mess has been with us for a long time. Government hasn’t cleaned it up yet, why do you think that they are going to do it now?
Someone needs to answer the question of what the Climate Status-Quo is. Being it is agreed that the Climate changes, and always will, why are so many people into this self flagellation? We bad, We bad. Get over it, start at home. How much “power” is used on you HDTV remote control? Do you think it is off when you turn it off?
Just remember, people always want laws that stop someone else from doing something they do think they should be doing. I never want a law to stop me from doing something I shouldn’t be doing.
JAB
August 17th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Wow — this is the most thoughtful collection of comments I have yet received. Let me make a few points in reverse order.
Oneguy: If you spend a little time on this website — or buy my book — you’ll see any solution laid out in its basic essence: We need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions over the next several decades through a combination of energy efficiency, low-carbon energy, and possibly carbon capture and storage (see next post). The longer we wait to start, the more expensive and difficult the effort will be. If we wait too long (i.e. don’t start in the next decade), we risk crossing a point of no return leading to harsh outcomes that Hansen describes (including, ultimately, much higher sea levels, widespread droughts, species extinction, ocean acidification, and the like).
Steve: I’m not sure what your point is in siting the Vostok data, which clearly shows the link between CO2 and temperature — and that we are pushing CO2 far outside the bounds seen for several hundred thousand years and therefore will likely push global temperatures ( and sea levels) dangerously beyond those bounds. Yes, the graphs show that the climate has cooled and warmed in the past, usually triggered by changes in the Earth’s orbit which have then been amplified by carbon cycle feedbacks. Now human emissions appear to be the trigger replacing orbital changes, and Hansen’s argument is that we are near tipping points that will push the planet toward catastrophic climate change.
Nathan: You are citing 10 year old data. The satellite data was in fact mis-analyzed for more than 10 years (by someone who was one of the leading skeptics/denyers in the world). It now fully supports the land data. There is so much overwhelming evidence around the planet for climate change that changing the numbers at a few US stations simply makes no difference. Does quoting ten-year-old studies that have long been debunked make you a “Denyer”? Not in my book. But if you were to persist in ignoring the most credible up-to-date research in an effort to confuse the issue, that would, at least to me.
I fully understand that most people are not in a position to adjudicate arguments among scientists. That is precisely why the nations of the world created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so the thousands of top scientists in the world could review all of the data and issue summary reports. People who refuse to accept the work of those scientists — and especially those who keep repeating long-debunked arguments — are who I call Denyers. That is my short-hand. The Denyers have their shorthand for people like me and Hansen — alarmists. I don’t really mind that term — as I made clear in my book, anyone who reviews the scientific literature and talks to any significant number of leading climate scientists, is going to become very alarmed.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:16 am
I find Hansen’s rhethoric concerning the captains of industry hilarious. If they are so concerned about short-term profit above all else, then what makes Dr. Hansen think that they’ll give a damn about what people will think of them after they’re dead?
August 17th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. — Sir Arthur Eddington
“as I made clear in my book” - Joe
How about we take the money trail out of the climate, then we get rid of the “alarmist” and disarm the “deniers”, and the scientists can do their work.
And how dare we, mere mortals, think we can make rational decisions about controlling the climate, but I deny again.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:29 am
I have been reading the postings on this page and I am wondering if any of you are trained scientist? I am a computer engineer and not a climatologist. Because of this I am reading all of the scientific data that I can to make a determination on the subject. Most of what I am reading on here looks like rhetoric to me, on both sides. It is good that we are discussing it though.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Justaguy: You might like RealClimate.org, which is probably the best website out there by RealClimate scientists for a technically literate audience.
I am an MIT-trained physicist who did physical oceanography research on the Greenland Sea the The Scripps Institution of Oceanography — for what it’s worth. This is not, however, meant to be a website aimed at scientific types, since such a website already exists.
Byrdlip — not sure what you mean by your final line — we mere mortals already all our dramatically changing the climate through deforestation and the unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases. The question is whether we want to take action to minimize our impact, or ruin the planet for the next 50 generations.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Joe, but the “alarmist” have already declared that the planet is ruined and that there is no turning back. Politicians have declared themselves carbon neutral by buying credits that some else is not using, that do not make sense. And they are the ones that the “alarmist” want to be in charge of fixing the problem?
As an MIT-Trained scientist, you know before you solve a problem, you must define and understand the problem. I have yet to see a problem definition, other then “the climate is changing and we caused it.”
We are in an interglacial period, it is suppose to warm up.
I would like to see a study on the amount of CO2 in a can of beer and one exhalation of a human being. That would be an interesting, if un-important result.
I went to several “carbon foot print” calculators, and I was way above average. But none of them asked where I lived, how many trees I had on the property, how many plants were on the property. Seems like if you don’t live in the concrete junks of a big city, then you are not normal. But I deny.
Support Global warming - drink beer.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Lou Grinzo says: The deniers put winning their ideological wars ahead of everything, including common sense and their own self interest.
Taken out of context, the left could say this about the right and climate change while the right could say this about the left and the Iraq war. Whatever the right answer is, Hansen obviously allows a lot of passion to enter his arguments which can be very convincing to some and a stumbling block to others.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Sherri, you are completely missing the point. The climate change zealots want to dump tons of iron oxide into the Southern Ocean, they want to install huge sun shades in orbit, etc. etc. The simple fact is that we don’t understand the feedback mechanisms that exist in the climate. Its equally likely that we are simply experiencing the end of an interglacial period and that 500 years from now we’ll be in another ice age. The worst thing we could do is have a bunch of sanctimonious scientists running off half-cocked under the delusion that they are going to save the world, only to do something that really screws up the planet. If all they want to do is get fat grants, jet of to conferences in Cannes and get laid, fine — just don’t screw with the Southern Ocean.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
You may have missed it, but the earth has been warming for 18000+ years. Global warming is a fact. Though we haven’t yet found the caveman SUVs that caused the ice age to end, I have full confidence that Al Gore will stumble upon them soon.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
The “second, impassioned email” reveals Hansen to be a politician, not a scientist. No scientist would issue such emotional drivel. The whole argument is starting to look like mob families competing for supremacy. Everyone is on the take. Both sides have much to gain both financially and politically. Until the politics and religious overtones are removed from the equation, there will be no “scientific” conclusion. Humans are but a speedbump in the planetary and cosmic dance. We will become extinct. The alarmists concern is all about when. To think that the planet does not exist independently of us, and doesn’t care if we are here or not, is narcissism. In its 4.5 billion year history, it has survived much worse than human industrial activity.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
The problem is unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. Many people, myself included, have described the problem and its solution at great length. You can check out previous posts or my book.
Iur current warm interglacial period has lasted much longer than interglacials typically do, and many scientists believe that absent human activity, we would be going back into another Ice Age. We know why the previous ice ages ended — they were “forced” to end by a change in our orbit and inclination and subsequent feedbacks (albedo and GHGs). We know why the planet is warming now — human activity.
We are pouring CO2 into the atmosphere at more than 100 times the fastest pace in his ever increased in the geologic record. If we warm another 2°C to 3°C, then we will return the planet to the temperature it had when sea levels were 80 feet higher. This is the main reason Hansen and I are so impassioned.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I believe that we should reduce greenhouse gasses for many reasons.
That being said….. Can anyone tell us why it got so much colder between the mid 1930s and 1970?
It just seems odd to me that we blame something (CO2) for the rise from 1970 to 2007 but the logic used to to blame (CO2) seems to have to ignore the data from 1930 to 1970.
Just wondering if anyone has the short answer.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Does not compute:
Studies suggest that even during the last interglacial (116,000-130,000 years ago), when temperatures were thought to be 5C warmer than today, the ice persevered, keeping the delicate samples entombed and free from contamination and decay.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 6276576.stm
I still don’t know which way we are going….
August 17th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
It seems Hansen is so worked up because of the way an apparently insignificant adjustment to the data (looking at his before and after curves) was portrayed in the media. I believe he must be wondering what forces are in play that can take something like this and turn it into headlines that appear to cast doubt on the whole of the science. As in …
“Cold, hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims”, etc.
Odd that Timo asks …
“Should we ignore the fact that results and conclusions drawn from “scientific” studies contradict one another with shocking frequency, leaving us to wonder whom we should believe?”
The scientific process will be about debate and disagreement. It seems the problem starts when the non-technical public thinks they understand what is behind the debate on the basis of a 10 min. TV piece. And also when self serving scientists and those that pay them muddy the waters with fragmented attacks on small pieces of research.
We worry too much - the earth will adjust just fine. Of course lots of life may find it hard to survive in the process.
I wonder … if a computer simulation of that bridge in MN had shown a high probability of failure under certain conditions, how much time would have passed with people arguing about the assumptions and the conditions under which the result was simulated ?
August 17th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
ok now someone tell me why the poles of mars are melting and how that is caused by our C02.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Very interesting discussion, particularly the well-thought out responses by Luc Vereecken and Geoffrey A. Landis.
I would like to reiterate oneguy’s call for more concrete directives on how we may go about fixing this problem, to the extent we can. Reduce/reuse/recycle is obviously a starting point, but I don’t know how realistic it is for developing, third-world countries who either need to sell their resources (such as trees) to earn an income or use cheap fuel to jump-start their industrial systems. Have there been studies regarding what percentage of the carbon output comes from countries where consumption is more variable versus those in which it is necessary for their economic growth? I know the average American’s footprint is likely much higher than the average Chinese person, but there are 4 people in China for every one in America.
Any steps to remedy human carbon output will need to take into account a complex world in which the solution for one region or country could be much different from others. If most your population can’t afford to eat, it is unlikely you will require any businesses looking to set up factories to pay high carbon taxes just to avert a disaster 100 years from now. Not that it isn’t important, it just isn’t a priority the same way money and food is. And the politicians don’t live that long.
-Mike
August 17th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Simple solution: There’s too damn many of us onboard this ship. Would some of yall mind leaving? Quickly?!! Please, for once, do the right thing.
I am appalled at the pompousness of anyone who thinks that humans can actually change the climate. Yep, its all about us, isnt it. How the hell did those fossilized sea critters get embedded in those rocks in my back yard at almost 1000 feet elevation in a southeastern alluvial plain? Uh huh, yes, that’s right, it was all once under an ocean. May be again soon. We will either figger out how to survive or we wont. I expect it will be some of both.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I think we should take care of the Earth and live responsibly. That we can have an impact on the Earth for good or bad is unquestionable. And that with our growing capabilities through technology and science, that impact is increased (and therefore our responsibility) is also not a question. But despite what I just stated I know, I would probably be called a denier by many. Call me what you will. But, insults aren’t the answer. The sun will still shine.
We could save the planet today, and the sun could blow up tomorrow (figuratively speaking, but still possible in that stars do blow up and our Earth and the environment wouldn’t be too well off, but there isn’t much we can currently do about that).
The globe is warming, it is true. The amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. Carbon Dioxide does have tendency to act like a “green house”. But, there isn’t a great consensus among scientists (nor non-scientists for that matter) as Al Gore would have many believe. There are qualified scientists out there that have some interesting things to say against the Global Warming hysteria (despite Gore’s “consensus” among the scientists). Maybe somebody lied or maybe they all understand a part of the very complex puzzle.
I have some questions concerning the “Global Warming” situation:
* Isn’t the sun the most dominating factor in the earths climate?
* Doesn’t water have more influence than Carbon Dioxide?
* If the average temperature rises, won’t more water evaporate?
* Won’t more water in the atmosphere as clouds block the sun, having a cooling effect to counter balance the warming? (I felt the cooling effect of a cloud of water blocking the sun, but not the heating effect of a cloud of Carbon Dioxide trapping the sun’s energy)
* Carbon Dioxide levels rise, the temperature rises, “correlation isn’t causation” or “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, right?
* Aren’t there many unknown variables that are involved in the climate that we just don’t understand or have enough research yet to make a decisive conclusion? (e.g. climate is a complex system)
* What is the relationship between Carbon Dioxide levels and temperature? Is it linear, exponential, logarithmic? Extreme environmentalists make it sound as if it is exponential, but if it is logarithmic wouldn’t excessive Carbon Dioxide be much less damaging than some say it would?
* When extrapolating from a data set and saying that the average temperature will be at about Y degrees by year X and therefore such and such will happen (ten feet of water in New York, ice caps gone, etc.), isn’t that some what unreliable?
Those are some questions I can think of and I probably have more I can’t remember. But, my current view of things is skeptical of the “sky is falling” hysteria and the “there is nothing wrong” stand point. It seems that CO2 is a common molecule and therefore strange to label it as pollution (plants like CO2, it’s like a fertilizer). The religious zeal and politics should leave the science alone, they will only lead to corrupt science supporting their position. And finally, Al Gore and the Extreme Environmentalists should consider cessation of respiration as a possible emission cut back (or maybe just less hype flaming the fire, than actually ceasing breathing).
August 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I concur with you Doc. In his movie, Al Gore lost all (or most) credibility with his dramatic CGI segment of Manhattan Island and Florida being flooded by a rising Atlantic Ocean. He failed to mention that half of the land mass in the Netherlands has been below sea-level since forever, as if we won’t be able to develop the technology over the next 200 years that the Dutch have had for the last 600. There are fossilized remains of species that once walked the earth, and in the future there will be fossilized remains (plus images and video) of species that exist today. We weren’t around to control it then. To suggest that we can control it now is indeed, pompous.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
here’s a reply from a “dumb draftsman” who just wants to know the truth.
1. if human activity is to blame for global warming, and if global warming will in fact have all the dire consequences we are told by the like of Al Gore and Davod Suzuki, then i will gladly drastically change the way i live, whatever it costs.
2. it will cost a lot. (do i have to elaborate?)
3. but the shrill messages i get from global warming fascits sounds remakably similar to all the other fear mongers i’ve ever run into in my life (religion, investments, life insurance, vacuum cleaners, etc.) they all have a vested interest in getting me to do something, and if i do it and it turns out to be the wrong thing, i pay, not them.
in particular, the Koyoto treaty seems not to do much good for climate change, but simply to transfer huge sums of money from the developed world to the undeveloped world. a worthy goal perhaps, but one should say so explicitly.
4. so i am being prudent when i demand good explanations, good science, and high integrity. if you want me to essentially move into a tent and turn into a vegan, you have a duty of care to give me the truth.
5. when i read the CV’s of a great many prominent scientists, at the top of their disciplines, that tell me “There is no scientific consensus on Climate Change”, i am only being prudent to expect the Global Warming crowd to answer the objections point-by-point.
please see the National Post website of their “deniers” series.
http://www.canada.com/ nationalpost/ environment/ story.html?id=4432a41c-7c52-4b74-934e-f0dac3b2bcb8
(or just go to www.nationalpost.com and search for “deniers”)
6. instead, all it get is more polemic.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Question- The way I see it, in the early industrial age, we were pumping both CO2, and large amounts of particulate pollution into the atmosphere. In effect, the particulate pollutants canceled out the greenhouse effect. Once we cleaned up particulate emissions, all that’s left if the greenhouse effect. So the answer to the global warming problem- More pollution. (Note- I am not a climatologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night)
August 17th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I very much appreciate the tone taken by many of the skeptics who are posting here. It is obviously a little frustrating for us scientists that so many of you begin with the relatively small number of scientists who question the consensus, rather than, say, reading the IPPC reports (www.ipcc.ch), which lay out the scientific evidence in detail.
Many of you repeat the same questions that have been asked and answered many times — here is a very good resource that answers most of them.
http://climateprogress.org/ 2007/ 06/ 27/ 26-climate-myths-debunked
To those who are really interested in becoming more informed on the subject, I hope you will bookmark this website and, for the more technically inclined, visit RealClimate.org
August 17th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Timo,
No these scientists were not “the same ones who were warning of the approach of the next ice age back in the seventies,” because the notion that scientists were warning of an imminent ice age back in the seventies is an urban myth that has been actively promoted by global warming opponents. Check your sources on this; you’ll find that they never seem to cite any actual scientific papers–they all cite an article from Newsweek. Why not cite the scientists? Because the scientists weren’t actually saying that at all back in the ’70’s. Newsweek got it wrong (or perhaps chose to exaggerate to sell magazines).
August 17th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I appreciate the continued discussion and points made by several commenters.
Again, speaking as one without any a priori bias toward one “side” or another, it is my impression that many advocates of change in an effort to diminish climate change are poor political strategists. It seems wildly counterproductive to attempt to “sell” your point of view by berating and belittling skeptics and “deniers”. Although this has not been a major problem in our discussion here today, it is quite common elsewhere throughout this discussion.
Aside from purely irrational people, most voices on any side of a debate are basing their position on a set of priorities, and protecting particular interests. Quite often, different interests come into genuine conflict: for example, averting climate deterioration is good, but preserving wealth and economic well-being is also good. People can be genuinely concerned that one of those might sacrifice the other. Perhaps they are wrong, perhaps they are right, but that doesn’t make their concern stupid or motivated by malice.
If you want to persuade someone toward a certain end, it is helpful to appeal to their interests.
It seems that a major goal of those who want to lessen climate change is to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. OK. If a skeptic does not “buy” into the consequences of climate change, how will you convince them to support a reduction in fossil fuel use? Unfortunately, it seems that the most common answer these days is to yell at them, brand them as ignorant republicans, and so on. This is a recipe for failure.
Why not focus on other incentives? Reducing use of fossil fuels and investing in alternative energies at home will put money back in the pockets of countrymen and remove it from hostile populations. There is a huge upside here, one that is incredibly attractive to the political right, even if they never “believe” in climate change issues. Of course these arguments have been promoted, but they need to do be much more so. If you want people to find common ground for a particular behavior, find a reason that appeals to them.
Too many ideologues concerned with climate change care too much that their “opponents” come around and agree with them. Do you want action or do you want consensus? The two need not be the same thing. You can motivate people to move in the direction you want, for reasons that differ from yours. It could be much more successful than moralizing.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
“So the answer to the global warming problem- More pollution.” - Mike
But we are acting at opposite ends, we “want” to stop burning fossil fuels, so we make ethyl alcohol to burn in our cars, we are doing good. In order to make ethyl alcohol, we create CO2 at twice the rate of ethyl alcohol. In order to solve the problem, we make the problem worse.
Trees use CO2 to make oxygen, please see the quote on cutting down the rain forests, I live in North America, there are very few rain forests here, they have been killed by acid-rain (remember that one, we solved that one)
August 17th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
SurfaceStations.org has provided a valuable service in confirming what I have suspected: That there is no scientific methodology used in the collection of temperature data and there is no reliable or confirmable way of correlating today’s data with that which has been recorded in the past.
The arrogance of the GW religious zealots to claim that they have accurately quantified the temperature of the entire planet and can accurately correlate it with past temperatures is beyond belief. The parameters involved with doing this are mind-boggling. The earth would have to be partitioned into cells. Each cell would ideally be the size of the Mean Distance Between Collisions of air molecules, which is also dependent on temperature so the cell size would change with the temperature. As the size of the measurement cell gets larger the deviation from the “true temperature” also rises. If an arbitrary cell size is established then there is an arbitrary and unknown contribution to this deviation from the mean.
Air temperature is stratified by elevation. It turns out that the composition of the atmosphere is also stratified by elevation and this stratification can be approximated by the “Barometric formulae” found in most upper level Physical Chemistry Texts. Both of these parameters would have to be calculated because of their inter-relational effect on temperature but more importantly on their effect of the heat capacity of the atmosphere.
To accurately define the temperature of Earth then the temperature of each cell over the entire surface of the planet and the thickness of the atmosphere would have to be taken simultaneously.
Then a mean temperature would have to be determined by averaging all of these data points. Then the entire process would have to be repeated at small time intervals; the larger the time intervals, the larger the deviation from the “true value”.
Then this entire process would have to be conducted for an unknown length of time before a truly statistical representation of the world’s temperature could be formed.
The melting of the Polar Ice Cap is used by the truly faithful GW’ers as irrefutable truth of global warming. However in Chapter 12: The Arctic and Northern Polar Oceans from the book Descriptive Physical Oceanography by William J. Emery, Lynne D. Talley and George L. Pickard, the complex interaction of forces that effect the ocean and sea ice are delineated.
It is difficult to efficiently summarize the sixty pages that comprise this chapter but the highlights are: … unlike tropical and subtropical waters where waters are layered by temperature and separated by thermoclines, the polar seas are stratified by the salt content of the water and separated by haloclines.
The salt concentration then governs the freezing point of the sea water once the temperature drops to 0 degrees Celsius; the higher the salt content, the lower the freezing point below 0 C.
The haloclines are formed by the summer melting of the ice, which is lower in salinity than the sea water, and layers over the top of the more dense sea water, but then it freezes more quickly when the temperature drops to 0 C.
The problem is that the surface haloclines have disappeared and more uniformly saline seawater is present. Unlike freshwater or even brackish water, the density of seawater is greatest at its freezing point. The result is that the seawater starts sinking before it freezes solid. When or if the seawater actually freezes it forms a much weaker sea ice because of the inclusions of salt and this ice requires about half the energy to melt when compared to regular halocline formed sea ice. As the sea ice forms it starts forcing the salt out of the crystalline structure. If the air temperature is abnormally cold it will form the weaker form of sea ice because it will not have the time necessary to expel the salt.
Why have the surface haloclines disappeared?
It turns out that miscible liquids of different densities can exist in a layered state until there is a disturbance at the boundary layer. This will start an oscillation in the layers that is virtually impossible to dampen due to the entropy differences of the two layers.
The main culprits for this phenomenon are ICEBREAKERS. The vortices from the giant screws that propel these behemoths are incredibly large and propagate well beyond the 20-meter depth of the surface halocline. These ships force the mixing and provide a lane of broken ice that will be weaker and easier to melt when or if it refreezes.
NASA satellites show that the greatest loss of sea ice is on the Soviet side of the polar region. The Soviets have the largest ice breaking ships in the world and they use them to keep their northern shipping routes open. In fact they have converted several of their icebreakers into cruise ships and routinely ferry passengers to the North Pole.
If you want to save the Polar Ice Cap then stop the icebreakers!
August 17th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
SurfaceStations.org has provided a valuable service in confirming what I have suspected: That there is no scientific methodology used in the collection of temperature data and there is no reliable or confirmable way of correlating today’s data with that which has been recorded in the past.
Actually, the surface temperature data can be (and has been) checked with independent data sources, namely satellite MSU data. See http://atmoz.org/ blog/ 2007/ 08/ 12/ more-gisstemp-and-surface-station-stuff/ for details.
If the surface temperature data were as badly contaminated as skeptics insinuate, it would not match up with the satellite data. But it does.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
For all of you who are in a panic over global warming please explain to me why there were forests in Newfoundland, Iceland and Greenland a thousand years ago? Why are villages just now being exposed in Switzerland that were buried in glacier ice 900 years ago? If it were that much warmer 1000 years ago who do we blame?
August 17th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
The forests in Iceland were not eliminated by climate change but by humans. Humans eliminated Iceland forests the same way that they have eliminated forests elsewhere. Much of Iceland today is warm enough to support birch forests and there are indeed major efforts to re-establish the forests there.
As for Greenland, it’s been several hundred thousand years since any signficant forests existed there. In fact Greenland is warm enough now to support the same types of agricultural activities that the Norse engaged in 1,000 years ago. Alder and birch can be found growing there now, and there is even at least one cultivated forest with thousands of conifers.
All the evidence points to Iceland and Greenland being every bit as warm now as they were 1000 years ago.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
So what’s you point?
August 17th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Here’s what’s going to happen people. I am a major skeptic and total denier but… it’s all about money. As the information age progresses and manufacturing, oil, coal, labor unions and other bastions of the old economy give way to an increasingly technology driven new economy, corporate America (and Europe and probably Latin America) will see healthy profit forecasts in the growing green/technology economy. (The #1 and #2 richest people in the world are a Communications guy and an IT guy. No Oil guys.) The free-market will simply adjust itself and the result will be a reduction in all of the yucky stuff that GlobalWarmingAlarmistCultists are so scared of. China and India will probably take another couple of decades to catch up… and the planet will be saved!!
August 17th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Solution:
Everyone will move within seven miles of where they work. Seven miles is the most that a normal person can walk, unassisted, in one day. No Cars, no Buses, No trains (of any forms). That will eliminate the need for foreign oil, or domestic oil for that matter.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
My thoughts on this are we have no data prior to 1880. So where do we get this. It used to be hot when dinasaurs romed the earth then it got cold and now it is warming a little bit.over the last century 8 degrees. I don’t know where the hell all of you live but in minnesota it really has not changed. Except that winters are still bitterly fing cold
August 17th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
SHOW ME THE CONFIDENCE INTERVALS! SAY IT WITH ME: “SHOW ME THE CONFIDENCE INTERVALS!”
Oh that’s right, nobody will do that, BECAUSE THEY’RE ABOUT A HUNDRED DEGREES THICK. Here’s the bottom line, ladies and gentlemen: anybody who shows you a graph of “global [average, presumably] temperature” with a data point at the year 1880 is lying to you. It’s really that simple. Measuring temperature with any real accuracy is difficult. Measuring temperature with tenths of a degree accuracy is more difficult. Measuring temperature with tenths of a degree accuracy in enough locations across the globe to get a meaningful “global [average, presumably] temperature” is extraordinarily difficult.
Measuring temperature with tenths of a degree accuracy in enough locations across the globe to get a meaningful “global [average, presumably] temperature” in 1880 was not possible.
Bold statement? Not really, considering certain inconvenient… truths… such as the fact that it was 1909 before anyone got to the north pole (i.e. part of the “globe”). South pole? Yeah, that was 1911. And that’s also part of the “globe”.
I, like many posters I’m seeing here, am 100% all for not puking God knows what sorts of crap into the atmosphere. Hell, you could probably even call me a passive environmentalist - I have those not-quite-compact-enough flourescents in every light fixture in my house. But when the first thing you shove in my face is “data” that both you and I know full well you do not have, sorry Charlie, no sale. Come back when you’re not too embarrassed to:
SHOW ME THE CONFIDENCE INTERVALS!
August 17th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Rod Duke. Great post. Very persuasive. Just one thing….. there aren’t anymore Soviets. (who knows. with Vlad Putin in charge, maybe there will be in the near future.)
August 17th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I found this paper from Steve McIntyre’s blog, climateaudit.org. McIntyre is the person who found this NASA error.
Title:
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
Source:
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
Abstract:
The hockey stick debate is about two things. At a technical level it concerns a well-known study that characterized the state of the Earth’s climate over the past thousand years and seemed to prove a recent and unprecedented global warming. I will explain how the study got the results it did, examine some key flaws in the methodology and explain why the conclusions are unsupported by the data. At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing process. In view of the massive global influence of IPCC Reports, there is an urgent need to bias-proof future assessments in order to put climate policy onto a new foundation that will better serve the public interest.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Title:
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
More mountains out of molehills. McIntyre claimed that the data-centering method Mann used prior to computing the principal components “mined” the data for hockey-stick shapes. But when Mann and co responded by repeating the computations with the changes the McIntyre suggested, they got almost exactly the same results. When Mann and Co completely skipped the principal-component step and did the computations with the raw data, the results hardly changed.
In fact, when another scientist, Dr. Hans von Storch (someone who has been critical of Mann’s “hockey-stick”, btw) looked at McIntyre’s claims, he said that the problems that McIntyre uncovered did not significantly impact Mann’s results. You can read von Storch’s analysis here: http://coast.gkss.de/ staff/ storch/ pdf/ 2005.commenton.myintyre.grl.pdf
Here is a relevant excerpt:
n both cases PCA-center-
ings has a small relevance for the final result and the
differences are within the uncertainty range (Figure 1).
The conclusion is essentially the same for all realizationsand other constructions of noise. For instance, white noise
with r = 0.7 yields a standard deviation of the differences of
0.006K; r = 0.4 yields 0.007K; red noise with a = 0.5 and
r = 0.7 (r = 0.4) yields 0.01K (0.02K); red noise with a = 0.8
and r = 0.7 (r = 0.4) yields 0.02K(0.03K). Therefore, the
differences increase slightly with the amount and redness of
the noise, but they remain small, even in the case of high and
red noise with a steep red spectrum.
[7] Our results, derived in the artificial world of an
extended historical climate simulation, indicate therefore
that the AHS does not have a significant impact but leads
only to very minor deviations.
IOW, much ado over almost nothing.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
“Go to this site and tell him to suck up to the truth. A blogger in major stages of Climate Crisis Denial:”
Hey George!
Why don’t you practice what you preach?
I promise to shred you rather gently.
Here’s the truth:
The is NO empirical evidence that supports “anthropogenic global warming”.
Period.
Deal with it.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
To clarify my above post, “AHS” in the excerpt that I posted stands for “artificial hockey-stick” as in the “hockey stick” that McIntyre claimed was artificially created by Mann’s principal component computations.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
In response to this statement by Phil:
“The idea that humans have enough nukes to wipe out the -entire- human population is a myth spread during the cold war. Perhaps we could if the entire human population were crammed into a single, small area… and certainly we could have wiped many major metropolis’ off the map entirely… but thinking that we actually have the means to destroy the planet with nukes overestimenates our own control over Earth.”
The danger is not with blowing ourselves up with Nukes, it is nuclear winter. The debris, soot, and dirt thrown up from the many explosions, and cities burning blocking the sun for months or years. This has the potential to kill off most life on Earth.
So in short, yes, we do have the ability to dramatically change the environment enough to kill ourselves off as a species.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
hmm, its interesting. I’ve posted a few comments with very specific citations and they been moderated out. I’m not using my real email address or name because of all the talk by the climate nuts of “Nuremberg style trials” for “deniers”. So I think the operators of this site is using the fact that I am uncomfortable reveling my identity as an excuse to moderate out my posts. This is yet another example of the systematic attempt by the climate nuts to intimidate and silence people who disagree with them. I imagine they’ll mod this one out as well.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
A curious thing about those who seem to think that global warming is not taking place is that they almost universally ignore the most visible and most immediate effects of global warming that are presently visible NOW.
1) if global warming were not occuring why would nearly EVERY glacier on earth be receeding?
2) if global warming were not occuring why would the sealevel be rising?
3) if global warming were not occuring why do we see so many tropical species extending their distributions poleward or higher in altitude and none (to my knowledge) extending their distributions toward the equator?
It is also curious that those who don’t seem to believe in global warming seem to ignore that the most immediate and disruptive effect will be on the diminiution of available of freshwater in continental interiors. Humans largely depend on food for survival and hence ultimately agriculture, which requires steady availability of water sources (typically from snow melt in many parts of the world) not to mention that water is necessary to keep vegetation from drying out. When it dries it more easily burns and hence one witnesses inceases in forest and range fires.
I suggest that a law be passed that will give those who now denying the deleterious effects of global warming shall receive a free housing subsidy and a one way ticket to either 1) central Australia (todays high temeperatures there are in excess of 120 degrees or 2) Crete, which is currently suffering a drought more pronounced than any in the 6,000 for which historical records are available for the island. That way those who have a little more consideration for children might be better able to deal with the consequences of global warming, without having to deal with the substantial impediment caused by those who feel its OK to ignore best available science and seem happy to let the children burn rather than give up their righteous smugness.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:22 am
“I’ll believe it’s a crisis when those who say it’s a crisis begin to act like they believe it’s a crisis.” - instapundit
Hansen’s polemic is just sad. Not the work of a scientific mind nor the sound of a voice suppressed by Bushitlerburton.
It’s not that he or NASA made an error, it’s that they had no intention of announcing the correction. They gave the deniers all the ammunition they need.
Shout louder “nation’s top climate scientist” so to show how “fwustwated” you are.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:50 am
Deniers…hehe…when folks start trying to label others with perhaps one of the most hateful labels around you know they are losing.
For the record I believe that Global Warming is happening, so what. It gets warmer it gets cooler…weather changes. Climates change.
August 18th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Hi,
I am not a scientist. I am a student and an ordinary citizen of this planet. However, in Jaipur, India, the city I belong to, in the last 25 years of my active memory, the last five have been the worse in terms of rainfall.
Is the climate changing? YES.
I have tried to follow and understand this discussion, and I realize that the climate is changing at a very very fast rate.
The Himalayan Glaciers have started to melt, so much so that Ganges, the holy river, might stop flowing in the years to come (I don’t know how many!). I can say this because I have seen the river’s mouth and the size of the glacier against the pictures taken in ’90s.
I know the climate is changing because the weather pattern has been for a toss in the last 5 years, the seasons have been shifting in months, significantly enough for us, common people, to notice.
The rainfall in the entire region has been defying all expectaions, the areas which were dry earlier are flooded and the green lands are turning into desert. This is not due to deforestation, the total area under forest cover has been stagnant, if not increased in the these last few years.
My point is, that when we, the people who produce less than half of harmful gases and pollutants then the more developed country, are able to see the change in the climate patter, why is it that some people are trying to deny it?
Even a small child in India knows the reason why one should buy a car which gives a mileage of more than 18 KM per Litre of petrol (over 60KM per Gallon); saving fossil fuel means saving the world.
The State Slogan for the last five years has been
“Paani Bachao, Bijli Bachao, Ped Lagao”,
Save water, Save Electricity, Plant Trees”. It is not because we want to have JUST ANY slogan that this one is chosen. People realized that it was required. One can feel the harshness of the sun in the summer and the dryness of wind in the winters like never before.
Even if all what I say is because of the psychological buildup around this issue, I thank you for considering this as an issue. Sitting here in an insignificant country, we find ourselves at the mercy of the corporates who killed the Blue Whale before I could see it. The Economic Incentives of some people or corporations can be compromised for a greater benefit of humanity…. that is the real GWOT.
Am willing to gather more data and provide details, if someone wants to research more about the climate change in this part of the world. I want to do something more than just write blog posts or comments on those posts.
shashank@techspeak.in
August 18th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Great debate.
Just a few questions,
Hasn’t it been warming and haven’t the glaciers been melting since the end of the last ice age (roughly 1850)?
What would the GW faithful had to say if they had been around during the Medieval Warming period?
Why is Greenland called Greenland?
Why isn’t the atmosphere rising in temperature as the surface seems to be, if this is an atmospheric event?
And to rephrase a quote from Bill Clinton, A dollar spent towards global warming never fed a hungry child.
ps remember to read the Vostok data from right to left and you will see that temperature is more often a precursor to a rise in CO2. And with that chart, the fluctuations, albeit similar are not direct. That is, the change from temp to co2, or co2 to temp is hundreds or thousands of years apart, otherwise those spikes and valleys would be identical. (A chart with a 400,000 year span, a millimeter difference equates to hundreds of years)
good day
August 18th, 2007 at 4:04 am
It is getting warmer. If, indeed, the whole of humanity is producing the crucial 5% of CO2, then trying to stop it is a fool’s errand. Those who can afford to burn hydrocarbons are going to keep doing it. I live thirty to ninety miles from the different parts of my family. There’s no way I will reduce my driving. Nor will I turn off my air conditioning in the summer or my heat in the winter.
I am only one person, and though my “carbon footprint” is large compared to someone in India or China who is as well off there as I am here, it does not begin to compare with the “footprints” of the top 1% of the population (in the US) and the top .1% or .01% of the populations of Pakistan, Nigeria, Mongolia, Peru, etc. The rich are not going to do anything that will make a dent in that crucial 5%, the poor cannot and what middle there is is dwindling fast.
We have enough evidence that we are changing the climate in ways that will become ever more drastic. We need to stop spending time, effort, money, brains and spirit on trying to avoid it. We can’t. We now must devote our resources to figuring out how to survive it. We can keep staring at what is going to hit us, like a deer in the headlights, but we would be much better served by figuring out which way to jump.
August 18th, 2007 at 4:39 am
Looks to me like the US isn’t the culprit. Look how much flatter our curve is compared to the full world curve.
Puts the lie to Kyoto, it seems.
August 18th, 2007 at 5:25 am
Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C warmer than 2004. The overall trend in warming is driven by greenhouse gas emissions but this warming effect will be broadly cancelled out over the next few years by the changing patterns of the ocean temperatures. Want more information click on www.LifeOfEarth.Blogspot.com
August 18th, 2007 at 6:09 am
Some warming is taking place, and there might be human contribution to this. It’s far from certain, but it’s probable.
But two important points need to be stressed:
a) There is absolutely no scientific indication of catastrophic outcomes. That’s pure imagination. Might happen, sure, but there is no scientific indication it will happen. The small warming that is happening is not a big deal, and the feedback cycle that might cause catastrophe isn’t based on any scientific evidence, even the IPCC, or unreliable climate models don’t show such cycle.
b) There is nothing that can be done about it.
Stopping the burning of fossil fuels is not an option. There is no other source of energy available, and life without energy isn’t possible.
Hansen is talking about a “tipping point” in about 10 years. There is absolutely no science behind this claim. It’ pure hyperbole. And, there is no way at all we can significantly reduce CO2 emissions, not within 10 years, neither within 50 (I can’t predict further into the future).
August 18th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Another point:
Those who fear so much global warming should push hard for nuclear power. This is the only currently available technology that can significantly reduce CO2 emissions. If an aggressive program of nuclear power development is started now, we might see some reduction in CO2 emissions 50 years from now. (Not 10 years…).
Nuclear power was stalled by environmentalists. Another example of the law of unintended consequences.
Nuclear power has, of course, many nontrivial, environmental and economical problems. I’m not sure we should be too aggressive in pushing it. But the ban, or moratorium on nuclear power should be lifted.
August 18th, 2007 at 6:44 am
The extent to which global warming is a crisis is of course independent of who says what about it now. However, and while recognizing Aristotle’s wisdom that argument from authority is weak, for the majority of people who are unable or unwilling to spend hundreds of hours a year studying the matter, it is necessary to defer to the opinions of people more expert than themselves. Even then, deferral to the experts works best by looking to the actual best experts, and not getting hung up on the idiots on each side of the argument.
McIntyre has done a service in finding the 0.15 C error in data, as even the global warming establishment has conceded in thanking him. And Hansen is a real expert on the other side. But tying McIntyre in with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, or referring to all of “them” as court jesters for the oil companies, is no more fair or useful than tying the idiocy and hypocrisy of Al Gore to the expertise of James Hansen. It is unfortunate that Hansen’s letter on “usufruct and the gorilla” goes down this path, but of course plenty of people on the other side have done the same, and it is hard to avoid the temptation of stooping to such a level after you have been demonised by your opponents.
August 18th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Y7,
Your claim that “the US isn’t the culprit. Look how much flatter our curve is compared to the full world curve” makes no sense.
CO2 is well mixed globally, so CO2-caused warming would not be expected to affect the US or other industrial nations more than, say, Antarctica or anywhere else. That said, it has been claimed by some that the US is a net absorber of CO2, because the US is one of the few places on earth where forests are increasing.
August 18th, 2007 at 8:00 am
There are a couple fairly quick ways to satisfy the GW-believers’ demands for less of everything human, but they involve HAVING FEWER HUMANS. A nice nuclear world war would likely eliminate enough of the manufacturing and power plants, as well as the folks dependent on them, that we’d be off the hook. If the randomness of war isn’t to one’s liking, then we’d need to establish some criteria for selecting people to be removed from the population — perhaps we start with everyone with an IQ below 100?
Yeah, I know that I’m insane for suggesting this, but I feel the same way about the (sometimes subconscious) guilt complex that drives many (most?) GW-believers. It isn’t all that different from the PETA lunatics who believe that the life of a bunny (or even a rat) is more important that the lives of people.
For a very interesting article about the “hockey stick” (BEFORE the NASA correction), check out this (and maybe some of its references): http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/070313goodprint.html
August 18th, 2007 at 8:19 am
OH MY GOD, Chhicken Little exclaimed, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling.”
IS there climate change, yes, ever since earth cooled and developed into a living sphere. The earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age. Glaciers have been melting since the end of the last Ice Age. Will another Ice Age come? Yes. Can we as humans do anything about it? No.
If weathermen can not perdict the weather accurately, do you really expect climate “experts” to perdict what the climate will do? I don’t think so.
This is much to do anbout nothing…the hesteria of people with too much time on their hands .
August 18th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Hansen’s letter on “usufruct and the gorilla” …
Hansen’s insane rant about the “captains of industry” destroying the planet for their personal short term gain discloses the ideological side of his personality. “Capitalists evil, me good, profits bad”.
We aren’t talking science here. Science measures what is, what has already happened. Science doesn’t measure temperatures 100 years from now.
We are talking about predictions. Predictions are highly speculative. Considering Hansen’s predictions - we cannot disassociate them from his ideological rants. Hanson is entitled to his personal beliefs and prejudices, but we are entitled, and justified, to asses his predictions with the knowledge about his personal prejudices, that he has kindly made public.
August 18th, 2007 at 8:23 am
I suggest readers take a look at the web-site amoreconvenienttruth.com to get the real story. ANy idiot knows ice contracts not expands when it melts. THis means global warning will actually increase land mass; thus providing more arable acreage.
August 18th, 2007 at 8:43 am
I don’t have much to add to this argument other than my honest claim that I am confused. As a conservative blogger, I am flooded with the “Climate Change is Hysteria” arguments. As a father, I am worried. I need to re-dedicate myself to a clear analysis of the facts. I must say I get defensive and annoyed when people suggest any doubt about the real threat of climate suggests either intellectual inferiority, immoral motives, or both. That approach only serves to drive me to the other side a bit, but that’s not exactly productive either.
Climate Change Advocates need to understand that the naysayers paint them with the same “court jester” label. It’s all highly unproductive. Too much is (possibly) at stake, and I think there is a huge mass of moderate people who are throwing their hands up saying, “Who the hell do I believe?”
August 18th, 2007 at 9:12 am
The “greenhouse” properties pf CO2 are known chemicaly; like freezing and melting temps. CO2 is why Venus is hotter at it’s surface than Mercury. When I exhale…I’m releasing CO2, but CO2 that was in my lunch in the form of…well…food that captured the CO2 from the atmosphere. It was fresh sweet corn, and the CO2 was likely in the atmosphere 2 monthes ago or so. Carbon neutral. Natural cycle. However, the gas in my car was in the ground for millions of years, captured by living things over tens or hundreds of thousands of years and when that CO2 goes into the atmosphere it’s gonna stay there awhile. A long while. If we empty that reservoir of CO2 from fossil fuels into the air without recapture then how–given that no GW “deniers” deny the “greenhouse” property of CO2–can the Globe….NOT Warm?
August 18th, 2007 at 10:40 am
“Those who fear so much global warming should push hard for nuclear power. This is the only currently available technology that can significantly reduce CO2 emissions.”
The “alarmist” have killed the possible building of nuclear reactors a long time ago. Now you throw it in our faces that we should be building them. You can’t have it both ways.
What else produces CO2? Fermentation. As you drink you glass of wine, or chug your bottle of beer, think about how much CO2 was formed along with the alcohol that is in the drink (two to one in favor of CO2).
So lets talk about it some more. The numbers are correct, the numbers are wrong, the calculations are flawed, the calculations are corrected. The average temperature rose 0.1C, we have a crisis; they grew grapes in England in the 1220’s because it was warmer; blab, blab, blab
What are you DOING to correct the problem? Are you walking to work?
Give me your money and I’ll solve it for you by buying carbon credits and we can all feel good about ourselves. The Great Society of the 60’s threw lots of money at a problem, is it fixed or is there still rioting in the streets?
The times they are a-changing.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t we had sevaral ice ages come and go? What happened to cause the ice to melt? The number of people on earth at the time would have had the same effect on the climate as a fart in a whirlwind! The weather on earth has been changing constantly for hundreds of thousands of years. It’s the nature of the beast. There’s precious little if anything we can do to change it. Sounds to me like it nothing more than natural cycles. And to all you hysterical warming freaks…….Mother Earth can take care of herself without any help from you money grubbing alarmists!!!
August 18th, 2007 at 11:15 am
All plants would die without CO2. They “breathe” CO2. CO2 is not the cuprit it is made out to be. It’s basic science. We would not want the Global Warming hoaxers to let facts get int their way, now would we?.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Some excerpts, some qustions.
“Yes, the globe is still warming at an alarming rate”. Is 1 degre per 120 years an alarming rate?
The ordinate axis is titled “Temperature Anomaly”. Are these graphs depicting anomalies only?
1880 old analysis, new analysis… No question here. It is an answer…
“…mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C, as shown in Figure 1 below (for years 2001 and later, and 5 year mean for 1999 and later).” Mean? Look at the graph, please, is it really depicting mean values? Is as much of 0.15°C really so much?
By the way, is the measurements precision kept one the same for 120 years?
August 18th, 2007 at 11:43 am
So has Hansen published his secret temperature adjustments yet? Why is he hiding what else he is doing to the temperature calculations?
August 18th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Regardless how much you try to cover the track of 15/100 of a degree to make it look like 1/1000 of a degree, the effect still remains that we are still cooler today than our grandparents were in 1934 (on average, of course). In view of that, we have to realize, even admit sheepishly, that the warming of the globe is of lesser magnitude than previously thought. There is no getting around that. If you continue to claim otherwise, you remind me of stubbon old lady who gets on the bathroom scale, sees that she has gained 3 pounds, but steadfastly states that she is certain that she lost 1/2 pound.
Please, lets have some truth in the presentation of the science! I am extremely irritated by the continuing efforts of the climate zealots to enhance their positions with scraps of detail and to squash any evidence which refutes it. And if they cannot squash the contradictions, it has become common practice to perform character assassinations on whoever presents the oppositing facts.
While global warming is a real phenomenon–NO HOAX about that–it is very tenuous to base this activity upon the actions of humans. While the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere rise in linear fashion through the years and decades, the temperature data during this timeframe is anything but linear. This divergent trend further decouples the relationship between airborne carbon dioxide and temperature increase. Sure, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is an established fact. However, there is so much more going on in the planetary environment to influence climate behavior that the slowly increasing presese of a vital, inert gas.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I’ve seen a lot of really silly arguments against global-warming, but this one takes the cake.
# Purnell Meagre Says:
August 18th, 2007 at 8:23 am
I suggest readers take a look at the web-site amoreconvenienttruth.com to get the real story. ANy idiot knows ice contracts not expands when it melts. THis means global warning will actually increase land mass; thus providing more arable acreage.
This is so bad that it’s hard to imagine anyone saying this seriously. (Or it could be a parody — it’s so hard to tell these days….)
August 18th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I agree fully with the assessment that Purnell Meagre’s statement about more aerable acreage can be expect through global warming due to shrinking of water as it thaws from its frozen state.
Water, when frozen, takes up more volume that when it is is liquid, by about 9-11 percent, depending upon the degree of compression when located within a glacier. It is the glaciers at altitude (above sea level) that contribute to sea level change as they advance and retreat. I believe that Purnell is working strictly from the assumption that all glacial melt comes from sea ice, which is clearly untrue and this assertion distorts the topic at hand.
Some people have such a weak grasp of the issues and science about climate change that often times their arguments to advance their side of the issue just makes the discussion seem silly. While Purnell and I might agree that global warming is not a cause for alarm or worldwide countacting measures, we are far from allied in our position about the forces which drive climate.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Joe said:
“Does quoting ten-year-old studies that have long been debunked make you a “Denyer”? Not in my book. But if you were to persist in ignoring the most credible up-to-date research in an effort to confuse the issue, that would, at least to me.”
See, that just the sort of abuse I was talking about. I’m not making an “effort to confuse the issue”. Characterizing my comments that way leads me to distrust your analytical abilities, and casts doubt on everything you’ve said.
Also, if I’m quoting something that’s been debunked, by all means, please, point me at the debunking. Don’t just assert that something has been debunked. Demonstrate it. Claiming something has been debunked without providing a reference is itself bunk.
We’re relying a great deal on Stevenson screens, but these have changed significantly over time. Many of them have been removed from service or poorly maintained, and we no longer use whitewash to paint them so they still look white, but they are now absorbing IR instead of reflecting it.
I have some doubts about the surface record, because it appears to be based on questionable data collected from a non-uniform network of inconsistently maintained Stevenson screens, many of which are subject to:
urban heat island effect,
point of measurement errors,
station degradation and closures.
I’m really not trying confuse the issue. I’m just saying I’d like to see better data.
August 18th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
“Alarmist: Alert:
Hurricane Dean defines the season
In the US, Louisiana has declared a state of emergency, though the chances of the storm hitting are slim.
Governor Kathleen Blanco took the decision amid heightened sensitivity to hurricanes since Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005.
August 18th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
…how–given that no GW “deniers” deny the “greenhouse” property of CO2–can the Globe….NOT Warm?
The question is HOW MUCH ? Not “is there GW or isn’t there”, (Gotcha ! there is!), no, but HOW MUCH.
It’s well possible that the man-made GW is a negligible quantity among the general, natural climate variations.
The big question is: is there or isn’t there a feedback cycle that causes GW to intensify relentlessly until it reaches catastrophic dimensions. On this question - any answer is a guess, not based on any science.
August 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
ok - we only have about 100 years of ACTUAL recorded numbers - the rest is all historical account and what we “think” may have happened based on tests and such ( I do not worship at the alter of science and figure while it is more accurate than a guess - it is only as perfect as the scientists themselves - and they are not perfect) HOW DO WE KNOW CURRENT EVENTS ARE NOT PART OF A LARGER NATURAL CYCLE? We have had mini ice ages and periods of warming based on historic accounts.
My point is this - the “hysteria” is that everyone that drives a car and lives in the US is somehow “evil” and a “major contributor” to global warming - Have any of you ONCE bothered to look at the huge choking brown cloud floating over CHina ? Several of their cities are the MOST polluted in the entire world - Why is no one going after them to stop depending on fossil fuels and to clean up their air quality ? They are 1 BILLION+ to out 300 M.
That being said - bottled water should be banned and everyone should do what they can to conserve - but I am not freaking out and buying a hybrid car and going without electric lights b/c you whackos are worshipping an agenda that will make the rich richer and the rest of us walking to work and cleaning house by candlight or poisonous CFL’s
August 18th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
This summer there have been massive forest fires in the Northwest..sending over a million tons of CO2 into space. The news managers seem to want to keep this issue very quiet–is it because this shows that nature is capable of changing the carbon balance without any help from humankind? As millions of carbon sinks (trees) are destroyed what will happen to the carbon that was once metabolized by these trees? Events like this have happened throughout our planets history from high volcanic activity to the continental glaciers but the “tipping point” never occurs—humans weren’t even around for most of these eras so quit assuming we can “fix” everything. I’m a biology major with several credits in chemistry, geology, and botany so don’t tell me I’m “not a scientist.”
If global warming hadn’t occurred, half of the US would be under a glacier–I just don’t think we can claim any credit for the changes..
August 19th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Read Joe’s book, it has all the answers.
August 19th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Most people are looking at those graphs by GISS or Hadley, and think they reflect global temperature. As physicists know, there is not such thing. It is only a statistician’s way of looking at the real world. Then they transfer values from thermometers placed in wrong places, maintained by the wrong people, whose results are highly questionable, as the ow classic cases of forged low temperatures in Siberia (during the Soviet era, pre-Glassnot), to get fuel subsidies for the coldest cities.
Many more examples of wrong data are found all over the world, but these values are input into their computer models. A virtual world emerges from there; I would say a parody of the real one. And then politicos swallow the part of the hook they like and make policies people will have to suffer. Politicos believe scientists can provide them with all the answers they need, and the worst part of it is that most scientists really believe they can give those answers on things that are completely out of our knowledge!
Perhaps a small adjustment means little when it is in company of such big amount of flawed data in temperature records, so the only thing left is look out through the window and see what’s going out there. And one thing that’s going on in the Southern Hemisphere is a strong cooling, notwithstanding the increase in CO2. And this cooling is being observed not only in local, unaltered records (prior to their sending to GISS where they get properly massaged), is that the natural 20th century warming has stopped there since long ago, and in the last three years we observe a pronounced cooling effect.
What is most noticeable is the increase in cold Polar fronts, not only in frequency but on their intensity, that has given the last three coolest summers since 2000, and this year of 2007 has brought us back snowfalls that weren’t seen since 1918, and the lowest temperatures recorded in many cities since records began back in the late 1880. And the cooling does not hit only the Southern part of South America, but it reaches up to Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay and Brazil, well beyond the tropic of Capricorn. And the phenomenon extends to South Africa, Australia and Ne