Global Warming

[STEVE IN SO CAL]

Yada yada yada....all those who WALKED to see Algores movie please raise your hands...that's what I thought.

Perhaps if we could harness the energy from all the hand wringing, we could substantaly reduces the burning of fossil fuels  ::

[bgl]

Well, I DID walk, but I didn't see the movie. Seemed to be counterproductive. Showing the movie obviously requires a fair amount of energy, each and every time, so anyone who went to see it is obviously part of the problem and not the solution

[elHoagie]

(STEVE IN SO CAL @ Jul. 19 2006,19:43)

QUOTE

Yada yada yada....all those who WALKED to see Algores movie please raise your hands...that's what I thought.

I didn't walk, I rode in a car with one other person.  I DO ride the bus to work every day and try my best to conserve...

[steve 9atx]

Jack

Let me start this post the way I did the last one by saying that this is not my field of expertise.  However, please indulge a few comments/questions.  These are meant in deference to and with all respect due a scientist in this field.  The furthest I got with statistics relative to the natural sciences was to be terminally confused as to the difference between the "t" and "chi squared" tests.

1.) I really shouldn't have put the second link in.  This is an "executive summary" (possibly with some political axe-grinding involved) from a member of the US House of Representatives.  I only did it to bait folks to really dig in to the third link, or, for those who wanted a quick summary without having to read the statistical analysis.

2.) Despite your reaction and the amount of verbiage devoted to the peer review critique, I read this as only a secondary conclusion of the Statistician-authors of the analysis.

I do, however, believe from my reading of the analysis that these Statisticians (one from my dear old alma mater, Rice University) are directly attributing percieved results and published conclusions to groups of scientists/researchers reading and "influencing" each other with traceable data trails to prove up the links.  They point out that bits of faulty evidence when referenced from one individual or group to another and then incorporated into the complex mathematical models of a third party lead to spurious results.  A posteriori analysis of these conclusions and their respective trails of eveidence are nothing more unique than the deductive logic behind the scientific method itself or our legal system for that matter; the way an epidemiologist finds "Typhoid Mary" after the fact.

So, in a nutshell, you're right.  They are accusing these particular scientists of poor peer review.

3.) Here's the main point, however, I take from the Wegman report: Mann bases his conclusions on statistical analysis.  The academic Statisticians whose business it is to be full-time Statisticians say that his input data are faulty and his statistical methods are faulty and/or manipulated to such an extent that his conslusions (please pardon a Texan's language) are demonstrably bullshit.  Mann's conclusion that the 90's were the warmest decade in the last milennium with '98 as the warmest year remains statistically unsubstantiated at best, and relative to the properly-documented Medieval Warm Period are, once again, most likely nonsense.

I can deal with this paticular nonsense with just two exceptions:

1.) First, ask yourself how many global warming posts, on this board or others or even your everyday GW conversations, start with "I believe".  (I know I'm going to get jumped-on for this.)

Now, I'm all over belief; my particular faith keeps me going.  But, this global warming thing has become a critically-unquestioned religious tenet.  For God's sake, let's be critical, maybe even scientific (!), so we can find a few real solutions to environmental issues if this is indeed one of the first we should be dealing with.

2.) Belief in itself is no more dangerous to me than the odd Jehova's Witness showing up at my door.  However, the danger is that whole governmental policies are being based on this bullshit "hockey stick" climate chart:  for example, Russia is stoking it's mid-20th century industries while collecting 8.6+ billion annually from the EU in Kyoto credits for the supposed CO2 uptake of it's Siberian forests.  Why isn't the EU spending the billions to repay Russia to rebuild it's belching factories?  Why isn't the EU collecting from Russia due to the clouds over the massive Asian continent?  H2O, you know, is the real greenhouse gas.

This is where I start getting ticked off.......  I'll leave it right there for folks much smarter than me to figure out just now, but not for pontification by "believers" only.  One should not pooh pooh the Wegman report simply because it doesn't comport with one's "belief" system.

Steve

[elHoagie]

(steve 9atx @ Jul. 20 2006,01:09)

QUOTE

So, in a nutshell, you're right.  They are accusing these particular scientists of poor peer review.

Steve,

I'm no expert in climatology either.  I've always been interested, and I've learned quite a bit about it, but there's a lot I don't know.  I still don't understand what the justification of climatologist engaging in corrupt peer reviews is.  In any field of research you build upon the findings of those who came before you.  In most cases the researchers who came before did a good job, but there will always be some mistakes.  Still, if you don't base your work on what has come before, how will the field ever move forward?

Here's what I understand about the predictions of climate models.  To start, portions of the models are unstable.  This means that a small change in the input parameters will lead to a BIG change in the results.  For example, decreased snow cover leads to warmer temperatures, which decreases snow cover even more, which leads to warmer temperatures, etc.  It would be great if the physical system was more "well behaved", but it's not.  

This doesn't mean scientists shouldn't make any predictions.  What happens in the end is that one realization of a given model says the mean temperature will increase by X in 100 years.  Another realization of the model with slightly different inputs predicts an increase of Y in 100 years.  A different model from a different group of scientist predicts and increase of Z in 100 years.  Since these models are so complicated, and have some unstable parameters, X, Y, and Z might be very different form each other.  For example, X might be -2C (global cooling), Y might be 1C, and Z might be 5C.  Any of these outcomes in possible, and it wouldn't be that surprising if global temperatures fall in the next 100 years.  BUT, on average, the models predict an increase of about 3.5C, so it's much more likely the temperature will increase, and by a large amount.

This is why it's so easy to find a prediction that the average temperature of the Earth won't continue to rise, or will even decrease.  There are plenty of physically reasonable models that predict this.  That doesn't mean it's likely for the average temperature of the Earth to decrease...

Jack

[alex_7b]

"I believe that global warming is a result of a more damaging occurence, desertification, not the cause of it."

I always wonder, while viewing the deforestation and development of Florida; What is the effect on weather? I've read that the draining of swamps for developments caused changes over the last 100 years.

[BigWaveDave]

I've heard that the earth's magnetic field is weakening (or shifting?) so it is not blocking solar rays like it use to, thus the earth starts to warm.  Also I've heard that the sun is getting hotter, this leads to increased temperatures on earth.  Can anyone elaborate on those points?

with regards to desertification:  What about all the new planting that goes on in urban areas in the middle of deserts?  LV, Southern California?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that most of the earths CO2 is converted to O2 by organisms that use photosynthesis in the ocean?

David

[STEVE IN SO CAL]

(elHoagie @ Jul. 20 2006,12:57)

QUOTE

(steve 9atx @ Jul. 20 2006,01:09)

QUOTE

So, in a nutshell, you're right.  They are accusing these particular scientists of poor peer review.

Steve,

I'm no expert in climatology either.  I've always been interested, and I've learned quite a bit about it, but there's a lot I don't know.  I still don't understand what the justification of climatologist engaging in corrupt peer reviews is.  In any field of research you build upon the findings of those who came before you.  In most cases the researchers who came before did a good job, but there will always be some mistakes.  Still, if you don't base your work on what has come before, how will the field ever move forward?

Here's what I understand about the predictions of climate models.  To start, portions of the models are unstable.  This means that a small change in the input parameters will lead to a BIG change in the results.  For example, decreased snow cover leads to warmer temperatures, which decreases snow cover even more, which leads to warmer temperatures, etc.  It would be great if the physical system was more "well behaved", but it's not.  

This doesn't mean scientists shouldn't make any predictions.  What happens in the end is that one realization of a given model says the mean temperature will increase by X in 100 years.  Another realization of the model with slightly different inputs predicts an increase of Y in 100 years.  A different model from a different group of scientist predicts and increase of Z in 100 years.  Since these models are so complicated, and have some unstable parameters, X, Y, and Z might be very different form each other.  For example, X might be -2C (global cooling), Y might be 1C, and Z might be 5C.  Any of these outcomes in possible, and it wouldn't be that surprising if global temperatures fall in the next 100 years.  BUT, on average, the models predict an increase of about 3.5C, so it's much more likely the temperature will increase, and by a large amount.

This is why it's so easy to find a prediction that the average temperature of the Earth won't continue to rise, or will even decrease.  There are plenty of physically reasonable models that predict this.  That doesn't mean it's likely for the average temperature of the Earth to decrease...

Jack

Oh...now I get it !

The tests are "somewhat" flawed, but that shouldn't keep scientists from making predictions.

C'mon Jack....lets face it, you're a 100% believer. But that's Ok...you riding the bus means that you take it serious, and I respect that...you walk the walk.

As for me, I'm a 90% believer in the opposite....our earth's climate has been schizo for all of time. Even since man has been recording temps, MOST record highs were recorded BEFORE SUV's and the industrial age.

10% of me says you may be right, but you haven't proven it....

Steve 9atx is right..for the "believers" it's a religion, and it's 100%...my way or the highway.

So lets summarize....based on my first paragraph, it sounds like a religion based on tatty science...no thanks, not for me.

Next time you're flying at 35,000 feet, have a look down and see how really insignificant we all are.

:cool: ...man it's HOT today

[elHoagie]

(STEVE IN SO CAL @ Jul. 25 2006,17:58)

QUOTE

Oh...now I get it !

The tests are "somewhat" flawed, but that shouldn't keep scientists from making predictions.

C'mon Jack....lets face it, you're a 100% believer.

Steve,

You're right, the models are flawed.  Just like the computer models used to predict stresses on bridges have flaws.  Still, engineers use these models to help design bridges because they're the best tool available.  Don't get me wrong, the models used to design bridges are much better than the models used to predict climate change, but both sets of models have flaws.

Probably 10% of the models suggest no global warming caused by humans, so I'd say I'm probably a 90% believer in global warming caused by humans.  My "belief" in global warming will continue to change based on what the most reliable models predict.

You're also correct that a lot of record high temperatures were recorded before SUV's.  This might due to increases in airborne pollutants caused by burning fossil fuels and forests, vapor trails from airplanes, etc.  These pollutants reflect sunlight, decreasing the amount of energy that reaches the surface of the earth, which decreases the high temperature for the day.  But, they also reflect radiation emitted by the earth, which will cause higher nighttime temperatures.  The end result is that the average temperature might be going up, but the average daily high temperature is going down.

Jack

[STEVE IN SO CAL]

Excellent...like my sigature line says...

[Stan]

The west coast is heating twice as fast as the rest of the country according to a studie in today's paper by a coaliton of farmers ,business and environmentalists. The west coast has increased on average 3 degrees, over the last century,another report put the increase at 5 degrees for the bay area in the last 40 years,and in a seperate story i read that since 1940 the L.A. area has warmed 7 degrees as a result of both G.W. and the urban island effect.

Funny, the heads in the sand have made it a religion and political litmus test to deny the weather!..even as they bake!-ha..

[STEVE IN SO CAL]

(Stan @ Jul. 26 2006,18:33)

QUOTE

The west coast is heating twice as fast as the rest of the country according to a studie in today's paper by a coaliton of farmers ,business and environmentalists. The west coast has increased on average 3 degrees, over the last century,another report put the increase at 5 degrees for the bay area in the last 40 years,and in a seperate story i read that since 1940 the L.A. area has warmed 7 degrees as a result of both G.W. and the urban island effect.

Funny, the heads in the sand have made it a religion and political litmus test to deny the weather!..even as they bake!-ha..

I make a good living solving problems. I don't have an Ivy League education, but have an ability for abstract thought. Enlighten me, Stan....how did all the other warming/cooling cycles occur without cars and the industrial revolution(and no Republicans for you to blame it on).

I promise I'll pull my head out long enough to hear your thoughts. Please don't qoute this study or that study...this is mano a mano. Think and speak for yourself....

[Stan]

Like a religion Steve ,your denial of G.W. is based on faith!..no matter how much proof-even your skyrocketing PGE bill,you will not say there is global warming.You are not using abstract reasoning -that's just sticking to conservative dogma.

Admit it,no proof is enough proof to you...

oh,and the only other climatological changes as great as we have seen in our lifetimes usualy occured when asteroids or volcanic eruptions ripped into or out of the Earth. I don't recall any of those happening in the last 30 years in Hayward.

[STEVE IN SO CAL]

Stan..I live in an adobe house, with no A/C or heat. I was, thanx to Dubyas tax cuts, able to put in highly efficient dual pane windows last year. Oddly enough, I probably use less energy than you.

I absolutely. 100% believe that the earth is warming. You just haven't convinced me that it's my fault. One study that I saw (which, I admit may also be flawed) stated that one medium sized volcanic eruption spews as much florocarbons and greenhouse gasses as man could produce in 500 years.

In other words, the "my scientist can beat up your scientist" argument continues...

I accept my insignifigence on this planet. The human race is nothing but a pimple on this worlds arse.

Anyway, MUCH TOO HOT to argue about global warming. Think I'll go for a swim in the pool  :cool:

[Neofolis]

I agree that as individuals we are insignificant, but there are so many humans that even minor action individually could have a major combined effect.

Things that are definitely fact.  We (the human race) are adding co­­² to the atmosphere.  We are creating heat islands.  The global mean temperature is rising.  We are involved in large scale deforestation.  The list could probably go on for a while and, whether we agree or not that any of these things are linked, they are rather unlikely to be beneficial.

[steve 9atx]

Stan

30 or 40 years may be a long time to you, but not to my dad!  When I was a kid, he used to tell me how all-fired hot it was in the late 20's and 30's in central Texas. Yea, right.  A week or two ago, I saw some obscene high temp in South Dakota, 118F+!  I thought, "wow, that has to be a record".  But sure enough, they didn't manage to break or even come close to tying the record because it was set in 1936.  (Cf: how many record temps in the lower 48 are from the 30's.)  The point of this anecdote is that a lifetime is an inappropriately short period of time with which to measure things that move at, pardon the pun, "glacial" speed.

Have you seen anything remotely like the dust bowl of the 30's?  Thank God, neither have I.

My point about Mann is that despite how a non-scientist like me reads the debunking of his conclusions, his nonsense about the 90's being the hottest decade of the millenium, '98 being the hottest year, etc. has been latched onto and will be written up in countless textbooks fed to school children for years to come by the practitioners of what I and others call "scientism" (i.e., those who practice a peculiar form of a 19th century religion fed afresh by a regular bottom feeding at the trough of junk science combined with waaaaaay to much NPR ).  These, scien... whoops, almost typed "scientologists", are more concerned with being "righteous" than right.

Here's an example of what happens when scientism becomes public policy:

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

If you are inclined to give the junk scientists the benefit of the doubt, read the last two paragraphs of the following as to motive:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202447,00.html

As far as I'm concerned, in the abovementioned example, the junk scientists and their bureaucrat buddies have the blood of millions on their hands.

Then of course, there's a professor at the University of Texas that says that we're all cockroaches, like the beetles he studies and that he'd, personally, start out by taking out 90% of us.........

Choose.

Steve

p.s. Neofolis.  Although I neglected to mention it above, the linear relationship of atmospheric CO2 and temperature (not explicit in Mann, but subsequently inferred by others) is also bullshit.  Cf: the Canada Free Press artlcle in my first post on this topic.

p.p.s. for those of you with an MSN home page today can read about the scientist who wants to fire sulpher into the atmosphere because he knows that atmospheric sulpher reflects solar radiation.  They state that one volcano in one year of eruptions had a global effect of lowering temperatures 1F in one year due to discharge of sulpher into the atmosphere.  And to think that current global warming theories are based on 2F over 100 years..........

[Cycadcenter]

Just remember that in 1975 - that's just 30 years ago there was a hugh concern about global COOLING.

[steve 9atx]

Twilight Zone.

Rod Serling was a genius.

Aficionados should look up "The Midnight Sun" broadcast

on 11-17-61.

Creepy.

Steve

[Kathy]

A few days ago in cool coastal Southern Monterey County, central California coastline, a temperature station recorded 120 degrees F (49C).  That's a Death Valley temperature in an area that's usually in the 60'sF in July-- nearly half that temperature.  Interesting hiccup.

Don't know whether it's natural or assisted by man's actions, or when we'll cool again later and by what cause, but we're warmer today, and in areas by a much greater average than 2 or 3 degrees F (1+ C).  Again, in my location, I'm 10 degrees F (about 5C)  warmer than 50 years ago on our winter lows  (haven't checked the highs over 50 years yet), rising decade by decade consistently.  And this year is a blip on the global climatic history radar (as is the last 50 years for that matter), but this blip is up according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:  "the first six months of 2006 were the hottest in the continental United States since recordkeeping began in 1895."

OK, guys, keep debating.....very entertainig and educating.

[Kathy]

World Climate History

[STEVE IN SO CAL]

According to Kathys chart, looks like a trend to the hot side of things is getting started. Looks pretty G## D### normal to me, too.

[Neofolis]

I think most people are agreed that the Earth is in a natural state of warming anyway, what's up for debate is whether human influence is accelerating that process and, if it is, how will that affect things.  Nature has been able to adapt to previous global climatic changes, but if the process is accelerated, will nature be able to adapt that much faster.  More importantly will accelerated warming have an exponential effect on warming causing it to continue beyond the normal cycles.  Worst case scenario, lifeless superheated planet.

Looking at Kathy's chart, I'm gutted that we are not nearer the 22°C Global Mean Temperature, my palm selection would be much more varied.

[STEVE IN SO CAL]

(Neofolis @ Jul. 28 2006,19:25)

QUOTE

I think most people are agreed that the Earth is in a natural state of warming anyway, what's up for debate is whether human influence is accelerating that process and, if it is, how will that affect things.  Nature has been able to adapt to previous global climatic changes, but if the process is accelerated, will nature be able to adapt that much faster.  More importantly will accelerated warming have an exponential effect on warming causing it to continue beyond the normal cycles.  Worst case scenario, lifeless superheated planet.

Looking at Kathy's chart, I'm gutted that we are not nearer the 22°C Global Mean Temperature, my palm selection would be much more varied.

Perhaps born a few centuries too soon?

[Stan]

Did anybody see 60 minutes?...the Bushheads are ruining this country -and the world.

[elHoagie]

(Stan @ Aug. 01 2006,17:36)

QUOTE

Did anybody see 60 minutes?...the Bushheads are ruining this country -and the world.

Ruining the world??  Just because they censor/ignore the findings of scientists to forward their agenda....

How do you think the Catholic church dealt with Galileo, Copernicus, and many other scientists?  And they've been pretty succesful!!

[Neofolis]

(STEVE IN SO CAL @ Jul. 29 2006,05:26)

QUOTE

Perhaps born a few centuries too soon?

Going by the normal rate of change, probably a few hundred centuries too soon, but I'm sure cold hardy Cocos nucifera would be available well before then.

[STEVE IN SO CAL]

(Stan @ Aug. 01 2006,17:36)

QUOTE

Did anybody see 60 minutes?...the Bushheads are ruining this country -and the world.

Excellent idea...lets have 60 minutes set govt policy. Dan Blather can gather info from whackos and preach it as gospel. It IS 60 minutes after all...they don't have an agenda like those neocons.

Heard a college professor on the radio yesterday rant about how Dubya knew about 911 before and approved it, his brothers were in charge of security at the WTC and helped make sure as many people died as was possible, and that the CIA set charges to bring down the buildings. Oh...almost forgot...Jeb Bush covertly raided all the offices at the airfields where the terrorist took flying lessons to steal the records, hiding any govt involvement. Jeb Bush took off from his job as Gov of Fl to do this...couldn't delegate...had to do it himself.

Moral: Just because someone is in a place of authority(college prof) doesn't make them untouchable when it comes to credibility.

Like I said, my neocon scientist can beat up your lefty scientist...just depends what religion you live.

BTW...Kathys chart is eye opening. Stan? Any rebuttal?

[Stan]

As yee seek the truth Steve,....First ,your abstract brain is not comprehending the scale of time that Kathy's chart spans.What i see is that we have not had such a great warmup since the end of the Jurrassic period 65 million years ago. The end of the ice age took 100,000-1,000,000 years.In less than one century we have almost equaled that.

And your flat Earth scientist don't equal my round Earth scientist.

[ericstevens73]

According to the chart we are still in an Ice Age???  Or barely out of one???  Hmmmm?  Makes since to me that all things in nature take on heat unless acted on to remove heat.  Whatever, who am I on this subject.  I'm just driving less because gas is so freaking expensive.  It's my pocketbook I'm worried about.  so if that's the way environmentalists are going to get the air cleaner, by driving up the cost of oil, well it's working!

Eric

[Stan]

Eric,it is not Greenpeace or Earth first! that is reporting record profits in the BILLIONS per quarter.

[Stan]

Enron to Mobil,none are environmental groups.

[Stan]

Go see the Al Gore movie or the new one called "Whatever happened to the electric car?"

and for the Castro bashers.."Motorcycle diaries"

[STEVE IN SO CAL]

(Stan @ Aug. 02 2006,11:20)

QUOTE

As yee seek the truth Steve,....First ,your abstract brain is not comprehending the scale of time that Kathy's chart spans.What i see is that we have not had such a great warmup since the end of the Jurrassic period 65 million years ago. The end of the ice age took 100,000-1,000,000 years.In less than one century we have almost equaled that.

And your flat Earth scientist don't equal my round Earth scientist.

Huh????

Oh...and don't go screaming for help from me when your boat falls off the end of this world...YOU WERE WARNED!!!  

[Stan]

I've seen B.P. gas stations but never a G.P. (greenpeace) gas station-ha.

[JakeK]

Please don't bring up the profits of oil companies if you are just going to imply it isn't fair for them to make billions.

Doing a bit of research will allow people to realize that the companies recording profits that high only have profit margins around 9% meaning they spend a shitload to make a penny on the dollar. (compare that to say the banking industry or the bio-tech/pharmaceutical industry).

Gasoline also has one of the lowest price changes of any consumer service or good since the early 80's in the United States.

The FTC just finished a massive investigation on so-called "price gouging" after Katrina and found no evidence to support price manipulation. In fact out of the 30 investigations over the past 20 years there has been no evidence at all to conclude oil companies price gouge.

I would be more pissed at banks charging you fees just so you have the pleasure of being one of their customers.

Frankly, oil company profits have nothing to do with global warming. You want to fix that, quit using plastics, quit driving, quit eating organic foods, and start eat feedlot raised meat and genetically engineered vegetables, fruit and grains, and start driving cars that run on happy thoughts, etc.

No matter if you see global warming as a good thing or a bad thing, that isn't going to stop it from occurring. I am willing to go out and say that if we all stopped doing what we believe is causing the Earth to warm at a greater rate than what it should be (it's the rate of warming not the warming itself that is the concern in the science community) it still would take decades maybe even centuries for a reverse of the damage to begin to show.

[Steve]

Very interesting topic.  Thanks for the good reading all.  I just wanted to mention that the Discovery Channel is currently airing called "Global Warming:  What You Need to Know".  It's hosted by Tom Brokaw.  I found it to be very informative.  They touched on many of the issues that were discussed in this thread.  I checked the listings, and it's not on again until August 21 at noon on the east coast.  I'd say it's one worth taping.

[Stan]

Defending oil companies because they are not AS corrupt as banks and pharmaceuticals?

How about we jail all of 'em?..open the books and then lets see what happens.

[Steve]

By the way, I'm a bit of a fence rider on this issue.  I think it's best to keep your ears open to all that is said, and make sure you understand the background and interests of those saying it.  I would guess that those who are the most passionate believers of significant human caused global warming overstate our influence on the warming trends a bit.  And those who don't believe we are having a significant effect understate the influence of our emmissions.

In my opinion the most important thing to remember is that pollution is not good, so we should try to reduce it as much as possible without significantly hindering the worlds economy.  We need to put singificant research into finding ways to reduce pollution emmissions through technology while making every effort to maintain the comfortable, convenient lifestyle to which we've become accustom.  The population of the world is growing exponentially.  There were only about 1 billion people in the world in 1800.  There's over 6 billion now.  Having more people on the planet will make more waste of every kind.  Developing countries like China and India are becoming more industrialized.  So they are going to create ever increasing amounts of pollutants.

[Stan]

Your right. And another near criminal act by the Bushers is that they do nothing to pressure foreign countrys to cut emissions. They don't care about clean air or water in THIS country.

Did you know Steve,that two years ago i read that the LAST stream/river in this country that had safe surface drinking water(untreated) was no longer safe?..some stream in Wyoming or Montana that you could not find bacteria in dangerous amounts was no longer safe from the cattle or people or just plain modern society-i dont remember what the exact reason.

[Neofolis]

(Stan @ Aug. 03 2006,17:11)

QUOTE

Your right. And another near criminal act by the Bushers is that they do nothing to pressure foreign countrys to cut emissions.

Many of the other countries are already doing something.  It's the US that didn't sign the Kyoto Agreement remember.