A MUST SEE! Global Warming Swindle! by CrevanReaver

Hmm. I'd most often encountered reporting error in my works. I have done propagations of error, but I find myself unfamiliar with using standard deviation as a measurement of error. I've more often used standard deviation as a means of analysis.

In that case, I'm not sure that propagated error is given. All I know is that they're reporting numbers to 0.001 Celsius, which I took to be their statement of error.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 6:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Yes. Note where they say: "sources: GHCN 1880-05/2009 (meteorological stations only), using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment."

Not exactly unadjusted, is it? These numbers are all outputs of computer modeling (or as I like to call it, Sim Climate). They put in known measurements from weather stations, take out numbers they don't like, adjust the rest for "homogeneity," extrapolate into areas in which they have no measurements, and come up with an "average."

Quote:
the error is implicit at +/- 0.001 degrees Celsius.

I couldn't find this, nor how they came up with this "error." It looks like the kind of error that comes from averaging averages of averages of averages, not the kind of error that comes from raw, unadjusted measurement data. See my previous post on propagation of error.

Quote:
the temperatures can be converted back to their original, unadjusted measured temperature by adding the subtracted temperature, 14C.

See first paragraph.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
In that case, I'm not sure that propagated error is given. All I know is that they're reporting numbers to 0.001 Celsius, which I took to be their statement of error.

I see. I am not looking for accuracy, the kind that comes from interpreting significant figures. I am looking for the standard deviation of the raw temperature data, as a mean of analyzing and interpreting the significance of a 0.6 deg C change in the averages of averages of averages over a hundred years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 6:36 PM

In statistics, don't you normally remove outliers? I took it to mean numbers outside of two standard deviations.

Anyway, you asked for the numbers, I provided. Up to you, as ever, whether those numbers are convincing or not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 6:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's getting warmer. Is that too simple?

it depends on your purpose. If you are talking about politics or religion, simple is just fine. If you are talking about science, you need to be much, much more precise.

How much is it getting warmer, and is that extra warmth just random chance fluctuation or is it a significant change? Is it getting warmer in all areas or only most areas or only certain areas of the globe? Are these warmer areas representative of the entire planet, not just laterally on the surface, but vertically in the atmosphere? Are there any areas that are cooling? Are the methods for calculating warmth valid and accurate and reliable, or do they tend to be biased one way or another?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 6:49 PM

Also, the main page of the links explains the adjustments made.

Quote:
The GHCN/USHCN/SCAR data are modified in two steps to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed. In step 1, if there are multiple records at a given location, these are combined into one record; in step 2, the urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.

The urban areas, they say, are averaged with nearby rural areas because monitoring stations in urban areas tend to have consistently higher temperatures.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 6:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
In statistics, don't you normally remove outliers? I took it to mean numbers outside of two standard deviations.

There is no right or wrong answer here. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Removing outliers reduces variance, and increases the significance of small changes that otherwise would not be significant. It also unskews data if the outliers are very rare. Either way, it constitutes an "adjustment." That is the beauty and peril of statistics. You can adjust it to say whatever you want it to say.

Quote:
Anyway, you asked for the numbers, I provided. Up to you, as ever, whether those numbers are convincing or not.

Yes, you did good research. I've actually seen these numbers before, but none of them provides a standard deviation by which the mean can be interpreted in context.

When I asked you for them, I meant to make a point. Absolute SATs don't exist, the SDs don't exist. The numbers you provided were not what I asked for, and you will never find them, because they don't exist.

What would convince me is if I see absolute SATs that have NOT been adjusted or calculated with computer modeling (raw weather station averages), with an honest-to-goodness propagation of error that reflects the humoungous range of the earth's temperatures, showing a statistically significant change from year to year.

Anything short of that is religioin, entertainment, and speculation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 7:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Also, the main page of the links explains the adjustments made.

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I appreciate the fact that the numbers on these charts are relatively untainted. :)

You know, I don't understand why they don't use the absolute temperatures in comparison. Why don't they just say, in 1881, the Jan to Dec Annual mean was 13.89 degrees celcius, with an SD of X (propagating the error from the monthly and daily averages); in 2008, the Jan to Dec Annual Mean was 14.55 degrees celcius, with an SD of X. Why do they make you compare everything to that darned artificial climatology? It just makes them look like they are trying to manipulate data to inflate significance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 7:28 PM

Well, I can't blame you for being skeptical.

But I can't exactly say that I think that those managing the temperature databases are intentionally hiding their standard deviations for their number sets or the raw data, nor that they are using the data to try to achieve a predetermined result.

I take them at face value when they describe how they have adjusted the data; I have no evidence to suppose that they are hiding some of their adjusting factors.

If there is a problem with the models, then it may very well be the issue of propagated error. But I also have no evidence to suppose they are perpetrating fraud. Motive, say, for government grants for research is something that might throw suspicion upon them, but is not directly condemning.

I find four different databases, three national and one in the UK, producing four very similar looking trends in temperature data very convincing that there is a statistically significant global average temperature difference from the 1880s, especially considering that they're using different methods of statistical selection, averaging, and analysis.

However, I do think there may be a substantial amount of fear-mongering and sensationalization in the alarm-blowers in regards to global warming, and that a lot of that must be taken with a grain of salt. I also think that the climate change models are far from perfect. I do not think we're really going to be able to predict how climate will change.

I only think that there has been some global warming, that human activity is the common factor for the otherwise inexplicable warming, and that I think that this will cause some climate change, which we've possibly begun already to feel the effects of. By which I mean, the documented glacial melt, which we can measure unambiguously.

I also think more intense storms may be the result of warmer temperatures, and we may have experienced some of these storms, but this will be difficult to measure empirically. Similarly, I think the droughts in Africa may be exacerbated by the effects of global warming and climate change, but again, that's hard to measure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 7:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I have no evidence to suppose that they are hiding some of their adjusting factors.

I have no evidence that they are hiding anything. But adjusting factors when you can present straight data without adjusting is bad science. Bad science gives the appearance of manipulation for predetermined results, whether or not it is true.

Quote:
...four very similar looking trends in temperature data very convincing that there is a statistically significant global average temperature difference from the 1880s, ...

I don't disagree about the trends. I disagree about the statistically significance. Until they submit SD data, which they can't because they never calculated a straight average, I have no basis to conclude that 13.89 to 14.55 is statistically significant, when earth's temperatures range from -89 deg C to 57 deg C. Statistical significance in context of this enormous temperature variance is simply not reasonable or intuitive.

They will say, we're not concerned about temperatures. We are concerned about climate, which has no variance. My response is this: climate has no variance because you are throwing it all away, and then treating climate like it's raw data. That is bad science at best, and disingenuous at worst.

Either way, it is not scientific enough to declare as fact or truth, which everyone likes to do.

As an aside, personally, I believe global surface warming exists and is very likely anthropogenic (though not CO2, but population growth, thermal energy waste, and radiation waste). I just have no proof of it. It is entirely speculation on my part, just like it is on their part. It's all science fiction, emphasis on the fiction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 8:13 PM

Quote:
I don't disagree about the trends. I disagree about the statistically significance. Until they submit SD data, which they can't because they never calculated a straight average, I have no basis to conclude that 13.89 to 14.55 is statistically significant, when earth's temperatures range from -89 deg C to 57 deg C. Statistical significance in context of this enormous temperature variance is simply not reasonable or intuitive.

True enough. I wonder if I could e-mail them? It would most likely be ignored, but maybe they might include information on standard deviation and propagation of error if I asked nicely.

Quote:
They will say, we're not concerned about temperatures. We are concerned about climate, which has no variance. My response is this: climate has no variance because you are throwing it all away, and then treating climate like it's raw data. That is bad science at best, and disingenuous at worst.

I'm concerned about temperatures, because I think they might drive climate. However, (I think this is what you're saying, so please correct me if I'm wrong) I do think that climate can vary from their models, and I don't think we can predict it. And I also don't think climate itself can be treated like a variable all of it's own, and stuck into a complicated equation to spit out a description of how it will change.

Well... I should get to bed. About midnight where I'm at, and the past couple of nights I've been getting to bed at one and getting up early (for a weekend) which could screw up my sleep schedule.

I'll check back in tomorrow. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
... I do think that climate can vary from their models, and I don't think we can predict it. And I also don't think climate itself can be treated like a variable all of it's own, and stuck into a complicated equation to spit out a description of how it will change.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Computer models are not good for scientific predictions or conclusions. Reality is way too complicated for that.

--------------------------
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
--Nikola Tesla

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 27, 2009 9:35 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The key word is "scientist." A scientist approaches conclusions based on data. He's seen none, despite many GW seminars he is required to attend.

And your husband is the only scientist around?

Quote:
Computer models are not good for scientific predictions or conclusions. Reality is way too complicated for that.

So any model... say, about the earth's gravitation... is too complicated? Models are no good? Can't get to the moon because computer models are too unreliable?

-----------------
The biggest problem with the whole "sun is the driver of climate changes" is that we have been (for quite some time) in a significant solar minimum. The insolation (amount of light hitting the earth) has decreased by about 25%.
www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1193&page=85
And we ARE in a sunspot lull, and have been since roughly the beginning of 2005.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt
So clearly someone needs to go back and look at their theories.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 28, 2009 3:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And your husband is the only scientist around?

To reiterate (since you may not have read all of my posts), my point was scientists disagree on GW; there is no consensus and there are "experts" on both sides of the debate. As an example, no scientist we personally know, including all the ones at my hub's DOE lab, subscribe to the notion that there is scientific data supporting GW. My "scientist" comment, in context of the long conversation between Bytemite and myself, was that my hub disagrees not because of differences in energy priorities but on scientific grounds.

Quote:
So any model... say, about the earth's gravitation... is too complicated? Models are no good?

No, computer models are used all the time, particularly in engineering. In fact, my hub uses computer modeling himself extensively in his work.

I apologize my statement was poorly worded. Let me clarify. Computer models (aka numerical simulations) are basically speculation, and speculation is used in science all the time, to generate hypotheses and to explain observations. But the cardinal requirement of science is experimentation. When numerical simulations / speculation are used to supplement and complement experimentation, they are very useful.

When numerical simulation / speculation is the main source of predictions, to substitute for experimentation--well, no science is being done. Speculation, no matter how educated and intelligent, isn't sufficient to stand in for actual scientific experimentation. Because speculation itself is not scientific.

--------------------------
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
--Nikola Tesla

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:19 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
When numerical simulation / speculation is the main source of predictions, to substitute for experimentation--well, no science is being done. Speculation, no matter how educated and intelligent, isn't sufficient to stand in for actual scientific experimentation. Because speculation itself is not scientific.

But since climate cannot be experimented on (at least not in any controllable way) then the ONLY way to understand the phenomenon is thru modeling.

You model a process. It predicts certain events. You check the model against the actuality, then figure out where you think it went wrong, tweak it, and check it again. Ideally, your model comes closer and closer to reality as it begins to account for more and more processes and interactions. So understanding complex phenomenon which cannot be reduced to lab-scale experiments, like regional air pollution, climate, cosmology, ecology etc. often depends on models.

I also reiterate that the sun has been in a distinct LULL for the past several years, as observed both by sunspots and insolation. There is some speculation that we're entering a Maunder minimum (that idea is also based on a model since we obviously cannot experiment with the sun). There is also speculation in the opposite direction: that this minimum is only temporary, and that we'll soon experience a solar event the like of which the modern world has not yet seen. (Imagine half of the world's power lines acting like big antennae and sending a frying surge through all of our transformers and big industrial motors. Imagine half of our communication, weather, and positioning satellites knocked out in one fell swoop. But that's another story!)

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 28, 2009 9:37 PM

BADKARMA00

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I said it years ago; it's a natural trend being hurried somewhat by man. That's all. And if all the man-made pollution stopped cold tomorrow, it'd still happen.
My point is: it's REAL, and we can't deny it IS happening. But anyone who wants to debate the cause(s), feel free.

Pollution should be addressed just for it's toxic effect on us, if for no other reason.

The laughing Chrisisall

-------------------

Well put is all

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:15 PM

MAL4PREZ

I have my own doubts as to how global temperature measurements are made and calculated, and I certainly doubt that ~100 years of barely reliable thermometer data tell any kind of dependable story. Also, I've found climate modelers less than forthcoming as to the actual details of how they weigh their measurements and carry out their calculations. (Try emailing one yourself and asking for details. I'm a geophysicist, I've played in that field. It's messy.)

But here's where I finally found a few solid data-based ideas about climate change:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8014.html

Some of his later chapters are rather silly, but Ruddiman's description of ice core data, climate modeling, and the history of human agriculture are pretty convincing. A small sample: methane levels and solar radiation.

This is methane levels measured from Vostok ice cores plotted against incident solar radiation. See the correspondence? More sun on the northern land masses = more methane in the atmosphere = hotter ("hotter" is not an assumption, but is found from oxygen 18 isotope levels in the ice cores. I won't try explaining - read the book!)

Right now we're in the minimum of solar radiation on the far right of the graph. hmmm... but what's happening with the methane level in the last ~8,000 years? The last solar maximum brought to an end the most recent ice age 10,000 years ago, but the methane levels are doing something they've never done before.

So yes, the sun and our non-perfect orbit force earth's climate to change. But why the difference this time around?

Hint: ask yourself - where does methane come from, and what is new on the earth in the last 10,000 years? Ruddiman puts out a theory, along with similar arguments regarding CO2 levels.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 2:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Some of his later chapters are rather silly, but Ruddiman's description of ice core data, climate modeling, and the history of human agriculture are pretty convincing. A small sample: methane levels and solar radiation.

Interesting! Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

I have no time to read this book, to tell the truth. Not right now. Could you give us more than a hint? Maybe a synopsis of his observation and hypothesis?

Thanks.

--------------------------
Television is like a really, really good screen saver.
-- Bill Machrone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 3:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You model a process. It predicts certain events. You check the model against the actuality, then figure out where you think it went wrong, tweak it, and check it again. Ideally, your model comes closer and closer to reality as it begins to account for more and more processes and interactions.

I appreciate the limits reality puts on climate research. I really do.

But having limits doesn't grant you a free pass to call non-experimental research "science," and to claim the same amount of certainty in your findings as you would with experimental research.

If you're limited to fancy speculations, then limit your conclusions to the level of certainty that comes with fancy speculations. And don't, by any means, claim scientific consensus and an end to all debate based on said fancy speculations.

--------------------------
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
-- Michael Crichton, author, film and TV producer (1942-2008)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 3:35 AM

MALACHITE

Interesting discussion. Does this remind anyone else of evolution vs creation debates in some ways? Each side is claiming to interpret scientific data and punching holes in the others' use of data. I suppose that is the nature of scientific debates and discovery. Hopefully, years from now, the correct interpretation of data will become obvious to us (like darwinism vs lamarckism (sp?), or heliocentrism vs geocentrism).

I like Anthony's point about how regardless of where we stand on the issue, there are some positive steps we can take that likely everyone can agree with (eg, reduce pollution).

I also like how we are able to have controversial discussions these days without burning anyone at the stake or excommunicating them. (Though I suppose the new equivalent would be throwing someone out of the scientific community for having scientifically heretical interpretations of the data).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 5:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Hint: ask yourself - where does methane come from, and what is new on the earth in the last 10,000 years? Ruddiman puts out a theory, along with similar arguments regarding CO2 levels.

I think I'm familiar with this one, unless I'm mistaken. I've actually tried to explain on some other threads how according to the natural cycles we were supposed to have begun to enter an ice age ten thousand years ago, and why we haven't. But I couldn't remember the source...

I believe the suggestion was agriculture and irrigation techniques. Wheat evolved from a cross between two closely related plant species in the Fertile Crescent in about 10,000 BCE, and people in the region began to cultivate it shortly afterward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_agriculture

The cultivation of rice has also been put at about 10,000 BCE, initially from flooded swamps, which eventually grew into the practice of cultivating terraced rice paddies to accommodate terrain in 3000-2000 BCE. Rice cultivation produces a lot of methane, especially when the water rice is grown in is heated by sunlight in the summer months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice#History_of_domestication_.26_cultiva
tion

Raising livestock also has high levels of methane production associated with it.

Wheat agriculture spread through the middle East, and was widely used by 8500 BCE, when the process reached Greece. By 6000 BCE it had been adopted in India, and in 5000 BCE it had reached England. This, in combination with rice agriculture in Asia, constitutes a large area over which agricultural processes may have occurred. Even though settlements were smaller then they are now, there could have still been enough area devoted to farming and raising livestock to produce large enough quantities of methane to slow the onset of that ice age, and as agriculture spread, even to stabilize the climate.

It's a hypothesis, one I like because it does explain why the climate stabilized when it hadn't in past iterations of the cycle by looking at what element was missing in previous cycles. And there is some agricultural evidence that early civilizations did manage to cultivate extensively. Sumer is thought to have fallen because their farming practices eventually used up all the nutrients in the soils they were cultivating, plus with irrigation practices and evaporation led to a wide-spread salinity problem in Northern Iraq that exists to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer#Decline

But though I do like it, I admit it will probably be a difficult theory to prove or disprove. In any case, I would still comfortably say that global temperatures did stabilize in about 10,000 BCE due to methane levels. And that I think that they have since destabilized due to human activity around the time of the industrial revolution and increasingly after the 1950s.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 5:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I understand the limits of models. Nonetheless CTS, you have not addressed the point that we are in a solar MINIMUM, and neither has Crevanreaver, or anyone else who agrees with the video.

If I may remind you, the MAIN tenet of the video is that all of this warming is being driven by the sun. They claim to have decade-by-decade correlation between solar maxima and warming, linked indirectly through cosmic rays and cloudiness. I noticed that one of the graphs they show conveniently ends just before the current solar minimum, where the correlation falls apart.

Now, there are several possible response to this:
1) Global temperature measurement is unreliable (in which case the video's hypothesis may fall apart, based as it is on the premise that global warming is indeed taking place)
2) There is another solar factor which has not been taken into account. (The sun emits through the entire spectrum, and it's emissions frequencies may not always be tied together)
3) The current solar minimum hasn't been long enough to effect the weather.
4) Some other earth factor, such as the emissions of small particles which effect cloud formation, is changing warming dynamics.

Actually, given the complexity of the problem, I can think of a dozen more possibilities.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 7:17 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I have no time to read this book, to tell the truth. Not right now. Could you give us more than a hint? Maybe a synopsis of his observation and hypothesis?

Thanks.

--------------------------
Television is like a really, really good screen saver.
-- Bill Machrone

See Bytemite's post above. I will add that Ruddiman gets into calculating the amount of CH4 and CO2 that could have been put into the atmosphere during our recent (geologically speaking) period of agriculture. I think this is where his arguments get into some pretty serious hand-waving, but it is interesting to think about. I'm hoping to get some of my students into making these calculations for themselves. ie when you burn a tree and reduce it to ash, all that mass has to go somewhere. It goes into the air. So how many trees would it take to explain the rise in CO2 that we measure in the ice cores? And given the interaction of sunlight with CO2 molecules, how much heat energy does this released carbon trap?

Anyway, I have found that all the data used in this book is available online for free. I've used the orbital and ice core data in my classes. So you really can get to the root of what these scientists are doing, as opposed to those who use 100 years of thermometer data to make the "hockey stick" graph, but don't really explain where the numbers come from.

I don't have time to explain the book any more than that. I spent three classes lecturing on it last spring, and still didn't get to everything. But I wanted to put the title out there in the hopes that folks would try to look at some actual data, rather than relying on what "experts" tell them in politically motivated films.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 7:31 AM

MAL4PREZ

I really cannot resist science talk!

Now, there are several possible response to this:
1) Global temperature measurement is unreliable (in which case the video's hypothesis may fall apart, based as it is on the premise that global warming is indeed taking place)

I'm not sure about this one, but I don't think temperature measurements are unreliable as much as we need a lot more of them. I'd also really like to know *where* these measurements are taken and how they are combined mathematically. North America likely has a much broader distribution of thermometers then Africa, but which is the more important factor in the climate system? The heat of Africa drives the North Atlantic currents - big deal! But then, ice ages likely start in northern Canada. So how do we decide how many of those thermometer readings to use? And how about temperature in the middle of the Pacific? We likely don't have many thermometers there. Does that matter?

2) There is another solar factor which has not been taken into account. (The sun emits through the entire spectrum, and it's emissions frequencies may not always be tied together)

I believe this has been taken into account by climate modelers. The sun's spectrum and the interaction of the various frequencies with different parts of the atmosphere are well understood.

3) The current solar minimum hasn't been long enough to effect the weather.

Ice cores show that at this point of the last several interglacial cycles the weather system had adjusted. We are definitely doing something different than ever happened before. At this point in the cycle, the ice sheets in Northern Canada should be expanding, not continuing to disappear.

ETA: I haven't watched the movie above, but I'm guessing from the posts that this is the part they're ignoring. Yes, there are cycles. But the current cycle is different. That much is quite clear. The reasons for the difference and the long term effects are what needs debating.

4) Some other earth factor, such as the emissions of small particles which effect cloud formation, is changing warming dynamics.

This is an interesting point Ruddiman made - if we actually stop all human emissions today, the climate would get hotter for a brief time because these "reflective" particles that cool the atmosphere would settle out first. The "warming" particles would take longer, but eventually they'd get cycled into the oceans and trapped into biomass and we'd cool off.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Nonetheless CTS, you have not addressed the point that we are in a solar MINIMUM

I don't need to address it. I am not a proponent of this video or its contents.

I happen to find it entertaining, just like I find GW hypotheses and the occasional horoscope entertaining. But you need to address your solar minimum debate to someone who supports the solar flare hypothesis--not to me.

--------------------------
If we did all the things we are capable of, we would literally astound ourselves.
--Thomas A. Edison

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

mal4prez: The fact that the book distinguishes between cooling particles and warming ones is... wow. I'll have to read it! Now, do you want to contemplate a nightmare scenario???? Global warming releases methane currently trapped in ocean-floor clathrates.

CTS: I misunderstood. I thought you were a supporter of the video's POV.

So, I address the video's proponents: How do you explain the fact that we're currently in a solar MINIMUM, and yet still warming up???

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 29, 2009 5:05 PM

On a different note, Taco Bell finds solution to global warming.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/taco_bells_new_green_menu_takes?
utm_source=a-section

--------------------------
A wish is a desire without an attempt.
-- Source Unknown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 3:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:22 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So, I address the video's proponents: How do you explain the fact that we're currently in a
solar MINIMUM, and yet still warming up???

Apparently, you don't.

ANOTHER inconvenient truth!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:52 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

What's really funny about this whole thing is that even if global warming is man-made, the chances of getting the entire world to make the reductions in CO2 emissions that would be required to hold steady, let alone reverse the problem, are slim to none.

We'd probably be better off spending the money on ways to ameleoriate the effects of global warming; relocation away from coastlines, levees, developing agriculture in different areas, etc.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 2, 2009 7:26 PM

Well, we managed to do it with CFCs...

But yeah, CO2 is quite a bit more common an output waste product.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 3, 2009 5:18 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Here's what y'all came to see, a time-lapse video of Antarctic ice cycles from 1979 to today:

New Antarctic Sea Ice Video – shows cycles and ice growth
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/01/new-sea-ice-video-this-time-watc
h-the-antarctic/
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/antarctic-sea-ice-complete
-video/

The so-called "Ozone Hole" every winter (July) in Antarctica is due to a total lack of sunlight for 3 months preventing UV radiation from manufacturing ozone. When daylight returns, within seconds of sunlight hitting the oxygen, ozone is produced. Doh!

Ozone don't protect the Earth surface from solar radiation. 100 miles of nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, H2O, dust, clouds and the Van Allen Radiation Belt Force Field protect us from being cooked alive, as if we were astronots on the Moon. THINK.

Oilman Al Gore and Golden Sacks own the Carbon Credit Trading Ponzi Bubble Bank Tax Scam. Stop them we must, if we want to live.

WARNING: Chemtrail terraforming with deadly barium and aluminum aerosol in jet fuel exhaust actually raises global temperature, while causing Alzheimers and can be used with HAARP radar for mind control.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 3, 2009 6:48 AM