Global Warming? are humans to blame?

You're missing my point. It's very simple.

Exactly what does a rise in global temps do? None of the articles you guys fling at me really bothers to mention what a rise in global temps does.

I think the reason climatologists are so quiet on the effects of a rise in global temps is because they're making a mountain out of a molehill; a tempest in a teacup.

I keep seeing these "worst case scenarios" on TV and in print, yet if you read the entire article, somewhere down near the bottom they always qualify their rabble-rousing with "we really don't know what will happen".

Their logic is inconsistent, as well. Everyone blames global warming on greenhouse gasses. Therefore, global temps should be proportional to the ratio of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Yet, refering back to the above article that mentions the past global warming events, I notice that it claims that while PAST global warming events were three times more severe than the current warming event, CO2 and CH4 concentrations are higher now. If global warming is due to greenhouse gasses, as they claim, then temps should be higher now, instead of in the past; yet, by their own data, this hasn't occurred. Why not?

 

Where there is smoke there is fire..... Heard that somewhere

 

BTW, if anyone's interested, here's an article published in a peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Science, showing the type of BS these climatologists are trying to pull. It details both problems with the sampling methods for prehistoric CO2 levels, and data 'cooking' by climatologists to make the data fit the global warming theory. http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

 

Stonebreaker,

Interesting link, and there are many like it. It's easy to see why you would hold the opinion you do. But remember that our oil companies have been paying for this sort of “report” for many, many, years now . . . exactly because they fear that any reasonable response to the problem would cut into their profits. I think if you look a bit harder you will find that somewhat more prestigious scientists are unanimous in their opinion that global warming is happening, and that the result is going to be quite a disaster.

For example, the study reported about in the article I cited above originates from data published (on paper, not on line unfortunately) by the United Nations World Meteorological Organisation (WMO http://www.wmo.int/). These data, in turn, are based on work by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) which is described on their web page (http://www.esf.org/esf_article.php?activity=1&article=85&domain=3) like this:

EPICA is a multinational European project for deep ice core drilling in Antarctica. Its main objective is to obtain full documentation of the climatic and atmospheric record archived in Antarctic ice by drilling and analyzing two ice cores and comparing these with their Greenland counterparts. Evaluation of these records will provide information about the natural climate variability and mechanisms of rapid climatic changes during the last glacial epoch.

I know you would like to think that Professor Jaworowski is right, and all those other scientists are wrong . . . but it just could be the other way around and it might be a good idea to factor in the self interest mentioned above as well.

As to the effects of global warming for you personally, consider this. A bunch of ice now currently resides above sea level in Greenland and in Antarctica, the volume of which can be estimated within a certain accuracy by seismic soundings from the surface to determine the ground level. This has already been done. Similarly, the volume of the oceans can be determined fairly well. Get on Google Earth and take a look at Antarctica, and keep in mind that all that white stuff is two miles deep, above sea level! When the two volumes are added together and the area of land adjacent to the oceans is added in and it's respective topology considered it becomes evident that the sea level will rise roughly 180 feet when all that ice melts. This probably won't effect you much in Shiloh, but then again, maybe it will. I grew up in Missouri and I used to find sea-creature fossils all the time. Anyway, it sure will get wet down where I live, which is currently at the incredible altitude of 45 feet above sea level.

But wait, there's more.

The increase in volume of the oceans will certainly result in a decrease in the available land area on the planet. As I said, Missouri used to be sea-bed and may well be again. Just to the west of Missouri is a large plot of farm land called Kansas. A lot of your bread comes from there. Mine too. The point I am trying to make here is simply this: all that additional water surface will not only change the topology of the shore line rather drastically, but it will change weather patterns as well. As things now stand we barely feed the human population on this mud-ball by expending fossil fuels to pull plows and to make fertilizer, and that is in turn based on a somewhat predictable pattern to the weather. This predictability will go out the window, and so will a large number of our sources for that oil we spend so freely. The inevitable result will be starvation on a large scale.

But wait, theres more.

NEVER in the history of this planet have humans simply sat down and starved to death if there was any chance at all of stealing some food from someone else. Are you quite sure that your guns are bigger than your many, many, hungry neighbors? As the “carrying capacity” of the planet for humans drops back drastically there will be a period of very violent “civil unrest” as we sort out who lives, and who dies. This period is what scares me the most about the upcoming events.

Oh, and by the way, lest you think I am just some loony with strange ideas about the future, the above scenario was culled directly from a CIA (or DOD, I don't remember) report that was published last year. Google around and I bet you find it.

The part of this that really “breaks my stones” is that none of it needs to happen. It WILL happen though, because a bunch of greedy ******** have decided to just loot everything in sight and use their gains to defend themselves while the rest of us are simply tossed overboard. They keep their propaganda up to drag this looting out as long as possible. And our current government, working directly for our corporations, not us, will continue to defend this looting, and will do absolutely nothing to help you, or to help me. Depend on it. For it to be otherwise would require an educated public. Not much chance of that is there.

BillyDoc

 

I can say the same thing about any scientific paper you cite - bias based on funding means biased results, which is pretty much what I've been saying all along. If global warming is bad, NOAA gets more funds. NASA gets more funds. Thus they have a built-in bias to report bad things happening from global warming. I've worked for several federal agencies as a contractor, and the one consistency across all of them is the eternal quest for more budget. The more budget you control, the more political clout you have - and trust me, GS-15's ARE political animals. That's how they got to be GS-15's! (For our foreign friends, GS-15's are very highly placed government bureaucrats - such as deputy directors for NOAA and NASA, neither of which I've worked for, btw.)

The one thing that prof. Jaworski has going for him is that his facts are independently verifiable. For example, he claims that Callendar cooked his report by cherrypicking his datapoints:





But wait, there's more:

NOAA admits cooking their data, too. Here's the web page, and here's the pertinent graph:

Right there, on their website, they ADMIT they adjusted the raw data! Eerie how the adjustment mirrors the reported rise in global temps, no? It took me a while to find it, and I never would have if I hadn't remembered it being there. I also was a little suprised to see that that graph almost completely negates any observed global warming trend. I never did deny it happening, I simply didn't see it as a problem. But there you are - NOAA's legally required notes on how they statistically "edit" their data to determine their results, pretty much eliminates global warming. How 'bout that.

 

Considering that EPICA's own data show 4 global warming periods hotter than now over the last 450,000 years, based on Antarctic ice cores, I have to seriously doubt your assertion that Antarctica is going to melt.

 

Yes of course, there are even some guys that say that the Global warming is a good thing:

"Casual analysis of the economic effects of climate change demonstrates that most modern industries are relatively immune to weather. Climate affects principally agriculture, forestry, and fishing, which together constitute less than 2 percent of U.S. gros domestic product (GDP). …..

oil drilling in the northern seas and mining in the mountains might even benefit. Banking, insurance, medical services, retailing, education, and a variety of other services can prosper as well in warm climates ….
Inhabitants of the advanced industrial countries would scarcely notice a rise in worldwide temperatures. …A few services, such as tourism, may be susceptible to temperature or precipitation alterations: a
warmer climate …new tourist opportunities might develop in Alaska, northern Canada, and other locales at higher latitudes or upper elevations.

In many parts of the world, warmer weather should mean longer growing seasons. Should the world warm, the hotter climate would enhance evaporation from the seas, leading most probably to more precipitation worldwide. Moreover, the enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 would fertilize plants and make for more vigorous growth. Agricultural economists studying the relationship of temperatures and CO2 to crop yields have found not only that a warmer climate would push up yields in Canada, Australia, Japan, northern
Russia, Finland, and Iceland but also that the added boost from enriched CO2 fertilization would enhance output by 17 percent ...."
http://www.cato.org/pubs/books/climate/climatepdf.html

Perhaps he should pollute more to accelerate the warming process.... after all summer is better than winter, isn't it?

 

Stonebreaker, you must have one hell of a sense of humor!

The data you cite in the graph above are adjusted data all right . . . data that has been adjusted to eliminate errors such as are incurred when you use thermistor based measurement rather than glass thermometer measurements, or as you would incur if you changed your time of measurement from, say, midnight, to ten o'clock. You may have noticed that the title of the section you cite is: "Quality Control, Homogeneity Testing, and Adjustment Procedures," and you may have noticed that one example given is: "the temperature data are adjusted for the time-of-observation bias (Karl, et al. 1986) which occurs when observing times are changed from midnight to some time earlier in the day." and another one was: "Temperature data at stations that have the Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) are adjusted for the bias introduced when the liquid-in-glass thermometers were replaced with the MMTS (Quayle, et al. 1991)." and a bunch of others all of which cumulative adjustment resulted in the minimal differences in the graph you present above. To say that this was done to introduce bias is simply wrong. It was, in fact, done to eliminate bias!

You are definitely right about the GS-15s though. I used to work with a bunch of them, as a research scientist, and they are almost always political animals. And often not much else, I fear.

As for funding leading to bias, in most cases this is entirely bull ****. Funding from private sources like the oil companies, sure, but funding from NIH, or NSF, or one of the other public funding agencies? Not bloody likely! The reason is very simple: to get that money in the first place the scientist has to write a grant proposal describing what he wants it for and describing in detail his proposed research procedure, etc. That proposal will be reviewed by top experts in the field, and if they do not approve it, it is dead. If approved, once the research is done and submitted for publication it is again reviewed, and here you have to realize that scientific papers all have a "methods" section detailed enough to allow replication of any experiment or procedure (which is exactly why the "Quality Control, Homogeneity Testing, and Adjustment Procedures" is where it is). If the scientist finds something "off the wall" you better believe that his peers will be all over him like white on rice! And with something as "controversial" as global warming, where some big bucks influences are trying everything they can to prevent genuine knowledge from becoming common, EVERYTHING is gone over with a fine tooth comb. Furthermore, if any scientist is found cheating on his data (and they always do get discovered if they try it, because someone will always attempt to replicate controversial findings) his career is dead, dead, and dead. This fact tends to keep them honest.

There is another less tangible reason most scientists are honest. They work long and very difficult hours for abysmal pay simply because they are curious. They want to KNOW THE TRUTH! It is simply knowing the truth that keeps them going more than anything else. I know. I've been there. The joy of discovery is way beyond all others. And a correlary to this is the fact that most scientists deeply despise anyone who would get between them and the truth with lies and such. So the next time you run into some professor in some obscure college who is working his *** off trying to do research and to teach (all for less than a plumber would make) . . . please don't acuse him of lying for funding. That man and his predecessors has made the intellectual breakthroughs that gave you the technology you enjoy today, and they all usually got nothing but a load of **** for their trouble. They really don't need yours as well.

BillyDoc

 

Vega, you obviously don't live in Florida! It's been hot as hell here this summer. I'm looking forward to winter!

BillyDoc

 

well Billy,I bet that Portugal is not a lot better in Summer.

 

You are so right! I had the pleasure of visiting Lisbon once in summer, and it was beautiful.

 

Bill,

Claiming one funding source leads to bias while another does not, without data to back up your assertion, does not compute. And anyway, Jaworowski didn't do any original research. He merely pointed out obvious biases and cherrypicking from data sets to get the desired results.

On the NOAA data, from an outside perspective, if there were 4 or 5 adjustments, I could accept it. But looking at the graph, I guestimate there are 30 or 40 datapoints between 1950 and 2000, all but 3 or 4 of which trend upwards. Siince one would normally expect the movement from instrument adjustments to be random, the fact that 90% of the data trends upwards strikes me as extremely unlikely.

On the subject of scientists' honesty: I've said it before, scientists are no more honest, nor are they more dishonest, than any other people. While I agree with you that they get into science because of curiosity, the fact is, once money gets involved, other pressures than scientific curiosity come into play.

I don't believe that scientists intentionally lie to get money. As you said, they wouldn't be scientists if they were that interested in getting paid. HOWEVER, many scientists are passionate about their chosen field. Just think about the revolutions that went on in the last century over Einsteinian physics vs. quantum theory. THAT's where the bias creeps in - many scientists believe passionately in their pet theories, and not all of them are willing to change based on experimental results - that Korean fellow who got busted earlier this year for falsifying his stem cell research, for example.

Another way for bias to be introduced is which research projects are chosen. If the big shots only choose research projects that have the potential to prove a desired outcome, and non that can actually DISprove said outcome, then you can introduce bias simply based on what research you do, and which scientists you pick to do it.

Look at what you yourself did just a couple of posts up. You said you were a research scientist, yet you made what to me were obviously false claims in order to try and scare me into changing my mind. Claims that, if you had bothered to think about them instead of shooting from the hip, you wouldn't have made because they are proveably false - the melting of the ice caps, for example.

 

What I know of bias is this. It's all over the place. One that I have personally dealt with is the NHTSA's alcohol-related deaths stats.

In a nutshell, the NHTSA publishes a list of factors in motor-vehicle accidents. Always, near the top of the list is alcohol-related accidents.

How do they compute it? Well... let's say I have a beer and I am driving home and I stop at a train crossing. After being completely stopped for over 5 minutes, a completely sober driver comes up and rear-ends me, pushing me into the train and killing me. That's an alcohol-related fatality, according to the NHTSA.

Let's say I have a glass of wine with dinner, sleep for 7 hours, and then hop in my car to get some breakfast where I inadvertently kill a kid as he crosses the street. That, too, is an alcohol-related fatality according to the NHTSA.

Frankly, I rarely go more than 24 hours without a drink, and I rarely have more than 2 in 24 hours. As a result the odds are very high that if I ever kill anybody, it will be alcohol related according to the NHTSA. And the odds are also that I will be stone-cold sober when it happens as I don't drink and drive.

I hate to say it, but I don't trust anything that isn't given to me as raw data. Or, the more footnotes, the better.

 

25% of road accidents are caused by drunken drivers??

That does mean then that 75% of road accidents are caused by sober drivers.

Therfore it would appear from the statistics that you are less likely to have an accident when your drunk?

 

I agree with you totally. I have a B.S. in physics, and did a significant amount of re-search work as an undergrad, and you would be amazed at how many PhD’s have minors in data cooking. From my personal experience, most didn’t do it for grant money; they did it because they all have massive egos.


A good quote
“Use your own brain that’s what its there for”