First according to other sources the River Dolphin is not quite dead yet. The official report was based on only one survey, you can't make an ultimate statement on one survey, it's statistically and scientifically shallow.
Second we have more to be concerned with over the next 45 years then CO2 and ozone depletion, and that is population. Food water and land are going to be even more valuable then they are today.
The simple thing we can do is use carbon neutral fuels, buy locally grown food support small local vender's, use pedal-power to get back and forth to work and school, and when visiting friends.
The population problem is only going to get worse when the HIV vaccine is made widely available, and once the new cancer treatments come out.
I think however there maybe a disaster looming with the out of control consumption going on in this country, we saw a glimpse of it with the pet food recall, the corporate greed in this country is going to kill more consumers if we keep allowing China's inferior food across our borders onto our tables.
Second we have more to be concerned with over the next 45 years then CO2 and ozone depletion, and that is population. Food water and land are going to be even more valuable then they are today.
Good point about ozone depletion, which seems more proven than AGW (anthropogenic global warming). I read a bit and can't see if it increases or decreases global warming, but it seems people in the arctic may need more sunscreen.
Population does seem an issue ... there seems an element in the "green" movement that believes reducing population is part of the goal. Some seem to view protection of various species as a means to prevent development intended to provide for more people. Of course the greens have little impact on India or China, so perhpas it is more a political movement in the US.
A recent (perhaps intentional) release of a cattle virus in England gives a hint of our vulnerability. Of course the US had it's own scare of one case of mad cow that lead to Japan closing its doors to our beef. That one cow never even entered the food chain. It sure seems to make sense that foreign companies should have to meet the same standards as US.
I don't really care about the river dolphin too much ... it is better to have the dam (if that is a cause of their demise) providing electricty with little pollution. Still, that doesn't seem to keep greedy China from polluting to high heaven. The US ranks at the top in pollution control spending (as % of GDP I think), whereas China is not even on the list.
If home prices don't keep skyrocketing (which seems to have stopped already) then that out of control consumption may soon stop. But if the big economic machine slows down, other types of pain may result.
Given all the natural sources for global warming, I'm not convinced that we should blame ourselves for it. Yes, we contribute - but it's my belief that what we contribute to the CO2 load of the planet is very small.
Last I remember, the quantity of CO2 in the air is 0.05%- one half of 1%. Now look around at every living thing you can see on the land and in the upper layers of the ocean. We are all carbon based. All of the standing vegetation remains as "fixed" carbon ( remember photosynthesis???) And look at the quantity of it world wide...and all the animals which consume this stuff.
I posted an article from EnvironmentalChemistry.com that explains some of this well. Specifically, it addresses the point you've made to a degree:
According to BBC Weather (2), the present amount of carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere every year by plants is almost perfectly balanced by amount of carbon dioxide put back into the atmosphere by respiration and decay. The carbon dioxide produced in this manner is part of a cycle in which new carbon does not enter the system, but rather it keeps changing in form. They might be contained in sugars, proteins, starches, cellulose…and the list goes on and on. As living organisms undergo respiration (the metabolism of sugars to produce energy for basic metabolic needs), or as organisms die and decompose, the carbon compounds are broken down and add CO2 to the atmosphere. The CO2 is used by plants in the photosynthesis reaction, and the cycle keeps going.
This makes sense, as CO2 levels would have to be fairly balanced for life to exist at all in animal form. Unfortunately, since it is a naturally occurring gas as well, the Bush administration de-classified it as a pollutant, even though it is a greenhouse gas.
My point is that a little will go a long way over time! Yes it seems there is a trend toward getting warmer but we have only been keeping records for about 150 years so there is no way to know if we are way out of line or not. Meteorologists have measured the CO2 concentration in ice core samples in Antarcrica and have found some instances where it is very nearly as high as present day levels.
Actually from what I've seen of the ice core samples, we've never had CO2 levels as high as we have now, even going as far back as we can throughout many periods including ice ages and warm periods. According to an article I was reading about the Vostok ice core samples:
According to these findings, the greenhouse gas concentrations are correlated to the Antarctic temperature over the entire period under study, which confirms previous observations made for the last 150,000 years. This link also appears during the warmest interglacial periods, when greenhouse gas concentrations were at their highest (300 ppmv of CO2 and 750 ppbv of CH4). These values are nevertheless far below the level of present concentrations — 360 ppmv of CO2 and 1,700 ppbv of CH4. Such levels are unprecedented during the past 420,000 years.
So I think there is ample evidence that CO2 levels are unnaturally high, and also in the first article, it discusses how this is a problem, and not natural. One point that I've seen made here is that the ocean might be releasing CO2 and that explains the increase in the atmosphere. This doesn't make sense, as there are other factors, as that article explains:
* There has been a decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. If ocean warming was responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2, because O2 is also released as the water is warmed.
* The ocean is a sink for atmospheric carbon, and the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. If the atmospheric CO2 was the result of oceans releasing CO2 to the atmosphere, the CO2 in the ocean should not be rising as a result of ocean warming.
There is a corner of my brain where a seed of suspicion is growing. I wonder how much of "this" - is being frothed up for political gain!
You're right, but not for the reasons you expect, I think. There was a recent Newsweek article that discussed the big business of mixing politics, profit, and global warming denial.
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless.
I've posted in other threads in the past about the millions Exxon has spent funding kooks and corrupt individuals, but they never seem to have any actual data to prove that climate change is fake. Opposite them, almost all scientists that do work in the field and related fields seem to believe climate change is a threat, that the problems are man-made, and that we need to act sooner rather than later to stop it. The problem is that Exxon and all the other energy companies have more money and a better propaganda machine than the nerds with pocket protectors who are getting their hands on the actual science. I know that although I've looked into this stuff and it makes sense for me to see that climate change is happening, I'm not a scientist and I won't understand every single detail. However, I trust that there is a scientific majority, and that the most respected scientists in the field are 100% on board with this. Additionally, they have made their information public so anyone can try to understand it. On the other side there is a lot of secrecy and fluid doubt about it, and very few actual scientists are on board with the denial side. Those that are, seem to mysteriously get checks from Exxon and other polluting companies.
I didn't say it was not a greenhouse gas, but that it was a very small portion; but I doubt its role is as significant as National Geographic claims. "Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth." That is certainly NOT known.
I'll take the word of a respected magazine with scientists on staff over a guy on a message board. You'll have to produce some evidence that their claims are wrong.
NASA recently admitted their error . (a Y2K graphing glitch?)... 1998 was not the warmest year, 1934 was. And 5 of the ten warmest were before WW2. That would seem to change the right side of your scary graph.
That graph shows how CO2 increase lags temperature increase, another indication that it results from warming, not that it is the cause. Oceans give up CO2 as they warm, but it takes time for them to warm.
Additionally, if you are extremely bored, you can check out the global data. Or for a better explanation, RealClimate has a good summary of what the changes really mean, which is summarized as:
Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends).
quote: And I thought we were supposed learn the right way to care for the environment from communist countries like China and Cuba !
Yep! I've always felt that ecology is just one more example of socialism in disguise. "A spectre is haunting America--the spectre of extinction. All the powers of politically correct socialist America have entered into a holy alliance to exorcize this spectre." Let me translate...
"Humans are destroying the planet! We've got to do something...and us superior politically correct humans are supposed to be in charge of preventing the planet from being destroyed. This means we will be allowed to take any land, money, and energy sources for ourselves to save humanity from itself. Ain't we honorable?" Ironic that a socialist nation would be the first to be seen as a fraud.
You can take the man out of The Way, but you can't take The Way out of the man. Seriously, your post sounds very paranoid. Are you sure devil spirits aren't behind all of this?
First according to other sources the River Dolphin is not quite dead yet. The official report was based on only one survey, you can't make an ultimate statement on one survey, it's statistically and scientifically shallow.
I read that as well. That's what I get for posting stuff from CNN.
Second we have more to be concerned with over the next 45 years then CO2 and ozone depletion, and that is population. Food water and land are going to be even more valuable then they are today.
CO2 is getting worse as the population increases, so in essence the population issue and the issue of climate change are related. More people means more pollution. However, the worst polluters in the world are Americans. From the statistics I've seen in the past, one American creates as much pollution as entire families in most of the world, and I think compared to some nations, entire villages. So all things being equal, the places with the largest population increases are not the ones that are using up the most resources per person.
The simple thing we can do is use carbon neutral fuels, buy locally grown food support small local vender's, use pedal-power to get back and forth to work and school, and when visiting friends.
I agree with this completely, and usually it ends up being cheaper too.
The population problem is only going to get worse when the HIV vaccine is made widely available, and once the new cancer treatments come out.
It depends. AIDS is very treatable today, and there is a famous conservative blogger that has AIDS and is doing pretty well. For those that live in first-world nations, AIDS is not a mandatory death sentence anymore. It mostly kills poor people, especially in third world nations.
Additionally, we really need to restore the funding for international safe sex programs. When Bush ended the funding for organizations that gave out condoms in Africa, he caused HIV infections to rise. Condoms have the combined benefit of usually preventing HIV and pregnancy. It seems like a no brainer to me to hand out and teach people to use condoms. Unfortunately, the religious reich want to force abstinence-only education (which has been proven to have the opposite effect) on everyone.
I think however there maybe a disaster looming with the out of control consumption going on in this country, we saw a glimpse of it with the pet food recall, the corporate greed in this country is going to kill more consumers if we keep allowing China's inferior food across our borders onto our tables.
I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, we're stuck with China for the foreseeable future. I wish we could return to a day when "Made In The USA" was the default, especially for critical items like food.
When Hurricane Rita was about to hit here in Houston, I saw that there was a great deal of dependency on things that I hadn't seen before. The fact that there was no gasoline available in the city also meant that grocery stores were not stocked as none of the companies wanted to send their trucks here to get stuck without gas. The cops also disappeared, and for a brief few days, I saw things fraying at the edges of our society, at least here. It makes me wonder, if China stopped selling us stuff, or if we had a major economic downturn (which China is capable of causing since they own a huge amount of U.S. debt), would our nation even be able to survive? I think we could easily devolve into Great Depression era living conditions, or perhaps worse, within less than a week should an event like that happen.
Actually from what I've seen of the ice core samples, we've never had CO2 levels as high as we have now, even going as far back as we can throughout many periods including ice ages and warm periods.
You didn't watch the video I put up ... they are now claiming the highest in a million years ... but there are other times with much higher CO2 before that, with lower temperatures. We have discussed this before. I don't think there is a lot of debate that man has caused some of the CO2 increase.
In watching the video about the great global warming scandal, and then the debate with those that believe in AGW, the true believers even seemed to discuss the risk, and one put it at one in five, that AGW was the problem. But they believed we need to deal with the man made parts becase of the 20% risk. Some industry has gone along with AGW, but they are also influenced by public opinion, and have to at least appear to be acting responsibly.
I've posted in other threads in the past about the millions Exxon has spent funding kooks and corrupt individuals, but they never seem to have any actual data to prove that climate change is fake. Opposite them, almost all scientists that do work in the field and related fields seem to believe climate change is a threat, that the problems are man-made, and that we need to act sooner rather than later to stop it.
Sure climate change is a "threat". But how many agree man is the cause? RumRunner works in the field, and says it is not conclusive. The video I showed had several in the field that receive no checks, and talk of many that resigned from the UN study group in disagreement, but still had their names attached to the study. That video said something like $50 billion is spent on AGW proponents, as opposed to maybe some millions on tooth fairy AGW "deniers".
To label those that don't accept the AGW hypothesis as fact as "deniers" is part of the mighty Al Gore type slander machine. I see you also love the term. Those that don't receive the checks from big oil tell of the intense pressure to go along with the AGW religion. It is a huge lefty cause, and a huge source of funding. You have to scare people to convince them to spend $50 billion on computer models of weather forecasts for the next 100 years.
Also ... the significance of that little change that showed temps were higher in 1934, is that 1998 was trumpeted as the hottest year ever. That tiny difference from the thirties was "huge" when it "proved" AGW, but now that it shows hotter years were pre WW2, they say it is not significant. True believers lost their "hottest year ever" claim, so now it is no big deal. More politics than science.
And your acceptance of CNN and Newspeak as science sources indicates you are too gullible.
So if we don't want to limit the data to support a certain conclusion, it seems temperature and CO2 are at very low levels compared to the natural history of the world. A reversion to the mean would take us much higher ... naturally.
You've done your homework rhino! As time goes on I am less inclined to think we are in a peermanent climate change and even less so to think that we are the cause of such change. There is no way to tell if I am correct, but that's my best guess - and I could be wrong - - BUT that's what I think!
Now before we start beating China over the head - - let's remember WHO it was that outsources so much to her....hmmmmm.
You didn't watch the video I put up ... they are now claiming the highest in a million years ... but there are other times with much higher CO2 before that, with lower temperatures. We have discussed this before. I don't think there is a lot of debate that man has caused some of the CO2 increase.
I can't watch videos because I use a tool to connect to my home PC from work so I can use the unrestricted internet, and it is encrypted (plus I disabled the corporate spyware on the work PC) so they can't see what I'm doing. The point being, I need text, and some pictures (although they only show up in 256 colors) rather than videos.
However, if what you posted was "The Great Global Warming Swindle" from Channel 4 in the U.K., that thing is so flat out propaganda and bears no relation to science. Scientists have complained about how they were used in that film, how selective editing made it look like they said things that they did not say, and how the data was just flat out invented by the people making the propaganda film. A person could write a book about it, but you can find some of the debunking of that nonsense here.
Also ... the significance of that little change that showed temps were higher in 1934, is that 1998 was trumpeted as the hottest year ever. That tiny difference from the thirties was "huge" when it "proved" AGW, but now that it shows hotter years were pre WW2, they say it is not significant. True believers lost their "hottest year ever" claim, so now it is no big deal. More politics than science.
You obviously didn't read what I posted. The hottest year was claimed to be, and still is claimed to be, 2005. The 1998 thing was from the data from the U.S. only, not the world, and 1934 was only slightly hotter, down to the hundredths of a degree difference. Additionally, you can't measure changes in climate based on a single year or so. There are natural patterns like El Niño that affect the temperature in cycles. You have to take bigger periods of time, like decades, centuries, or longer to see that climate change is happening.
And your acceptance of CNN and Newspeak as science sources indicates you are too gullible.
I tend to keep an open mind and look at all sources, especially those without an agenda. If you read my posts, I do use mainstream media sources but I also posted links to other sites that are actually related to science and of scientists. Am I also gullible for believing what NASA says? Do you think that Dr. James Hansen is lying?
The key difference between you and I is that I sometimes read something and mistakenly believe it. You, on the otherhand, intentionally seek out error-filled propaganda in order to fit your personal view of the world. I have brought statistics from NASA, writings from leading climate scientists, and other information to this discussion and you have ignored it. You bring a documentary that is proven to be false, a blogger that found an error with data that only slightly changed and doesn't mean what you think it does, and many claims with nothing to back them up. You're being taken for a fool by the people that push out that propaganda. Just try to look at this issue without bias and without selectively reading, and you'll see that for yourself.
So if we don't want to limit the data to support a certain conclusion, it seems temperature and CO2 are at very low levels compared to the natural history of the world. A reversion to the mean would take us much higher ... naturally.
Where is this data coming from? I'm not aware of ice core samples being able to provide data going back that far, and I'm not aware of any other reliable means of measuring that. What method did they use to come up with those numbers?
... that thing is so flat out propaganda and bears no relation to science. Scientists have complained about how they were used in that film, how selective editing made it look like they said things that they did not say,
I saw the swindle (it had many real scientists who were very clear what they were saying) and I saw even more of the "debunking". Much of what I posted was from the supposed debunking. That is where they said there was a risk, maybe one in five. I only know of one guy that didn't like being used in the video, but what he said was true, IIRC.
You have to take bigger periods of time, like decades, centuries, or longer to see that climate change is happening.
Right, the one AGW cultist that was trying to debunk the swindle was proud they had maybe shown that CO2 was at highest level in almost a million years. The other scientist said "what is so special about a million years". The point being, why do you get to choose your time frame to support your data. Why not use all the data? I don't think even the AGW cultists deny the basics of that chart above. The can look at fossil records to tell what plants were growing, rock types, etc.
I tend to keep an open mind and look at all sources, especially those without an agenda .... Am I also gullible for believing what NASA says? Do you think that Dr. James Hansen is lying?
NASA gets a lot of money dependent partly on public opinion. They definitely have a political angle. (btw, that freon free foam has a 10 fold stronger tendency to break off and damage shuttles, but they use it anyway? not quite sure on that, need more research ... )
The key difference between you and I is that I sometimes read something and mistakenly believe it. You, on the otherhand, intentionally seek out error-filled propaganda in order to fit your personal view of the world.
This kind of self righteousness is typical of the hard core left. Did you watch the swindle video? I saw it and all the debunking, which was not so great as you seem to think. You wholly accept the lefty view, and believe nearly 100% of real scientists believe in AGW. I've quoted RumRunner .. is he being played for a fool? True he can't make the best cheesecake (dooj says), but I'd say he is a real scientist, and knows real scientists.
Krysilis seems to know quite a few things too, but I don't know her (?) background exactly. But you worked for Enron, and you don't think a huge organization (NASA) could jigger numbers a little when it comes to bringing home the bacon? I'd think after Enron you would be more of a skeptic.
Here is a link to that blogger that corrected some NASA data. The point isn't just the errors, but the distinct possibility of fraud, and the tiny change may be larger than they want to admit. Of course they will downplay the shoddiness of their research. But surely we can trust a large organization like Enron the UN.
I saw the swindle (it had many real scientists who were very clear what they were saying) and I saw even more of the "debunking". Much of what I posted was from the supposed debunking. That is where they said there was a risk, maybe one in five. I only know of one guy that didn't like being used in the video, but what he said was true, IIRC.
Actually, there are other scientists, both Eigil Friis-Christensen and Carl Wunsch, for example, but there have been many prominent scientists that have spoken out against the film.
Right, the one AGW cultist that was trying to debunk the swindle was proud they had maybe shown that CO2 was at highest level in almost a million years. The other scientist said "what is so special about a million years". The point being, why do you get to choose your time frame to support your data. Why not use all the data? I don't think even the AGW cultists deny the basics of that chart above. The can look at fossil records to tell what plants were growing, rock types, etc.
I'm not sure what "AGW cultists" are, nor have I see the claim that you've mentioned. As far as the timeframe is concerned, it's called science. You still haven't showed me how they can judge CO2 levels other than by using ice core samples, which do not go back to the beginning of the Cambrian era. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I haven't seen any method that would be able to provide most of the data on the graph you provided. I just want to understand the data so I can decide for myself. It is certainly true that CO2 levels were extremely high back then. When the Earth formed, the atmosphere was toxic, but as the planet cooled off, things changed over time. During the Cambrian, there was most likely no life on the surface, so the atmosphere did not have the benefit of trees and plants to balance it out.
NASA gets a lot of money dependent partly on public opinion. They definitely have a political angle. (btw, that freon free foam has a 10 fold stronger tendency to break off and damage shuttles, but they use it anyway? not quite sure on that, need more research ... )
NASA is a government funded organization. Additionally, I've not seen any evidence of partisanship from them on any of the issues. I'm not sure what the foam has to do with anything, other than the fact that the space shuttles are obsolete and we should have been working on better technology than that (fortunately some private organizations are doing it now, and have some great ideas.) Now, if you want to talk about global climate research on NASA's part, you have to look at Dr. James Hansen. He's been an outspoken about climate change since at least the 80's, and is THE top guy when it comes to the field. Additionally, he's made as much of his data public as he's been allowed, and other scientists have backed up what he said. I'd like to see how he is part of some conspiracy.
This kind of self righteousness is typical of the hard core left. Did you watch the swindle video? I saw it and all the debunking, which was not so great as you seem to think. You wholly accept the lefty view, and believe nearly 100% of real scientists believe in AGW.
It's not self-righteous to demand the truth. I won't watch the swindle video, for reasons I've already stated, but even if I had a DVD I doubt I'd waste my time on it. When it came out and I learned about the lies and deception they used to make it, plus the fact that many, if not most of the people featured were getting kickbacks from Exxon, I don't see the point in watching it.
I've quoted RumRunner .. is he being played for a fool? True he can't make the best cheesecake (dooj says), but I'd say he is a real scientist, and knows real scientists.
Krysilis seems to know quite a few things too, but I don't know her (?) background exactly. But you worked for Enron, and you don't think a huge organization (NASA) could jigger numbers a little when it comes to bringing home the bacon? I'd think after Enron you would be more of a skeptic.
I don't know RumRunner, nor what field he is in, or anything about him. I can't really comment on that. I know Krysilis, but I don't know what her background is either. I do know others that I've discussed climate issues with that know what they're talking about. I have an acquaintance that works at Havard and has done work for NASA. I have a friend that went to MIT and is now a professor at a good university in Pennsylvania that is knowledgeable on this topic. I even talked to Al Gore once about global warming, which doesn't make him an expert, but I threw that in there just to make smoke come out of your ears (it is true though.) Even more important, I'm able to look at the data and reports that scientists come out with and see what they are saying. Science is not a religion, so they will never say something is 100% certain all the time. You can't say that the sky is blue 100% of the time because grey clouds move in and night happens too, yet we all say that the sky is blue. The science on climate change isn't 100% accurate either, but the debate in mainstream science has been modified from "is global warming real?" to "to what extent will things get worse?"
As far as my employment history, Enron used a technique of projecting future sales to make the appearance of profit right now, and they hid what was really going on. Then, their auditing firm was in on it, so they were not caught until a reporter looked into their financial records in more detail and saw problems. It's different in science because you have to be completely open in order for other scientists to validate what you're doing. Science is about controlled, repeatable research. If a NASA scientist came up with global warming data that was falsified, other scientists should be able to look at data from redundant sources and draw a different conclusion, and expose that person as a fraud. Then they lose their jobs, respect, etc. The closest thing to a conspiracy when it comes to climate change is how politicians like Bush, as well as companies like Exxon, have worked to hide the truth. The politicians censor the scientists and the companies create propaganda to confuse the public.
Here is a link to that blogger that corrected some NASA data. The point isn't just the errors, but the distinct possibility of fraud, and the tiny change may be larger than they want to admit. Of course they will downplay the shoddiness of their research. But surely we can trust a large organization like Enron the UN.
Again, you've specifically looked for a biased source that has no credibility to make your point. However, I did waste a lot of time looking into it, and it seems completely nonsensical. The guy you are linking to claimed that some of the data from China was invalid in a report released in 1990. That guy says it is invalid because he claims to have proof that the weather stations moved, then towards the end claims that there is no way that Wang (the author of the original paper) could have known if the stations moved or not during the Maoist revolution. So which is it, is there proof that the stations moved, or is there no data from that time period? He contradicts himself, which is probably why nobody other than right-wing blogs have taken Keenan's paper seriously. The reason this stuff isn't in "the MSM" has nothing to do with a conspiracy, it's because it's nonsensical.
I'm not sure what "AGW cultists" are, nor have I see the claim that you've mentioned. As far as the timeframe is concerned, it's called science. You still haven't showed me how they can judge CO2 levels other than by using ice core samples, which do not go back to the beginning of the Cambrian era.
An "AGW cultist" is the opposite of an "AGW denier". Those that are true believers despite the science still being unsettled. The Gore movie claimed a rise of 20 feet in 100 years, IIRC, which has since been adjusted to one foot, maybe two. Gore's movie distorted facts incredibly and intentionally. The famous "hockey stick" graph was pure fraud. Not science. This sort of political maneuvering puts the whole AGW cult in perspective. Gore was making a political propaganda movie, not a science documentary.
NASA is a government funded organization. Additionally, I've not seen any evidence of partisanship from them on any of the issues. ... you have to look at Dr. James Hansen. He's been an outspoken about climate change since at least the 80's, and is THE top guy when it comes to the field. Additionally, he's made as much of his data public as he's been allowed, and other scientists have backed up what he said. I'd like to see how he is part of some conspiracy.
This is just one guys claim, but it seems feasible to me, and at least shows how possible it is to "jigger the numbers" to get results that will provide more funding. It is anecdotal from a PhD meteorologist that quit from NASA.
First, there are no real climate modeling program or programs, as the term "climate model" would imply, because the variables are way too numerous.
... None of the batch programs for handling weather component data were really accurate either; they all had biases built into them and the boss would select which program to run for a batch of data with an eye to the answer he wanted to see. They were very keenly aware that warming and disaster added up to sweet, sweet revenue.
One superior attitude I believe exists (and I think has been shown) is when peope feel they are so right, that is OK to overstate their case (like Gore's movie does) because it is SO important to correct this problem. But it is easy for YOUR project to become all important in your own mind. Another reason the "AGW cult" term fits. (its not my term)
It's not self-righteous to demand the truth.
It is self righteous to claim YOU hold THE truth. What you said of me, I think applies to you. Your sources are biased, your claims overblown without evidence. I've read through some of the RealClimate site, the "non beleivers" think it is a biased site. The significance of NASA having to adjust those temps, is that it was found they were not honest with some of their numbers, and I believe they did not release how they got their numbers. The China thing was only a secondary point. It was showing they had not honestly dealt with the urban heat island effect, in China, as well as the US.
Non-compliant surface stations were reported in the formal academic literature by Pielke and Davey (2005) who described a number of non-compliant sites in eastern Colorado. In NOAA's official response to this criticism, Vose et al (2005) said in effect -
it doesn't matter.
It's only eastern Colorado.
You haven't proved that there are problems anywhere else in the United States.
Now in response to problems with both station quality and adjustment software, Schmidt and Hansen say in effect, as NOAA did before them -
it doesn't matter.
It's only the United States.
You haven't proved that there are problems anywhere else in the world.
The same with the NASA headline claim that 2006 was the hottest year ever. They recognized that headlining they were wrong, that it was 1934, would be politically unacceptable, so they "buried" that story. NASA has a definite political bent. Even if the urban heat island effect is only 0.15oC, remember the AGW cult is basing their worship on only a 1oC change over a century.
I even talked to Al Gore once about global warming, which doesn't make him an expert, but I threw that in there just to make smoke come out of your ears (it is true though.)
Well, he is the devil, but that is still cool.
The science on climate change isn't 100% accurate either, but the debate in mainstream science has been modified from "is global warming real?" to "to what extent will things get worse?"
If a NASA scientist came up with global warming data that was falsified, other scientists should be able to look at data from redundant sources and draw a different conclusion, and expose that person as a fraud. Then they lose their jobs, respect, etc.
The point of my last link (and the one before) was that errors were downplayed. It is still a question how they adjust data from the urban areas. For NASA, there is much more money in showing warming, which introduces a bias, no way around it. Money talks. Rumrunner works on these models, and says small tweaks can flip results from warming to cooling, which is why the anecdotal evidence I noted above makes sense. They may present results that are backed with data that seems absolute, but the nitty gritty gets down to tiny little approximations that can flip results.
Since you introduced the cult idea with one poster, surely you can see how easy it is to be swept along with the crowd and the love of money. I think there is a little more religion at the edge of science than you think. Most of these results are based on computer models, and some complain empiracle data has not always been acquired when available.
Again, you've specifically looked for a biased source that has no credibility to make your point. ... So which is it, is there proof that the stations moved, or is there no data from that time period? He contradicts himself, which is probably why nobody other than right-wing blogs have taken Keenan's paper seriously. The reason this stuff isn't in "the MSM" has nothing to do with a conspiracy, it's because it's nonsensical.
I think there is a simple explanation for your apparent Keenan contradiction. It is not one or the other, it is both. If a station moved to a more urban influenced site, were adjustments made and how. And if it is unknown if stations were moved, that introduces a greater margin of error. Both questions make conclusions less conclusive.
From my view, you are demonstrating your bias, in saying Keenan was not taken seriously.
NASA admitted the error ... that is fact. So Keenan was taken seriously. You are trying too hard to dismiss that. I never said "conspiracy", I say "bias". If "2006 ... hottest year ever" is a headline, why isn't "1934 ... hottest year ever" a headline? The $50 billion funded guys don't like little guys messing with their funding. Not gonna change that headline ... not gonna do it ... as old Bush would say.
how many folks ever heard of the Yangtzee River Dolphin before it can't be found anymore?
how many can name the other freshwater dolphins off the top of their head?
which one would you consider the ugliest?
I grew up watching shows like Nature, the one about animal life in the U.S. with the guy with the huge beard, reading Ranger Rick and National Geographic, was a member of the Boy Scouts, loved science, and when I was probably three years old I decided that I wanted to be an oceanographer (not that I ever followed through.) So, I can say that yes I have heard of the Yangtze river dolphin before, but I don't consider myself to be an average person when it comes to knowing about animals. I also can't name the others off the top of my head but I know there are a few species in South America and a few in Asia. In particular I'm familiar with the ones in the Amazon river.
Also, you have to consider the fact that only 70% of Americans are able to locate China on a map, so I would not even expect people to have heard of the Yangtze River, much less the dolphins. There have actually been some good shows about the Yangtze River in the past, not so much about the animal life, but about the losses of historic sites as a result of building the Three Gorges Dam dam.
I just read something discussing a response to the blogs rhino linked to discussing the NASA data's accuracy. The world's top climatologist has issued a few statements about it, which are discussed here. I'll post a few excerpts, but I encourage going to that site to read the full thing:
The effect on global temperature (Figure 2) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.
Unlike religion, science is constantly evolving and changing as better data comes out. This should not be used as a weapon against science, especially when the change does not modify the claims made by the scientists.
LOL right, and how much is from man ... and how much from CO2?
Even the Kyoto treaty, which would cripple our economy, would have made almost no difference. But tell me Hansen isn't an alarmist with a knack for hyperbole ...
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.
I read through a lot of that stuff, they say CO2 is the best explanation they currently have for the warming. And many definitely are emotional with their name calling of the "deniers". Others say we have to protect against the one in five risk. But what about the risk of eventual cooling. An ice age would be much more devastating than a one foot rise in ocean levels in the next century.
Here is yet another scientist that says we don't know it all yet. Hold your horses.
The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
"Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming,
I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade
. Without that knowledge,
we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty."
Spencer and his colleagues expect these new findings to be controversial.
"I know some climate modelers will say that these results are interesting but that they probably don't apply to long-term global warming," he said. "But this represents a fundamental natural cooling process in the atmosphere.
Let's see if climate models can get this part right before we rely on their long term projections.
sounds like people are just afraid of change. When is it okay and when it is not okay for the climate to change? Who has the authority to say this? Can we put a giant HVAC on our atmosphere and regulate it forever? Sooner or later, it will change. If man is a part of it, so what? Life will not disappear.
sounds like people are just afraid of change. When is it okay and when it is not okay for the climate to change? Who has the authority to say this? Can we put a giant HVAC on our atmosphere and regulate it forever? Sooner or later, it will change. If man is a part of it, so what? Life will not disappear.
It isn't ok when it happens as quickly as it already is, and when it looks like our actions are causing it. What is so bad is that it will result in a rise in ocean levels which causes cities to slowly become underwater, it causes stronger hurricanes, it makes wildfires more common, it causes droughts in some areas and floods in others, and it has the potential to ruin much of what we depend on to live.
Our culture is focused on instant gratification. If global warming were to happen overnight, people would freak out. Unfortunately, people are not impressed by a destructive process that takes years and decades.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
19
9
8
Popular Days
Aug 9
12
Aug 17
11
Aug 13
10
Aug 10
8
Top Posters In This Topic
krys 5 posts
Mister P-Mosh 19 posts
rhino 9 posts
Bolshevik 8 posts
Popular Days
Aug 9 2007
12 posts
Aug 17 2007
11 posts
Aug 13 2007
10 posts
Aug 10 2007
8 posts
johniam
I don't mind changing a few habits, but for a legitimate reason, not just because.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seth R.
First according to other sources the River Dolphin is not quite dead yet. The official report was based on only one survey, you can't make an ultimate statement on one survey, it's statistically and scientifically shallow.
Second we have more to be concerned with over the next 45 years then CO2 and ozone depletion, and that is population. Food water and land are going to be even more valuable then they are today.
The simple thing we can do is use carbon neutral fuels, buy locally grown food support small local vender's, use pedal-power to get back and forth to work and school, and when visiting friends.
The population problem is only going to get worse when the HIV vaccine is made widely available, and once the new cancer treatments come out.
I think however there maybe a disaster looming with the out of control consumption going on in this country, we saw a glimpse of it with the pet food recall, the corporate greed in this country is going to kill more consumers if we keep allowing China's inferior food across our borders onto our tables.
Seth
Edited by Seth R.Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Good point about ozone depletion, which seems more proven than AGW (anthropogenic global warming). I read a bit and can't see if it increases or decreases global warming, but it seems people in the arctic may need more sunscreen.
Population does seem an issue ... there seems an element in the "green" movement that believes reducing population is part of the goal. Some seem to view protection of various species as a means to prevent development intended to provide for more people. Of course the greens have little impact on India or China, so perhpas it is more a political movement in the US.
A recent (perhaps intentional) release of a cattle virus in England gives a hint of our vulnerability. Of course the US had it's own scare of one case of mad cow that lead to Japan closing its doors to our beef. That one cow never even entered the food chain. It sure seems to make sense that foreign companies should have to meet the same standards as US.
I don't really care about the river dolphin too much ... it is better to have the dam (if that is a cause of their demise) providing electricty with little pollution. Still, that doesn't seem to keep greedy China from polluting to high heaven. The US ranks at the top in pollution control spending (as % of GDP I think), whereas China is not even on the list.
If home prices don't keep skyrocketing (which seems to have stopped already) then that out of control consumption may soon stop. But if the big economic machine slows down, other types of pain may result.
so many disasters looming ... :o
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Fire and Ice, R. Frost, 1920
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Thanks krysilis.
I posted an article from EnvironmentalChemistry.com that explains some of this well. Specifically, it addresses the point you've made to a degree:
This makes sense, as CO2 levels would have to be fairly balanced for life to exist at all in animal form. Unfortunately, since it is a naturally occurring gas as well, the Bush administration de-classified it as a pollutant, even though it is a greenhouse gas.Actually from what I've seen of the ice core samples, we've never had CO2 levels as high as we have now, even going as far back as we can throughout many periods including ice ages and warm periods. According to an article I was reading about the Vostok ice core samples:
So I think there is ample evidence that CO2 levels are unnaturally high, and also in the first article, it discusses how this is a problem, and not natural. One point that I've seen made here is that the ocean might be releasing CO2 and that explains the increase in the atmosphere. This doesn't make sense, as there are other factors, as that article explains:You're right, but not for the reasons you expect, I think. There was a recent Newsweek article that discussed the big business of mixing politics, profit, and global warming denial.
I've posted in other threads in the past about the millions Exxon has spent funding kooks and corrupt individuals, but they never seem to have any actual data to prove that climate change is fake. Opposite them, almost all scientists that do work in the field and related fields seem to believe climate change is a threat, that the problems are man-made, and that we need to act sooner rather than later to stop it. The problem is that Exxon and all the other energy companies have more money and a better propaganda machine than the nerds with pocket protectors who are getting their hands on the actual science. I know that although I've looked into this stuff and it makes sense for me to see that climate change is happening, I'm not a scientist and I won't understand every single detail. However, I trust that there is a scientific majority, and that the most respected scientists in the field are 100% on board with this. Additionally, they have made their information public so anyone can try to understand it. On the other side there is a lot of secrecy and fluid doubt about it, and very few actual scientists are on board with the denial side. Those that are, seem to mysteriously get checks from Exxon and other polluting companies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I'll take the word of a respected magazine with scientists on staff over a guy on a message board. You'll have to produce some evidence that their claims are wrong.
NASA did correct their findings, but the article you linked to is extremely misleading. For example, the revised data is titled, "Contiguous 48 U.S. Surface Air Temperature Anomaly ©". This means that 1) it isn't a measurement of global temperature, and 2) it is only the variation from the mean temperature, not the actual temperature. As the annual temperature gets hotter and hotter, even if it is a gradual process, the mean will also go up, so there should not be a huge difference.
Additionally, if you are extremely bored, you can check out the global data. Or for a better explanation, RealClimate has a good summary of what the changes really mean, which is summarized as:
You can take the man out of The Way, but you can't take The Way out of the man. Seriously, your post sounds very paranoid. Are you sure devil spirits aren't behind all of this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I read that as well. That's what I get for posting stuff from CNN.
CO2 is getting worse as the population increases, so in essence the population issue and the issue of climate change are related. More people means more pollution. However, the worst polluters in the world are Americans. From the statistics I've seen in the past, one American creates as much pollution as entire families in most of the world, and I think compared to some nations, entire villages. So all things being equal, the places with the largest population increases are not the ones that are using up the most resources per person.
I agree with this completely, and usually it ends up being cheaper too.
It depends. AIDS is very treatable today, and there is a famous conservative blogger that has AIDS and is doing pretty well. For those that live in first-world nations, AIDS is not a mandatory death sentence anymore. It mostly kills poor people, especially in third world nations.
Additionally, we really need to restore the funding for international safe sex programs. When Bush ended the funding for organizations that gave out condoms in Africa, he caused HIV infections to rise. Condoms have the combined benefit of usually preventing HIV and pregnancy. It seems like a no brainer to me to hand out and teach people to use condoms. Unfortunately, the religious reich want to force abstinence-only education (which has been proven to have the opposite effect) on everyone.
I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, we're stuck with China for the foreseeable future. I wish we could return to a day when "Made In The USA" was the default, especially for critical items like food.
When Hurricane Rita was about to hit here in Houston, I saw that there was a great deal of dependency on things that I hadn't seen before. The fact that there was no gasoline available in the city also meant that grocery stores were not stocked as none of the companies wanted to send their trucks here to get stuck without gas. The cops also disappeared, and for a brief few days, I saw things fraying at the edges of our society, at least here. It makes me wonder, if China stopped selling us stuff, or if we had a major economic downturn (which China is capable of causing since they own a huge amount of U.S. debt), would our nation even be able to survive? I think we could easily devolve into Great Depression era living conditions, or perhaps worse, within less than a week should an event like that happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
You didn't watch the video I put up ... they are now claiming the highest in a million years ... but there are other times with much higher CO2 before that, with lower temperatures. We have discussed this before. I don't think there is a lot of debate that man has caused some of the CO2 increase.
In watching the video about the great global warming scandal, and then the debate with those that believe in AGW, the true believers even seemed to discuss the risk, and one put it at one in five, that AGW was the problem. But they believed we need to deal with the man made parts becase of the 20% risk. Some industry has gone along with AGW, but they are also influenced by public opinion, and have to at least appear to be acting responsibly.
Sure climate change is a "threat". But how many agree man is the cause? RumRunner works in the field, and says it is not conclusive. The video I showed had several in the field that receive no checks, and talk of many that resigned from the UN study group in disagreement, but still had their names attached to the study. That video said something like $50 billion is spent on AGW proponents, as opposed to maybe some millions on tooth fairy AGW "deniers".
To label those that don't accept the AGW hypothesis as fact as "deniers" is part of the mighty Al Gore type slander machine. I see you also love the term. Those that don't receive the checks from big oil tell of the intense pressure to go along with the AGW religion. It is a huge lefty cause, and a huge source of funding. You have to scare people to convince them to spend $50 billion on computer models of weather forecasts for the next 100 years.
Also ... the significance of that little change that showed temps were higher in 1934, is that 1998 was trumpeted as the hottest year ever. That tiny difference from the thirties was "huge" when it "proved" AGW, but now that it shows hotter years were pre WW2, they say it is not significant. True believers lost their "hottest year ever" claim, so now it is no big deal. More politics than science.
And your acceptance of CNN and Newspeak as science sources indicates you are too gullible.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
So if we don't want to limit the data to support a certain conclusion, it seems temperature and CO2 are at very low levels compared to the natural history of the world. A reversion to the mean would take us much higher ... naturally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
You've done your homework rhino! As time goes on I am less inclined to think we are in a peermanent climate change and even less so to think that we are the cause of such change. There is no way to tell if I am correct, but that's my best guess - and I could be wrong - - BUT that's what I think!
Now before we start beating China over the head - - let's remember WHO it was that outsources so much to her....hmmmmm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I can't watch videos because I use a tool to connect to my home PC from work so I can use the unrestricted internet, and it is encrypted (plus I disabled the corporate spyware on the work PC) so they can't see what I'm doing. The point being, I need text, and some pictures (although they only show up in 256 colors) rather than videos.
However, if what you posted was "The Great Global Warming Swindle" from Channel 4 in the U.K., that thing is so flat out propaganda and bears no relation to science. Scientists have complained about how they were used in that film, how selective editing made it look like they said things that they did not say, and how the data was just flat out invented by the people making the propaganda film. A person could write a book about it, but you can find some of the debunking of that nonsense here.
You obviously didn't read what I posted. The hottest year was claimed to be, and still is claimed to be, 2005. The 1998 thing was from the data from the U.S. only, not the world, and 1934 was only slightly hotter, down to the hundredths of a degree difference. Additionally, you can't measure changes in climate based on a single year or so. There are natural patterns like El Niño that affect the temperature in cycles. You have to take bigger periods of time, like decades, centuries, or longer to see that climate change is happening.
I tend to keep an open mind and look at all sources, especially those without an agenda. If you read my posts, I do use mainstream media sources but I also posted links to other sites that are actually related to science and of scientists. Am I also gullible for believing what NASA says? Do you think that Dr. James Hansen is lying?
The key difference between you and I is that I sometimes read something and mistakenly believe it. You, on the otherhand, intentionally seek out error-filled propaganda in order to fit your personal view of the world. I have brought statistics from NASA, writings from leading climate scientists, and other information to this discussion and you have ignored it. You bring a documentary that is proven to be false, a blogger that found an error with data that only slightly changed and doesn't mean what you think it does, and many claims with nothing to back them up. You're being taken for a fool by the people that push out that propaganda. Just try to look at this issue without bias and without selectively reading, and you'll see that for yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Where is this data coming from? I'm not aware of ice core samples being able to provide data going back that far, and I'm not aware of any other reliable means of measuring that. What method did they use to come up with those numbers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
This kind of self righteousness is typical of the hard core left. Did you watch the swindle video? I saw it and all the debunking, which was not so great as you seem to think. You wholly accept the lefty view, and believe nearly 100% of real scientists believe in AGW. I've quoted RumRunner .. is he being played for a fool? True he can't make the best cheesecake (dooj says), but I'd say he is a real scientist, and knows real scientists.
Krysilis seems to know quite a few things too, but I don't know her (?) background exactly. But you worked for Enron, and you don't think a huge organization (NASA) could jigger numbers a little when it comes to bringing home the bacon? I'd think after Enron you would be more of a skeptic.
Here is a link to that blogger that corrected some NASA data. The point isn't just the errors, but the distinct possibility of fraud, and the tiny change may be larger than they want to admit. Of course they will downplay the shoddiness of their research. But surely we can trust a large organization like Enron the UN.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Actually, there are other scientists, both Eigil Friis-Christensen and Carl Wunsch, for example, but there have been many prominent scientists that have spoken out against the film.
I'm not sure what "AGW cultists" are, nor have I see the claim that you've mentioned. As far as the timeframe is concerned, it's called science. You still haven't showed me how they can judge CO2 levels other than by using ice core samples, which do not go back to the beginning of the Cambrian era. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I haven't seen any method that would be able to provide most of the data on the graph you provided. I just want to understand the data so I can decide for myself. It is certainly true that CO2 levels were extremely high back then. When the Earth formed, the atmosphere was toxic, but as the planet cooled off, things changed over time. During the Cambrian, there was most likely no life on the surface, so the atmosphere did not have the benefit of trees and plants to balance it out.
NASA is a government funded organization. Additionally, I've not seen any evidence of partisanship from them on any of the issues. I'm not sure what the foam has to do with anything, other than the fact that the space shuttles are obsolete and we should have been working on better technology than that (fortunately some private organizations are doing it now, and have some great ideas.) Now, if you want to talk about global climate research on NASA's part, you have to look at Dr. James Hansen. He's been an outspoken about climate change since at least the 80's, and is THE top guy when it comes to the field. Additionally, he's made as much of his data public as he's been allowed, and other scientists have backed up what he said. I'd like to see how he is part of some conspiracy.
It's not self-righteous to demand the truth. I won't watch the swindle video, for reasons I've already stated, but even if I had a DVD I doubt I'd waste my time on it. When it came out and I learned about the lies and deception they used to make it, plus the fact that many, if not most of the people featured were getting kickbacks from Exxon, I don't see the point in watching it.
I don't know RumRunner, nor what field he is in, or anything about him. I can't really comment on that. I know Krysilis, but I don't know what her background is either. I do know others that I've discussed climate issues with that know what they're talking about. I have an acquaintance that works at Havard and has done work for NASA. I have a friend that went to MIT and is now a professor at a good university in Pennsylvania that is knowledgeable on this topic. I even talked to Al Gore once about global warming, which doesn't make him an expert, but I threw that in there just to make smoke come out of your ears (it is true though.) Even more important, I'm able to look at the data and reports that scientists come out with and see what they are saying. Science is not a religion, so they will never say something is 100% certain all the time. You can't say that the sky is blue 100% of the time because grey clouds move in and night happens too, yet we all say that the sky is blue. The science on climate change isn't 100% accurate either, but the debate in mainstream science has been modified from "is global warming real?" to "to what extent will things get worse?"
As far as my employment history, Enron used a technique of projecting future sales to make the appearance of profit right now, and they hid what was really going on. Then, their auditing firm was in on it, so they were not caught until a reporter looked into their financial records in more detail and saw problems. It's different in science because you have to be completely open in order for other scientists to validate what you're doing. Science is about controlled, repeatable research. If a NASA scientist came up with global warming data that was falsified, other scientists should be able to look at data from redundant sources and draw a different conclusion, and expose that person as a fraud. Then they lose their jobs, respect, etc. The closest thing to a conspiracy when it comes to climate change is how politicians like Bush, as well as companies like Exxon, have worked to hide the truth. The politicians censor the scientists and the companies create propaganda to confuse the public.
Again, you've specifically looked for a biased source that has no credibility to make your point. However, I did waste a lot of time looking into it, and it seems completely nonsensical. The guy you are linking to claimed that some of the data from China was invalid in a report released in 1990. That guy says it is invalid because he claims to have proof that the weather stations moved, then towards the end claims that there is no way that Wang (the author of the original paper) could have known if the stations moved or not during the Maoist revolution. So which is it, is there proof that the stations moved, or is there no data from that time period? He contradicts himself, which is probably why nobody other than right-wing blogs have taken Keenan's paper seriously. The reason this stuff isn't in "the MSM" has nothing to do with a conspiracy, it's because it's nonsensical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
An "AGW cultist" is the opposite of an "AGW denier". Those that are true believers despite the science still being unsettled. The Gore movie claimed a rise of 20 feet in 100 years, IIRC, which has since been adjusted to one foot, maybe two. Gore's movie distorted facts incredibly and intentionally. The famous "hockey stick" graph was pure fraud. Not science. This sort of political maneuvering puts the whole AGW cult in perspective. Gore was making a political propaganda movie, not a science documentary.
This is just one guys claim, but it seems feasible to me, and at least shows how possible it is to "jigger the numbers" to get results that will provide more funding. It is anecdotal from a PhD meteorologist that quit from NASA.
One superior attitude I believe exists (and I think has been shown) is when peope feel they are so right, that is OK to overstate their case (like Gore's movie does) because it is SO important to correct this problem. But it is easy for YOUR project to become all important in your own mind. Another reason the "AGW cult" term fits. (its not my term)
It is self righteous to claim YOU hold THE truth. What you said of me, I think applies to you. Your sources are biased, your claims overblown without evidence. I've read through some of the RealClimate site, the "non beleivers" think it is a biased site. The significance of NASA having to adjust those temps, is that it was found they were not honest with some of their numbers, and I believe they did not release how they got their numbers. The China thing was only a secondary point. It was showing they had not honestly dealt with the urban heat island effect, in China, as well as the US.The same with the NASA headline claim that 2006 was the hottest year ever. They recognized that headlining they were wrong, that it was 1934, would be politically unacceptable, so they "buried" that story. NASA has a definite political bent. Even if the urban heat island effect is only 0.15oC, remember the AGW cult is basing their worship on only a 1oC change over a century.
Well, he is the devil, but that is still cool.
The point of my last link (and the one before) was that errors were downplayed. It is still a question how they adjust data from the urban areas. For NASA, there is much more money in showing warming, which introduces a bias, no way around it. Money talks. Rumrunner works on these models, and says small tweaks can flip results from warming to cooling, which is why the anecdotal evidence I noted above makes sense. They may present results that are backed with data that seems absolute, but the nitty gritty gets down to tiny little approximations that can flip results.Since you introduced the cult idea with one poster, surely you can see how easy it is to be swept along with the crowd and the love of money. I think there is a little more religion at the edge of science than you think. Most of these results are based on computer models, and some complain empiracle data has not always been acquired when available.
I think there is a simple explanation for your apparent Keenan contradiction. It is not one or the other, it is both. If a station moved to a more urban influenced site, were adjustments made and how. And if it is unknown if stations were moved, that introduces a greater margin of error. Both questions make conclusions less conclusive.
From my view, you are demonstrating your bias, in saying Keenan was not taken seriously.
NASA admitted the error ... that is fact. So Keenan was taken seriously. You are trying too hard to dismiss that. I never said "conspiracy", I say "bias". If "2006 ... hottest year ever" is a headline, why isn't "1934 ... hottest year ever" a headline? The $50 billion funded guys don't like little guys messing with their funding. Not gonna change that headline ... not gonna do it ... as old Bush would say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
this sucks,,,
but...
as a side note,,, the last episode of entorage made a reference to this very dolphin.. any one else catch it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So,
how many folks ever heard of the Yangtzee River Dolphin before it can't be found anymore?
how many can name the other freshwater dolphins off the top of their head?
which one would you consider the ugliest?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I grew up watching shows like Nature, the one about animal life in the U.S. with the guy with the huge beard, reading Ranger Rick and National Geographic, was a member of the Boy Scouts, loved science, and when I was probably three years old I decided that I wanted to be an oceanographer (not that I ever followed through.) So, I can say that yes I have heard of the Yangtze river dolphin before, but I don't consider myself to be an average person when it comes to knowing about animals. I also can't name the others off the top of my head but I know there are a few species in South America and a few in Asia. In particular I'm familiar with the ones in the Amazon river.
Also, you have to consider the fact that only 70% of Americans are able to locate China on a map, so I would not even expect people to have heard of the Yangtze River, much less the dolphins. There have actually been some good shows about the Yangtze River in the past, not so much about the animal life, but about the losses of historic sites as a result of building the Three Gorges Dam dam.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
creatures become extinct. It's a natural event. New species will emerge later. China will clean itself up too.
BTW I would say the Amazon Pink River Dolphin is probably the ugliest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I just read something discussing a response to the blogs rhino linked to discussing the NASA data's accuracy. The world's top climatologist has issued a few statements about it, which are discussed here. I'll post a few excerpts, but I encourage going to that site to read the full thing:
Unlike religion, science is constantly evolving and changing as better data comes out. This should not be used as a weapon against science, especially when the change does not modify the claims made by the scientists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Earth is warming. So?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
LOL right, and how much is from man ... and how much from CO2?
Even the Kyoto treaty, which would cripple our economy, would have made almost no difference. But tell me Hansen isn't an alarmist with a knack for hyperbole ...
I read through a lot of that stuff, they say CO2 is the best explanation they currently have for the warming. And many definitely are emotional with their name calling of the "deniers". Others say we have to protect against the one in five risk. But what about the risk of eventual cooling. An ice age would be much more devastating than a one foot rise in ocean levels in the next century.
Here is yet another scientist that says we don't know it all yet. Hold your horses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
climate change
sounds like people are just afraid of change. When is it okay and when it is not okay for the climate to change? Who has the authority to say this? Can we put a giant HVAC on our atmosphere and regulate it forever? Sooner or later, it will change. If man is a part of it, so what? Life will not disappear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
It isn't ok when it happens as quickly as it already is, and when it looks like our actions are causing it. What is so bad is that it will result in a rise in ocean levels which causes cities to slowly become underwater, it causes stronger hurricanes, it makes wildfires more common, it causes droughts in some areas and floods in others, and it has the potential to ruin much of what we depend on to live.
Our culture is focused on instant gratification. If global warming were to happen overnight, people would freak out. Unfortunately, people are not impressed by a destructive process that takes years and decades.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
But the meteor or comet that killed the dinosaurs was ok?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.