« Suggestion To Obama: No Mother-In-Law Jokes While Your Mother-In-Law Lives In White House
Latest Newspaper Death Rattle: Hearst Corp.’s Seattle P-I To Be Sold In 60 Days Or Be Closed »
Global Warming: What Do You Think?
Since our weekends here at TMV seem to be somewhat quiet, I thought it might be fun to have a topic each weekend for us to debate and discuss.
Personally I adopt (perhaps not surprisingly) a fairly moderate position on the topic. Unlike some on the right (e.g, Limbaugh et al) I do believe global warming is real. There clearly has been an increase in overall surface temperatures over the last 50 years and I think it is also clear that these increases will have an impact on the environment.
However I do think some of the objections from the non GW crowd are reasonable. For example it is reasonable to question how much the temperatures have increased. It is only in this century that weather-gathering has become a true science and thus to compare temperatures from today to ones from 1850 is of debatable value.
Further, I also think it is reasonable to say that a significant portion of the increase is the result of a normal cycle. Indeed reading suggest than the 1750-1900 period was actually unusually cool compared to normal reading so some of that increase may simply be restoring the norm.
Finally I think it is fair to debate what good it does the US and Europe to make major changes in our daily lives when India and China are pouring out huge amounts of pollution with no sign of slowing down.
Now none of this does not mean that we should not do everything we can to have clean water and clean air. Even if there was no GW at all, this would be a good idea. But we also need to balance those changes with the impact they have on our daily lifestyle. Unless we all want to give up our computers and move into stone caves, we need to offer a balance
So what do you think gang ?
How real is the problem? How much is due to humans and how much due to nature? How much of it is truly bad and how much normal cycles? And how far should we go to correct things?
Have at it. If we get a good discussion going, we can make this a regular thing.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
65 Responses to “Global Warming: What Do You Think?”
There's that foxtrot again. What can you possibly call a lie in these basic points?
What do you want, or do not know? CO2 has increased 5% in the past 10 years. Surely you don't need me to back this up.
No temperature increase for the past 10 years? Go directly to Hadcrut data yourself and plot it. I could even Email you the plot to save you the trouble. – http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/h….
Perhaps you don't know about the GW signature. You can read extracts from a report by Dr. David Evans on http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22353/632…. It even tells you how to go direct to the source.
I can just about pre-write your response. You'll try to question the information source validity. I'll just warn you that the Hadley Centre was set up to help prove global warming. Dr. David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office. Sorry I can't offer you a movie star or ex politician.
Please expose my lies. I'm sure anyone else reading this will be as interested as I. Even the IPCC agrees with the basic points I've made.
Unfortunately for your claims concerning Hadley Centre data, here is what they have to say about your claims. In other words if asked, the experts at Hadley won't back up your claims about what their data actually means.
Secondly, you apparently do not even have a clue as to who David Evans is and what the nature of his “consultant” work was. His doctorate is in electrical engineering, not any field even remotely related to climatology. Evans worked as a computer programmer designing a carbon accounting system to help the Australian Greenhouse Office track the carbon footprint of Australia for reports for their obligation under the Kyoto treaty. He was not a “consultant” of any kind. His article that the blog you linked to referred to was just as bad as the claims that you and Carter make. The article, which appeared in the Australian, is debunked here by Tim Lambert.
“Please expose my lies.”
You asked, I delivered.
Jim – as I predicted, you ignored the data and attacked the person. Let me make it easy for you. This is the global temperature anomaly data from Hadley for the past 10 years.
1998 – 0.526
1999 – 0.302
2000 – 0.277
2001 – 0.406
2002 – 0.455
2003 – 0.465
2004 – 0.444
2005 – 0.475
2006 – 0.421
2007 – 0.399
2008 – 0.326. (this will probably be lower when December is included)
Now, if you can still look at this data and tell me it's warming, I'll stop bothering you. We must have different systems of mathematics. For me, 2 is bigger than 1.
Actually rhjames, you reported on the last 11 years. If you ran a linear regression on the last 10 years (1999 through 2008) you would obtain a positive slope. Likewise, if you ran a regression on the last fully complete 10 years (1998-2007), the slope is positive (even though 1998 was unusually warm). It's only when you include all 11 years that you get a slightly negative slope. I don't know what that suggests to you, but it suggests to me that you have to be very careful about cherry-picking the data in order to conclude from a short term trend that the earth is not warming.
“Jim – as I predicted, you ignored the data and attacked the person. Let me make it easy for you. This is the global temperature anomaly data from Hadley for the past 10 years.”
This is another lie. What I presented was Hadley Centre's own interpretation of their work. The devil's in the details, including the ones you choose to ignore. It's called cherry picking. Explain if you will why without going into the usual conspiracy theory BS the Hadley Centre refuses to interpret their own data in a way that agrees with you.
In addition I showed a link to considered analysis and refutation of what Evans wrote as well as showing that he did not have the credentials you and he claimed he had. If you lie about one thing, such as credentials, what else are you lying about becomes a valid question but given that Evans commits the usual denialist crime against science of repeating already debunked claims and I show it then it is simply more proof of the dishonesty inherent in your statements when you claim that all I am doing is attacking his credentials.
There's obviously a few writers here on the global warming payroll.
rhjames' data is taken from IPCC/Hadley Centre/UK Met Office. This is the basis for all the GW nonsense.
A regression using Excel shows a tiny cooling (-0.00048) .
If 1998 is excluded there is tiny warming (0.007)
In past 7 years there is a cooling (-0.1)
IPCC forecast for business as usual – warming (0.4)
The IPCC states that recent data should be used to validate their models' forecast of a 0.4 warming. Most clearly, the data shows that the forecasts of the IPCC are WRONG. The IPCC models (like all approximate models) have no ability to forecast the future.
The current trend is clearly clobal cooling, NOT warming.
Ricorun – you are correct about cherry picking, and you are skilled in the art. As DrADB showed, you can cherry pick a period that shows tiny warming, though not statistically significant. Most selections within this period show no warming. The thing is, for the past 11 years, the warming has effectively stopped, despite CO2 increasing 5%. If CO2 was the strong driver predicted, we should see some influence.
I know that this is blamed on other natural cooling influences – when it warms, it's blamed on CO2, when it cools, other reasons are assumed. If I look at data over the past 2,000 years, there's nothing unusual going on. Why suddenly blame CO2? Why no one or many of the other possibilities? It seems that the only ones pushing this are those who are financially dependent on it, and those who believe the media and don't bother to study the data themselves.
No, Ricorun is not the one doing the cherry picking and neither am I. Neither are we “on the global warming payroll”. The link I provided was directly from the same organization that rhjames and DrADB claim to be relying on for data. Yet they completely and utterly refuse to acknowledge what the Hadley Centre has to say about their interpretation of the data, which is that it is wrong. Frankly, the scientists at the centre are far more qualified to interpret their data than the denialists will ever be, including the two resident conspiracy theorists.
I must say the debate has been entertaining
Thanks
Patrick – yes, it's been interesting.
I like to go back as far as possible to the raw data. That way I don't have to rely on interpretation from others with their own agenda. In this way I've picked up various errors. Also, its surprising the variation between what the media reports, and what the data says. Sea level is a good example – we all hear how it's rising, yet when I checked the nearest recording point data (Fort Denison) I found no change for the last 2 years, 8mm increase in the previous 25 years, and 32mm in the 25 years before then. Also, it's been increasing for the past 20,000 years.
This is a long way from what the media is telling us. Islands are disappearing, and shoreline washing away. This trend is supposed to change and increase about 400mm in the next 40 years. I'll continue to monitor with great interest. So far, the models again aren't working.
When it comes to cherry picking, I am using the same process as the IPCC used as the basis for their global alarm. Read page 45 in the most recent IPCC report. They claim to have validated their models using recent data. (Older data obviously can't be used because it is used to adjust the paramters of the models, in order to forecast the future). When data for the past decade is used to validate the models, no warming is evident. According to the IPCC's own suggestion, this invalidates their models.
Cherry pick on a broader scale, using the graph in the first IPCC report, showing the Medieval Warm Period, and it is evident that global temperatures are much cooler now than they were 800 years ago.
Here's the Hadley Centre/UK Met Office/IPCC data for you to plot for yourself: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/h…
Plot the temperatures and do your own interpretations, rather than relying on those with vested interests.
The first thing DrADB said was this: “There's obviously a few writers here on the global warming payroll.”. At that point it became obvious that anything else he wrote was going to be pure crap. Useless and dishonest. rhjames of course agreed with him. I'm not bothering any more. rhjames says he prefers raw data. But neither he nor his friends are capable of actually analyzing it, oversimplifying and cherry picking. Enough. Neither one of the twins are worth the effort and I don't think anyone is really following this thread any longer. The only thing I've learned from this is that a modern political conservative is incapable of actually paying attention to science.
Jim – so you didn't read the comment from Patrick E? But you're probably right – no-one else is out there. Your insults and personal attacks probably detract too much from the real issues.
[...] Global Warming: What Do You Think? [...]
Hey Jim, I have come over here from Greenpeace forum to warn you about DRADB and rhjames, they hang in pairs a lot, (either they are buddies or are one and the same) spamming up climate change forums, all over the net, they are not worth your effort.