New old find on global warming.

[Wmass]

FarmerDave wrote:
Well Wmass, it's not a bogus claim, you are just reading too much into it. I got my link from the Washington Post. Not exactly a conservative rag, is it? Turn down the gas a little bit.

I don't see where anything in those articles actually say Global warming is not happening. On the contrary. All it is saying is the hockey stick graph that Gore and other's have used is based on bad calculations which both sides seem to agree with. And yes, the globe is getting warmer. Why you feel a need to attack the use of the newly corrected data by one side and not the other is beyond me. Both sides are using the same data now.

If you look at the actually data now provided, it doesn’t show that global warming is not happening. In fact it shows it is happening. The charts just make more sense than before. Not a dramatic as Gore would like for shock effect, but still warming.

The new data shows that 5 of the warmest years were before WWII. But if you look, the old, incorrect data had 4. Not much difference.

The numbers still show that 4 of the top 10 years between 1990 and 2006. the only other time period that has had that many was around the 1930s. So, 1998 is no longer the warmest. It is still the second warmest and the difference is about the same, just flip flopped with 1934 (which was second).

It does make me wonder why the algorithms were not provided in the first place. It can’t be called science without knowing how it was calculated.

FARMERDAVE

First, this is an editorial in the Washington Times, which is a VERY conservative rag whose owner is Rev. Moon. Do you remember the "Moonies"? Moon is that guy who in the 1970s-1980s was marrying complete strangers to one another in mass ceremonies and claims to be the messiah. He is very conservative and throws his politics into his paper.

Steven McIntyre is a former mining executive who has NO degree in climatology or physics. He holds degrees in mathematics, philosophy and economics. He has called out climatologists as frauds for many years and has tried to dispute the claims of the "hockey stick" model for some time and this is simply another attempt to dispute those claims. One thing is clear, McIntrye is critical of any data showing that the earth is warming, so actually he does deny global warming, be it man made or not. He, like many of his disgusting ilk, attack any data showing climate change without actually contributing any actual research in the field.

Now please follow this, the climate change data that he is now disputing is based on weather station data of SURFACE TEMPS. The use of surface temps to actually measure climate changes has been attacked for years by those in the Anti-global warming machine. Mainly because they argue that this data isn't accurate because cities tend to be un-naturally hot because of the lack of forest cover, which creates a falsly elevated record. So NASA has also backed the surface temp recordings models with satelite models showing clearly that since the inception of satelite climate data started in the 1970s there has been a sharp rise in global temperatures. This data was disputed even recently as false because it supposedly had a "glitch" that was pointed out by global warming skeptics so after NASA corrected the models of this data it CONTINUED to show temps were dramatically rising and that the last several years were the hottest globally since the satelite record began.

I tend to believe those who actually produce data rather than merely attack data and models showing climate change. I also wouldn't buy into any of the trash talking points that anti-global warming groups put out because if you follow the money back to its original source it almost always ends at either big oil or coal.

 

[FarmerDave]

Wmass,

quite a bit to respond to, but here you go.

Response to first paragraph: I already acked (acknowledged) my mistake on the newspaper. Sorry, my bad.

Response to your Second paragraph: I'm sure he has been trying to dispute the hickey stick for quite awhile. It appears that he is finally successful, because scientists on both sides of this seem to agree that the data was a little faulty. but then, I'm keeping an open mind and am not a sheep. I'm also an engineer (don't farm for a living), and the uncorrected data certainly looked fishy to me. Secondly, It also seems to me that Mr. MacIntyre does ack global warming. What he does not ack is that it is highly influenced by human activity. Big difference. You would have to be an idiot to believe it doesn't exist at all. the big question is how much of it is from human activity, and personally, I don't think all of it is. there are not too many "scientists" that would argue with that. And yes, I always consider the source, but it doesn't always make the data wrong. And when both sides agree, I guess I have to consider the source of both sides. Don't I?

Response to your Third paragraph: I followed it, and I absolutely agree with this paragraph and a lot of it was in my response to you if you look. BUT, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Let me explain. In your earlier message, you said …

This is actually a bogus claim made by many but this was in fact based on NASA satelite data that has since been shown to be false and actually when corrected shows that the earths temp is well above even what was originally predicted.

…and you quoted this part as being bogus.

salvelinus wrote:
Interesting. I read an article the other day that said NASA's climate data had a Y2K bug and is incorrect. It turns out 1998 wasn't the warmest year on record, that honor belongs to 1934, and that five out of the ten warmest years on record were before WWII. Read it here.

Now you are saying it really isn’t bogus.

This data was disputed even recently as false because it supposedly had a "glitch" that was pointed out by global warming skeptics so after NASA corrected the models

If the claim that you quoted was Bogus, why did NASA correct it?

... this data it CONTINUED to show temps were dramatically rising and that the last several years were the hottest globally since the satellite record began (1970).

didn't i just say that in my earlier? nobody is disputing that. Not here, and not in the article I provided. However, since satellite data is not available before WWII, Satellite data does not dispute the claim that 5 of the warmers years on record were before WWII. Even still, both sets of data show a rise since 1970. In other words, neither set disproves the other. In fact, they support each other.

I tend to believe those who actually produce data rather than merely attack data and models showing climate change.

Actually, data collection, algorithmsms, models, and scientists should always be challenged. Otherwise, it isn't science. Case in point. Iin this case, the people who collected and modeled the data agreed that there was an error. would it have been found if nobody challenged it?

I also wouldn't buy into any of the trash talking points that anti-global warming groups put out because if you follow the money back to its original source it almost always ends at either big oil or coal.

I don’t buy into any of the trash talking either from either side, statments like "He, like many of his disgusting ilk" don't do anything good for anyones credibility. What seems to be hurting you most is the fact that McIntyre was right on this one point, and it is only one point, not the entire subject. Like i tried to explain to you earlier is, it doesn’t matter. The new data still shows warming, just not as dramatic. I think what happened is you saw McIntyre’s name and saw red, and you couldn't see that while seeing red. Understandable.

Lets try to continue to keep it civil.

 

[zuno412]

Here is a Link to a page I think everyone can benefit from by checking out. Its the most thorough compilation of arguments and viewpoints on climate change that I have come across. Sources are documented and links are provided to external research in every subject. As I read through this topic, I've seen a couple statements that aren't necessarily accurate. We are entitled to say whatever we want; I just think this discussion will benefit from this resource by giving all a quick way to verify what is said.

 

[FarmerDave]

Thanks for the info, and I will find it useful, but why not call it what it is. "A blog full of leafy green commentary"

 

[Wmass]

FarmerDave wrote:
Thanks for the info, and I will find it useful, but why not call it what it is. "A blog full of leafy green commentary"

And lets call your position one of global warming denial, since that appears to be the cruxt of your entire argument.

 

[tabasco_joe]

Dave; Just got back from Kmart and they have three way flourescent bulbs.

Wmass; Why does someone who disagrees with you need to be labeled with a derogatory name you choose? It detracts from the issue and implies an emotional response, detracting from the credibility of you argument.

 

[CRB]

I think your right on with the China problem.
Any one else hear anything about the environmental problems in China?
I read this last week:
http://row2k.com/worlds/features.cfm?ID=1470
"Even the smog doesn't seem to be that big of a problem. US JW8+ coach, Steve Hargis, told me that the athletes have adjusted well to the air quality and "it's not as bad as we thought it would be." Inhalers seem to do the trick for asthmatic athletes, most of them feeling better than the rest of the team.
The locals have their own solution to the smog: cloud seeding. This is a process where rockets of silver iodide and dry ice are shot into clouds to induce rain. The rain then clears the air of smog and haze. Those bangs that we were hearing on Wednesday night were not thunderclaps, but rockets, rockets to manipulate the weather. As a people, we can now create rain. Is there anything more unnatural than manipulating the weather?"

CRB

 

[Wmass]

tabasco_joe wrote:
Dave; Just got back from Kmart and they have three way flourescent bulbs.

Wmass; Why does someone who disagrees with you need to be labeled with a derogatory name you choose? It detracts from the issue and implies an emotional response, detracting from the credibility of you argument.

Hunh? What are you talking about "derogatory"? Its the truth isn't it? I mean FD did start this thread with a study by a well known GW denier and the he labelled the blog, with multiple scientific sources mind you, a "blog full of leafy green commentary". I was merely pointing out what FD actually is, he shouldn't hide unless he has something to hide from.


Now, as for his comments on the blog. What is wrong with being "green" per se? I love how the debate from conservatives has likened being green to being a communist. Like it is some scourge that will take over the earth and destroy us.

 

[tabasco_joe]

There is nothing wrong with being green. There are a lot of shades of green. I don't have a problem with people that are "more green" than myself as long as they don't dictate my "greenness".


To me there are four categories of opinion on the issue:

1. People that for whatever reason have no opinion.
2. People that believe there is no substantial evidence the earth is warming.
3. Those that believe it is warming but that man's influence is a minor or no factor.
4. Those that believe man is causing warming.

You appear to fall into the fourth camp. I am in the third although I have read some strong arguments from some scientists arguing there is no significant warming.

The key word here is believe since there is no proven fact for any of the theories. It's unlikely to be proven fact in our lifetime.

 

[salmonoid]

Forget about the secondary source of the information, since it is apparently tainted in your mind. Most news outlets are (gasp) biased! What is a fact is that NASA did have an error in their data reporting, which they've admitted after being confronted with the error by someone who analyzed their data. What it means for the purpose of the temperature in the US is that the hottest years on record are not as they were originally reported, and that 5 of the top ten are pre-WWII. Nonetheless, with the readjusted data, the effect on overall global temperature changes by less than 1-2%, which is simply to say that perhaps the US is not warming as fast as other parts of the world. Nevermind who funded the research - it doesn't change the fact that someone found a flaw in the NASA data used to rank hottest years over the past century. But that flaw doesn't drastically change the overall global data either... Nonetheless, you can't just dismiss it as anti-warming conspiracy wrangling either..

I'm not sure if I read it here recently or not, but I certainly agree with the sentiment that irregardless of what the temperature is doing, it certainly doesn't hurt things if we try to conserve and maintain the air and waters and earth that we do have... If we could actually channel the energies and monies being spent to prove (or disprove) a point, into actually conserving things, we might be better off..

 

[FarmerDave]

Wmass wrote:

tabasco_joe wrote:
Dave; Just got back from Kmart and they have three way flourescent bulbs.

Wmass; Why does someone who disagrees with you need to be labeled with a derogatory name you choose? It detracts from the issue and implies an emotional response, detracting from the credibility of you argument.

Hunh? What are you talking about "derogatory"? Its the truth isn't it? I mean FD did start this thread with a study by a well known GW denier and the he labelled the blog, with multiple scientific sources mind you, a "blog full of leafy green commentary". I was merely pointing out what FD actually is, he shouldn't hide unless he has something to hide from.


Now, as for his comments on the blog. What is wrong with being "green" per se? I love how the debate from conservatives has likened being green to being a communist. Like it is some scourge that will take over the earth and destroy us.

Actually Wmass, you are wrong on all counts, but I really don't care what you think of me. But just so you know...

1. What i posted was indeed fact (regardless of who's name appeared in it. It does not say that global warming is not happening (or at least I didn't see it). In fact, the data shows that it is happening, just that 1998 was not the warmest (but second warmest) and that the hockey stick model was not accurate. A few other things, too. But I go by the data. If you mean I am a denier of the hockey stick model, then I'm guilty as charged. But then, I didn't deny it until NASA agreed.

2. I didn't label the blog. I quoted the blog. Yep, I cut that label right from the sight. I believe I even used quotes to show that I was quoting them. At least they are not afraid of saying what they are, and I certainly don't have a problem with sites like that. But I do look at both sides, because the truth, more times than not is somewhere in the middle. Go check. It is right near the top. And I did find the site useful. But presenting it as a scientific site is wrong.

I have nothing to hide. Excuse me for not being a sheep, or at least not following the same shephard as you.

My stance on the global warming issue? I believe I have stated it before. I do believe it is happening. I do also believe that some part of it is due to human activity. I just don't believe it is 100 percent of the "problem." The fact is, the earth has always gone through temperature cycles, even before humans were around, and after. the earth has been on a warming trend since the last ice age. It is what happens after ice ages. However, I do believe human activity is contributing. What we don't know, and will never know is how much of it is due to human activity. That is not at all an uncommon stance and is shared by many scientists, probably a majority, if they dare to admit it. Many scientists also agree that the best we can do by simply reducing our emissions is slow down the rate of warming, because part of it is out of our control. I guess that puts me about a 3.2 on Tabasco's, scale.

Nothing wrong with being green, and there are shades of green. You might not find me hugging trees or risking my neck for an owl or a knewt. but I was voluntarily recycling before it was cool.

PS, By the way, was that a typo, or did you just call Tabasco_joe, hunh? :lol:

And for Pete sake, relax. When you get excited like that, you emit out more CO2.