Climate Change Data Error

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Aug 11 2007, 07:54 PM) [snapback]494186[/snapback]</div>

It is, you are just not looking for it...

Go check out Interface Inc. as a great example. Or you can cruise through various cities throughout the world that are adopting sustainable programs. Vancouver, Portland, Chicago, Stockholm, Melbourne, Malmo Sweden, etc. The Accord Building in China is yet another example. Zero energy buildings are popping up all over the place. if you are not seeing it happen then you have your eyes closed or don't know what to look for. If you are truely interested in the subject I suggest "State of the World 2007 ~ Our Urban Future" for good, non-biased reading.

As for why it isn't bigger? Well, go talk to our oil and energy lobbyists and the politicians that they pay off. lol

 

Heaven forbid, GW is really naturally occuring event. That we have just started to notice over the past 30 yrs, just as spreading fear also lines peoples pockets..


Here look at this:

A climate model suggests that chopping down the Earth's trees would help fight global warming
http://www.economist.com/science/displayst...tory_id=8998216


Tree planting: A key weapon against global warming
http://carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=743


Careful Where You Plant That Tree
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...tion/2007/410/2

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Aug 13 2007, 09:16 AM) [snapback]494724[/snapback]</div>

Should I use an axe or is a 2-stroke chainsaw ok?

Wildkow :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Aug 11 2007, 10:06 AM) [snapback]493966[/snapback]</div>

Polar ice cap melting? That's just a theory.

 

Is this guy talking about US high temperatures being the hottest in the 1930s?? The US isn't the World (shocking, isn't it)...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Aug 13 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]494724[/snapback]</div>

Why is it so important to you that GW is not something caused by human activity?

As far as fear lining people's pockets, our President is probably as good as using this to his advantage as *anyone* who claims that GW is hastening the demise of humankind.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 13 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]494811[/snapback]</div>

It's just one piece of the puzzle. Only one of many. I suspect that much of this is regional in nature driven by China much like that caused by the Asian Brown Cloud which is having a significant impact on regional climate elsewhere.

Meanwhile, you left out a picture of the Antarctic, where the ice extent is growing and temperatures are declining. In fact - the entire Southern Hemisphere is showing NO upward temperature trend whatsoever since about 2000 according to data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Not to mention there is a recent peer reviewed study that finds that globallly ocean temps flatlined.

Then there is data to suggest Greenland is cooling overall and accumulating ice mass.

So, of the estimated 0.6 degrees C temperature rise during the 20th century, you have a downward adjustment to the largest, most reliable and robust terrestrial dataset (the U.S.) of approximately 1/3 of this amount (i.e., approximately 0.18 degrees). Then you have Antarctic Cooling, flatlined Southern Hemisphere Temps, flatlined Ocean temps, Greenland temperature cooling, and an Asian Brown cloud that is likely driving Artic temperature increases.

So my question is, why isn't CO2 driving temperature increases globally? Where is the "global" in global warming?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 13 2007, 11:13 PM) [snapback]495260[/snapback]</div>

Only in their imaginations!

Ok this year in the San Joaquin Valley it is much cooler than any time I can think of in the past 10-20 years. In 2005 I think we set or nearly set a record for consecutive 100+ degree days, 31. Last year was another record for 10 or 11 days straight 110 degree heat. This year has been quite mild which is a nice respite from the last few years.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Aug 11 2007, 08:54 PM) [snapback]494186[/snapback]</div>

Subsidies and a lack of awareness of the externalities of our way of life. Our way of living is heavily subsidized by gov't and the externalities are not accounted for (yet) in market dynamics.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 14 2007, 02:24 AM) [snapback]495262[/snapback]</div>

Imagine how cold th planet would be without all the greenhouse gases we are pumping out?

Q? Will we now change how we view FDR - seeing how he did nothing about global warming in the 1930's?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 14 2007, 08:03 AM) [snapback]495299[/snapback]</div>

Spot on.

Our moon, lacking greenhouse effect, makes a kind of comparison even though lack of atmosphere makes it uninhabitable regardless of temperature. The moon's mean surface temperature by day is 107 °C (225 °F) and by night drops to -153 °C (-243 °F). The Lunar temperature increases about 260 °C from just before dawn to Lunar noon. So, if you fancy such a temperature range then a greenhouse effect-free world is for you, otherwise you might want to be pleased we have it here on Earth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 13 2007, 01:32 PM) [snapback]494823[/snapback]</div>

It is important to know the extent to which man is causing GW (assuming we are) so we can better use our resources to deal with it. If we find we are the main contributing factor we can focus our resources on making changes that will be effective in reducing its impact. If GW is occurring as a natural event and no matter what we do we can only effect 5-10% we might want to apply our resources differently.

What does the comment about Bush have to do with anything? It is simply a fact that there are people who will take advantage of any situation where a threat is perceived to make a buck. More evidence of BDS.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 13 2007, 02:32 PM) [snapback]494823[/snapback]</div>

I'll Reverse the question, "PintoGirl" Why is it so important to you that GW is something caused by human activity?

I want to thank 05_SilverPri, for their much better answer to the question than I could have given.

I believe the Bush comment was merly a tag to throw me off the subject and try to defend him as per the Liberal Rules of Arguing 1 & 2.

But I could really care less about bush, his term is almost over..

And Hyo-Silvers correct many people want the facts, just as others want to throw the facts out on the table in other topics. We would like to see the facts from unbiased scientists that can prove what they are saying..

 

Some people prefer facts.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 14 2007, 01:30 PM) [snapback]495430[/snapback]</div>

Obviously not NASA nor algore :blink:

I wonder why NASA, who is usually pretty accurate when it comes to data, math, projections, etc was so far off and why these errors persisted for so long - why did it take an ordinary non-nasa person to point out the errors? I wonder if those number guys at nasa who did those computations are now working on universal health care :lol:

And now I must question all those projections that have already been revised downward in terms of global temperatures for the next 100 years. If WE cannot even measure accurately the past, how the heck can we predict the future? And perhaps it is greenhouse gases themselves that has COOOOOOLED the planet down since the 1930's and we should be doing our best to keep pumping them out so as not to have the real bad side effects of global warming we are all being warned about by the algore groupies. The INCONVENIENT TRUTH may be that greenhouse gases are good for mankind :lol: It might be that during times of global COOLING we should try to decrease greenhouse gas production And I guess the debate is far from over

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 14 2007, 01:30 PM) [snapback]495430[/snapback]</div>

Obviously not NASA nor algore :blink:

I wonder why NASA, who is usually pretty accurate when it comes to data, math, projections, etc was so far off and why these errors persisted for so long - why did it take an ordinary non-nasa person to point out the errors? I wonder if those number guys at nasa who did those computations are now working on universal health care :lol:

And now I must question all those projections that have already been revised downward in terms of global temperatures for the next 100 years. If WE cannot even measure accurately the past, how the heck can we predict the future? And perhaps it is greenhouse gases themselves that has COOOOOOLED the planet down since the 1930's and we should be doing our best to keep pumping them out so as not to have the real bad side effects of global warming we are all being warned about by the algore groupies. The INCONVENIENT TRUTH may be that greenhouse gases are good for mankind :lol: It might be that during times of global COOLING we should try to decrease greenhouse gas production And I guess the debate is far from over

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 14 2007, 02:54 PM) [snapback]495481[/snapback]</div>

It is rare for me to find myself on the same side as GW skeptics (especially dbermanmd), but as a physicist with a little background in this area, I am concerned that the climate models are oversimplifying the complexity of how the atmosphere works. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a complete "denier" (to use the PC pejorative term), but I'm worried that if the climate is being influenced by human activity that we find out what are the most important effects. We're stuffing all sorts of noxious agents into the air, including aerosols, water vapor and a whole bunch of potential greenhouse gases. The focus of most GW studies has been on the effects of CO2 from surface activities, but what if it's something else - such as emissions from high-flying aircraft? It's hard to model everything, and I'm concerned that oversimplification could lead to erroneous conclusions.

And as the previous poster said, we don't have a whole lot of really good measurement data, although what we do have gives cause for concern.

Mike

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stringmike @ Aug 14 2007, 03:18 PM) [snapback]495490[/snapback]</div>

I was serious when i said that it is perhaps the production of greenhouse gases and other human based "stuff" that has cooled the planet from the overheated 1930's. And how do you know what we are throwing into the atmosphere is "noxious"? Seems the planet is doing just fine thanks - temperatures are down from the 1930's, life expectancy is up, total human population is up, food production is up, etc, etc, etc. My biggest fear is running our of fossil fuels to burn to create the greenhouse gases - i would not want a repeat of the 1930's heatwave and dust bowl.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 14 2007, 10:30 AM) [snapback]495430[/snapback]</div>

You mean facts like these?

"So, of the estimated 0.6 degrees C temperature rise during the 20th century, you have a downward adjustment to the largest, most reliable and robust terrestrial dataset (the U.S.) of approximately 1/3 of this amount (i.e., approximately 0.18 degrees). Then you have Antarctic Cooling, flatlined Southern Hemisphere Temps, flatlined Ocean temps, Greenland temperature cooling, and an Asian Brown cloud that is likely driving Artic temperature increases. "

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 14 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]495518[/snapback]</div>

I worked in the electric utility industry for over 20 years and - trust me - you do not want to know about all the noxious stuff that comes out of the chimneys of coal-fired power plants (lots of radioactive material and heavy metals like mercury, for instance). And I haven't even got to greenhouse gases!

Mike