Global warming?

[TheMercenary]

A link to NASA Maps and graphs.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

[piercehawkeye45]

Classicman, this a quote from your second article

But Trenberth's "lack of warming at the moment" has been going on at least a decade. "There has been no [surface-measured] warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995," observes MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. "According to satellite data, global warming stopped about 10 years ago and there's no way to know whether it's happening now," says Roy Spencer, former NASA senior scientist for climate studies.

This is from Merc's link:



Not taking uncertainty into account, we went up 0.1 degree since 2000. Even with the maximum uncertainty against high temperatures, we still went up around 0.05 degrees. I wouldn't call that a lack of warming. The following is the only graph that makes sense with the above argument.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Because he's the "hockey stick graph" creator, that so much of their argument is based on.

Most of their sources derived from one person? Maybe its true but the sources page on even one IPCC section has at least 25-50 peer review scholarly sources.

[SamIam]

Its OK. A group of American Samoan hackers have cracked the secret code and proved that it is really the raw data for a study of a population of Huffakers' finches (the little bastards breed like bunnies).

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Most of their sources derived from one person? Maybe its true but the sources page on even one IPCC section has at least 25-50 peer review scholarly sources.

No, not derived from one person. His hockey stick graph gave them the target to aim for, when tailoring the results of their data, when creating their computer models, when writing their grant requests.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, not derived from one person. His hockey stick graph gave them the target to aim for, when tailoring the results of their data, when creating their computer models, when writing their grant requests.

That is a good point and his hockey stick graph probably were influential on other studies but that really only affected the view on how extensive global warming has been in the past century and not global warming itself.

[classicman]

so........ you are saying that perhaps the data overstated how extensive the warming was but not that there is global warming?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

so........ you are saying that perhaps the data overstated how extensive the warming was but not that there is global warming?

Do you accept that glaciers at both poles are melting at an increased rate?

[piercehawkeye45]

Yes. Even without that guy's input, there is more than enough data to be able to legitimately conclude that the Earth has been warming in the recent century. This guy cannot make glaciers recede, ice sheets melt, or change the temperature from satellite or even ground level data.

Global warming may not be happening as fast as he made it out to be, but there is a lot of data that still supports that it is still happening.

[classicman]

Brings us back to this

Originally Posted by Jinx

Damage control. Pretty weak at that.

What is the cause? We have no idea, and these people make their living off trying to tell us the answer. Is it possible that this warming which is now admittedly not as extreme as originally thought may be from some natural occurrences? Do we, the entire human race need to act immediately on an assumption that it is our fault? Is it true that some glaciers in other areas are actually growing? I can see why some would not want this to be true, but I have read where it is happening and severely under reported. Again - We don't know. This whole episode does not help the case of anyone, it only brings further into question the actual information we had to make decisions from.

Originally Posted by Zen

This being the only habitable planet we know of or can feasibly reach, running potentially disastrous experiments on it would seem very stupid.

Yet that is essentially what we have been doing for decades, if not centuries.
Both environmentally and financially.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

What is the cause? We have no idea, and these people make their living off trying to tell us the answer.

Yes, it is quite common in the science field for people to make a living off researching what we currently do not know.

Is it possible that this warming which is now admittedly not as extreme as originally thought may be from some natural occurrences?

Yes, but you are oversimplifying it too much. We have proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Looking at historical temperature charts it makes logical sense that the Earth should start warming. This means that global warming is most likely caused by natural and human factors. My guess is that the Earth is naturally going into a warming period, and we are speeding up that process, which is not good because it takes time for ecosystems to adapt to new environments.

Do we, the entire human race need to act immediately on an assumption that it is our fault?

Make a pro/con list.

Is it true that some glaciers in other areas are actually growing?

Yes, in New Zealand I believe. But, that is not the norm. The vast majority of glaciers are receding. Remember, global warming is the generalized warming of the entire Earth. That means it is possible there will be areas where it is actually getting colder.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Don't forget global warming has been going on for the last 12 or 15 thousand years... this time. Global Warming is a catch all phrase, that means nothing. Or should I say means something different to everybody I meet. We need more information than that, to make an informed opinion on what we should or shouldn't do, what we can or can't do, or even if we should give a shit or not. But all these people are running around yelling "global warming" like it's the equivalent of "fire".

[classicman]

COPENHAGEN — Ray Weiss looks at the chanting protesters, harried delegates and the 20,000 other people gathered here for a global warming summit and wonders: What's the fuss all about?

Weiss, a geochemist who studies atmospheric pollution at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, says the numbers at the core of the debate in Copenhagen are flawed.

Specifically, he says the cuts that countries including the USA are proposing in greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to measure and highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials and companies.

"I don't see the point in doing all this if the numbers are so far off," Weiss said, shaking his head as he watched conference attendees hurry by Thursday. "When you hear politicians tell you that they can measure these things, just because they passed a deal in Copenhagen, I think you should take that with a few grains of salt."

Most of the summit's attention has focused on exactly how much countries will commit to cutting emissions of gases that data suggest are causing the earth to warm. Yet some scientists, legal experts and delegates say the hardest part of any deal in Copenhagen will be measuring — and then enforcing — whatever politicians decide.

Those two issues are "the iceberg on which the entire conference could founder," says Peter Goldmark, a program director for the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit group.

The Obama administration has proposed a 17% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, compared with levels in 2005. Most European countries have offered more ambitious cuts, while China has pushed a target that would allow its carbon dioxide output to continue to grow with its economy, though at a slower pace.

In a study last year, Weiss and colleagues took air samples and found that levels of nitrogen trifluoride, an industrial gas 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide as an atmospheric warming agent, were four times above what industry estimates had suggested.

He says monitoring equipment must be significantly upgraded around the world to prevent similar fudging of data if a deal is reached in Copenhagen.

Todd Stern, a lead negotiator for the U.S. delegation, says he's pushing for a system that, after Copenhagen, "allows countries to look at each other and get confidence that everybody is doing what they said they were doing."

However, governments in India and China — which is the world's biggest carbon emitter — have resisted draft proposals that would allow for international verification of data.

Link

[dar512]

I am starting to think maybe this is a problem that will sort itself out shortly. By shortly I mean in the next 50 years.

The reserves of both oil and coal will have fallen precipitously by then and I expect use will have gone way down. I guess it comes down to how fast we can cook ourselves with the current stock.

[piercehawkeye45]

I agree. The largest problem I see is that climate change is extremely difficult to predict because it is all based on probability. Without that insight, it is also nearly impossible to make an informed decision of what we should do.

We need to decide whether we want to make decisions based on what is 50% likely to happen, 90%, worst-case? How we can legitimately prevent or adapt to these changes or consequences?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

...We need to decide whether we want to make decisions based on what is 50% likely to happen, 90%, worst-case? How we can legitimately prevent or adapt to these changes or consequences?

Or Dick Cheney's 1% doctrine.

If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response.

If there's a 1% chance that man is causing global warming, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response.

Then we should shoot somebody in the face with bird shot.