Whee, Global Warming.

[jackofallgeeks]

I'm getting a bit bored with Global Warming/Global Cooling badminton, and
I'll readily admit that I'm biased: I don't believe the dogma of Global
Warming, I do believe this is just natural climate cycling, I don't believe
that humans have a terribly significant hand in mucking things up, I do
believe the world has an amazing ability to recover from our mistakes. I
don't belive we should be irresponsible, but all things in moderation
(including moderation). And I admit I only pass along articles which
I tend to agree with. i HIGHLY encourage you to go elsewhere to find
information from the other side of the fence, as I would on any topic I
discuss here, and humbly ask that if you find anything interesting
(particularly if it refutes me) that you pass it back to me. Intellectual
honesty and all that.

That being said, onto the drudgery of another article
about Global Warming. This one is interesting because it actually looks
at the data that people are using to draw their conclusions: two
terestrial-based sets of data and two satelite-based sets. And the
interesting thing is that NASA data is the only one that shows a significant
upward-slope in temperatures. The other three sources make a case that
current temperatures are at or about the 30-year average, and predict that
we might be due for a bit of 'global cooling.'

In particular, NASA's data published in 2007 (covering 1930-2000)
disagrees with NASA's data published in 1999, which is the main
thrust of the article. It appears that pre-1970 temoperatures were adjusted
down and post-1970 temperatures were adjusted up, making an exagerated
slope. In particular, temperatures from 1986-1998 are adjusted up by more
than half a degree; when claiming the global temperature has rises a full
degree in recent years, adjustments of more that half that amount are
notable.

More concerning in my opinion is the fact that the man in charge of NASA's
temperature data at the time (and now?) was the same guy who was Al Gore's
science advisor and the most vehiment advocate for Global Warming. Not that
there could be any conflict of interests, or an agenda to push.

Anyways, like I said, it's getting to be a boring topic, but I thought this
article worth noting.

Comments

[justgrl.livejournal.com]

i will have to disagree and say that human activities have played a significant hand in recent climate change. not the only hand, but a significan part.

i personally have a bias against the term "global warming" as that is only one aspect of global climate change, the term i prefer and many scientists use. "global warming" is something to be catchy to the public's ears but i think it is confusing sometimes because the effects of climate change aren't just increases in temperatures. granted, there has been shown to be increases in atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, but there is also cooling or just general changes in climate which may lead to warmer winters or cooler summer, warmer summers and cooler winters, etc. (depending on location).

i think it's unfortunate that the shock and aww practices of the media have just about beat everyone senseless with "global warming" talk because i think it leaves many people put off and disbelieving or misunderstanding. in the scientific community global climate change has been a topic of research and discussion for a long time, it just recently (and finally) gotten more public attention. there is truth to what you said about natural climate cycling. that happens and is happening. however, it is the rate at which it is happening that is basically the crux of the global climate change (or "global warming") argument. the rate at which the climate has changed recently (past 100 years or so) is quite dramatic, given the entire history of the atmosphere. the role of human activities as drivers of climate change has also been agreed upon in many disciplines. it is accepted based on the plethora of data that has been presented.

the intergovernmental panel on climate change (ipcc) is a good place to find evidence of human-induced climate change (or climate change in general). it basically comes down to the fact that, from the human aspect of climate change, human activities have caused dramatic increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution. the increases in these green house gases in the atmosphere and ocean is what is causing much of the rate change of the changes in the climate. pre-industrial times had an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 280 ppm (based on temperature data and ice core samples) to the current 380 ppm. that doesn't seem like much of a change until you compare it to a) the previous 1900+ years of a relatively stable/slowly increasing rate of carbon dioxide and b) the sharp increase once the early 1900s hit to 2000. the rate of change was ridiculous.


if you have a chance you should take a look at the 2007 ipcc report that has information on what i just mentioned and much more. the report is based on long-term meta-analyses of climate change datasets...which brings me to another point. the fact that in the article you linked to there was mention of scientists not being able to say if temperatures were going up or down over a 10 year period. scientifically speaking, for something like temperature, 10 years is like a blink of an eye, thus not being able to make a clear statement about that sort of global process makes sense. data on biological or chemical processes after that amount of time is completely reasonable, data on abiotic conditions (i.e. temperatures) is not...i'm sure i missed the larger context as i admit to doing just a quick read through of the article, but i just felt i should mention that. especially because, from a non-science perspective that seems ridiculous. ten years is a long time. but in the context of science and large-scale processes it is not.

i could probably go on and on about this because the research i do, and that of the lab i work in, is grounded in climate change research. we base many of our research questions on the findings of the ipcc and much of the scientific climate change literature. if you're interested you should check out science, nature, and scientific american. they usually have a fair amount of good, data-laden, climate change papers/essays/blogs. i feel that that information is a bit more reliable, as it takes you directly to the source of the information.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

So the media is the media, and I can definitely grant that they have a way of overstating things, but... Well, I guess it comes down to what's the bottom line, why should I care? The idea of global warming is inevitable catastrophe (!!!), with rising oceans and terrible storms and food crops dying in the blazing sun. If it's climate change... I mean, change to what? from what? Are these changes which, even if hastened by man, could probably be explained as natural cycles? And my apologies if I'm a bit skeptical that we have a definite trend one way or the other over the last hundred years: the article notes that NASA can't be trusted even up to 70 years ago, and I find it hard to believe we have reliable data to plot out much further back than that: never mind that the earth's climate has a much longer history than even several hundred years. What we see here is the blink on an eye in the grand scheme of things.

I don't think we should be carelessly irresponsible, certainly not, but... Well, to put simply it seems to me that every time we try to FIX anything we just manage to botch it. If anything, we should be VERY CAREFUL about what we're doing, and do it very slowly.

As you not below, I recognize you aren't an authority on this; neither am I -- I'm sure even you out-stripe me by a wide margin. I'm just sayin'.

[justgrl.livejournal.com]

i also want to say that i, by no means, profess to be an authority on this topic. it's just that itis something i have to be aware of constantly, given my research.

here are the links that i forgot to post in my previous comment:
ipcc. the full report, while long, is the summary of their information.
science magazine
nature
scientific american

[otakulk.livejournal.com]

I mean this in the most constructive way possible:
I think that the way you started this post indicates a large problem regarding the worlds current handling of global warming. You started off by saying what you believe, not what has been shown to be true. regardless of your position on a topic, I think any scientific debate should be rooted in fact. The conflicting evidence, or inability of people to explain the differences in the conclusions, end up causing debates about global warming instead of questions. Debating the existence of something is rather silly, and people should be searching for answers instead of constructing them.