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

[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'.