Jul
Global Warming Tricks
Hi Brit,
I’ve spent a good deal of time today cleaning house, but, while waiting on various appliances to do their jobs, I’ve done some investigating into the foundation for the Global Warming theory. Since, for most of it, one needs to know the secret handshake to gain access, my success was limited. However, I did manage to wade through the overwhelming use of technical terms, vague references to data sets named after people instead of any descriptive identifiers, the reluctance of the UN, and their lap dog the IPCC, to divulge any background information on who they are, how many people they employ, what their funding levels are, and so forth. Still, I did manage to dig up a the following.
That’s a typical Global Warming Alarmist prop, courtesy of NASA, who, considering their drinking problems, I would think should probably stick to their jobs which don’t really have anything to do with Global Warming.
What the Cult of Climate Change doesn’t bother to mention is this:
That’s a map showing the location of weather stations included in the historical record of the Global Historical Climatology Network, run by NOAA, and which is, best I can sort out of all the Climate Change clutter, the best set of data available. Each black dot, by the way, represents one weather station operating for at least 10 years.
Now, let us compare the two maps. While the first one claims, through the gray areas, that there are only tiny areas for which they list no average temperature change, the second map clearly demonstrates that the reverse should be true. There are only tiny portions of the planet for which temperature data has been collected for any meaningful time. For instance, I see that India is said to have experienced an average warming between .1 to .5, yet there are no weather stations in India!
Next, one should notice that red and black slash across southern Africa. Oh, that looks bad! Of course, that giant third degree burn is based on, what, 5 weather stations? The same basic scam is being played at the top of the map, where it looks like there are four or five stations, the data from which is accepted as showing a massive warming trend for the entire top of the world.
Don’t forget South America! From what seems to be 5 weather stations on the entire continent, somehow there is a recorded above average temperature increase in the Amazon Rain Forest, an area where none of the weather stations are located.
Oh, and the oceans, don’t forget the oceans. They cover something like 75% of the Earth’s surface, but have fewer dots than South Africa to represent them, yet almost all of the water surface is portrayed as having warmed.
I must say that, at this point, I am confused. I understand that statistical analysis can do amazing things, just look at all the opinion polls where 200 randomly selected people can represent the views of 300 million Americans, but, if you look at the ocean area to the east of South America, it would seem that over a million square miles of area has been presented as warming, with absolutely no data to support the claim. That’s none. Zip. Nil. Zero. Which can only mean that the IPCC, and all the “climate scientists” who depend on convincing everyone that Global Warming is real, have, in an effort to save tax payers’ money, resorted to using psychics instead of purchasing masses of expensive weather measuring equipment. While, considering the history of the United Nations, this is not all that great of a surprise, I do think that it may be a tiny bit of a shaky foundation on which to base any Government policy, let alone policy on the scope that is now being considered on the basis of this scam.
the Grit
“Next, one should notice that red and black slash across southern Africa”
Oh cummon, everybody knows it is hot in Africa! Good Work………steve
July 29th, 2007 at 4:47 amHi Steve,
Thanks. I ran across some strange stuff while doing research for this one. I can hardly wait to see where it leads me today.
the Grit
July 29th, 2007 at 11:13 amGrit,
it would seem that over a million square miles of area has been presented as warming, with absolutely no data to support the claim. That’s none. Zip. Nil. Zero.
You realize we now have at least thirty years’ worth of satellite data, which covers the entire planet, right?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:47 pmHi Reasic,
In a way, yes. However, that is irrelevant as it would be mixing apples and oranges. The IPCC reports, the basis for the Global Warming claims, are built upon manipulations of the ground based weather station data over 100 years or so. Now, even if the satellite data is accurate, although there has been much debate on this point, we will need another 70 years of measurements to match the time frame under discussion.
I’m pleased to note that you do not dispute my point that the underlying basis for the IPCC claims is a hoax. I’d be quite happy to fire the lot of them, toss their junk reports on the trash pile, and start over with a serious scientific effort to find the truth of the matter. Kindly pick a starting point on which to base our investigation.
the Grit
July 29th, 2007 at 11:11 pmGrit,
Is this your main argument against anthropogenic global warming? You are arguing that we’re not even warming?
The satellite data is extremely relevant. Let me run through a quick analysis, showing how satellite data is relevant. You tell me which parts of the argument you disagree with and why.
1. Satellite data is very accurate:
a. satellites are not influenced by any supposed urban heat island effects
b. satellites measure the temperature in the troposphere directly
c. satellites cover the entire planet, including the vast areas where ground-based weather station data is not available
2. Satellite data point to a considerable warming trend since the 70’s, similar to that of ground-based measurements and models.
3. Therefore, we can at least say that there has been global warming for the past 30 years.
4. Also, since satellite data, which is not affected by UHI, agrees with weather station data, we can say that weather station data, at least over the past thirty years, is validated.
5. If our current weather station data is correct, then the only way a global warming trend could be manipulated would be from a reduction of previous temperatures, rather than an increase in current temperatures, which negates the temperature data manipulation argument.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pmHi Reasic,
I’m just starting to investigate satellite data, so I’ll get back to you on that. However, it only covers 30 years or so, which is not a long enough period of time to establish much. For all we know, based solely on three decades of observation, this could still be cooler than usual.
Thus, what I’m arguing is that we don’t have enough information to make the broad and dramatic claims that come out of the IPCC. I’m supposing that, since you didn’t refute my comparison of the warming map to where the weather stations are located, you agree that the data collected prior to 1970 is insufficient to tell us anything about the world as a whole.
the Grit
July 30th, 2007 at 3:38 pmHi Grit,
July 30th, 2007 at 4:34 pmJust wanted to pop in and tell you the site looks fantastic. I’m still trying to get caught up reading though … surely I’ll get that done this week.
Hi Tammi,
Thanks! I was quite pleased to find this theme. It’s not so bold as to be distracting, yet I find it just the slightest bit daring. Of course, there are still several hundred others, maybe even thousands, that I haven’t looked at yet
the Grit
July 30th, 2007 at 5:03 pmHi Grit,
I’ll bet that the 30 year satellite data is not all of equal quality and that it may likely be a shorter “trunkated” period of time that we actually have “adequate” satellite technology and distribution in this effort……..steve
July 31st, 2007 at 2:05 amHi Steve,
Well, I already have some doubts, considering that the scientists have changed their minds several times in the past as to how to translate the data. Still, if it’s on the net, I’ll get to the bottom of it eventually. First, I intend to find the exact process that is used to measure “mean global annual temperature.”
the Grit
July 31st, 2007 at 11:03 amGrit,
Here’s an earlier claim you made:
You haven’t even fully considered satellite data and yet you claim that there is “no data” to support claims of warming? Keep in mind that I’ve only shared one additional piece of evidence for warming. There is also borehole analysis, glacial melt, sea ice melt, sea level rise, proxy data, and rising ocean temperature. There is plenty of data on which to support claims of warming. Here are a couple of links to get you started on satellite data, but be mindful that there is much more out there.
Can you identify anyone anywhere that is making this argument? I can’t think of any person who has argued that our current temperature record is so completely bogus that we don’t even know if we’re warmer now than we were 40 or 50 years ago.
And, as we’ve seen, you’ve not been considering the entire record of data that is available.
Absolutely not. I didn’t address it directly, but the whole point of bringing up satellite data was to refute your argument that the sparsity of established weather stations makes any difference in the validity or completeness of our global temperature record.
August 1st, 2007 at 5:47 pmGrit,
Here’s an earlier claim you made:
You haven’t even fully considered satellite data and yet you claim that there is “no data” to support claims of warming? Keep in mind that I’ve only shared one additional piece of evidence for warming. There is also borehole analysis, glacial melt, sea ice melt, sea level rise, proxy data, and rising ocean temperature. There is plenty of data on which to support claims of warming. Here are a couple of links to get you started on satellite data, but be mindful that there is much more out there.
Can you identify anyone anywhere that is making this argument? I can’t think of any person who has argued that our current temperature record is so completely bogus that we don’t even know if we’re warmer now than we were 40 or 50 years ago.
And, as we’ve seen, you’ve not been considering the entire record of data that is available.
Absolutely not. I didn’t address it directly, but the whole point of bringing up satellite data was to refute your argument that the sparsity of established weather stations makes any difference in the validity or completeness of our global temperature record.
August 1st, 2007 at 5:48 pmsteve,
How is it that you guys keep throwing out these baseless claims without a shred of evidence? “I’ll bet”? How about actually looking into it and figuring out if that’s true, instead of spearding uncertainty? For your information, the satellite data was compiled by two skeptics (Christy and Spencer from UAH), and at first, was claimed to show no warming. However, after several errors were found, the two skeptics corrected their own data and found a warming trend similar to that of surface stations and models.
I’m sorry for sounding rude, but I just get tired of the baseless accusations. The information is out there. Read it.
August 1st, 2007 at 5:55 pmHi Reasic,
Calm down my friend. “I’ll bet” should be taken as a request for information, not as a baseless claim. As I said somewhere, looking into the satellite data is on my list. It may take a bit of time, as very little of the science in this area is presented in an easy to follow format. For instance, I spent the morning trying to read through Hansen et al, which references several other papers that, to figure out why he thinks temperature data needs to be smoothed over a 1,200 km radius. Plus, it’s all in PDF format so it takes forever to load. But I’ll get there eventually.
Of course, you are always welcome to provide links
the Grit
August 1st, 2007 at 6:39 pmHi Reasic,
As to your comment that was caught in moderation, sorry for that by the way:
In the first reference, the claims I was talking about were based entirely on the ground station and ship sampling data. Introducing satellite data into that critique would be wrong.
As to proxy data, when the Global Historical Climatology Network adds it to their system, and a report on that junk comes out, I will be more than happy to read it, and point out any flaws it contains, which, I suspect, will be many.
As to the 30 year period of satellite data being enough on which to base anything, if people aren’t making this argument, then they need to take another look at the accepted ground station data, which shows several swings over similar periods. Once again, you can’t have it both ways.
As to us being warmer 40-50 years ago, after reading up a bit on the definitions of how this is calculated, how the data on which the claim is based, and how that data was collected, I’m surprised that any reputable academic would put his/her name on a paper making that claim. As I pointed out in another post, the “climate scientists” can’t even agree on a definition of what daily temperature measurements are needed to determine this claim, which pretty much removes any “scientific” discussion from the table.
I would also point out that, if you read http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1999/Hansen_etal.html
you will find that the “global” part of Global Warming is a very misleading term. As it turns out, based on the data and analytical methodologies which you accept, the US has actually cooled over the past decade or two. I was going to post the graphic showing this, but, coming from a PDF document it was far too large to subject our readers to. The same goes for much of the Arctic, much of the Antarctic, large stretches of the oceans, part of Africa, part of South America, and Greenland!
So, if as all the greenhouse gas theories assume, CO2 and cow farts are evenly distributed in the atmosphere, how can the warming be so spotty? On the other hand, if these gases are not evenly distributed, then why doesn’t the US, by far the largest emitter of said gases, show at least some warming?
The simplest explanation has to be that greenhouse gases are not the cause and, using Occam’s razor, these fluctuations, if they are happening, are just part of a natural pattern.
As to your point about satellite data, that’s fine, and we’ll see what the next seventy years show.
the Grit
August 1st, 2007 at 7:45 pmHey, Grit.
Actually, it wouldn’t. You seem to want to single out each separate piece of evidence for warming and scrutinize them individually. This is what would be wrong. You must understand that all of the data can be put together in order to determine the bigger picture. An analogy about a forest and some trees come to mind here. I have this mental picture of you running around from tree to tree in a forest, questioning the existence of the forest. If only you’d step back and look at the entire forest, you’d see what is right in front of you. I noticed, by the way, that you didn’t address the other evidence I mentioned (sea level rise, rising ocean temps, borehole analysis, glacial melt, sea ice melt, etc.).
Yes, CO2 and other GHGs are evenly distributed in the atmosphere. However, GHGs are not the only factor affecting our climate. There are also different weather events, such as El Nino, which cause regional and local changes. The fact that GHGs are evenly distributed in the atmosphere does not mean that the entire planet will warm equally.
To invoke Occam’s Razor, one must first have two competing theories, which are otherwise equal. In other words, they must both be proved valid through evidenciary support and proper experimentation. You’re treating this “natural pattern” theory as if it’s just a given, and doesn’t need to be qualified by any evidence other than “climate has always changed”. That argument is a canard, and has not been proven by any scientific research.
In fact, the consensus theory is actually very simple. Research points to the simple facts that GHGs heat the Earth, and humans have increased the concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere since the Industrial Age began. The facts that our climate is very complex and that there are many other factors involved apply to all other theories, not just the AGW.
So, for these two reasons, Occam’s Razor does not apply here. First, you must have a viable alternative theory, which you don’t. Second, the prevailing theory is actually quite simple anyway.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:34 pmHi Reasic,
You’re loosing sight of what the post is about. The original Global Warming claims were made without use of satellite data, and that’s what I’m examining here. I haven’t gotten to the eye in the sky stuff yet, but I will. I’m making an effort to research these things, provide references, and such, so it takes a while. As to putting the data together into a big picture, sure, but I, and hopefully others, want to understand what mathematical tricks and assumptions are being used to do it. For instance, I found out the other day that the method used to make up for the obvious lack of data is to assume that temperature anomalies are the same in a radius of 1200 km! You’ll have to excuse me if I suspect other such tricks have crept into the science, making me want to take a look at the details. In other words, I want to make sure none of the trees are artificial before worrying about the forest.
As to even warming, I understand your point. However, I find it very suspicious that the claimed warming is concentrated in areas which have the least observations. I also find it strange that the polar regions would show the most warming, since there shouldn’t be that much infrared being released off the snow and ice for GHGs to trap.
As to Occam’s Razor, you’re denying that there is scientific evidence of past climate change? So you’re falling back on the Great Flood theory to explain all the geological evidence left by ice ages?
As to the GHG-warming theory being simple, that’s true, but you still need evidence to support it, and I have yet to see any that’s reliable. So, Occam does apply, and the simplest explanation is that, if there is Global Warming, it’s just another natural cycle.
the Grit
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:19 pmGrit,
You’re right about the original global warming claims. Actually, the first AGW claims were made well before there was any data whatsoever to prove it. It started as simply a theory, based on the concept of certain molecules trapping heat:
However, your focus on early claims and early data do disjustice to your cause. It would seem that you would want to debunk the claims based on all of the currently available data and research. A theory can be proposed before it is verified based on empirical evidence. It wasn’t until the most recent IPCC report that the IPCC claimed that warming was “unequivocal” and that they were 90% certain that humans are the cause. This increased certainty is a result of more research that has been done on the subject. If you read statements from major scientific bodies from 30 years ago, you’d see that they claimed that we didn’t have enough data or research on which to base any predictions. However, every few years, the statements have become more and more bold, with greater confidence that warming is indeed happening and that humans are primarily causing it. If this was all just a big hoax, why didn’t liberal, commie, pinko scientists just make these confident statements 30 years ago, instead of waiting for proper evidence?
In the Arctic, for instance, there has been a great decrease in the amount of snow and ice cover. This has decreased the ice albedo feedback greatly, which is believed to be mostly to blame for the polar amplification that is witnessed there. So, yes, snow and ice reflect sunlight, but a drastic decrease in snow and ice will greatly increase warming.
No, I’m not denying anything about past climate change. I’m saying that there are still factors that must be understood and studied in order to claim natural variations are the cause of our current warming. Simply saying that it’s always changed and will continue to change, completely avoiding the obvious fact that there is a new variable in the equation now (human activity), would be irresponsible. So, if you claim natural variation, you must demonstrate more specifically how, just as you are requiring the consensus to do. Is it the Sun, changes in Earth’s orbit, natural emissions, cosmic rays, or what? Then, provide some quantified results as to how these trump the effects of GHGs. So, you see, your natural variation theory is just as complex as the greenhouse gas theory. You just don’t hold yourself to the same standards.
Occam’s razor does not apply, because no one has provided any plausible evidence for natural variation. Skeptics only point to prior changes and say, “humans weren’t here then to do cause those changes.” That’s not good enough. Just because something caused changes in the past, it doesn’t mean that when I add a new variable that the new variability is not caused primarily by the new variable. Let’s look at it in math terms. Let’s say x+y=5. Now, what does x+y+z=? Z might be zero. Should we just assume z is zero and say that since x+y equalled 5 before z came along that the answer will still be the same? I would say no. In fact, scientists have calculated the effects of z (anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions), and they claim that it outweighs the effects of natural factors, such as the sun. Actually, the Sun’s output has decreased in the past few decades, anyway. Also, cosmic ray intensity has stayed stagnant. All the while, temperatures have risen. What are we left with? Anthropogenic causes.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:20 pmHi Reasic,
One step at a time. I’m not in any great hurry in this area, and plan to do as through and complete a job of looking at the issue as I can. Besides, I have a great belief in the value of knowing history. The evolution of the Global Warming Alarmist movement is part of that, and, as I move along to other facets of the situation, I think it will provide a good basis for understanding. So, looking at the earlier works is, to me, important.
As to this:
“If this was all just a big hoax, why didn’t liberal, commie, pinko scientists just make these confident statements 30 years ago, instead of waiting for proper evidence?”
That’s because they learned from their earlier science based scare attempts. You should note that one of the lead authors for the 2001 IPCC report got his career going by working the acid rain scare, then moved on to running the ozone hole scam. I’m not saying that the people running the hoax are stupid, just evil. Oh, I wrote a post on that guy, back on the first incarnation of Conversations if memory serves.
As to the Arctic, since the loss of snow and ice cover is being blamed on Global Warming, I still have a tiny problem with the logic.
OK, you win on Occam’s Razor. I still, however, see no proof that there is warming, or that, if there is, the explanation is AGHG.
the Grit
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:36 pmGrit,
History is definitely important. However, I just hope that you don’t misuse it. If all you want to do is inform yourself about what was known several years ago and what claims were based on that knowledge, that’s fine. I’m not sure what good it would do you, aside from just general knowledge, but it’s fine. However, if you’re taking today’s claims that warming is unequivocal and is very likely caused by humans, and comparing them to the data that was available several years ago, you’re not comparing apples to apples. It would be a very misleading argument. So, if you want to verify today’s claims, I would suggest looking at the entire body of evidence that is available today, which I’ve already listed.
“Science based scare attempts”? Are you only referring to the acid rain and ozone issues? I know we’ve been through the acid rain issue before, but what else are you talking about? As far as ozone, it’s been my understanding that the ozone is indeed depleting and that CFCs were a major cause, which was why they were banned. Did you have some information contrary to that? Were there any other issues?
How are the snow and ice melting, other than warmer ocean temperatures?
I’m glad you see my point on Occam’s Razor. You may not see any proof of warming or AGHG yet, but what proof have you seen of the contrary? Is there anyone anywhere who actually has their own data set and claims that we are not warming?
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 pmHi Reasic,
The current support for Global Warming was built on, and still overlaps the data that was the basis for the initial IPCC report. That has influenced everything that has come after, and has been a significant influence in what research has been done since, and in how the results of that research have been interpreted. Not to include this background would be like studding the Civil Rights movement without bothering to study the history of slavery. Considering the trouble just this lack of information has caused, I hope you see my point.
As to ozone, surely you recall that the big scare over the Antarctic ozone hole turned out to be a natural phenomenon instead of being caused by humans?
As to the last bit, I don’t have to prove that Global Warming isn’t happening; I only have to show that the proof offered for it is wrong. So far, considering that you haven’t pointed out any flaws in my arguments, but have attempted to shift the discussion to satellite data instead, I seem to be making good progress
I do, by the way, appreciate having you constantly looking over my shoulder.
the Grit
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:18 pmI can agree with most of that. However, I still think it’s best to look at the full body of knowledge available now. Either way, my main point was that you shouldn’t compare today’s claims with yesterday’s research. As long as you’re comparing apples to apples, I don’t have any problems with it.
Nope, I’m not aware of that one. As far as I know, ozone depletion is caused by ozone depleting substances, such as CFCs. Sources? I found an EPA webpage that listed some of the natural phenomena that help explain why a hole forms over Antarctica, but these natural phenomena still only amplify the effects of ozone depleting substances. They are not an alternate cause. Is that what you were talking about?
That’s rather convenient for you, isn’t it?
You don’t have to provide any valid theories of your own that would prove a lack of warming. You only have to poke enough of a hole in the idea that we are warming so as to cause a general feeling of doubt or confusion. That doesn’t seem very fair. I think if scientists say we’re warming and you disagree with their presentation of the data, you should then have to present the data in a way that you feel hold more merit. Otherwise, you’re not really contributing anything. How is the data wrong, specifically, and what does it show when you correct it? I know it would be much more tedious, but it’s what would be necessary to really “turn the scientific community on its collective ear”.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with questioning consensus. However, when you’re questioning even further than most skeptics are willing to go, you begin to take on a much larger burden of proof. You can’t just say “hey, you’re data’s invalid”, and expect anyone to believe you.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:56 amHi Reasic,
As to the ozone hole, I’d have to hunt up the references, and, considering the time frame, they may not even be on the net. However, the EPA reference is close enough to make my point.
As to that last bit, I fail to see your point. If I get a speeding ticket that gets tossed out because the officer’s radar gun wasn’t calibrated correctly, I don’t have to go on to prove that I couldn’t possibly have been speeding and the court certainly can’t “correct” the data. The same goes for Global Warming. It should be sufficient to show the flaws in the science, such as the lack of ground station data or the average of the high and low temperature for the day is not necessarily a significant description of the average temperature for the day.
As to doing something constructive, considering the mass hysteria that the Alarmists have generated, it seems to me that trying to slow down the panic induced rush to do something, anything to save the planet at any cost and with consequences that are unknown is constructive and a worthwhile contribution to society. Oh, and I’m not just saying the data is invalid, I’m also saying why, and I notice you haven’t countered my points, so there must be something to them.
On the other hand, what are you afraid I’ll find? Are there dark secrets lurking in the halls of the IPCC? Evidence of fraud and conspiracy? This gets more fun by the hour
the Grit
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pmGrit,
The EPA reference does not make your point. It is still CFCs that deplete the ozone layer.
Also, your speeding analogy is faulty. That example would be more analogous to your word versus another scientist’s. However, you’re bucking against an entire community of scientists and all of their combined data and research. So, it would seem the proper analogy for your situation would me something more like you’ve been caught speeding by every policeman in the police force, some of which were staked out at different locations along the highway, each taking their own measurements of your speed, and some who were driving along side you. We could even throw in a helicopter or two, each mounted with speed detection equipment. Now, would you even show up to court to contest the ticket?
What points have I not countered?
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:20 pmHi Reasic,
CFCs may be the root cause, but only their unusual concentration gave it any propaganda value, which was quickly exploited by the environmental fanatic movement to push through legislation that, ultimately, cost us billions of dollars before all the facts were in. In other words, the selective publication of only the “worst” area of ozone depletion, along with the suggestion that this would spread over the entire planet, was used for political advantage, just as selective pictures of retreating glaciers and polar bears are being used today by the Global Warming Alarmists as an excuse to change society to suit their warped version of how things should work.
As to speeding as an example, the example is quite appropriate. If you want to introduce multiple police, I simply have to point out that all of their accusations are based on the same faulty speed guns, the officers trying to match my speed, obviously, couldn’t do that, photograph their instrument panel and my relative location to them and maintain safe driving standards all at the same time, and, of course, if the prosecution wants to bring the helicopter into the court room so my lawyer can cross examine it, then haul it in
IOW, I’ll get to the satellite data in due time.
As to points not countered, that would be, after your post on your own blog, the lack of sufficient data from land and sea stations to support the initial (2001) IPCC report, and my recent point about the inconsistency, and propaganda use, of glacial retreat as proof of Global Warming.
the Grit
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:17 pmGrit,
I’d have to look at the data available at the time for the 2001 report and the claims made based upon it. I don’t have that available right now.
Glacial retreat is occurring. I looked at your post on that, and I just haven’t had a chance to respond. I know one report you linked to, for instance, discussed the advance of one small area in the vast Himalayas, which are retreating overall. The small anomalies that have been pointed out in some studies do not negate the larger picture, which is one of glacial retreat. Again, it’s a matter of being able to see the forest for the trees. If you’re too busy wrangling over small, insignificant temperature discrepancies, one or two glaciers that are advancing, etc., rather than looking at what all of the evidence points to, you will miss the point.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:19 pmHi Reasic,
Take your time. I suspect this debate will continue for quite some time.
While glacial retreat is occurring, just as I pointed out, so is glacial advance. Often, as I tried to point out, in the same area. While you may think that two glaciers, running down the same mountain, one of which is retreating, and being used as propaganda to fuel the Global Warming Panic, while the next ice river over is growing at a nice pace and being ignored by the “scientific” community is irrelevant, I tend to think that it is a significant indicator of the Global Warming scam we are being hit with.
Oh, and glacial retreats have always occurred, just as have advances. However, the current propaganda only shows the retreats, making it seem that all the glaciers in the world are melting. Thank you Al Gore. Also, as I gave reference to, it’s not a small number that are advancing, but a significant percentage of the tiny number that have actually been studied. Although, given the “global” claim of the theory you are supporting, I would think that if even one glacier wasn’t obeying the call for conformity, that I win.
the Grit
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:26 pmGrit,
Check out the graph at the bottom of this page:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
The total volume of glaciers on the planet has decreased by over 6000 cubic km in the past 40 years. Just as you cannot expect the entire planet to warm in unison, neither can you expect all glaciers to retreat evenly. Very small numbers have advanced, and some of the advancement is actually due to global warming. However, the total change is very far in the negative.
Let’s look at it and determine who’s manipulating what’s going on. We have a vast majority of glaciers retreating, and this is exactly what scientists are claiming. No one has said that ALL glaciers are retreating, and neither has anyone claimed that this alone is proof of anything. However, when this is put together with other indicators, it becomes clear that we are experiencing warming. It comes back again to seeing the forest. On the other hand, there are skeptics, such as yourself, who point to the very small number of glaciers who have advanced, without examining why they might be acting opposite of the majority, and screaming that it is proof against global warming. Now, which is accurately representing the situation? I hope you don’t think skeptics are.
Also, as I said, some of the advancement is due to global warming, rather than proof against it. From one of the links you provided (the actual scientific study):
It would be good to look at the situations in detail and try to really understand what’s going on, rather than looking for ways to spin things to fit your ideology.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 pmHi Reasic,
I don’t have to look at your reference, since I’ve already seen statements that only a small percentage of the world’s glaciers have been studied. As to unison, yes, I can expect that from a theory that has “global” in its name. While I will be reasonable enough to admit that there might be some modest reasonable variations, really, this can’t cover different behavior for glaciers on the same mountain. You, I should point out, have asked me to look at the big picture, and I am. If the warming is not uniform and glacial retreat is not uniform, then the big picture would seem to indicate that the uniform distribution of greenhouse gases might not be the cause. But I’ll get to cause and effect later, after I finish looking at the actual base data, including you favorite satellite information
As to manipulating what’s going on, that would be the Global Warming Alarmists. Oh, and while no one has actually come out and said that ALL glaciers are retreating, there are several groups that are certainly implying just that, and for very nasty political purposes.
As to who is accurately presenting the situation, that would be no one. I do believe I’ve mentioned before that this subject has passed beyond the realm of science and into the land of propaganda and lies that is politics. While you and I may try to maintain a fact based perspective on it, you have to keep in mind that all of the reference sources to which we have access are most likely tainted by the political struggle.
As to that last bit, the last sentence says more than enough, since it assumes that Global Warming is real, marking the writer as biased, which is what your were warning me about, and, thus, not trustworthy. So, I would say that, first, before looking at the news, look at who is relating that story to you. As to spin, do you really think I could compete in that area with Al Gore, the liberal press, and all the environmental groups taking out ads on TV showing how Global Warming is like a run away locomotive that’s going to run over our children? I’m just trying to find the facts, look them over, and point out obvious flaws as to how they support the Global Warming theory. Of course, I will also take every opportunity to poke the politicians who are using Climate Change to take our money and freedoms in the eye with a verbal pointy stick, but that has nothing to do with science. Well, nothing to do with science as it should be.
Still, just to be fair, can you tell me why you’re so convinced that Global Warming is true? Really, even if all of Gore’s worst case predictions are right, is that enough to give up your freedom and change out country into some sort of totalitarian state? That, by the way, is what’s on the line.
the Grit
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:30 pmGrit,
I hate to break it to you, but no one wants to turn our country into a totalitarian state. Some might make the case that Bush does, with his constant power grabs through Executive Orders, but that’s another subject, which I don’t ever see you complain about, btw. I certainly don’t want to turn our country into a totalitarian state. Could you explain for me how we could end up in a totalitarian state if we act to combat global warming? It seems like a bit of a far-fetched idea.
From what I’ve read, 40% of our electricity consumption is a result of wasted energy. We could, at the very least, cut out the waste, right (turning off lights when we leave rooms, turning off appliances when not in use, etc.)? We could also increase CAFE standards and invest in better alternative fuels. These things would not bring about a totalitarian state, would they?
You must begin to use less alarming language, or you’ll lose all credibility. Yes, I’m saying that you sound like an alarmist when you cry “totalitarian state”.
Yes, I agree with the overwhelming majority of scientists who claim that we are warming and that we are the cause. I guess I’m just not one for conspiracies. I mean, I’ve examined the evidence, which is what I’ve based my opinion on, but there’s also the simple fact that it’s incredibly hard for me to believe that there is a massive global conspiracy within the scientific community to create fear over a hoax. Have you ever made fun of the 9-11 conspiracy theorists? Please don’t take offense, but you sound a lot like them when you talk about these conspiracies to rid you of your freedoms. That is such an incredibly outrageous claim, that I would think you would have based it on some incredible research on the subject. However, you will readily admit that you are still studying it. If that is so, what in the world is leading you to believe that there is a massive conspiracy? Why is it so impossible that we are truly warming, and that there are honest people that are only trying to do what’s best for our planet? Are you that suspicious of everyone, or is there something about these people that makes you so? Is it scientists in general that you don’t trust? Is it because Gore is involved?
Science is completely a totally verifiable. Every study that is published is backed up with data and calculations of some kind. If there is anything questionable within it, any person could try to replicate the experiment and prove it right or wrong. You seem to have the impression that the scientific research is simply an op-ed piece, which only states a scientist’s opinions on the matter, and is therefore very susceptible to bias, and also generally unable to be verified. However, this is simply not the case. Any skeptical scientist has the available option of obtaining another scientist’s work and trying to produce the same results. If the conclusions in the study are not supported by the data, then it would be invalid.
As I said before, I fail to see where all of this skepticism comes from. I understand you love your freedoms, but so do I.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:34 amHi Reasic,
This definitely needs a post in response.
the Grit
August 4th, 2007 at 11:29 amI found your blog via Google while searching for cause of el nino and your post regarding Global Warming Tricks looks very interesting to me. I just wanted to say that the quality of your site is exceptional. On top of all that it really complements the content that is provided by your site.
April 26th, 2008 at 5:45 amHi COEN,
Glad you liked it. It’s also nice to know that Google knows our address
the Grit
April 26th, 2008 at 6:15 pmHey Grit, awesome site you have going here, nice to see someone is doing their reading.
Anyways, I was reading my geology textbook and there’s an article here that would probably interest you. Its about new research coming out regarding atmospheric concentrations in ice core from Antartica. The data goes back about 420,000 yrs and some of the recent work done is showing that temperature changes occur slightly earlier (couple thousand years) than the corresponding rises in greenhouse gases. Which suggests that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the prime driver of climate change but rather a follower of temperature.
Anyways though, here’s a link for you to check out where they talk about the core data and cite some research done
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html
May 31st, 2008 at 12:03 pmHi Brian,
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it looks like we’ve gone beyond the science, or lack of it, and moved climate change into the realm of politics. Big Business and Big Government have figured out how to make money off it, so we’re going to fix it even if it’s not broken.
the Grit
June 4th, 2008 at 11:45 am