THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: Beardo on November 16, 2008, 12:08:52 PM
-
... Or not
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml)
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.
If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)
Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.
Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.
:algorecry
-
Yeah, they realized that temperatures aren't really rising so they call it "climate change" now.
I'm still for helping out the environment, though.
-
Then why do they intentionally fudge number to claim that it is rising.
-
There was a report saying that we are facing global cooling, you know within the next thousand years or so.
smh
-
There was a report saying that we are facing global cooling, you know within the next thousand years or so.
smh
You mean like what happened thousands of years ago. Before humans were emitting any green house gases. And the earth cycled back to being warm again without Al gore?
SMH
-
Actually it's even better:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7722300.stm
We're preventing the next ice age. :teehee
-
:lol :lol
Ok problem solved. But the real question is, will ManBearPig survive the ice age?
-
lmao science
:bow Islam :bow2
-
lmao science
:bow Islam :bow2
What if Allah put a jihad on weed? What would you do?
-
He wouldn't!
-
(http://i38.tinypic.com/5vp081.gif)
These two graphs have been slightly altered in the past 10 years and no official explantion to why.
I guess the "science is better" now.
-
:hans1
And here I was about to ask for a tinfoil hat smiley.
-
Well, that's a relief. Long live fossil fuels! Let's pour carbon and chemical pollutants into the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow.
-
I wonder if manbearpig wears hats.
Well, that's a relief. Long live fossil fuels! Let's pour carbon and chemical pollutants into the atmosphere like there's no tomorrow.
Lets continue to make statements with no merit that are only intended to scare people.
-
So you're saying that since evil liberals use false science to scare people that we should not conserve natural resources and promote environmentalism?
-
Im saying that manbearpig is a real threat. I'm super cereal.
-
Also, when did anti-global warming become a predominantly Republican platform?
-
Also, when did anti-global warming become a predominantly Republican platform?
I never got that either. Why politicize environmental issues?
-
Why politicize moral issues?
-
Also, when did anti-global warming become a predominantly Republican platform?
If it costs one red penny towards the bottom line, it is a ploy by communists to destroy America.
-
Also, when did anti-global warming become a predominantly Republican platform?
I never got that either. Why politicize environmental issues?
Why lie about facts?
-
I think the problem with Global Warming is it requires that people do something that may not bring immediate profit. Republicans dont like that much.
-
I think the problem with Global Warming is it requires that people do something that may not bring immediate profit. Republicans dont like that much.
Why do liberals lie about the numbers. It just doesnt make sense.
-
Maybe they are just a little more liberal with the calculations.
-
I think the problem with manbearpig is it requires that people do something that may not bring immediate profit.
???
-
Even if there isn't global warming, the truth is that we should take considerable measures to reduce the particulates and harmful gases that are emitted. The byproducts of this can be somewhat beneficial too, depending on the byproduct. So greedy business owners can still make money from their waste. An example is power plants that can sell fly ash, which is used for various structural purposes.
-
Oh, it's a beardo thread. He eats Republican shit (which is to say shit that lies to you, kills your son, and ships your job somewhere else) and then regurgitates on my Evilbore.
-
Even if there isn't global warming, the truth is that we should take considerable measures to reduce the particulates and harmful gases that are emitted. The byproducts of this can be somewhat beneficial too, depending on the byproduct. So greedy business owners can still make money from their waste. An example is power plants that can sell fly ash, which is used for various structural purposes.
I'm all for doing that once liberals stop using words like greedy profit every 2 seconds and calmly and truthfully talk abut the subject. I cant really have a conversation with someone who screams at you for being a greedy profit grubbing corporation while lying about the facts.
(which is to say shit that lies to you, kills your son
umad?
-
Why does Beardo keep thinking anyone here respects his opinion? It just doesnt make sense.
Feel free to mis-quote that for humorous effect, Beardo.
-
Even if there isn't global warming, the truth is that we should take considerable measures to reduce the particulates and harmful gases that are emitted. The byproducts of this can be somewhat beneficial too, depending on the byproduct. So greedy business owners can still make money from their waste. An example is power plants that can sell fly ash, which is used for various structural purposes.
I'm all for doing that once liberals stop using words like greedy profit every 2 seconds and calmly and truthfully talk abut the subject. I cant really have a conversation with someone who screams at you for being a greedy profit grubbing corporation while lying about the facts.
(which is to say shit that lies to you, kills your son
umad?
YES, INFURIATED BY CLOTS IN SUITS WHO TOOK MY COUNTRY TO THE CLEANERS OVER THESE PAST FEW YEARS
-
Why does Beardo keep thinking anyone here respects his opinion? It just doesnt make sense.
Feel free to mis-quote that for humorous effect, Beardo.
u mad?
-
Why does Beardo keep thinking anyone here respects his opinion? It just doesnt make sense.
Feel free to mis-quote that for humorous effect, Beardo.
You're the one in this thread replying to me and not refuting the facts. :lol
-
What's the agenda for the anti-"global warming" crowd? Are we trying to roll back anti-pollution efforts? Or do we just like to spite the fear-mongering hippies?
I don't get it.
-
What's the agenda for the anti-"global warming" crowd? Are we trying to roll back anti-pollution efforts? Or do we just like to spite the hippies?
I don't get it.
Just trying to keep people honest.
-
Even if there isn't global warming, the truth is that we should take considerable measures to reduce the particulates and harmful gases that are emitted.
This has already been going on for 3 decades in America. In many aspects, we are leading the world.
-
Donning my eco-trrrst hat for a moment, if it takes inflated numbers and fear-mongering to get people, Congress, corporations, and the world to pay attention to, and act on environmental issues, I don't see a problem with it. Call it a necessary evil.
What's the down side?
-
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.
they have been rising, it's just that 1998 is still the peak year because it was the last major El Nino event. I'm sure the next big El Nino will be warmer still.
-
Donning my eco-trrrst hat for a moment, if it takes inflated numbers and fear-mongering to get people, Congress, corporations, and the world to pay attention to, and act on environmental issues, I don't see a problem with it. Call it a necessary evil.
What's the down side?
Oh I dont know maybe I think forcing people to do things is wrong especially when its based on a lie.
-
(http://homepages.ius.edu/RVEST/0055_12.gif)
(http://homepages.ius.edu/RVEST/0055_13.gif)
-
Im saying that manbearpig is a real threat. I'm super cereal.
:lol such a bad joke, yet so good
-
who cares anyway. we are all gonna die in 2012.
-
Donning my eco-trrrst hat for a moment, if it takes inflated numbers and fear-mongering to get people, Congress, corporations, and the world to pay attention to, and act on environmental issues, I don't see a problem with it. Call it a necessary evil.
What's the down side?
Why not do the same thing in Iraq? Why not fudge a little bit about WMD's to get everyone on board? Surely, you want to see their people free?
What's the down side?
-
this thread is ::) ::) ::), why isn't beardo lepered already?
-
I'm super cereal you guys.
-
I wouldn't say motivating war and motivating anti-pollution legislation are quite the same thing.
-
I wouldn't say motivating war and motivating anti-pollution legislation are quite the same thing.
i think the similarity would be they both cost money
-
could we get off of robo's bizarre tangent and back to talking about how the original article posted is complete bullshit, please?
-
Yeah yeah. I'm just trying to see what's on the other side of the fence while we're at it.
-
I'm on the wrong side.
Anyway I think there's become a simplfication of climate change data. It's like the Big Bang Theory everyone knows what it is but very few people take the time to understand how and why.
In the 70's people thought the earth was going to cool down, then they thought the world as a whole was warming up now it's some parts will cool while other parts warm. Seems like science on the fly to me.
-
could we get off of robo's bizarre tangent and back to talking about how the original article posted is complete bullshit, please?
Go ahead. Explain how its bullshit.
-
In the 70's people thought the earth was going to cool down, then they thought the world as a whole was warming up now it's some parts will cool while other parts warm.
who is "people"? who is "they"?
-
Go ahead. Explain how its bullshit.
bogus claim that the world hasn't gotten warmer over the last decade + cherry-picking of minor flaws in part of a large body of evidence, similar to tactics used by creationists.
-
bogus claim that the world hasn't gotten warmer over the last decade + cherry-picking of minor flaws in part of a large body of evidence, similar to tactics used by creationists.
Yeah, catching liberals in their lies is such a wacky tactic. Just admit that the scientist lied when he said the earth was getting hotter.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
You can't quote facts. Only creationists use zany tactics like facts. WTf ZOMG
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
In the 1970s, there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[2] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, although Paul R. Ehrlich mentions climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968.[3] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend had stopped going down, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects.[4] In June 1976, in response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning that a very significant warming of global climate was probable.[5] It was known that both natural and man-made effects caused variations in global climate.
the 70s global cooling thing was just media sensationalism, it was never believed by climate scientists.
-
the 70s global cooling thing was just media sensationalism, it was never believed by climate scientists.
Kind of like Al Gore
-
the 70s global cooling thing was just media sensationalism, it was never believed by climate scientists.
Exactly. However 10% of climate scientists believed global cooling would occur. What if the 10% were right and the 90% wrong?
-
the 70s global cooling thing was just media sensationalism, it was never believed by climate scientists.
Exactly. However 10% of climate scientists believed global cooling would occur. What if the 10% were right and the 90% wrong?
those are bad odds.
-
My tangent was less bizarre.
-
Exactly. However 10% of climate scientists believed global cooling would occur. What if the 10% were right and the 90% wrong?
climate science was in its infancy at that time, they didn't claim to be confident in their predictions. from the same article:
The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."[16] But it also continued; "However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."[16]
The Board's report of 1974, Science And The Challenges Ahead , continued on this theme. "During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade."[17] However discussion of cyclic glacial periods does not feature in this report. Instead it is the role of man that is central to the report's analysis. "The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century".[17] The report can not conclude whether carbon dioxide in warming, or agricultural and industrial pollution in cooling, are factors in the recent climatic changes, noting; "Before such questions as these can be resolved, major advances must be made in understanding the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere and oceans, and in measuring and tracing particulates through the system."[18]
[edit] 1975 National Academy of Sciences report
There also was a study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences about issues that needed more research.[19] This heightened interest in the fact that climate can change. The 1975 NAS report titled "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" did not make predictions, stating in fact that "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate." Its "program for action" consisted simply of a call for further research, because "it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitative assessment of the climatic impacts."
The report further stated:
The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know..
contrast this to the IPCC report last year:
* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. (...)
* The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%. (...)
o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
* Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
* Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years
In IPCC statements "most" means greater than 50%, "likely" means at least a 66% likelihood, and "very likely" means at least a 90% likelihood.
-
the 70s global cooling thing was just media sensationalism, it was never believed by climate scientists.
Kind of like Al Gore
I don't get it, you guys seem more concerned with arguing against the more extreme global warming statements than arguing the basic science of global warming in general. We know global warming exists; admitting that does not mean you believe New York is going to be flooded in a decade.
-
Does it explain why it was hotter during the middle ages than it is now. I wonder if all the castles and kings knew how much carbon gases they were emitting.
-
I don't get it, you guys seem more concerned with arguing against the more extreme global warming statements than arguing the basic science of global warming in general. We know global warming exists; admitting that does not mean you believe New York is going to be flooded in a decade.
We're not debating on weather the climate changes. We're asking why liberals need to lie about their numbers and we are debating on if humans are the cause.
-
Does it explain why it was hotter during the middle ages than it is now. I wonder if all the castles and kings knew how much carbon gases they were emitting.
it wasn't (worldwide), only in Europe.
also, are you just playing dumb or are you really so fucking stupid that you can't distinguish "CO2 emissions affect the global climate" from "CO2 emissions are the only thing that affect the global climate"? do I need to go all Formal Logic 101 on your ass?
-
"But unlike in other fields of citizen-science (astronomy or phenology spring to mind), the motivation for the temperature observers is heavily weighted towards wanting to find something wrong. As we discussed last year, there is a strong yearning among some to want to wake up tomorrow and find that the globe hasn't been warming, that the sea ice hasn't melted, that the glaciers have not receded and that indeed, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Thus when mistakes occur (and with science being a human endeavour, they always will) the exuberance of the response can be breathtaking - and quite telling."
-
I don't get it, you guys seem more concerned with arguing against the more extreme global warming statements than arguing the basic science of global warming in general. We know global warming exists; admitting that does not mean you believe New York is going to be flooded in a decade.
Personally it is important since it dictates government policy. Climate science is not infallible.
-
You know, our planet goes through many periods of warming and cooldowns.
Two examples:
Dinosaur ages, very hot.
Ice Age. Very cold.
We go through these.
But I do believe that we should try to limit the damage we do as humans.
-
I'll make a deal with Beardo and all the other right wing nutbars- we liberals will shut up about global climate change and what we should be doing to combat it if in 30-40 years they promise to explain to everyone who lives on the coasts why they have to leave their homes that are now covered in water.
-
Beardo's the worst joke character ever.
-
I think the problem with Global Warming is it requires that people do something that may not bring immediate profit. Republicans dont like that much.
Why do liberals lie about the numbers. It just doesnt make sense.
It's not so much liberals as it is some individual scientists who are able to fudge numbers in order to get more funding, by fudge I mean that they don't outright lie but probably take the more beneficial, to their $$$$, side of the numbers. What your doing is the equivelant of calling all conservatives racists or bourgeoisie ass-fucks. You see, "it just don't hold no water" as the hero of conservatives everywhere (Sarah Palin) might say... hahahaha see, I can do it too.
-
i love how certain people here want others lepered for not falling in lockstep with their political opinions
congratulations, brownshirt, you'll make an excellent fascist
-
I just finished reading this book:
(http://www.scribepublications.com.au/files/book/cover_image/301/The_Climate_Wars.jpg)
Conclusion: We are so fucked.
-
i love how certain people here want others lepered for not falling in lockstep with their political opinions
congratulations, brownshirt, you'll make an excellent fascist
this isn't even about politics (it's a factual/scientific issue not a political one), this is about his being a dumbass and insulting the intelligence of the entire human race by trying to pass off "how can we predict climate change if we can't predict day-to-day weather fluctuations?" and "the earth was pretty hot in the Cretaceous period, where were your man-made CO2 emissions then?" as arguments.
-
it isn't about politics, but the words republican and liberal have been thrown around in this thread more than a drunken redneck riding the bull at a country-western bar
right, gotcha
there's an entire sticky thread here filled with complaints about unfair bannings from other boards, and what happens when some of those whiners get here - they start calling for others to be "lepered" because they don't like the way someone else posts
your fucking hypocrisy slip is showing, ladies
-
it isn't about politics, but the words republican and liberal have been thrown around in this thread more than a drunken redneck riding the bull at a country-western bar
right, gotcha
there's an entire sticky thread here filled with complaints about unfair bannings from other boards, and what happens when some of those whiners get here - they start calling for others to be "lepered" because they don't like the way someone else posts
only one person in this thread is calling for anyone to be lepered, namely me, and I've never used the words republican or liberal here nor have I ever (in any thread) complained about unfair bannings for that matter.
-
So people really think that 50+ years of burning fossil fuels are no determent on our climate? ???
Since the kuwait oil fires of the 90's, compounded by billions of cars and coal powered energy plants, people just take weather as it would have happened anyways regardless of what volcanos add to it? ???
-
it isn't about politics, but the words republican and liberal have been thrown around in this thread more than a drunken redneck riding the bull at a country-western bar
right, gotcha
there's an entire sticky thread here filled with complaints about unfair bannings from other boards, and what happens when some of those whiners get here - they start calling for others to be "lepered" because they don't like the way someone else posts
your fucking hypocrisy slip is showing, ladies
you just gotta ignore the idiots who use 'leper him' or 'why do liberals make up shit'
as for the global warming question in general: I'll admit I'm no expert, and I'm pretty much a passive observer and reader of what people seem to be discussing. I'm not even an environmentalist, I'm too lazy I admit.
That said, and correct me if i'm wrong, i hear that the vast majority predict the warming of the globe due to man's actions...more specifically, man's action as a consumer, as a businessman, whether that means making a business selling oil, making fabric, whatever. We use energy in our daily lives, and the solution recommended is the very thing that seems to irk alot of the more conservative members: collective regulatory action.
In the meantime, I hear that much of the opposing view - the scientists who argue the warming is overrated, etc - are funded by the oil dudes.
Now, correct me if i'm wrong or you wish to add to this, but when 1. I hear from supposed educated scientists of various disciplines and nationalities attesting to the Warming, 2. I hear that many opposing scientists are funded by people who have a financial interest in us being ignorant about hte Warming, and 3. the solutions proposed - collective, regulatory action - is the very thing that many conservatives cannot swallow, THEN I am inclined to think that Warming is 1. a generally factual trend, and 2. has been politicized by the conservative-minded on account of their idealogy, and 3. the business execs on account of their bottom line.
-
Dinosaur ages, very hot.
Do you think manbearpig was alive during the dinosaur age? Studies suggest manbearpig follows a more recent evolution timeline, but I think you might be on to something.