My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Zythryn]

...But as we face the threat of massive energy taxes--raised by perceptions of increasing rates of warming and the sudden loss of Greenland's ice--we should be talking about reality

 

This really is a non-argument to the scientific basis of climate change. It would be like arguing that people aren't really hurt by falling because you don't want tax dollars being spent on gaurdrails.

[freeztar]

In 2007, methane and CO2 levels rose sharply according to the NOAA.

 

CO2, methane up sharply in 2007 | Environment | Reuters

[Michaelangelica]

Global warming could take a break in the next decade thanks to a natural shift in ocean circulation, scientists say.

 

But earth's temperature will rise as previously expected over the longer term, according to a study published today in the journal Nature.

 

Climate scientists in Germany base the prediction on what they believe is an impending change in the Gulf Stream, the conveyor belt that transports warm surface water from the tropical Atlantic to the northern Atlantic and returns cold water southwards at depth.

 

The Gulf Stream will temporarily weaken over the next decade, in line with what has happened regularly in the past, the researchers say.

 

This will lead to slightly cooler temperatures in the North Atlantic and in North America and Europe, and also help the temperatures in the tropical Pacific to remain stable, they suggest.

 

Last year, scientists in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that by 2100, global average surface temperatures could rise by 1.1-6.4°C compared to 1980-99 levels.

 

I think I heard that E coast seas of Oz have risen 4 degrees Celsius recently while western oceans only 1-1,1/2 C.

[UncleAl]

Religion: "WE MUST DO SOMETHING!"

Engineering: "We must do something pertinent."

 

Fourmilog: None Dare Call It Reason

25 April 2008

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/images/longrange/butterfly.jpg

 

All the social activism in the world plus near-infinite sheaves of parameterized non-linear differential equations cannot overrule the implacable reality of mere arithmetic,

 

AN ARITHMETIC TRUTH

 

(0.99)^4 = 96.06%

(1.01)^4 = 104.06%

==================

0.12% imbalance (less the mean).

 

No sunspots --> Ice Age. That fractional percent is enough to decide between the Garden of Eden and glaciation. The test is in progress. Patience. Little fluctuations along the slide do not matter. BURN COAL. Hell, burn anything! WE'RE GONNA FREEZE!

[freeztar]

It is well known that the Earth's climate goes through natural cycles of glaciation and warming Al. That is not what is of issue here.

[Moontanman]

Hmmm.... We're gonna Freeze, we're gonna burn, we're gonna starve, we're gonna die of obesity:eek_big:

Surely reality will be somewhere in between, maybe we're simply gonna die no matter what:doh:

[CraigD]

All the social activism in the world plus near-infinite sheaves of parameterized non-linear differential equations cannot overrule the implacable reality of mere arithmetic,

 

AN ARITHMETIC TRUTH

 

(0.99)^4 = 96.06%

(1.01)^4 = 104.06%

==================

0.12% imbalance (less the mean).

While it’s all well and good to note that the Stefan–Boltzmann law shows that a 1% increase in absolute temperature of a black or grey body results in a greater increase in radiant power than the power decrease for a 1% decrease, I’m unaware of any data suggesting that the Sun’s temperature increases and decreases by such exact amounts. As many sources, including the wikipedia article “sunspot”, describe, sunspot activity appears to follow somewhat regular patterns, most noticeably an 11-year cycle, the maximum observed variation is not the roughly 4% in Al’s example, but less than 0.1%.

No sunspots --> Ice Age. That fractional percent is enough to decide between the Garden of Eden and glaciation.

Although the 16th to 19th century Little Ice Age spanned a 70 year period (1645 to 1715 AD) of nearly zero sunspot activity, the was preceded by other potential causes, such as an increase in ocean pack ice, by nearly 400 years.

 

In short, climate is complicated, IMHO, poorly modeled by “simple arithmetic truth”.

BURN COAL. Hell, burn anything! WE'RE GONNA FREEZE!

With 17th century government and technology, the human population increased by an estimated 10-20% from 1600 to 1700 AD (source: Historical Estimates of World Population), a far cry from extinction by freezing. I suspect that 21st century civilization would do at least as well.

 

Without good emission control systems (ie: scrubbers) burning coal or burning anything that can burn releases large amounts of particulate pollution. There’s strong medical explanation and empirical evidence (sources: many, including Particulate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) that this sort of pollution greatly increases the incidence of preventable disease and death. I don’t think it’s a good idea to intentionally expose people to avoidable particulate pollution.

[freeztar]

CO2 levels have reached the highest in 650,000 years.

 

World carbon dioxide levels highest for 650,000 years, says US report | Environment | The Guardian

[freeztar]

Hmmm...Can someone explain to me why the church is getting wrapped up in the climate debate?

 

Christians Launch Campaign against Global Warming Hype | Christianpost.com

 

I quite like Grist's take on it:

 

Conservative Christian leaders have launched a "We Get It!" campaign that just goes to prove that saying something doesn't make it so.

:cool:

[Moontanman]

Hmmm...Can someone explain to me why the church is getting wrapped up in the climate debate?

 

Christians Launch Campaign against Global Warming Hype | Christianpost.com

 

I quite like Grist's take on it:

 

:)

 

Because the Right Wing Christian Conservatives want the end of the world to some about as fast as possible and think they should do anything possible to hurry it along!:cool:

[freeztar]

An internal NASA report has shown that the press office interfered with climate science. :( Read about it here:

The Associated Press: NASA's own watchdog: Agency misled on global warming

[Turtle]

An internal NASA report has shown that the press office interfered with climate science. :( Read about it here:

The Associated Press: NASA's own watchdog: Agency misled on global warming

 

:hihi: Sounds like a story for the 'Science is Close-Minded' thread. :) In all fairness though, the perps didn't interfere with the science itself, according to the article, but rather access to it. ;)

... In its response, NASA's legal office noted that the report showed that actual research on global warming was not interfered with, and that neither NASA senior management nor other senior administration officials were involved. ...

 

Still, something bothers me about Senior officials & managers not having involvement in the agency they are supposed to be running. I hope this isn't a widespread phenomenon. :)

[InfiniteNow]

I like that it was NASA's own watchdog group that caught this and published the report. :thumbs_up

 

 

NASA public affairs officials criticized by the report called it wrong, saying they were always open and truthful.

 

Not so, according to the report. The report did not directly accuse them of lying, but used more nuanced terms such as "mendacity" and "dissembling." The space agency complained those terms were unjust.

 

The report concluded that "inappropriate political posturing or advantage" was behind some of these actions.

 

NASA and the Bush administration instantly drew criticism as a result of the report.

 

"Our government's response to global warming must be based on science, and the Bush administration's manipulation of that information violates the public trust," said Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still, something bothers me about Senior officials & managers not having involvement in the agency they are supposed to be running. I hope this isn't a widespread phenomenon.

 

If you truly believe that they were not involved or were unaware, Turtle, then I've got a bridge I want to sell you. :hihi:

 

:shade:

[modest]

... In its response, NASA's legal office noted that the report showed that actual research on global warming was not interfered with, and that neither NASA senior management nor other senior administration officials were involved. ...

Still, something bothers me about Senior officials & managers not having involvement in the agency they are supposed to be running. I hope this isn't a widespread phenomenon. :thumbs_up

 

From the wording I think the AP is a little unclear but I would assume they mean NASA Senior officials were uninvolved with the manipulation - not that they were uninvolved with the public affairs office.

 

It would maybe be better for public affairs if senior officials were more directly involved with the office. However, that might be worse off for the senior officials - I would argue public affairs is something they don't need to be spending too much time on. The third option of having NASA's watchdog agency fill the role may be the lesser of all evils. The system did kinda work. Not that a system that breaks then fixes itself is a shiny example - but, the lesser of all evils it may be.

 

-modest

[Cedars]

An internal NASA report has shown that the press office interfered with climate science. :thumbs_up Read about it here:

The Associated Press: NASA's own watchdog: Agency misled on global warming

 

Quote from the full report:

 

With respect to NASA’s climate change research activities, we found no evidence indicating that NASA blocked or interfered with the actual research activities of its climate change scientists. In contrast to our findings associated with the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs, we found that NASA systematically distributed its technical climate change research throughout the scientific community and otherwise made it available through a variety of specialized forums, such as scientific journals, professional conferences, and public appearances by NASA scientists. Further, our recent

audit of NASA’s formal process for releasing scientific and technical data resulting from research conducted by its employees and contractors found no evidence that the process was used as a means to inappropriately suppress the release of scientific or technical data at the four NASA Field Centers reviewed.

 

Of the 287 authors surveyed at those Field Centers, none indicated that they had experienced or knew of someone who had experienced actual or perceived suppression of their research by NASA management.

 

Full report here:

http://oig.nasa.gov/investigations/OI_STI_Summary.pdf

[InfiniteNow]

Full report here:

http://oig.nasa.gov/investigations/OI_STI_Summary.pdf

 

Cedars,

 

Let me first thank you for the link to the full report. Good find.

 

With that said, I feel your small selection of text above from the Executive Summary does not accurately reflect the outcomes of the report.

 

To support this, I would like to call everyone's attention to section IV-C (Examples of Purported Interference) from pages 26 to 32, and also section V (Allegations and Instances of Improper Denial of Media Access) immediately thereafter.

 

 

 

From the Conclusion section toward the end of the report, the following was shared:

 

"After carefully reviewing the relevant facts and circumstances in this matter, we conclude that officials in the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs did, in fact, manage the release of information concerning climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, and mischaracterized the scientific information within the particular media over which that office had control. Further, on at least one occasion, the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs denied media access to a NASA scientist, Dr. Hansen, due, in part, to that office’s concern that Dr. Hansen would not limit his statements to science but would, instead, entertain a policy discussion on the issue of climate change.

 

We also conclude that inappropriate political posturing or advantage was the proximate cause in at least some of these actions. While we did not find that all Headquarters Office of Public Affairs’ adjustments to climate change news releases were politically motivated, the preponderance of the evidence does, however, point to politics inextricably interwoven into the Headquarters Office of Public Affairs’ news dissemination process at that time. Climate change scientists and affected career Public Affairs Officers believed that, as a result of their proposed media releases being altered, delayed, or converted to other (lesser) media, their work was in fact compromised for political advantage—especially when it conflicted with the Administration’s policies or priorities."

[Cedars]

Cedars,

 

Let me first thank you for the link to the full report. Good find.

 

With that said, I feel your small selection of text above from the Executive Summary does not accurately reflect the outcomes of the report.

 

 

I said it was a quote from the 93 pages. I got to page 48 before concluding much ado about nothing.

 

How far did you get in the actual report?

 

NASA press releases (with archieves)

NASA - NASA News Release Archives

 

JPL press releases (with archieves)

 

JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases

 

One specific press release investigated:

JPL.NASA.GOV: News Releases

 

Having worked for government and been told NOT to speak to media directly rather refer all calls to a specific point person and fully understanding that a press release is not a scientific document or finding, and knowing its not the public employees job to do investigative journalism, and reading the issue surrounding Hansen and finding out this was resolved within less than 30 days after the public radio incident, and fully seeing why the office was concerned with him after his appearance at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, California, I can see why a Public Affairs Coordinator would describe this as a shitstorm.

 

We as state employees HATED anything that made the phones ring outside of our normal daily schedule of events. We had a job to do. I cannot image the hassles beset on these various offices by journalists who REFUSE to read the actual documents (let alone interpret them). It would be better for all of us if the media did its own journalism and didnt rely on copy/pasting from press releases. After all, nasa provided links to actual info. But everyone wants the mcNugget happy meal dont they?