|
0
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre discovered an incongruity in temperature data published and used by NASA. The error was found in the algorithm used to calculate the warmest years, and was actually a Y2K bug. When the blogger notified the scientists of GISS of the error, NASA re-released the data (quietly and without coverage as of yet in the major media) and it shows that the warmest year on record in the US is now 1934, rather than 1998. According to the corrected data, 5 out of 10 of the warmest years in the United States occur prior to World War II. While the effect of this on global temperature data is minimal--1-2%, it certainly begs the question: how much of what we hear about Global Warming is hype, and how much is substance?
Add a Comment (16)
Email This
Message Author
RSS
Way out of proportion by scottb :: NR7 :: on 14 August 2007
it certainly begs the question: how much of what we hear about Global Warming is hype, and how much is substance?
Does it really beg that question?
The NASA data had very tiny errors. The largest were around 0.15 degrees. The corrected data is virtually indistinguishable from the uncorrected data. The anti-global-warming crowd really has blown it way out of proportion, though.
Here's another article.
Question by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 14 August 2007
Something occurs to me: isn't it true that only Europe and America have been keeping accurate temperature data for the last century or so? How does anyone chart average global temperatures for the last century when, if I am correct, there are only two sets of numbers two work with?
RE: Question by scottb :: NR7 :: on 14 August 2007
There are a lot of ways to collect historical temperature data. Even the "accurate temperature data" you mentioned can't be used directly.
The data is collected from fixed stations, but over the years, the environments in which those stations are situated changes. Cities grow up around them, and cities are always warmer than non-cities, so when they look at the data they have to correct for those effects. The result is that any temperature data is only a proxy for a more complicated underlying model.
So anything that varies as a result of mean temperatures can serve as a dataset. Trees grow at different rates as the temperature changes (and also rainfall and such), so tree-ring measurements show information about temperatures. Ice forms and thaws in different amounts when the temperatures change, so cores drilled from glaciers show temperature data. Both of these examples can go much farther back in time than simple thermometer data, though the thermometer data is often still used to calibrate and align the other methods.
RE: Way out of proportion by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 16 August 2007
If I read the graphs on NASA's site correctly, the whole swing for the US since the late 1800s is about 2 degrees C. If some of the numbers were off .15 degrees, that's a 7.5% margin of error in 2 degrees.
The article you linked to is a bit ridiculous as well. The author complains that the US is only 1.8% of the planet, and the error should only sway the results by that much. I'm confident that there have been more accurate, consistent temperature readings in the US of the last 150 years than any other place in the world. I am also confident that there are many vast areas of this world that there have been NO historical data for until the advent of satellite temperature recording.
RE: Way out of proportion by scottb :: NR7 :: on 16 August 2007
It's not the only article. Realclimate.com has their own commentary with roughly the same conclusions.
The revised NASA data lives here and it links to a commentary by one of its authors. He, too, says that it's meaningless.
Here's a blogger who's tried to follow how this story's been covered. It's really popular among conservative global-warming deniers, who're claiming it's a Y2K bug (nope, it's not), that it completely undermines the global warming theory (nope, not at all), that NASA didn't acknowledge it until "forced" to do so (nope, they immediately sent an email thanking the guy who reported the anomaly and corrected the reports), and so on.
RE: Way out of proportion by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 16 August 2007
There are at least two schools of thought that the more 'radical' (for want of a better word) global warming proponents fail to address. Those are:
I'm no climatologist, but truthfully, I personally believe we may well be experiencing a combination of the two. However...does that mean we quit trying to fix it? Nope--I just question the wisdom of the methodologies address. For example, Ethanol production is far more distructive than the proponents of this alternative fuels want us to believe.
I'd rather see more strict requirments on the auto manufacturers. Doubling the fuel economy will reduce our oil dependency by 1/3, and reduce carbon emissions by just as much. We should also fast track development of alternative non-polluting fuel sources, decrease the average commute time---or conversely provide adequate mass-transit, and go back to using trains for long-haul freight. I'm certain there is much more than can be done, but those are the ones I stick to my guns about--especially the use of trains and Mass Transit.
RE: Way out of proportion by scottb :: NR7 :: on 17 August 2007
Is the earth going through a warming cycle that accounts for some of the increases in temperature?
Well, the conservative nay-sayers keep repeating the mantra that the "hockey stick" chart has been completely discredited, but the climate scientists don't think so. And the "hockey stick" chart looks like this.
Now, I'll grant - I suppose it's possible that there's some natural warming cycle that could be represented in that data, but the fact that the graph pretty much launches upward at the same time the Industrial Revolution took off is an incredibly suspicious coincidence. That evidence alone makes a pretty strong prima facie case for the man-made global warming hypothesis, and it's something that needs to be directly addressed.
It's not enough to say "maybe it's not us" - the anti-warming folks need some pretty strong evidence showing that it's just coincidental, which pretty much means they need to prove its real cause.
I'm certain there is much more than can be done, but those are the ones I stick to my guns about--especially the use of trains and Mass Transit.
Personally, I think the solution is more likely to be more high tech. I expect we'll find a relatively quick way to slow down the process - taking some natural carbon sequestering system and delaying the mechanism that causes it to re-release its sequestered carbon. And I think we'll find a more direct solution to the problem after that - a relatively small change in the Earth's albedo shouldn't be completely beyond us, and that's all it would take.
Making the Aztecs Proud by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 17 August 2007
Here's the thing that bothers me about the man-made global warming hysteria (aside from the fact that for every person who says the science is settled another says "nuh-uh")-- we wouldn't be the first civilization to spend all our efforts trying to appease the angry gods for our transgressions when the environment starts getting uppity instead of trying to figure out how to survive what may be coming. Already there are lawsuits against those who have "caused" global warming. The UN, EU, and politicians like Gore are rubbing their hands together at the thought of imposing "carbon" taxes and greater governmental intrusion in all our lives. Mouth breathing celebrities preach to us common folk to repent of our energy sins whilst hopping into their SUVs to take them and their entourage to their private jets, or while having a hot tub helicoptered in. The Live Earth concert produced as much carbon in one day as Afghanistan did all last year. Much touted "green" fuel such as ethanol are ultimately worthless, as there isn't enough farmland to grow enough corn to make it worthwhile, plus it pollutes worse than gasoline. Don't get me started on the costs of bio-diesel.
Aside from the fact that probably the simplest and cheapest way of reducing pollutants is increased nuclear power (even the co-founder of Greenpeace says their no-nukes absolutism in the 70's was wrong-headed and environmentally destructive) and a really good, affordable, powerful electric car, I have not heard one idea being proposed about what we should do if Global Warming is inevitable. Not one. No ideas on how to adapt, on how to make Global Warming work for us. Just hysteria and polishing up the stone slabs in anticipation of making human (or orangutan) sacrifices to appease the angry weather gods.
RE: Making the Aztecs Proud by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 17 August 2007
a really good, affordable, powerful electric car
Hey, they already make several motocycle/scooters (Enertia, Electric Motorsport, Vectrix just to name a few) so why can't they make a car?
BUT..my pastor says if there's no vibration or the throaty exhaust like his Harley, he won't buy one. Maybe those companies need to add that to boost sales.. ;)
Of course, down in SC, it's perfectly legal to drive a golf cart on side streets within 2 miles of your home. I'm already picking mine out for when I move down there in about 5-6 years (hopefully!!). You can get them enclosed even!
I also agree with you about Nuclear Power--but the diligence *has* to be there to keep it safe..and there's always that nagging question of what to do with the waste. I toyed with the idea of a 'rocket to the sun' approach in my mind, but I'm sure that's wayyyyyy expensive. Now..if we could ever harness fusion power....
RE: Making the Aztecs Proud by wyldeling :: NR6 :: on 21 August 2007
I also agree with you about Nuclear Power--but the diligence *has* to be there to keep it safe
The current state of the art of nuclear power plants (subscription required) has changed considerably since most of the current ones have been built. (80% of the current plants are over 15 years old -- sub not req'd) Most of them are much more efficient and safe. But, as you said, there's the question of what to do with the waste.
BUT..my pastor says if there's no vibration or the throaty exhaust like his Harley, he won't buy one. Maybe those companies need to add that to boost sales..
Actually, he needs one with a thermo-acoustic engine (can't find reference). They're loud and generate the same power for half the fuel.
RE: Making the Aztecs Proud by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 17 August 2007
OH..and for anglers like me, a good electric boat motor with descent power and life. Something that will take my boat 60 miles offshore @45mph, let me spend the day out there chasing marlin or tuna, and take me home again.
Until then, it's internal combustion. Although--there are good electric motors for putting around on a small-medium sized lake or river. A lot of lakes have outright bans on petro-chemical motors and only allow electric, so if you have an electric motor, you can put your pontoon boat in and have an enjoyable day.
RE: Way out of proportion by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 17 August 2007
Now, I'll grant - I suppose it's possible that there's some natural warming cycle that could be represented in that data, but the fact that the graph pretty much launches upward at the same time the Industrial Revolution took off is an incredibly suspicious coincidence. That evidence alone makes a pretty strong prima facie case for the man-made global warming hypothesis, and it's something that needs to be directly addressed.
I agree that it's a pretty strong case, but if so, then why is there so much dissent among climate scientists? I don't have any answers. To my 'untrained' eye, however, one thing for sure winter in the Northern US is not as cold or snowy as it was even in the last 30 years. But..I still don't know how much is natural and how much is man-made. Even the charts only address the last 1,000 years..what about the 1,000 years before that, and the 1,000 years before that, etc.? The problem is we just don't know, and probably can't know completely.
You may be correct with you carbon sequestering system solution---I'd love to think so..but my gut reaction is that the damage is done, and while we can slow it down, we won't stop the inevitible.
RE: Way out of proportion by scottb :: NR7 :: on 17 August 2007
I agree that it's a pretty strong case, but if so, then why is there so much dissent among climate scientists?
There's very little dissent among climate scientists. Just like there's very little dissent among biologists about evolution. They argue over things like the relative strength of various parameters in the model, but the big picture has very few dissenters.
Don't mistake conservative media rationalizations for scientific dissent. There's a great deal of money spent to try to create a sense of doubt and uncertainty about the issue. ExxonMobil alone has given $3 million in support of organizations that do so.
The climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that global warming is happening, it's not a "minor" occurrence, and it's almost certainly caused by human activity. They disagree over what we should do about it, and over whether we can do anything. Some disagree over the actual mechanism, like whether CO2 emissions are the primary cause, or if it's deforestation reaching a tipping point or whatever. But the scientific community isn't debating whether it's man-made or not - except to the extent that they're forced to respond to the oil-industry promoted Rush Limbaugh's of the world.
Even the charts only address the last 1,000 years..what about the 1,000 years before that, and the 1,000 years before that, etc.? The problem is we just don't know, and probably can't know completely.
I think you underestimate what science is capable of - I'm not all that shocked, given your religious beliefs. There's some built-in anti-scientific bias there.
Those particular charts just address the last millennium. But they're hardly the only data on which the global warming consensus is based. It's another widespread myth among the nay-sayers that the global warming "hysteria" is built on just one alarming bit of data. That's false. There are lots of ways of measuring historical temperatures and they all agree - it's happening. Here's a graph that pieces together a few different models showing the reconstructed temperatures over the last half a billion years. The right-hand end shows that the coming peak isn't just hot for the last thousand years - it's at least a ten thousand year peak or even a hundred thousand year peak. Now, you've got to be very careful in looking at data like this that's combined from a number of sources - it's risky to look at more than broad trends. But it's clearly not just a short-term thing.
You may be correct with you carbon sequestering system solution
Sequestration is only a short-term solution. It's to keep us from losing Venice (and New York and Miami and so on) before we can get a real solution.
I think a long term solution is to work on directly manipulating the Earth's albedo. After all, 100% of the heat the Earth receives comes from the sun. Any warming or cooling effects represent changes in the rate at which the Earth absorbs solar radiation. If we want it to be cooler, we need to reflect more of that radiation away, preventing it from being absorbed. One fairly simple approach is to increase cloud cover. Fluffy white clouds also reflect lots of solar radiation. Making clouds isn't hard, either. It's an engineering problem, more than a scientific research project.
Obviously, we'd want to have some models indicating just how much more cloud cover we want, and whether there are any unintended consequences, but it seems like a viable concept to investigate.
RE: Way out of proportion by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 17 August 2007
climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that global warming is happening, it's not a "minor" occurrence, and it's almost certainly caused by human activity.
'Almost Certainly'...just like my 'gut reaction'..it's 'almost certainly' caused by humans, and its' 'almost certainly' probably too late for any real reversal, just a stabilzation. But..there is still dissent among climate scientists--and I can take you to a number of biologists who don't believe in evolution either; at least not on the scale proposed by what mainstream science believes. But, that's a digression. Suffice to say there is dissent in every field--I just listened to a 30 minute 'discussion' between two developer/dba's in the office on how to approach a particular problem; when that 30 minutes could have been used to solve it. The didn't come to any consensus and each is going to run off to do their part of the project, and probably each will have a detremental effect on the other; thereby delaying what needs to be done. Shoot, you can't even get two men on the street to agree on Ford or Chevy.
Obviously, we'd want to have some models indicating just how much more cloud cover we want, and whether there are any unintended consequences, but it seems like a viable concept to investigate.
Agreed--it might work. I also read somewhere about someone proposing growing algae to consume the CO2 emitted by our use of fossil fuels. I think they proposed doing this in the ocean, IIRC. That's another possibility--or how about just in everyone's backyard.
BTW..on the subject of fossil fuels, what about this? If it works, would it not require the input of the molecules necessary? Couldn't we use waste C02 from burning of fossil fuels?
RE: Way out of proportion by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 17 August 2007
oops.. I meant to say:
'almost certainly' aggregated (not caused) by humans.
RE: Way out of proportion by scottb :: NR7 :: on 17 August 2007
'Almost Certainly'...just like my 'gut reaction'..it's 'almost certainly' aggregated [sic] by humans
I assume you meant "aggravated". But that still understates the case. The IPCC report, which does reflect the consensus, says:
That's a pretty strong statement. They're more than 90% confident that global warming is caused by man.
Other major groups echo the same thing... The G8+5 joint science academies said, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere." The American Meteorological Society said, "Human activities have become a major source of environmental change.". The American Association for the Advancement of Science said, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
These aren't wishy-washy, sorta-maybe "suggestions that it might be" kinds of statements. They're flat out assertions, made by very prestigious scientific organizations.
But..there is still dissent among climate scientists--and I can take you to a number of biologists who don't believe in evolution either; at least not on the scale proposed by what mainstream science believes.
There aren't more than one in a hundred in either group. Yes - there are scientists who disagree with global warming. Quite likely because they're paid to do so by the oil companies. There are scientists who disagree with evolution - they're what we call "crackpots". They have zero actual scientific credibility. They don't get their works published in science journals because they're not scientific.
Suffice to say there is dissent in every field--I just listened to a 30 minute 'discussion' between two developer/dba's in the office on how to approach a particular problem; when that 30 minutes could have been used to solve it.
But this is exactly the mis-characterization of the situation that I'm talking about. The situation you describe isn't at all analogous to the global warming (or evolution) "discussion". To make them comparable, you'd have to have a room with a few hundred of these developer/dba's, with just one guy dissenting, and then a couple of thousand non-technical onlookers, where a sizable group has a vested interest in having the developers choose the dissenter's proposal. Oh, and they bought the dissenter a new car last month.
The problem here is that you're measuring dissent inaccurately. You hear about the same amount of noise from both sides and you assume that both sides have about equal support - but you really aren't hearing everybody, just the ones the media highlight. They have a vested interest in highlighting a conflict - reporting a story that has no conflict is boring.
What's most frustrating about the whole thing is when people like you keep repeating the "well, there's still a lot of dissent" falsehood, and then at the same time, whine about nothing getting done. Solving the problem is certainly going to take a significant amount of political will. It won't happen as long as you keep listening to the vested interests instead of the scientists.
I also read somewhere about someone proposing growing algae to consume the CO2 emitted by our use of fossil fuels.
Yeah, there are quite a few solutions being discussed out there - but we don't get to hear them much because of all the stupid arguments over whether we need a solution at all.
BTW..on the subject of fossil fuels, what about this? If it works, would it not require the input of the molecules necessary?
Mmm. My gut reaction is, probably not. They're using bacteria, like E Coli, which have roughly the same respiration model as animals, not plants. They take in O2 and release CO2, which is backwards from what we want. It's more of a solution to the problem of limited petroleum resources than to global warming.
One interesting idea I heard of was to take agricultural waste - like cornstalks and husks and wheat stems and other plant material - and instead burning it, to take it out to deep water and sink it. Plant respiration causes these materials to naturally sequester lots of CO2 - there's more in the cornstalks than in the entire column of atmosphere above the cornfield. Burning them releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere. Sinking them will basically put the CO2 back in the oceans, where it should naturally go anyway.