Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

The perfect toy for denialists this year:

 

First of all there is no way to confirm that is correct data. Was the instrumentation changed at the turn of the century? Were measuring methods different at some point? What is the point of looking into one station out of probably thousands if not to confirm biases.

There are agencies that have the expertise in evaluating data from these stations and surfacestations.org is not one of them.

 

Can you state with any assurance that the station was actually up and running in the time period from ~1880-1910? You own quote says "This Orland Ca station has been in the same location for over 100 years". By my math, 100 years ago was sometime around 1909. 1880 would be about 130 years. So how can you make some sort of extrapolation about data that may not exist?

 

That's funny. Imagine if I asked the same questions about the stations, but from the point of view that "the data is not accurate because it supports too much warming!"

... So it's only ok to question the data appears anti-AGW, not if it's pro-AGW, right?

Surfacestations.org provides a place to self audit these climate stations. They've found that 69% of the stations that they've surveyed (they've surveyed 78% of the stations) have an error of >= 2.0'C (3-4 times the supposed amount of AGW we've had in the lat 30 years.) These ratings are done in accordance NOAA's CRN.

*SIGH* It's obvious neither of you read the attached link. And yet you still feel like commenting.

I don't think you guys get the point. The station had data from 1880 on, and deleted the data. NASA GISS admits this:

If you read the link, it shows other stations this has happened at as well.

 

LOL, I couldn't help notice the "choking hazard" warning notice.

 

Personally,

I don't think "whatsup" is a clearinghouse for unbiased information. You can posit all you wish about the whys and wheres of data(or lack thereof) for what ever sources you wish, and it won't prove a darn thing.

I supposed I could find history of earth at the centre of the universe and believe that Galileo was a heritic, but that doesn't prove anything.

Aside from that, weather station doesn't a trend make. I also agree with Alric that if nothing else, measuring technology has changed dramatically in the last ~100 years, such that all numbers are likely to have a greater margin of error in 1910 then 2009, which also doesn't prove a thing.

 

It shows that the data from the stations is being manipulated. We also know the data at some stations (69% of those surveyed) has a relatively large margin of error (>=2'C error). If you think the instrument technology from 100 years ago is so poor and has a greater margin of error, then how can we trust that data?

We're talking about warming differences of tenths of a degree (normal causes vs. anthropogenic causes) and you're saying poor instrumentation doesn't matter?

I'm not sure why you keep saying "doesn't prove a thing." What am I trying to prove? I'm merely raising awareness of data manipulations at weather stations, and the poor quality of data these stations. I'm not trying to disprove AGW with my last post.

(My interests there now are learning everything I can about the science behind estimating the contribution of solar irradiance vs anthropogenic GHGs.)

You know, you and Alric should really read some sites (wattsupwiththat.com, climateaudit.org, etc) that call AGW on some of it's BS. It's good to see both sides of the story. Plus, it will challenge what you think you know. I promise you don't know even remotely as much as you may think you do. I've been reading nearly every document I can get my hand on, the vast majority of which are pro-AGW.

Alric, I know you'll complain that the sites aren't "peer reviewed" but that's a poor criticism. You don't have to be peer reviewed to be correct, or to make a point, or to call someone on their BS. Plus we've already established the peer review system in climate science is of questionable integrity.

It can't hurt to just learn a little more.

 

I claim to no very little.

I also don't have all of every day to read anything and everything about the subject. I also make no pretense of having any scientific training or understanding.

What I do know, even though you will counter that it is the opposite, what I do know, is that there has been a organized, concerted, well funded attempt to at worst deny climate the existence of human caused climate change and at best cloud the issue, and in point of fact they have done a very good job of it IMHO. The money behind this effort has largely come (behind the scenes) from big oil/big coal/big nuke/big utility. Their entire motivation is to avoid having to spend the money required to produce clean energy in the long term, and to make more money in the short term.

As I asked oh so many posts ago, "show me the money!" Who stands to benefit more from the out come?

I rest my case!

 

How dare you use such FOWL language

For the record, I am all for clean energy. I wish we could go back in time and dump all the Cash For Clunkers money into clean energy research. I wish we could pull out of the war and put that money into alternative energy research. I really do look at the sun and see infinite energy. We just need better ways to harness it.

 

I too am for clean energy. As one who has made some portion of my living for nearly 30 years designing/building/installing low energy systems and houses (long before the term Green was fashionable), I have some experience.

That said, it is one thing to be "all for clean energy". In your case, you may be "for" all the right things, but I think you are (for what ever reason) wrong in your opinions on climate change.

As I have also said way too often, EVEN, if the extend of Human causation is overstated (on purpose or because of developing technologies) the only rational course to follow, for the sake of our children's children's children is the one that has the greatest possible benefit.

Now you may not believe in Human caused global warminf, but why on earth could you object to carbon limits/taxes etc if it were to shown to have long term value and benefit beyond it's costs?

It has been demonstrated time and again that instead of "costing us money" environmental regs and the technology that follows ends up being a net benefit. For example, cleaning up SO2 emissions from coal plants in the 1970s had a direct quantifiable cost, but it had huge benefits in reductions in acid rain, (and the health of thousands of lakes and fish) reductions in respiratory ailments etc.

Adding Cat converters to cars, came at some small cost per car (despite Detroits claim it would bankrupt them!) but I don't think ANYONE would argue that the air is demonstrably cleaner ( and healthier) as a result, with a much greater savings in public health.

So even if you assume that the global warming projections are wrong, and even wrong to the extent of an order of magnitude, what is the downside? If we move to cleaner/greener energy and at least reduce the amount of Greenhouse gasses EVEN if it turns out that the only benefit is a delay of peak oil, or development of genuine sustainable energy going forward for an energy hungry planet, whose population continues to increase.

The answer I always come back to is that people are all too often short sighted and selfish. They will pay lowest cost first, in the hope that some one else will pay the eventual cost. I for on think that is selfish and does a huge disservice to coming generations.

What, do you think?

 

Dont you read the political section?
I dont know if TimBikes posted his video link here so I'll add it.

 

I don't watch video clip links for a variety of reasons (bandwidth being one) so,,, What's your point?

 

So far, the only money showing is the funding stream of millions of government dollars going to the compromised research institutes like CRU. Government is buying the answers that they want. This funding stream is not in question and was not revealed by Climategate. It happened, and is happening. Can you deal with that?

I'm also puzzled by you Warmists. All of the first-world governments want to limit their citizen's freedom, increase their tax burdens, reduce their standards of living, for the stated goal of saving us all from storms, floods, famine, death, destruction and global doom. It seems to me that both alternatives are unpleasant. Our futures are bleak either if we don't contain global warming or if we do!. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

But, comes now news that the whole edifice on which our dismal futures are based is suspect, and you are happy? Are you longing for that dismal future that AlGore and the Team paint for us?

I'd think that anyone happy about man-made global warming being proven has something to gain from the general misery. These would include big government people, people wanting to limit standards of living for everyone for philosophical reasons, or capitalists hoping to profit from the situation. Which are you?

For me, I'm happy that there's hope for us. I don't stand to profit from other people's misery, after all.

At least the Warmists have been revealed for what they really are. Their movement is political, not science based. Is belief in AGW a "litmus test" for where you sit on the political spectrum? And, with the science suspect, it really IS a belief, isn't it?

Where do you really stand?

 

I oppose cap and trade for several reasons. I don't want to get into a political debate because it will just crap up this thread, so I'll be brief.

The first is that I do not believe it is necessary. The whole AGW debate aside, I think it is wholly irresponsible to passive such massive legislation on something so controversial.

Next I do not believe the government is capable of running cap and trade. I feel the government is inefficient, corrupt, and too bureaucratic. I'm a doctor and I have to deal with Medicaid/Medicare all the time, and I see how poorly the government runs that (it is a true nightmare.)

Next I do not believe that the government should be able to control businesses in that way. I do not believe in a big government. I think if anything the government should offer incentives if businesses can reduce their carbon emissions by X percent.

I think the government is already irresponsible enough, wasting so much tax money. I don't even need to list the billions and billions they've wasted. I'm talking about both Bush and Obama.

Etc, etc, I just think it's a wholly wrong and completely un-American thing to pass cap and trade. The idea of it makes me sick and I can't believe that anyone would support it.

But.. That's the beauty of political discussion. I don't think either us will ever be able to see the others point of view. I sit here and wonder how you can openly welcome another tax. But, I'm not going to try to persuade you, and I am pretty sure my position will never change.

Anyway!

 

RP,

I don't believe in cap and trade either for many of the reasons you list, as well as a few others.

However, I do believe you have let your personal animosity against "big government cloud your ability to see the reality of climate change.

"Next I do not believe that the government should be able to control businesses in that way. I do not believe in a big government. I think if anything the government should offer incentives if businesses can reduce their carbon emissions by X percent.

I think the government is already irresponsible enough, wasting so much tax money. I don't even need to list the billions and billions they've wasted. I'm talking about both Bush and Obama. "

Personally, while don't think government at any level is perfect, I do think that the concept of Lazze' faire business regulation has been proven folly. From the robber barons of late 1800/early 1900s to the current economic melt down it is clear that greed triumphs any public good.

I personally and glad for the FAA to fly safely, NHTSA so that we aren't driving Corvairs, EPA, FDA, FDIC, and on and on and on. I suspect that many deniers heart of denial rests in their unwillingness to pay their share of taxes.

In realty no matter how yo cut it, your average tax burden less now as a percentage of gross income and of gdp than it has ever been!

 

Yes - there are agencies that have expertise in this - one even invited Anthony Watts to their HQ to share his findings. Admittedly Watts does not have all of the resources to fully evaluate everything, but at least he has tried - and indeed found some shockingly bad results.

To my knowledge, the feds have never even contemplated a comprehensive audit such as that undertaken by surfacestations.org. And yet - somehow - they make "adjustments" to the data without actually visiting the sites?

Given the growing effects of urbanization, one might expect most of the adjustments to be downward adjustments to reflect the growing issue of urban heat effects. But incredibly, what we find in the adjustments is the opposite:



A significant (and upward trending) positive bias in temperature station adjustments.

IMO, this is in need of a serious audit.

 

I keep seeing the same thing - that the corrections are made by bringing the lower temperature up to the higher one, instead of averaging them or taking the lower one (the one less likely affected by urban heat islands.) I need to find out more about that stuff.

It definitely needs a serious, legitimate, and complete audit. Especially since we are literally talking about less than half a degree celsius difference between what they think would be normal vs. anthropogenic causes.

When I see all of this - the bad data, the wrong data, the manipulated data, bad weather stations, mysterious homogenization algorithms, the cherrypicking of data sets, and the dishonesty of the presentation of the data, etc, I can't help but roll my eyes at this half degree difference over the last century (that is, again, difference between the expected and anthropogenic causes.) Not to mention these differences are calculated in computer models with god knows what parameters, etc.

It's not. I actually used to think AGW was true. I heard everything about how all the scientists believed it, etc. But after climategate I started researching it, and everything I keep finding out just raises way too many questions. And I'm a total skeptic, I don't believe in a god, ghosts, alternative medicine, anything.

 

nm

 

Global warming is not a BELEIF like believing in God, or Santa, or Ghosts or any other BELIEF based on unknowable and "faith"

It is a scientifically verifiable series of conclusions come to by the VAST majority of climate research over the past several decades. Are all the conclusions correct? No. Are all the models correct? No. Does a small percentage of outliers disprove all the other studies? Also no. Can data be manipulated? Yes, on either side. Can data be cherry picked to bolster on position? Sure once again on both sides. Does manipulated/cherry picked data undermine the validity of other research? No. Does it have a harmful effect on the debate? Of course.

I go back to my most common arguments. The stakes are high enough, the costs of being wrong so significant that to err on the side of caution is only prudent, if not for us, for coming generations.

My second argument is follow the money! I have little to gain (in my lifetime) from making the changes needed to combat global warming, because in point of fact, it is my grandchildren who will reap the benefits.

You (collective deniers) have much to gain by not making the changes. You will continue to have (relatively) cheap energy choices with little regard for the future, and in fact my grandchildren will pay for your choices.

In a more general sense, as I have oft stated, Multi-nationals/big oil/ coal/big utility etc have very much to lose (in the short run) by not addressing the issue. A recent survey of fortune 500 CEOs said that a whopping 80+% would not do ANYTHING to address global warming if it were to effect the next QUARTERS profit! Can you tell me with a straight face that they give a rats A**s about the future, yours or mine? Do you think the APA or the "Clean Coal Council" cares about green anything? The only color green they care about is the color of money. Groups like these have poisoned the waters enough so that where once there was little question in the public's eyes as to the reality of global warming, it is now subject to "debate"

As I believe Shawn Clarke said better than I, there is not two sides to wrong! Wrong is still wrong on this subject, and I fear that your side will carry the day, not because of the reality, but because the above mentioned manipulation worked!

But why should I care, I won't be here to feel the impacts!

 

Well if you are talking about evaluating tamper-free empirical observations regarding the climate /temperature, you are correct. That would require no faith or belief, although the interpretation of the meaning or cause of such observations might.

And if you are talking climate model predictions, you would indeed need to have faith and/or belief that they are accurate.

This is an interesting summary of some of the key concerns about the predictive skill of climate models. As atmospheric researcher Gerald Browning of CIRA notes:

The updating discussed above is not possible in a climate model and because climate models use even a coarser mesh than a large-scale weather prediction model, they must use an effectively larger viscosity than a global weather prediction model. Recently (BAMS, 2004), it has been shown that a climate model also deviates from reality in a matter of hours because of the errors in the parameterizations (not unexpected based on result above) and over longer periods of time the effectively larger viscosity causes the numerical solution to produce a spectrum quite different than the real atmosphere unless forced in a nonphysical manner.
​

So reliance based on predicted outcomes from such models is misplaced, based on the evidence. Trusting such models would involve belief.