Climate Change Data Error

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 14 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]495481[/snapback]</div>

Anyone can make legitimate mistakes. Remember the Mars spacecraft in which one program used metric units to calculate it's projectory and another program used English? It was lost because of this oversight.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 14 2007, 01:24 AM) [snapback]495262[/snapback]</div>

This proves it for me.

Headline: "It's cooler in the Central Valley!" says Wildkow.
Subhead: Global Warming Refuted by overwhelming empirical evidence

Have you called Fox News to file a report?

 

Here is a debunking of the latest ostrich fantasy --

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08...weather-er.html
"How big was the mistake? About .15 degrees celsius, or .3 degrees fahrenheit.

Now, this isn't a huge number, but it's enough to make a difference -- if, that is, the mistake applied to the whole planet. But the mistake involved only the United States, which covers but a small fraction of the globe.

When the new data was factored into the rest of the world, noted Hansen himself on the Daily Kos blog, "the effect on global temperature was of order one-thousandth of a degree, "


I fully expect our GW naysayers to fade into the mud and not respond ... until the next time some little data quirk causes them to come out again. Like Jack-in-the-boxes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 14 2007, 05:52 PM) [snapback]495750[/snapback]</div>

Not yet cause it's hard to type when your shivering this hard. :lol:

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 14 2007, 12:41 PM) [snapback]495518[/snapback]</div>

You obviously do NOT look at the data. I provided a link to the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, go read it. Our planet is not doing "just fine" thank you. Like many systems, living and nonliving, there is often a lag period where inputs accumulate before a change is noticed. Sometimes the changed is not noticed at all until the system reaches a bifurcation point where any additional input will cause the system/network to either spontaneously collapse or reorganize itself.

You also need to research population demands. Our food production is up yet our land degradation is also up, we are in effect, mining our soils. This cannot continue at current rates before we exhaust the lands and food production will drop sharply due to salinization, alkalinazation, erosion, desertification etc. Consuption rates are even worse than simple population numbers. We live in a finite world my friend and not everyone can live the way we do and if they tried it will not last long, for them or us.

Human lifespan is another questionable subject. We have indeed increased average lifespan in most countries but only after taking a sharp dip in life expectancy that lasted for quite some time. With all the toxins being introduced into our environment there is much talk that life expectancies could actually go down, especially when coupled with the poor diets and sedentary lifestyles most people in developed countries lead. This is not even taking into consideration the huge explosion of nanotechnology that is sure to overwhelm us with "toxic" substances that we will find very difficult to measure once released into our environment.

I think what you and many others suffer from is a lack of viable data and the forethought to look beyond the "now" and look at things in the long term with an eye for the past and a healthy understanding of timescale.