NewsWeek debunks its own Global Warming Story

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 15 2007, 03:23 PM) [snapback]496321[/snapback]</div>

Yes it is, and I said that in my original post. I am not familiar with the talking heads I have just been following the science. In about 1995 at the UW I attended an interesting climate change lecture that ended with the prof saying that we still didn't know for sure exactly why the climate was changing, the balance of natural versus anthropomorphic forcings, and that was what they were looking into. A dozen years ago, there were a number of well formed areas to be researched to support or disprove climate change hypothesizes. They're long done now, ocean temps taken, ice cores drilled, sediment investigated, satellites launched, computing power increased orders of magnitude, and tens of thousands of hours finding new tests of the model (the model says ocean temps should be X... yup, they are, what about the impacts of this volcanic eruption... OK, this group of models nailed it...). But scientists aren't good at PR so now everyone seems to think this is a new question. Hey, have you heard about the Intel 486DX? It's supposed to be way faster than the old 386, lets discuss it in detail...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 15 2007, 03:33 PM) [snapback]496325[/snapback]</div>

You're comparing the entire annual budget of organizations that work on a plethora of issues to a single opposition company's targeted funds (that they publicly acknowledge) and you don't see the problem with that? And the conservative think tanks have no funding beyond a single company (that could be getting close - they're so badly discredited by actual science it's getting to the tobacco-doesn't-cause-cancer stage of embarrassing)? Beyond that, the funds you state aren't even close to being enough to payoff a tenth the number of scientists who support the current models.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 15 2007, 03:56 PM) [snapback]496338[/snapback]</div>

The NASA data was, and is, very publicly available - that's how Mr. McIntyre did his analysis. I'm confused how this textbook case of data transparency could possibly do anything but disprove your hypothesis. Mr. McIntyre downloaded the data (he didn't even have to pull a dissertation scan or purchase a compiled dataset on disc), found an error, and the publicly available dataset was promptly corrected with an edit notice posted. This case of review resulting in the identification of an error, for which Mr McIntyre was credited, pretty strongly reinforces my statement that the bulk of global climate change data is already transparent and has been for many years. Unless you have some citation about how McIntyre had trouble getting the data, or was ignored when he questioned it (as opposed to thanked within days and the corrections made), I can't even fathom the Orwellian mindset that is needed to think this indicates any sort of lack of transparency.

As to the actual data change, the error was insignificant in the validation of the models or the status of IPCC scenario projections and error bars. I don't know what talking head thinks this is significant, beyond possibly emphasizing that data was properly published and checked by independent parties that resulted in corrections increasing the quality of the dataset. But even a high school student knows that's how science has worked for at least a century, so why would anyone be surprised to see the system work as intended?

I like to do a bit of light racing in my fun cars. I like having a pretty big house (1700 sf for only 3 ppl) and flying cross country two or three times a year just to visit family. I do not want CO2 to be a significant influencer of global temperatures. But I am trained in basic science and am willing to accept what the facts say over what I want, even if this living in reality is not always pleasant.

 

Why is it that so many of our forum GW ostriches are also Neo-Cons ?

I'm guessing it is because they limit their opinions and convictions to what they read on right wing blogs and hear on Faux news. Who needs a brain, when a media outlet is standing by ?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 15 2007, 06:54 PM) [snapback]496449[/snapback]</div>

What is amazingly hearteningly to me is that, apparently, some of these folks have bought a Prius. Clearly it appeals to more than just hippies and tree huggers! I have to keep that in mind when I get irritated - the guy on the other end is wrong (of course), but he or she is probably not a complete idiot

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 15 2007, 05:54 PM) [snapback]496449[/snapback]</div>

Nothing like marginalizing the people you disagree with so you don't have to listen to them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 15 2007, 05:54 PM) [snapback]496449[/snapback]</div>

Keep in mind that because people may disagree with your point of view and the fact that there is a public policy debate on global warming, does not mean they are a "neo-con" -- a term which many liberal-minded people mean as a derogatory rather than descriptive.

I suspect that "neo-cons" or those who disagree with you could also charge that you limit your opions to what you read on "left-wing" blogs, Air America, or any network news program. And we wonder why this country is so politically polorized these days!

I'm sure you motives and beliefs about GW are genuine. I think its safe to say that everyone who posts on a Prius message board is probably a little smarter or better informed than your average person on the street. Thus, I would hope you would extend the same courtasy of a basic level of respect for their motives and intellegence even though they/some may disagree with you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jweale @ Aug 16 2007, 09:45 AM) [snapback]496862[/snapback]</div>

Those of us who have bought a Prius for reasons other than environmental have mostly done so (from what I can gather from the boards) because of practicality, rising gas prices, techological gadets, and national security related reasons -- at least I would be covered under all of those reasons.

Whatever your reasons for buying this car, its a smart purchase all around!

 

Thanks for posting links to your information Tim. I'll look at them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 16 2007, 12:17 PM) [snapback]497134[/snapback]</div>

This one doesn't seem to change any of the existing ideas that I can tell. It is not saying that low elevation landmass or oceans are being warmed by these aerosols. When it states glaciers it is talking about in the Himilayas, IE closer to the lower atmosphere where the higher temps are being measured. Unless I am reading it wrong it does not contradict most of what was described in the documentary "Dimming the Sun". Is that V. Rammanathan in the picture?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 16 2007, 12:28 PM) [snapback]497146[/snapback]</div>

Yes, but not mine. Thank you though.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 16 2007, 12:50 PM) [snapback]497169[/snapback]</div>

Ok I gotcha. I agree that from what I have read the effects can indeed be far from the source but those effects seem to be the same, they either cool or warm depending on what species we are talking about. This does not really seem contrary to global warming though. We knew soots cause a warming in the atmosphere while other aerosols caused cooling on land and sea. This still leads us to the conclusion that we should be cleaning up our processes because there are so many bad effects contributed to them. I don't think you are against that though.

It is my best friend's child and I was honored to be his "godfather" or in non-religious terms, I promise to educate and nurture him and in the event that something happens to his parents I will continue to care for him.

 

"No, an agenda that will result in massive changes to our society and cost trillions of dollars based upon predictions and computer models that have an accuracy level most people wouldn't bet on."

Problem is, we will have to make that "trillions of dollars" change at some point ANYWAYS due to the finite nature of fossil fuels. Except, the longer we wait to make the change, the higher the cost will be to do it. Also, we'll have less energy available to do it, and less money since we keep exporting our money to buy our current oil supply from people who hate us.
Liberals want to reduce oil use to cut carbon emissions, conservatives want to cut oil use to starve out OPEC, where's the problem? Why can't we start doing it already and just agree to do it for our own reasons?

 

I've been reading along here with interest. To me the most interesting aspect as how much is going on in climate/oceanographic research that's improving our knowledge of how the earth's systems work and interact with each other.

I agree that Asian pollution is a starting point. It's low hanging fruit, really. It's in their best interest to get to where we are now and no new technology needs to be developed to get there. Just a change in attitude. I think that they're getting there. The 2008 Olympics will be a real eye-opener to the rest of the world with respect to Chinese air quality. I'm hoping that China will be embarrassed into taking action. They can't keep on their current trajectory for much longer. Not at their rate of economic growth.