Global Warming a fake?

[Boerseun]

cwes00_03, this being my 2,000th post, it's cause for celebration. Bring out the bubbly, I say. I have had ideas for how to celebrate my 2,000th post, and replying to this specific post of yours will do just fine:

Boer, I don't know what scientific background you have.

Information Technology, Geography, Geology and Physics. Does it matter?

Thermometers more than 100 years ago were made with mercury. Funny thing, mercury can evaporate.

Besides being poisonous, mercury thermometers (the kind not bought at the bargain-basement counter) are normally sealed. You have a bulb and a stem, and the top part of the stem is sealed so that the nasty mercury can't get out. And they are still manufactured, to this day.

Thermometers break and mercury gets out. So then they started using alcohol in thermometers (and most thermometers in the developed world were exchanged for these new ones). Then along came the personal computer with thermistors which are accurate down to the thousandth of a degree. These coupled with wireless communication made it possible to place electronic (not mercury) thermometers all over the place as long as they had a power line and communications equipment to transmit these things.

I don't dispute that for a second. Although, as anybody using Microsoft products would testify, stupid is as stupid does. The fact that is has all kinds of bells and whistles and wireless connections and email facilities and can sing the blues in three different shades of muave does not make it one whit more accurate than, say, a good ol'fashioned mercury thermometer. It all depends on the initial calibration.

Now you ever use a mercury, alcohol, and digital thermometer in a hot water bath? Which one are you going to trust to be accurate?

Seeing as I'm biased, I won't tell you. You know what I'm a'gonna say, dontcha? :hyper:

Since every grade schooler in the US has done this experiment and realized that the glass tubes holding the liquids can move up and down according to the scale just by picking the thermometer up off a shelf, they all learn to use the digital.

DUDE!!! I toldya not to use the bargain basement stuff! Go to any lab supply shop and see if they sell those cheapie glass-tube-with-the-movable-scale models! You need to shop around sum, brother! If that's your idea of how the liquid thermometers work, I can understand why you'd wanna go for the electronic gizmos...:eek2:

Then when they learn how easy it is to calibrate the digital by running a simple piece of software, and that they can get an accurate reading down to the thousandth of a degree, verses maybe an inaccurate tenth using a liquid based thermometer, they never go back.

I'm at a loss. Once again - the Microsoft parable...

Calibrate a digital. Fine. Use a calculator. Fine. Do you now why you're doing what you're doing, or why the answer is what it is? There's a reason they call it a sliderule... the sucker rules...

Now besides the innacuracies of the measuring device, let's consider number of devices and locations. 100 years ago, how many locations were attempting to record an accurate temperature?

I dunno. Depends what country you're talkin' about. We've had metereological stations over here for many years, now. And they've been keeping very accurate records... all with mercury thermometers.

Were these recording the temperature of the ground or the air?

The air.

Were they dry or were they being affected by relative humidity?

Neither - they were sealed mercury thermometers. Do you actually know how they work, or are you regurgitating anti-global warming propaganda here?

Were they in urban environments only or were they spread equally all across the surface of the earth (land and sea)?

We had weather stations set up in all the big metropolitan areas, as well as in godforsaken little towns in the Kalahari desert. The ocean temperatures were taken by the Royal Navy as they cruised the world's oceans. And every reading's position was recorded at sea, as accurate as it was at the time. They did this in order to learn more about ocean currents, the knowledge of which were crucial to commercial and military shipping in those days.

You go draw up a bath of water and vary the temperature while your filling it and stick one thermometer in after you are done. Is that thermometer going to accurately read the temperature of the entire bath? NO. Just one single point. Will data based on that point represent the trend of the entire bath? NO. Just one point.

'zacktly. That's why we measure the ocean all over, not only at one point. One spot might be cold where a current comes from the poles, whilst another spot only a few hundred miles away will be mild to warm, bringing water from the tropics. You can make strawman arguments all you like, but I still fail to see your point.

How do you compare data from the past 100 years when you keep adding new points, methods, equipment, etc.? You try to find a datapoint for which these things has not changed.

So they went to the poles. What did they find? Not a temperature, but a trend between thickness in the ice and CO2 trapped within that band of ice.

Nobody measured the temperatures of core samples. Even alluding to that simply displays your ignorance of the matter. It is impossible to measure the temperature of air bubbles that was locked into solid ice thousands of years ago - all we can do is infer a likely temperature based on our knowledge of the gases the sample of the atmosphere trapped in the sample consist out of.

Well that's a start, now we have a good idea that temperature of the air and thickness of the ice are related, and we have a strong correlation between thickness and CO2,

THICKNESS of the ice and CO2? Er... No.

and we believe that we can say that the CO2 levels are higher now than they have been in a very long time (again how long is questionable)

We don't *believe* it, we can measure it in the samples. There is no *belief* here. It's empirical. Cold-blooded. Black-and-white.

and we can begin to say that there might be some relationship between that and industrialization.

No. It's all a big conspiracy.

Except that industrialization began more than 100 years ago, and the temperatures only appear to have begun rising in the past 30 years and before that they were actually falling enough to make some people think we were entering another ice age (look at those people now and shake your head shamefully). So now someone needs to provide data on whether industrialization 30 years ago suddenly drastically increased in production of CO2.

If I fart right now, I can guarantee you won't smell it. Not right now. The stuff need to spread. You dig? Besides the fact that industry have been growing exponentially over the last hundred-odd years, the atmosphere's a big place - but by no means boundless. It will reach its fill. It takes time, though.

Oh and don't even try to say that it took a while for the increase in CO2 to kick in.

Why can't I say it? It's the truth, brother. You might not like it, though.

The study of the 2 mile deep core sample in Vostok shows that there is a strict relationship between air temperature and CO2 levels (not an offset of 70 years relationship but a strict relationship meaning every hot year there was an abnormally high amount of CO2).

Yes?...

Now take into consideration the effects of the sun on Mars on the movement of the dry ice from one pole to the next and the rise and fall of CO2 levels in the atmospher when this happens. On the hottest years more CO2 is realeased into the atmosphere, thus the following year more is frozen into the ice because there is more in the atmosphere to freeze out. Seems like CO2 from an ice core sample should follow the hot years (of course on earth we don't have dry ice at the poles, we have gas bubles in the ice.)

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::doh:

[cwes99_03]

Sorry Boer, guess I can't argue with you. You obviously have this all figured out and there can't be a shred of a thought that a global warming crisis might not be real or caused by man. Guess we'll see who is most like those people from the 60s who thought the earth was heading for a major ice age.

[Zythryn]

Or Cwes we may find out who is more like the pro cigarette lobby of the 70s and 80s.

 

The problem is if we wait until we have enough evidence for 100% of the people it will be too late.

 

Whie there was sarcasm in some of B's answers to you, there were also a number of valid points which you failed to address.

 

Please also keep in mind that the locations of tests were not randomized each year. Sure, some new locations were added, but most attempt to keep variables as limited/controlled as possible.

[Boerseun]

Cwes, I was probably a bit nasty in my last reply to you. Heck - it was late at night, had a long day, you know the drill.

 

In the Global Warming debate, the stakes are so high that if we were to err, we have to err on the side of caution. End of story. There are no alternatives.

 

Unless you want to sit back and let the world carry on as is, saying "Global Warming is a natural phenomena", and let what will be, be. Let's say you've got a 50% chance of being right. Let's say that all the evidence pointing towards human activity adding to Global Warming and accellerating it's pace beyond the ability of hundreds of thousands of species to cope is only 50% reliable. What's gonna happen if you're right? What's gonna happen if you're wrong?

 

Thing is, nobody is disputing Global Warming as a natural occurence. The biggest part of the planet was a steamy swamp in the time of the dinosaurs. This is clearly not the case today. So, there are cycles of heating and cooling. Nobody is disputing that. What we are worried about, matter of fact, let's call a spade a spade - what we are **** scared about, is the rate of change. If only the industrial bigwigs with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo could see that simple fact, life on Planet Earth might be a lot easier. Would short-term financial gain for a few win over long-term prudence, with a benefit to many?

 

Let's say there's a box on your desk. Let's say someone told you there's a bomb inside, booby-trapped to go off if you open the box. Are you simply going to laugh at them, saying a bomb on your desk is impossible and open it, or are you at least going to consider the possibility?

 

In the Grand Scheme of Things, who'll live longer with a box that might contain a bomb on their desks - those tearing into the package to find a giftwrapped book, a box of chocolates, a coffee mug with your name on it (or, pray tell, a bomb), or the guy taking the warning seriously and devising ways to probe and test the package (without opening it) to determine the contents? Heck - he might be wrong, but like I said; he's erring on the side of caution.

 

Ignorance and denial of the Global Warming issue is understandable only in terms of those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. In the abolishment of slavery, who complained the most? Yep - you guessed it. The slave owners.

[ughaibu]

I've been wondering about the prevalence of global warming denial, not amongst industrialists but amongst apparently sensible people, such as the members of this site. I suspect this behaviour is similar to AIDS denial, a reaction to something personally and ultimately threatening. Whatever the cause, reading threads like this certainly doesn't inspire me with the confidence that any sensible steps will be taken in response to the threat.

[cwes99_03]

The following websites are on my recommended reading list before you get into any debate on Global warming. These are scientific and blog sites, so read them carefully and extract the viable data from them and the ideas presented for the ACCURACY of data presented.

 

The simple fact is that while there is reason for some concern, the amount of data is lacking, and the accuracy of that data is of serious concern.

 

1) The data that is supposed to show CO2 levels for the last 400,000 years from the Vostok, Russia station 11 years ago used a lot of other global data to make estimated guesses at what year each ring on the core referred to. This is because if there were a significant enough warming trend the year after the ice was made, the data for that year could have been completely lost. (After all isn't this what brought up the concern over global warming, that polar caps can and are melting away?) If that really is the case then how can there be 400,000 years of rings?

 

2) Global temperature readings via land stations and satellites have dramatically increased over the past 100 years (after all we didn't have any satellites to measure temperature 100 years ago.) However, the location of these stations has remained largely urban, and largely land based (not on the ocean or large lakes like the great lakes.) This will of course skew the results. They are also largely northern hemisphere and on the European and North American continent. (map on one of the sites listed below shows them) Also the accuracy of these has greatly increased over the past 100 years, (how accurate was a thermometer made in 1900 compared to the digital type that are constantly recalibrated from 2000.)

 

The fact of the matter is that there is way more data to be skeptical about it than to be supportive of it. That being said, there is no reason why scientists and businesses alike shouldn't take precaution and reduce the amount of CO2 production by industry worldwide even if it does only contribute 0.28% annually (again see the websites below.)

 

Does this satisfy you?

 

Edit: Bold added here for emphasis was not in the original post.

 

 

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

 

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/evidenceforwarming.htm

 

http://www.thedailyspork.com/archives/2006/06/global_warming_2.php

 

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

 

http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming10.htm

 

http://polynya.gsfc.nasa.gov/seaice_projects_image_10.html

 

 

B, thanks for the minor apology for the sarcasm. Now may I ask if you read this post, or did you just jump on this thread assuming it to be like all the rest you participated in on this subject. Please read the quoted post above as it was made and given kudos by another person who like you feels like we can't wait and see.

 

All I ask for is for people to admit that there isn't nearly enough evidence to show that man is causing global warming. There are some sneaking suspicions about mankind's involvement, there is definitely ability among mankind to remove the human element nearly completely, but we can't just suddenly force everyone to bend to the will of some people who unreasonably believe that mankind is the main and only cause of global warming.

 

I am all for reduction of mankind produced greenhouse gasses, but not at the cost of throwing all society and life on this planet into a tail spin (which is what many claim will happen, and I cannot vouch for). Perhaps that last little bit is what needs to be discussed, because discussing the science behind global warming just leads to wildly false claims on both sides.

[pgrmdave]

I think that it is reasonable to look at the facts and interpret them either way. It is, or at least should be, difficult to come to a clear, definitive conclusion. However, if one comes to the conclusion that global warming is not caused by human activity, that is not the same as saying that human activity has no effect. It is still in our best interests to try to slow our advancement of global warming, even if it has no effect on global warming. The recommendations will all lead to improvements in quality of life through reduction of waste and pollution. I don't think that humans are a big enough factor in global warming to make a notable difference either way, but I think that doing things like reducing pollution, reducing energy use, using cleaner energies, and other recommendations to lower the effects of global warming, will be beneficial to humans anyway, so why not do them?

[InfiniteNow]

http://hypography.com/forums/earth-science/6204-global-warming-were-all-going-die.html#post98233

 

The Earth, and all things that exist for that matter, can be described in terms of cycles. There is validity to the concept that ice ages and heating cycles are occurring every so often, and not that far apart when held relative to geological time scales.

 

The Day After Tomorrow, while somewhat silly, at the VERY least brought these issues to the attention of an audience who might not otherwise pay much attention. It is (loosely) based on fact, and I enjoyed it myself. Had wonderful graphics... like the sequence where the tidal wave came in over Manhattan... that was righteous.

 

The bigger issue raised when Global warming is discussed is our impact on it. Clearly, millions and millions and millions of cars and factories (and...) burning fossil fuel are having an impact, and the shifts are more than just nature cycling.

[Jim Colyer]

I felt like Al Gore's movie started with the idea of global warming, then took evidence out of context to prove it.

[hbah427]

I wrote this letter to Amy Dewey, at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)

 

Ms. Amy Dewey

USEPA Headquarters

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Mail Code 1702A

Washington DC, 20460

 

Dear Ms. Dewey:

 

I am Harlan Haskins, a student at the Charles Townes Center, and I am writing to you to say that Global Warming doesn’t exist! It is just a theory that has gained media attention by the Pew Foundation. The Pew Foundation is a multi-billion dollar company whose sole purpose is to hype Global Warming and give it media attention.

 

I hope that you have seen the movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” Global Warming is a JOKE!!! Al Gore is using the attention he is getting from the movie to put himself in the spotlight so he can run for president in 2008. You may think I’m crazy, but you’ll think otherwise when he announces he’s running. How do I know this, you may ask, well, if he wasn’t running, he would have released the movie in 2003 or 2004, but he waited until 2006, because it was the “midpoint” of the 2004-2008 presidential tenure. His rant about Antarctica was true. However, he only stated that 2% of the continent is melting, maybe the other 98% of Antarctica that’s COOLING just…slipped his mind. As for the melting North Pole Sea Ice, it just so happens that the South Pole Sea Ice is RE-FREEZING!

And in Europe, the heat wave/drought that killed 3,500 people is nothing compared to the 20,000 people who die from cold every year. If Global Warming was real, it would balance out the deaths. Plus if the ice caps were melting, the water that the ice caps would bring would evaporate faster, and the earth would save itself. Plus it has been said that the hole in the ozone layer will be patched up in 2050. Again, the earth, healing itself

 

All I am saying is that we would be spending about $250,000,000,000 on developing automobiles, machines, and electrical appliances, which give off “cleaner-than-air” emissions. By the way, do you know how many Greenhouse Gases Al Gore gave off to make the PowerPoint and the film? More than a factory would use in a week.

 

 

 

 

Your Friend,

 

Al Gore

 

 

Harlan Haskins

[hbah427]

TAKE THAT AL GORE!!!!!;)

[Tormod]

TAKE THAT AL GORE!!!!!;)

 

Possibly the worst post I have seen at Hypography in a long time. Is there a point anywhere in your "letter" above, and do you have anything to contribute as far as discussable data is concerned?

[Queso]

Are the things you stated in that letter true?

 

I would get a kick out of it if you provide some proof.

[Michaelangelica]

This was a facinating documentary watch it if you can

Four Corners

The same professor who was hired by the tobacco companies to poo poo cigarette health concerns is now on Exxons pay role and poo pooing global warming!

 

Four Corners

 

Behind the campaign to deny the science of global warming…

The Denial Machine

 

Reporter: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

 

Broadcast: 26/02/2007

 

For years the global warming debate has swirled like a firestorm. Science has been tossed about in a tornado of spin from doomsayers and doubters, deep green activists and fossil fuel lobbyists.

 

How did the future of the planet become such a political battleground?

 

A few weeks ago the pre-eminent body of climate scientists, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, reaffirmed that global warming is real, happening now and very likely caused by human activity.

 

Late last year a report to the British Government likened the potential economic impact of global warming to the two world wars and the Great Depression.

 

Yet some scientists insist that climate change, if it’s happening at all, could be a good thing.

 

This report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation investigates the campaign to deny the science of global warming and slow international action against it. It tracks the activities of a small group of North American scientists, some of whom previously worked for Big Tobacco and who are now receiving donations from large oil and coal interests. It also examines how key planks of the fossil fuel industry’s case were adopted by governments in the US and Canada…

 

As Australia stews over how far it should go to combat greenhouse emissions, "The Denial Machine" goes behind the debate - on Four Corners 8.30 pm Monday 26 February, ABC TV.

 

This program will be repeated about 11.35 pm Wednesday 28 February; also on ABC2 digital channel at 9.30 pm Wednesday and 8 am Thursday.

Reports, Transcripts and Links

 

Read extended interviews, key reports and international commentary on the global warming debate.

Feedback

 

Have your say in the Four Corners guestbook.

Tip Offs

 

If you have information relevant to this story, we'd like to hear about it.

ABC Online Home

[Michaelangelica]

There must be an awful lot of dumb scientists around, to believe all this global warming stuff

Climate change is a "threat to society" says largest scientific body

 

Climate change is a "threat to society" says largest scientific body

mongabay.com

February 18, 2007

The world's largest scientific society today voiced concern over global warming, calling it a "threat to society." It was the first consensus statement of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) on climate change.

The announcement comes sixteen days after the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its most recent report on global change.

 

Meeting in San Francisco at its annual conference, AAAS released a statement confirming that "global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."

Noting that the present atmospheric carbon-dioxide level is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years, AAAS said "the average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years."

 

This summed up the arguments nicely. (The article goes on to ask for examples of scientific maleficence.)

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Sceptics: Cards on the table please!

If you accept the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus view of climate science, humankind is involved in an unprecedented and highly risky experiment with the only ecosphere it has, and climate sceptics are simply vandals laying a tree trunk across the train tracks which society must traverse to escape its fiery grave.

 

If you dissent from the consensus, you take the view that public opinion and much of politics has embarked on a wild decarbonising goose chase which will break economies, restrict personal movement and distract resources from other important societal challenges.

 

When this fundamental divide erupts in parliaments, in media, in alehouse arguments, that is fair enough; much of society works, for better or worse, on the basis of airing disagreements and having a good old rant, with your ability to shout loudly outweighing the intrinsic merit of your argument.

 

It is not, however, the way that science should be.

[BEAKER]

Michaelangelica

...with your ability to shout loudly outweighing the intrinsic merit of (the other side of) your (the) argument.

Isn't that what you're doing now?

[Michaelangelica]

Isn't that what you're doing now?

No.

 

This could be, if said in a loud beery voice-

 

"The impact [of climate change] will be catastrophic, forcing hundreds of millions of people to flee their devastated homelands, particularly in tropical, low-lying areas, while creating waves of immigrants whose movements will strain the economies of even the most affluent countries."

 

- (U.K.) Observer, Sunday, January 21, 2007

Climate porn | COSMOS magazine

 

I was skeptical too. There are a great many factors that affect climate. But what is beyond doubt now is the world is warming. Caused most probably by us burning things for the last 100-200 years. That is now beyond debate

 

What is a question is:-

Is Global Warming happening very slowly, slowly, moderately, fast, or very fast?

 

We need lots of good science to tell us the answers about speed of change. We need lots of good science to give us some solutions

We don't need "Mickey Mouse" Scientists paid for by Exxon Mobil sticking their bib in.

 

Personally, I would like to err on the side of caution and act as if global warming is a reality. Soon we will know how big a reality it is.

 

You should read Tim Flannery's book "The Weather Makers". (He is this year's Australian of the Year.) He mentions several crucial 'tipping points' in sea currents etc., that could change the weather in some parts of the world, quickly and drastically. Lets just hope we are lucky and those scenarios don't happen. The fact that they are a possibility has to get you to think carefully about the issue.