Another Slap to Global Warming

[Plunge]

We've all seen this graph.

http://deanesmay.com/files/deanesmay-muller2121703.jpg

According to this article (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006314http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006314),

Just so we're clear, this hockey stick isn't a sports implement; it's a scientific graph. Back in the late 1990s, American geoscientist Michael Mann published a chart that purported to show average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 1,000 years. The chart showed relatively minor fluctuations in temperature over the first 900 years, then a sharp and continuous rise over the past century, giving it a hockey-stick shape.

Mr. Mann's chart was both a scientific and political sensation. It contradicted a body of scientific work suggesting a warm period early in the second millennium, followed by a "Little Ice Age" starting in the 14th century. It also provided some visually arresting scientific support for the contention that fossil-fuel emissions were the cause of higher temperatures. Little wonder, then, that Mr. Mann's hockey stick appears five times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's landmark 2001 report on global warming, which paved the way to this week's global ratification--sans the U.S., Australia and China--of the Kyoto Protocol.



I'm sure all of you can guess what is coming, yes, it is a load of crap.Yet, people who questioned this graph were ridiculed and people lost their jobs. A sad state of affairs.

Yet there were doubts about Mr. Mann's methods and analysis from the start. In 1998, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics published a paper in the journal Climate Research, arguing that there really had been a Medieval warm period. The result: Messrs. Soon and Baliunas were treated as heretics and six editors at Climate Research were made to resign.

Read the whole thing.

[Sacchiridites]

If I may be so bold, an updated link to the referred article can be found here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006314)
Yes, and I am VERY unhappy that the U.S. is not participating towards a solution via Kyoto Protocol. What is up with that?

[Andy]

I guess no one else there cares that the first truly accurate "thermometer" wasn't invented until the 1500's then... :doh:

But hey, who can argue with pretty graphics.

[Plunge]

If I may be so bold, an updated link to the referred article can be found here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006314)
Yes, and I am VERY unhappy that the U.S. is not participating towards a solution via Kyoto Protocol. What is up with that?

Thanks for the better link.

On the second part, maybe because it would be a great way to bankrupt the country?

[Copzilla]

Look, the earth is dead as hell within a couple hundred years anyway, and it won't be due to global warming, unless you consider a nuked out countryside a warm globe. We have far more pressing concerns than fossil fuels, as they will be history within a generation. We've got to keep from killing ourselves while still halting and reducing the population growth.

[ethics]

If I may be so bold, an updated link to the referred article can be found here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006314)
Yes, and I am VERY unhappy that the U.S. is not participating towards a solution via Kyoto Protocol. What is up with that?


Problem with it is that it didn't include the countries that were the biggest polluters.

Been to Eastern Europe lately? Drive around in the car for ONE mile and you will feel like you smoked a pack. Why was South America Omitted from the whole deal, at least those countries that needed this a lot more than the US?

[Swamp Fox]

I'm skeptical of the global warming scenario. As for the disappearance of fossil fuels, they said we would run out by the 1980's, then by 2000, and we're still pumping it out of the ground.

[Techie2000]

The only way to honestly assess whether global warming is real IMHO is to check the "yearly average temperature" at various locations throughout the world and see if there is a trend of it rising. The longer the more accurate sample we have, the better. The idea of global warming, is not some opinion that can't be proved or disproved, the earth is either warming or it is not. The only arguement is whether or not it is good, and whether or not it is being caused by pollution.

Anyways that's my little rant on this little subject, now carry on...:)

[Coot]

The only way to honestly assess whether global warming is real IMHO is to check the "yearly average temperature" at various locations throughout the world and see if there is a trend of it rising.

Actually, we already have one, it's called the Vostok Ice Core Sampling Project (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm). We have a pretty accurate history of temperatures and atmospheric components going back the last 420,000 years.

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or δD) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record presented by Jouzel et al. (1987) was the first ice core record to span a full glacial-interglacial cycle. That record was based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica. The 2083-m ice core was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to ~420 kyr BP.

[Copzilla]

I'm skeptical of the global warming scenario. As for the disappearance of fossil fuels, they said we would run out by the 1980's, then by 2000, and we're still pumping it out of the ground.

Isn't this the same "they" who are saying all these things about our climate?

[Coot]

If I may be so bold, an updated link to the referred article can be found here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006314)
Yes, and I am VERY unhappy that the U.S. is not participating towards a solution via Kyoto Protocol. What is up with that?

Whether or not one is a proponent that this particular warming cycle (and there is evidence of numerous warming cycles in the geologic record) is man made, the Kyoto Protocol is a highly political treaty that seeks to disproportionately punish the more advanced economies of the west, while giving developing nations a pass.

Bad politics based on a less than conclusive scientific paradigm is hardly a way to run a world. :)

[Sacchiridites]

Thanks for the better link. You're welcomed.

On the second part, maybe because it would be a great way to bankrupt the country?

The U.S. is one of the countries that contributes majorially to greenhouse gases accumulation, right? This isn't a matter of whether or not the result is global warming. So many Senators have rescinded their positions in this matter. McCain admits the U.S. contribution to this global pollution problem. Even I admit to it. Gee, I smoke like a chimney. Here's my thing...basically, I see the position of the U.S. as not wanting to be under the scrutiny or accountability of the countries that ratified Kyoto Protocol. It's foolish pride, not money.

Money? OK, I'll compare Kyoto cost-$150 million (according to the article referenced here) to the Climate Stewardship Act (CSA) cost- one source I found said as $9 million plus or minus TEN times (http://www.rff.org/rff/Core/Research_Topics/Air/McCainLieberman/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=4452) that amount annually.
Comparatively, the U.S. government committed +/- $350 million to the Tsunami relief fund, right? ...."On February 9, President Bush asked Congress to increase the U.S. commitment to a total of $950 million."..... (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/tsunami/)(see the referenced article.)

DuPont reportedly has already met the requirements set forth by both Kyoto AND CSA. As a matter of fact, they've surpassed the standard. They have everything to gain, I suppose. To me, the Climate Stewardship Act is just a way for big companies to buy their way out of responsibility. Credit this and allowance that from the government and then allow the companies to 'buy' cubic tons of carbon dioxide?

I honestly think that the U.S. needs some global accountability in this matter.

[Plunge]

Sorry, I think this is all a crock when you have the 'potential' change in temperature as a direct result of Kyoto being FULLY implemented as -.07 degrees C by 2050.

Next, I'm not sure where in the world they are getting their numbers, Canada alone is budgeting $6 billion dollars for compliance. World wide numbers are over $100 billion per annum.

All of this to save .07 degrees C over the next 45 years?

[Pyrion]

Except your "yearly average temperature" sampling is way too short on a geologic scale.

[Techie2000]

Except your "yearly average temperature" sampling is way too short on a geologic scale.No it isn't. If we want to know if the earth is warming up or not, all we need is about 100 year span. Even 50 or 25 could do. The "too short on a geologic scale" is more about trying to fit it into context then anything, and doens't really have any bearing on the facts of whether or not the earth is becoming warmer.

[Coot]

No it isn't. If we want to know if the earth is warming up or not, all we need is about 100 year span. Even 50 or 25 could do. The "too short on a geologic scale" is more about trying to fit it into context then anything, and doens't really have any bearing on the facts of whether or not the earth is becoming warmer.

No, absolutley couldn't be farther from the truth. The planet goes through temperature cycles, glaciation cycles. It gets warmer, immediately followed by rapid cooling. 100 years doesn't tell you squat. It's far too short a time period. That is nothing but sampling error at that point. Glaciation cycles are well over 100,000 years. Aside from this link (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm) I provided above, where there is 420,000 years of temperature data recovered from Antarctica, the same research is now being done on core samples from Greenland (http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/MoreInfo/Ice_Cores_Past.html).

[Techie2000]

No, absolutley couldn't be farther from the truth. The planet goes through temperature cycles, glaciation cycles. It gets warmer, immediately followed by rapid cooling. 100 years doesn't tell you squat. It's far too short a time period. That is nothing but sampling error at that point. Glaciation cycles are well over 100,000 years. Aside from this link (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm) I provided above, where there is 420,000 years of temperature data recovered from Antarctica, the same research is now being done on core samples from Greenland (http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/GISP2/MoreInfo/Ice_Cores_Past.html).Coot, all we need to really make a statement about getting warmer or not is 2 years, this and last. Then we can say "the earth got warmer this year" the glacier samples, etc. just provides the getting warmer or cooler this year in the context of the earth and its history. Of course all this "historical data" assumes that earth in fact does go through some sort of defined cycle every so many years and it isn't just a bunch of "random" weather based on various factors in play at the time. We can try and correlate this data to various events and maybe explain why the weather is changing. However my farmer's almanac still doesn't always accuratly predict whether it will snow on Christmas, and my weatherman doesn't always accuratly predict tomorrow's temperature. That is why I do not think this whole "global warming" dispute will be well resolved anytime soon.

I personally consider myself a global warming agnostic. I think both sides present good cases, but we don't have enough data to make a solid conclusion.

[Coot]

Coot, all we need to really make a statement about getting warmer or not is 2 years, this and last. Then we can say "the earth got warmer this year" the glacier samples, etc. just provides the getting warmer or cooler this year in the context of the earth and its history. Of course all this "historical data" assumes that earth in fact does go through some sort of defined cycle every so many years and it isn't just a bunch of "random" weather based on various factors in play at the time. We can try and correlate this data to various events and maybe explain why the weather is changing. However my farmer's almanac still doesn't always accuratly predict whether it will snow on Christmas, and my weatherman doesn't always accuratly predict tomorrow's temperature. That is why I do not think this whole "global warming" dispute will be well resolved anytime soon.

I personally consider myself a global warming agnostic. I think both sides present good cases, but we don't have enough data to make a solid conclusion.

Well, since you love spreadsheets, here's a graph from the 420,000 year data (this graph is from the 'man did it' crowd). I am no agnostic on global warming. The planet goes through cycles. What I am an agnostic about is whether this particular cycle has been prematurely caused by man or not. We don't have enough data to posit that. We have correlations of collected data, that both sides use to spin with. In any case, there's not enough data to warrant a mammoth investment in draconian measures. If the 'it's all man's fault' crowd is correct, anything we do now won't make much difference anyway.

This isn't about ideology, although most folks forming opinions on it tend to form such opinions based solely on ideology and which side of the scientific debate supports said ideology. What should be at the forefront is the search for scientific truths. Scientists, unfortunately, possess the same human foibles as the rest of us. In some instances those foibles can be exploited by other people's agendas. This is looking more and more like one of those instances. :(

[Techie2000]

Thanks for the links and graph. what I find interesting about that graph, is that the CO2 part seems to correlate with temperature until the end where it looks like it is shooting up past the temperature change but the temperature change appears to stabilize somewhat.

The thing I wonder about, is are the CO2 emissions a cause or effect? I mean CO2 certainly isn't the only factor in global temperature, is it? And why does the CO2 cycle the way it does? As far as cycles, at least according to the graph, you appear to be correct in that regard, and I guess global warming is happening, as expected.

What I am an agnostic about is whether this particular cycle has been prematurely caused by man or not. We don't have enough data to posit that.I will say that now, I am in strong agreement with that.

[Coot]

Now you're starting to ask some of the questions that drive the debate. Chicken? Egg? chicken and egg? Volcanos? The release of undersea sequestered carbon? Sun cycles? Every last one of these and probably variables we haven't considered yet play into it. Correlations between carbon releases and man's interraction are at best premature, much less assigning causation. There's just not enough information.

[Swamp Fox]

I heard about the ice core project - didn't they find out that the variation in temperature over the last two thousand years, before the onset of the Industrial Revolution, was greater than in the last two hundred?

[Kangaroo]

Here's my problem with the global warming Chicken Littles:

Scientific method (roughly) requires an observed phenomenon, followed with a hypothesis, followed with experimentation to prove or disprove the hypothesis. The Chicken Littles ignore the third part, or rely upon questionable experimental data and methods.

Remember the ozone layer controversy? The ozone layer is becoming thinner and some holes are appearing (phenomenon). CFCs released into the atmosphere may be causing this (hypothesis). Tiny amounts of CFCs can destroy huge amounts of ozone due to the catalystic nature of the reaction (experimentation). Good science.