Global Warming?
It seems that NASA had a Y2K error that distorted its climate data – now corrected. 1998 was not the warmest year of the last century, but rather 1934. Five of the ten warmest years on record were before WW2.
Michelle Malkin has the full story.
I guess my beachfront-to-be property in Idaho is worth a little less now.
August 10th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
See Uncle, I am not the only one.
August 10th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Steve McIntyre is a mathematician. By Anti-global warming rule: He cannot comment on global warming because he is not a climatologist. He also publishes in American Geophysical Union, an Big Energy controlled organization, as well as receives all of his funding through Big Energy grants. His conclusions have long questioned precision and use the famous “Crichton Gambit” where the falsification principle is improperly stated and used against the scientific method.
August 10th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I wouldn’t get too far into the weeds on this. Malkin also points to McIntyre for his supposed “debunking” of the hockey stick, which in point of fact has been repeatedly shown to be no debunking at all. The hockey stick has in fact withstood scrutiny, including the latest IPCC review.
McIntyre runs an AGW counterinsurgency site, so consider the source.
August 10th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
In case anybody has actually been duped into thinking the hockey stick has been “debunked”, let’s cut to the tape and see what actual climatologists have to say on the subject.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121
McIntyre’s criticism isn’t particularly compelling given his questionable track record on this subject.
I’m sure you’re shocked and appalled that Michele Malkin ignores that little tidbit, right? Yawn…
August 10th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Well, hockey stick or not, surely the important part is to understand why, and if anything should be done about it.
Until the data is correct, the “why” is impossible to prove.
And an argument based upon incorrect data, that centers around the incorrect parts of the data, and then sells itself as 100% guaranteed scientific fact and truth just tastes bad.
When I studied under a well-respected climate chemist in Bristol, he said he had a pretty good climate model, as long as you ignoe the presence of Nitrogen in the atmosphere.
I really don’t think we have got much nearer to the real truth of the matter.
August 10th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I’ll bet Sebastian-PGP is bankrolled by Big Warming. Anyway, how can the “hockey-stick” be debunked or defended when its creator refuses to release the information he used to create it?
August 10th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I wish I was bankrolled by somebody, cause responding to poorly informed arguments from ignorant luddites like you (did you actually read any of the links I provided? Have you noticed I’m the only person here who actually bothers to substantiate his arguments with information from actual scientists? Here’s betting the answer to both questions is a definite NO) doesn’t pay well.
The hockey stick wasn’t “created” by anyone, and if you actually bothered to read something other than Malkin’s agenda addled rants you’d know that.
August 10th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
McIntyre might almost be onto something if the NASA data was the only temperature record available to us.
Too bad for him (and idiots like triticale) that it’s not.
1998 was an outlier, but it’s pretty clear that the observed trends (and not just NASA’s observations) tell only one story…and it ain’t what Malkin wants you to believe.
Interestingly enough…apparently McIntyre also believes that AGW is real and is happening, he just has methodological differences with mainstream climatologists.
I can see why ya hate me…everytime you think you’ve found some weed on the edge of the precipice to hang your poorly considered anti-AGW arguments…I’m there to swat you with fucking reality. I’d hate me too.
August 10th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Sebastian-PGP and metulj: if McIntyre is nuts, please explain why NASA has revised their data in light of his findings.
August 10th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
You’re absolutely right. We just don’t get it. It is very difficult, nay, impossible to get a grasp on no substance.
You have been asked politely to post any proof whatsoever of your position. You have yet to do so. That which you claim is proof is only opinion and theory based on incomple and/or inaccurate data. You have been the beneficiary of alternate theories and explanations, which you have refused to address or refute. Your total argument seems to be “All the people that make me feel superior posted this and I have linked to it. You all are so ignorant that you can’t see that popularity of opinion makes truth.”
You are absolutely correct again, I can’t see that popularity of opinion in a few hysterical sufferers of inferiority complex makes their position true.
None here have disputed that warming is taking place, you are one of the few, though, that think you are omniscient. Funny how that works, you know what and /or who is causng it , but you don’t know how you know.
NO Thank you. I’ll wait for the science to catch up.
The earth has been much warmer, relatively, than it is now. Explain why the planet isn’t dead as per your prediction based on current conditions.
The ignorance is on your part. To hold the position you now hold it is necessary to ignore millennia of history, contradictions in evidence, and the deep divide between those who make a living off this farce and those who are actually studying the climatological changes on Earth. NO, my friend, the ignorance is on your part and you are a willing ignoramus.
You have yet to answer the question of whether or not global warming is a bad thing. Tell us about the polar bears. You remember, those poor little animals that had about 3 weeks in the limelight about how they were drowning due to global warming. Tell us about that, while you’re at it tell us about the sudden disappearance from the media of that particular issue.
You might even go on to examine the great European starvation in medieval times and tie that to climate. Or haven’t you yet been told what you believe about that.
August 10th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Talking about the weather was always recommended as a way to avoid unpleasantness…
August 10th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Global warming? Yeah, right! Next you’re probably going to try to convince me that smoking causes cancer, or that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor…
August 10th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
We used to make jokes like; “Everyone complains about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it.”
The humor in that old joke is now lost on people who are actually trying to do something about it. They don’t realize that they are now a much bigger joke.
Never forget that this only a recent (if comical) chapter in a decades-long cultural/political war: The loser/control freaks (socialists) against the lovers of Liberty (capitalists).
I’m looking on to the next chapter as this one begins to fizzle, wondering what it will be and how much more insane it will get. Any predictions? We know from history that it can get pretty insane– some 60 million people killed by socialists in the 20th century.
Socialists: I don’t give a shit if its 100 deg F at the south pole– if there are no socialists in my face telling me how to live and how not to live, I’ll be in paradise, raising coconuts in Himalayas while my kids drill for more oil.
Uncle: Give it enough time and your Idaho property will become a year-round ski resort. ‘Course you will have been dead for a few thousand years, but think of the long-term prospects. The next ice age is just around the corner.
August 10th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Hey, Sebastian-PGP, do you want to tell us all what economic sacrifices we need to make in order to prevent the polar ice caps from melting – on Mars? Probably the same ones we were being told to make 30 years ago to prevent a new Ice Age, right?
August 10th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Laughing my ass off. Who are the dead-enders?
August 10th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
I think I just heard that NASA has locked up the place on their website where you could go to find out where the remote “weather sensing” set-ups are located in your area. This apparently was after somebody started posting pictures and asking questions about said locations. But what do I know? I’m just one of those hockey-stick, disbelieving, ignorant luddites.
August 11th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Les: Why would NASA be so quiet about it? Who knows? Anyhow, no climate scientist uses NASA observation site data anyhow. They use ice cores, satellite data, sediment data, dendrochronology, paleolymnology, etc. Notice the screaming is about this data and not the data I just mentioned. Why? Those weather sensing sites are easy. That other stuff is hard. How on earth do you determine ancient climates from pollen recovered from the bottom of lakes? With a lot of scientific skill…
Keep trying, Les. Remember I am no poseur. I am actually certified on this. No seriously. I have an actual certificate.
Anyhow, you know I am just kidding and that I will buy you a beer.
PS. Why would NASA gather its own weather data when NOAA exists and did NASA exist in 1934? Hrm.
PPS. Weather is not climate.
August 11th, 2007 at 11:24 am
“Anyhow, no climate scientist uses NASA observation site data anyhow. They use ice cores, satellite data, sediment data, dendrochronology, paleolymnology, etc.”
Not for 20th-21st century temperature data they don’t (satellite data excepted).
“did NASA exist in 1934?”
No, and neither did those satellites you mentioned.
August 11th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
““did NASA exist in 1934?”
No, and neither did those satellites you mentioned.”
Ah, but all those trees and pollen and ice did. Keep focusing on that which scientists don’t use and you always appear to be right in your assertions. And that is what this is actually about, isn’t it? Being right? Not facts, but being ‘right.’
““Anyhow, no climate scientist uses NASA observation site data anyhow. They use ice cores, satellite data, sediment data, dendrochronology, paleolymnology, etc.”
Not for 20th-21st century temperature data they don’t (satellite data excepted).”
One can use tree rings for temperature in the 20th Century. Read up, if you can. You don’t know the science.
August 11th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
I am enjoying this immensely. So simple particulate air pollution could be the real cause if man-made Global Warming is real.
Metulj, I can’t help but notice you don’t care for this new theory. But wait, the C02 theory is just a theory also. Yet where are the experiments to back up the computer simulations for the C02 theory?
Well?
Your new religion is looking a little shaky. Looks like the Carbon Con may be on the way out.
So what will you do now? No soup for you my friend. Your socialist fantasies will have to wait.
Sebastian-PGP, tough break. Not even realclimate.org can obfuscate this. But they will try won’t they?
August 11th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Despite the religious fervor some exhibit about our contribution to global warming and their close-mindedness regarding any challenges or attempts to prove or disprove the theories they favor, I would be interested to know if the models were run with the corrected date would it support their theory or not.
We know global warming is happening. We do not know all the reasons for it, but we do have scientific evidence that it has happened before many times and even before there was man on this rock. So it would seem counterintuitive to insist that we are the sole cause now. However, our contributions may or may not be critical to the issue. We really need better answers, not dogmatic theories.
Hopefully, they will use the corrected data and run a parallel model to see if it more closely resembles what we know has happened than the ones currently in use. I do not believe the future can be predicted by people who can’t even verify the past. Once they learn to do that, they will be closer to incorporating all the elements necessary to determine why the climate is what it is. Until then we are guessing.
August 11th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Shorter #9: Michael Crichton.
Anyhow, you don’t know the science and neither does the guy who writes bad books that you slavishly ape.
August 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
global warming???
August 12th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Shocking surprise: Michelle Malkin et al are full of shit and jumped to a bunch of conclusions that aren’t supportable by the actual science!
See the link above. Non-issue. The climatic trends observed aren’t effected by a statistically insignifcant adjustment. McIntyre was simply pointing out a methodological discrepancy–and not even he was trying to argue that what he was pointing out in any way, shape, or form affects the veracity of the AGW position. But unsurprisingly the Malkins of the world thought they’d found a straw to grasp at in the irrational attempt to keep arguing that we humans can do whatever the fuck we like without consequences.
Triticale, if you’re too fucking stupid to realize that the Mars thing has been debunked so fuckin thoroughly that even SA and #9 don’t try that shyte anymore…you’re too fuckin stupid to waste time on. Go away.
They don’t have to do any such thing. They simply pointed out the following:
The gist of the whole thing (other than idiots will willfully ignore the larger and obvious trends because of a statistically insignificant methodological discrepancy)?
In other words…there’s nothing to see here, Malkin, while pretty damn hot, is still a kludge more often than not on this subject, and once again you maroons are letting your agenda prevent you from using reason.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Man, watching the wingnutosphere foam at the mouth over this is really sad. Embarrassing really…
August 12th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
It should also be noted that the discrepancy noted by McIntyre was for US mean temps, not global mean temps, for which the rankings aren’t changed. Ah well…another straw to grasp at for people like #9 vanishes into thin air.
Must be sad, eh?
Hansen even noted as far back as 2001 that 1934 could still be the warmest on record for the US…so there really is no “there”, there. Check out image two. Once again, for the hard heads and the short bus crowd: the global means have NOT been effected.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Sebastian-PGP, is it possible that good old particulate air pollution is the cause of man-made Global Warming? If it actually exists?
Where does the “brown cloud” come from?
Experiments have more value than computer simulations. Any experiments prove the C02 theory from the Goracle?
August 12th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Once again PGP posts multiple pleas for us to recognize his moral superiority through his emotional attachment to a politically and economically driven theory that has not yet satisfied scientific inquiry.
He calls names, he states that others are wrong, but he doesn’t seem to know why they are wrong. At least , if he thinks he does he is keeping it a secret. So far all I have seen from him is “Because I said so.”
One more time PGP, tell us about the polar bears alluded to in this thread by me, and elsewhere at least 4 times.
So far no one has been able to prove that global warming is a necessarily bad thing. However there is evidence that this latest round of it, lasting several centuries has been beneficial to man and animal.
So there are actually two questions that need answers. Is mankind a critical factor in global warming or not? Is global warming known to be deleterious to continued life on this planet?
Once again, tell me about the polar bears. And the sudden disappearance of news items regarding their drowning due to gw from the MSM.
August 12th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
“So far no one has been able to prove that global warming is a necessarily bad thing.”
Wait. Wait. Wait. Let me say it! The Old Know-nothing Bromide! Here it comes! “You can’t prove a negative!”
August 13th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Serious question: did you actually bother to read that link? I mean…really?
There’s exactly NOTHING in that article that even remotely suggests brown clouds and not GHGs are responsible for GW. Nothing. Not. One. Thing. It makes it pretty clear that the point is that airborne pollution is worsening the effects of AGW (and the pollution is anthropogenic, further strengthening the larger point that humans are indeed having an effect on climate).
Got it? They’re amplifying the GHE, not replacing it as the cause of AGW.
Desperation really does have a foul stench all its own.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Not the same Achim Steiner, student of philosophy, political science and economics (not climate) who paid Koffi Annan half a million as a prize and then suddenly gets picked by Koffi to his current post in the UN?
More of a well-funded activist who bought his way in than an expert on climate. Climate politics maybe, but not the actual climate.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Got it? They’re amplifying the GHE, not replacing it as the cause of AGW.
Desperation really does have a foul stench all its own.
Yes, I see the desperation.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:14 am
When #9 starts linking to articles that actually support the case for AGW or are in agreement with it and it’s pretty obvious he doesn’t grasp that he’s undermining his own ridiculous argument, you can probably stick a fork in this one.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:05 am
You miss the point. I haven’t said C02 man-made Global Warming is impossible. What I have written is that it is improbable.
The other thing I have written is that computer simulations are not enough. The particulate theory is important because actual experiments have been conducted.
Where are the experiments for the C02 theory?
Everyone understands how easily computer simulations can be skewed, whether accidentally or on purpose.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
No, what you wrote was question positing that maybe it’s caused by brown clouds, which isn’t supported by the article you linked…which you apparently didn’t bother to actually read…so I quoted it for you.
The models/experiments canard is tired, and I’ve shown you repeatedly that your objections here are entirely bogus and without merit.
Once again, your naked, unsupported assertions versus my links to information from scientists trained in the subject at hand rebutting what you have to say.
Don’t you ever get tired of looking like an idiot? Just curious.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
The models/experiments canard is tired
No, computer models and experiments are very different. To call that a canard is demonstrating you do not understand what science is. Science is dispassionate. Science has no preference towards an outcome.
Computer simulations have been used to con people since computers were invented. They also have been skewed by experimenter’s bias. What you have is a consensus about a theory. You do not have a scientific law. Because of the prejudice of those in the consensus it is debatable whether you have a valid theory.
Without experiments you are stuck on consensus. Consensus can be political rather than scientific. Can you demonstrate it is not political?
Are there ANY experiments that prove the C02 man-made Global Warming theory? Space based laser experiments from the Space Station? Satellite infrared experiments? Anything at realclimate.org? Anything?
Where are the experiments that prove the consensus? To call that a canard denotes your prejudice. Hence it undermines the consensus as you desire a specific outcome. Do others in the consensus desire an outcome? In science that would disqualify them from the consensus.
August 13th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
“No, computer models and experiments are very different.”
Just because you say so. A computer model is an analytical bench, just like a bunch of tubes and boiling liquids in a chemistry set. I really feel sorry for you that you don’t understand this. If you were to toodle out to ORNL and hang with the guys who actually do this work you would see that they are 1. scientists doing experiments and 2. not rigging the outcomes. In Re #2: it is too complex to rig. I know you don’t understand that, but it is. It would show when they run their ChiSquares….
August 13th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Interesting Metulj. “A computer model is an analytical bench, just like a bunch of tubes and boiling liquids in a chemistry set.”
Really. For the record, you are a cultural geographer, correct?
Question, do you feel that experimenter’s bias in computer models is:
A.) The same as
B.) More than
C.) Less than
experimenter’s bias with a “bunch of tubes and boiling liquids in a chemistry set?”
Has ORNL actually conducted ANY experiments on C02 man-made Global Warming you would like to share with the class?
Another question, the latest Airbus A380 jumbo jet was completely computer designed and modeled. Compared to the climate of the planet Earth, does this jumbo jet have more or less variables than the climate of the Planet?
August 13th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Metulj, I forgot, I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. Hence the increased brain power.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Metulj Says:
August 12th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
“So far no one has been able to prove that global warming is a necessarily bad thing.”
Wait. Wait. Wait. Let me say it! The Old Know-nothing Bromide! Here it comes! “You can’t prove a negative!”
That is truly pathetic metulj. your response is nonsense and you know it. You say global warming is a bad thing, so what you are saying here is that you can never prove it.
If that’s the case and it is, where does all your hysterical ranting originate? You know you can’t prove it. That must mean your belief is a negative. Why are you so positive about your negative theory? You can’t prove it. You said so.
Although you did mischaracterize it, I forgive you. It’s all you had left. Now, would you like to try an honest non-evasive response?
August 13th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
In addition to being a maroon, you can’t even read. Where did I say they were the same? I simply pointed to various examples of scientists using models that have in turn accurately predicted climate behavior. That said, I’d love to see you explain how they’re different in this case. This ought to be rich.
The only person missing out science here is you: the models work, and they’ve been shown to work repeatedly. They’re accurate, and there’s very little to suggest otherwise, as I showed above. Once again, did you bother to read anything before you started with the written diarrhea again?
As per usual, it’s me and those pesky scientists (with me providing links to what they say) versus you and your unsupported, unlinked, naked assertions.
Your facile misrepresentations notwithstanding, climate forcings are as well understood as any other fundamental physical interactions in the natural world. The climate forcing of atmospheric CO2 is indeed as close to a “law” as you’re going to find; NO ONE, not even the contrarians like Lindzen, deny that CO2 forcing is real. Since you didn’t bother to define “law”, not sure why we should even bother to really explore this much further.
The latest IPCC report has the unqualified support of thousands of different scientists. How can you possibly establish what all their biases are?
You really are an idiot. I continue to be amazed at why someone as sharp as Uncle lets a fool like you have the keys to his house. I wouldn’t trust you with a sharp object, let alone the keys to my intellectual property.
Of course, we can also note that you continue to ignore the biases of those spouting off contrarian arguments, also. Hmmm?
Wrong. Did you NOT bother to actually read the link on models I provided? Your larger premise that models are somehow inferior to experiments is supported by nothing other than your say so.
That CO2 is a GHG and has a warming effect on the atmosphere is as well accepted as E=mc^2 and F=ma. Even contrarians like Singer and Lindzen don’t deny it. Not sure why you’re so fixated on “experiments”, as in controlled environments, yes, it can be shown that adding CO2 will increase the amount of radiation retained.
Your skepticism might almost not make you look like a buffoon if the concept of CO2 forcing was somehow outlandish and far fetched instead of well understood for a hundred years plus type deal…but the climate forcing of CO2 isn’t particularly controversial.
Just out of curiousity…what would an experiment show you that a model doesn’t? What would the experiment look like? What would it test? Most importantly, what would it tell you that the models (which have been shown to closely and accurately predict climate behavior) don’t tell us?
I can see where you’re trying to go with this “experiments” line of reasoning, but it’s sophmoric and wrongheaded. Lots of science isn’t dudes in white jacket running tests in beakers and flasks. It’s observation and study and compilation of data with subsequent analysis. Einstein famously quipped that he didn’t do experiments! If you’re making observations and collecting data properly, he didn’t find it necessary.
Until you can answer those sorts of questions, you really are pissing in the wind. You’re obviously tossing out nonsense you heard on Neil Boortz and Sean Hannity and Limbaugh’s shows in desperation.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Metulj,
Shhh…I just saw your post and you’re gonna give it away. I wanted #9 to piss himself and spend a ton of time explaining why “experiments” and “models” are so functionally different and see his explanation for what “experiments” would show us that the models don’t…and there you go giving it away. 🙂
I would however, even with the big hint you gave him, be impressed if #9 could show us an example of climatic prediction skewed by experimenter’s bias–given that Lindzen, Singer, et al haven’t found any examples of this (and you damn well know they’d give a testicle to do so), I wonder why he’s so convinced that it’s a dispositive issue for his case.
August 13th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Ok, that’s enough PSH. WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE NEXT TUESDAY FROM GLOBAL WARMING, OR IDIOTIC CHARACTERIZATIONS OF PEOPLE WHO AREN’T INVESTED IN “I’M BETTER THAN YOU, BECAUSE I CARE.”
I admit PGP and metulj care more than I do. I just don’t care about their emotional insecurities and perpetual search for validation.
WE’RE GONNA DIE. Happy now?
Because everybody knows we are in favor of the extermination of life on Earth. We don’t want to live, we don’t want our children to live, not if it besmirches the religion of PGP and metulj. JOIN US NOW IN OUR DEATH SPIRAL, LET’S MAKE OUR MENTAL DEFECTIVES LAST DAYS ON EARTH HAPPY ONES BY PRETENDING THEY KNOW EVERYTHING BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE
August 13th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Me? Emotionally insecure? Hee. That’s rich. I need to call my therapist so we can laugh. As for the rest of your post, you’re right, you are killing yourself by ignoring the facts. Why are you against life? You’re just ……
August 13th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
“Me? Emotionally insecure? Hee. That’s rich. I need to call my therapist so we can laugh. As for the rest of your post, you’re right, you are killing yourself by ignoring the facts. Why are you against life? You’re just ……”
Talk to you next Wednesday.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Just out of curiosity…what would an experiment show you that a model doesn’t? What would the experiment look like? What would it test? Most importantly, what would it tell you that the models (which have been shown to closely and accurately predict climate behavior) don’t tell us?
You have a Masters in Philosophy and you ask those questions? Was scientific method part of your studies? So you don’t think experiments are needed because there is consensus?