View Full Version : NASA Temperature Data: 1880-2011
momoese
01-23-2012, 12:48 PM
The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880.The finding sustains a trend that has seen the 21st century experience nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York released an analysis of how temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience higher temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) higher than the mid-20th century baseline.
NASA | Temperature Data: 1880-2011 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoOrtvYTKeE&feature=player_embedded)
harveyc
01-23-2012, 01:48 PM
Home (http://surfacestations.org/)
Nicolas Naranja
01-23-2012, 01:49 PM
Hidden in that statement is the fact that the temperatures have pretty much plateaued since 1998. I actually think the trendline may essentially be flat for 1998-2011.
Richard
01-23-2012, 02:37 PM
The published paper is a study of meteorological stations in the 48 contiguous U.S. states. It is not a study of temperature trends but rather
"for investigating the impacts of different types of station exposure on temperature trends"
It does point out that in contrast to global temperature studies
"the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century‐scale trend"
The full paper can be read here: http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf
Nicolas Naranja
01-23-2012, 02:52 PM
One of the things they harped on us about in my first statistics class was not to try to use past trends to indicate future trends. You can make a decent model of what already happened, but trying to predict things outside of the measured values was a losing game.
Richard
01-23-2012, 03:48 PM
One of the things they harped on us about in my first statistics class was not to try to use past trends to indicate future trends. You can make a decent model of what already happened, but trying to predict things outside of the measured values was a losing game.
NASA researchers are mostly in the sensor "business" and your advice is well-suited for them. In fact, the authors of the paper did not venture into extrapolation.
On the other hand, there are climatologists who model the earth system. Their studies are not a matter of statistics. One highly respected group is at UCLA.
Nicolas Naranja
01-23-2012, 04:03 PM
NASA researchers are mostly in the sensor "business" and your advice is well-suited for them. In fact, the authors of the paper did not venture into extrapolation.
On the other hand, there are climatologists who model the earth system. Their studies are not a matter of statistics. One highly respected group is at UCLA.
A lot of the popular press I see tries to make a correlation between historical CO2 levels and temperatures, but we are beginning to get outside thee range of observed CO2 levels. Climatology is very complex, and I don't think people are getting the full story about atmospheric chemistry and global temperatures and the reality of what it all means. I especially don't like the silencing of conflicting views that I see. Any evidence that Global Warming may not be man-made is quickly dismissed. And not to get too terribly scientific but the r-square of CO2 x Temp is not too terribly impressive. It doesn't explain as much of the warming as Al Gore tells you it does.
Richard
01-23-2012, 05:20 PM
And not to get too terribly scientific but the r-square of CO2 x Temp is not too terribly impressive. It doesn't explain as much of the warming as Al Gore tells you it does.
I agree. Trying to explain the mechanics of the earth with algebraic statistics makes little sense. However, that seems to be all that makes it into the popular press.
On the otherhand, when capable research teams who study the earth as a dynamical system state that things seem to be going in the wrong direction it is foolish not to sit up and take notice.
The r-square of CO2 x Temp is the average linear potential of entropic change with respect to CO2 mass over a given period. It is one of several values that an earth dynamicist would use to judge the validity of their dynamical model verses existing measurements. It is far more interesting to look at the underlying dynamics and what factors account for changes in earth phenomena on different time scales.
harveyc
01-23-2012, 06:39 PM
yada yada
Richard
01-23-2012, 06:42 PM
yada yada
Was that a character in a Star Wars movie? :lurk:
harveyc
01-23-2012, 06:45 PM
Seinfeld, I think.
Richard
01-23-2012, 07:01 PM
Seinfeld, I think.
Oh. I had stopped watching TV long before that show started.
caliboy1994
01-25-2012, 09:51 PM
To me this is irrefutable proof of global warming.
caliboy1994
01-25-2012, 10:24 PM
I thought that this was pretty interesting. An alternative explanation for global warming? Could be.
1/11/2012 — North pole shifts towards Siberia — warmer latitudes have shifted NW | DUTCHSINSE = SINCEDUTCH (http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/1112012-north-pole-shifts-towards-siberia-warmer-latitudes-have-shifted-nw/)
I'd think that we would have least contributed a bunch to it though.
momoese
01-25-2012, 11:44 PM
I don't have time to watch the whole video right now but it is interesting.
palmtree
01-27-2012, 05:04 AM
Good vid.
Although actually after seeing this, Im a bit more worried about Global Cooling than Global Warming. Right not it seems like the warm temperatures have peaked and based on history, what comes up, must come down. We have been much warmer than present-day in the not-to-distant past. It was possible to farm in southern Greenland in the past. Imagine how warm the USA must have been! And then after that period of warmth, we got cold, very cold. I always hear stories of New York Harbor Freezing over entirely during the 1800's. Nowadays the harbor doesnt freeze over at all. And the first settlers in Roanoke had a lot of problems because of how brutal the cold was and thats in southeast Virginia which is a zone 8b today!
Right now it seems like temperatures are still increasing, but not as much as they used to. Things are definitely on a pleateu right now. The Earth never stays constant, the climate is always up and down. All it takes is a strong volcanic eruption or some reduced solar activity (which is predicted to happen in the near future) to cause a mini ice age. Hopefully we have many more decades of mild weather left and if not, then I guess I will have to move a bit farther south!
Then again u got the government messing with the weather.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/y1tD12Byuls" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Jack Daw
01-27-2012, 07:17 PM
Then again u got the government messing with the weather.
Oh Mr. Ventura. :08: You know, don't know how about you, but I would principially not believe anybody who was or is a politician. It never ends well. :lurk:
momoese
01-27-2012, 10:44 PM
Oh Mr. Ventura. :08: You know, don't know how about you, but I would principially not believe anybody who was or is a politician. It never ends well. :lurk:
Hey man, he's a pro wrestler first. :03:
Seriously though, HAARP is very interesting/scary.
harveyc
01-27-2012, 11:11 PM
Plant-Zone Map a Boon to Growers - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577182932658968386.html)
For a different view:
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=googlenews_ wsj)
Jack Daw
01-28-2012, 09:06 AM
For a different view:
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=googlenews_ wsj)
The article is referring to one person: Ivar Giaever and "Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message"
- now what I've learnt to do with the mass media is to cut off the part that is not really a particular statement and cannot be verified - a general phrase without any proofs, such as "many young scientists".
Now for the Ivar Giaever. As much as I agree that he's a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, what does he have to do with all of this?
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'
So he based his letter on a fact that he cannot live with that... That's ok. But what is he actually his field of expertise? Let's have a look at the Nobel Prize description biography:
Ivar Giaever - Biography (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1973/giaever-bio.html)
Giaever emigrated to Canada in 1954 and after a short period as an architect's aide he joined Canadian General Electric's Advanced Engineering Program. In 1956, he emigrated to the USA where he completed the General Electric Company's A, B and C engineering courses. In these he worked in various assignments as an applied mathematician. He joined the General Electric Research and Development Center in 1958 and concurrently started to study physics at Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute where he obtained a Ph.D. degree in 1964.
From 1958 to 1969 Dr. Giaever worked in the fields of thin films, tunneling and superconductivity. In 1965 he was awarded the Oliver E. Buckley Prize for some pioneering work combining tunneling and superconductivity. In 1969 he received a Guggenheim Fellowship and thereupon spent one year in Cambridge, England studying biophysics. Since returning to the Research and Development Center in 1970, Dr. Giaever has spent most of his effort studying the behavior of protein molecules at solid surfaces. In recognition of his work he was elected a Coolidge fellow at General Electric in May, 1973.
Dr Giaever is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and the Biophysical Society, and he is a Fellow of the American Physical Society. Dr. Giaever has served on committees for several international conferences and presently he is a member of the Executive Committee of the Solid State division in the American Physical Society.
Where exactly did he get his qualification in Climatology? That's a question. Maybe I didn't find it. But what authority does he have in that field?
harveyc
01-28-2012, 09:19 AM
Jack, on what basis of expertise do you ignore the piece being signed by 16 scientists?
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Richard
01-28-2012, 10:36 AM
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=googlenews_ wsj)
The article Harvey has provided spurns a connection between CO2 and greenhouse effects in the last century and the first 50 years of the present century. It does not refute the measurements of global warming in terms of 1C rise per century since 1400 -- the definition that the scientific community has for global warming. Nor does it refute evidence of climate change -- an upward shift in global temperatures over the last 50 years.
The author's discussion is largely concerned with efforts to curb CO2 emissions from mechanical sources. There is some merit to this view since humans and domesticated animals are the largest sector of contributors. However, the article does not address this fact or the unpleasant remedy of population reduction.
The view that global warming and climate change are occurring is held by 97% of the members of the American Physical Society.
Jack Daw
01-28-2012, 12:00 PM
I'm not ignoring them. It however seems that the rest of the APS does. And I guess it isn't only 16 scientists.
Membership 50,000
src: American Physical Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society)
Actually 16/50000 = 0.00032%
I mean, even if it was 10%, the VAST majority of the scientists is of another opinion.
I was just asking what relevance does mentioning of THAT particular scientist had, since he didn't even have specialization in Climatology. The only relevance was, that he was most probably the only Nobel Prize winner and thus his mentioning there would put some more weight to his claims in an layman's view. Even though I doubt I would find any succesful climatology paper he wrote.
And come on... some of these people can't even pretend to be specialized in climatology:
Quote:
Harrison H. Schmitt - a geologist
Why don't they leave this to real Climatologists?
And some REAL paperwork on the status quo of the scientific consensus on Global warming, Climate change and man-made global warming:
http://tinyurl.com/dehjun
Expert credibility in climate change (http://tinyurl.com/35jed2s)
Richard
01-28-2012, 12:18 PM
The one thing about those 16 people we could all sympathize with: perhaps they just want a warmer climate so they can grow edible bananas outdoors year-round in their location!
:08:
Jack Daw
01-28-2012, 12:41 PM
The one thing about those 16 people we could all sympathize with: perhaps they just want a warmer climate so they can grow edible bananas outdoors year-round in their location!
:08:
They are not the only ones. ;)
This Siberian front has brought the first below 25F temps this entire winter. Or, shall I say... it will bring. Here I was hoping for northern Adriatic Italian winter... well. Still, as far as we are in the winter, statistically it's the warmest winter on record here.
harveyc
01-28-2012, 08:18 PM
I'm not ignoring them. It however seems that the rest of the APS does. And I guess it isn't only 16 scientists.
Membership 50,000
src: American Physical Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society)
Actually 16/50000 = 0.00032%
I mean, even if it was 10%, the VAST majority of the scientists is of another opinion.
I was just asking what relevance does mentioning of THAT particular scientist had, since he didn't even have specialization in Climatology. The only relevance was, that he was most probably the only Nobel Prize winner and thus his mentioning there would put some more weight to his claims in an layman's view. Even though I doubt I would find any succesful climatology paper he wrote.
And come on... some of these people can't even pretend to be specialized in climatology:
Quote:
Harrison H. Schmitt - a geologist
Why don't they leave this to real Climatologists?
And some REAL paperwork on the status quo of the scientific consensus on Global warming, Climate change and man-made global warming:
http://tinyurl.com/dehjun
Expert credibility in climate change (http://tinyurl.com/35jed2s)
Well, as far as I know, they haven't taken a confidential poll to ask what the other 49,984 members think.
At one time, the vast majority of scientists believed that Earth was flat and also that the universe rotated around Earth. Didn't make it right, just popular. My primary problem with all of this is questions about the accuracy of weather stations, appropriateness of weather station locations, and bias placed on the analysis of data. This has been gone discussed enough in the past.
I think the inclusion of a geologist is to appease folks that are "mining" for the truth. ;) Some of the scientists signing onto that opinion piece do appear qualified based on their titles, but that could be misleading as well.
Who do "real" climatologists work for? Are they all entirely objective and independent?
I'm sure not qualified to know who to believe. ;)
Jack, please know that if you feel attacked in any way by me asking these questions, that is not my intent. Just some open and somewhat light-hearted discussion.
Richard
01-28-2012, 08:58 PM
Well, as far as I know, they haven't taken a confidential poll to ask what the other 49,984 members think.
Yes, the results made national news so I suppose it is on their web site somewhere. My point was that it is more interesting to look at rates (percentage) than quantities of individuals.
Again, notice that in the article you provided the author embraces the idea of global warming in his opinion that it will be good for the planet over the next 50 years. What he calls into question are mechanical CO2 emissions as a cause for the observed increase.
harveyc
01-29-2012, 12:43 AM
My pitaya and bananas sure would look nicer if we didn't have 28 days of frost like this year. I won't depend on warmer weather right away but will try to get a cover over them before next winter.
Jack Daw
01-29-2012, 03:59 AM
At one time, the vast majority of scientists believed that Earth was flat and also that the universe rotated around Earth. Didn't make it right, just popular. My primary problem with all of this is questions about the accuracy of weather stations, appropriateness of weather station locations, and bias placed on the analysis of data. This has been gone discussed enough in the past.
Actually, the idea of Earth being flat had a dogmatic origin and most of the real scientists of any era opposed this idea... all the way from the old Greece up to Kopernikus and Galileo. The most important difference is that back then such people not only might have been, but often were publicly prosecuted, many important figures of scientific world were simply executed and proper scientific methods weren't taken into considerations.
Catholic church haS been the most significant scientific retardant in the history of the mankind in a way it supressed the most brilliant scientists of an entire era to express their "not beliefs", but observations. I disagree with you however that people always thought that the Earth was flat. Whilest relatively uneducated populus of the then known world certainly might have thought so, for instance old American Indians knew much more about the astronomy much earlier than anybody in the Europe and were aware of some cosmic processes way before the Europeans even dared to look at the skies. It is the society with freedom of scientific progress, that reaches the higher point.
As for the weather stations, I don't really know what that's about. Frankly this topic doesn't interest me that much at all. Although from the model I saw in the first post it's safe to guess that reliable (according to the scientists) weather stations are located all over the planet and the measurments are combined with the satelitte measurments.
Who do "real" climatologists work for? Are they all entirely objective and independent?
I'm sure not qualified to know who to believe. ;)
Every real scientist works only to expand his knowledge (as opposed to the "popular scientists that only wnat to be seen and heard without actually having anything to say" - this is what a real scientist looks like and his contributions to the science will live as long as the mathematical apparatus that he worked with Grigori Perelman - Mind over money - YouTube (http://youtu.be/j1RS7eHCsZo) ). Most of the real scientists don't even need that much money and acknowledgment - actually the more you see some scientist in the public and at the shows, interviews and the more he goes for the big money... the less objective work he is likely to do.
As you can see, through 1 publication the entire public was capable of identifying a talented mathematician that moved the maths one step further. Whereas there might mbe hundreds mathematicians that do not contribute to math as much and their publications are through the scientific evaluation processes valued less, if they deal with the same problems yet are unsuccesful in finding solutions and methods for them.
That is maybe inconceivable to you coming from the western world, but as for the rest of the world, being a scientist has always meant only the personal evolution and pride, especially when many of the scientists on this planet don't even work in conditions you (as a nation) would find workable.
One doesn't become a scientist to earn vast amounts of money. One becomes scientist, because it really is a calling for gaining and expanding your knowledge. Modern scientific methods and especially publishing methods have been created to ensure impartiality, objectivness..
I don't really have the time and this isn't the place, but the topic of scientific researching and publishing methods is so vast that it is dedicated a significant portion of time during the latter postgradual studies at the university.
The same techniques apply to ALL the scientific fields and ensure that the real contributors to the science are seen and the "talkers with hunches of how something might be" are labeled as such, unless they bring some evidence to their claims...
Again. I'm not expert in this field and don't even need to be. I do believe those 90%+ of scientists that what they actually observe and measure and claim is true. And I don't even dare to interfere with their observations and measurments just as I wouldn't want them to start interfering with the technological progress of computers or virology. They simply aren't qualified to solve these types of issues, that bother virologists...
And neither is the general public qualified to evaluate the work of the scientists. That's the real issue. Nobody would dare claim something to a virologist and want him to alter his techniques based on a marginal .00032% opinion in the virology and a general public opinion (needless to say how that might end). But the same doesn't apply to the climatology obviously.
And that's what I was claiming the previous post. If you click the first link to the REAL scientific publication from my previous post that set its role of defining how big the consensus really is, you will see a picture there. As you can see in the picture, the less qualified people are to talk about this matter, the less they claim Yes on the question... With public being the most unqalified and less saying yes, whilest the most qualified scientists (ACTIVELY PUBLICATING Climatologists) are in consensus as to what's going on by claiming Yes to the question.
Jack, please know that if you feel attacked in any way by me asking these questions, that is not my intent. Just some open and somewhat light-hearted discussion.
No, I like constructive debates. ;) As long as they are truly debates and are constructive.
Scientific method explained easy:
10 - The Scientific Method Made Easy - YouTube (http://youtu.be/zcavPAFiG14)
harveyc
01-29-2012, 11:57 AM
Okay, this is wandering off-topic, but I'll acknowledge what I was taught in public school in the 1960s about the one time widespread belief of a flat earth was not correct.
Jack, in keeping this discussion constructive, I believe it is necessary to correct you in an area that I am quite sensitive to. You appear to be ignorant of the true facts around the history of the Catholic church and science. The Catholic Church did not spread the belief that the earth was flat.
See Where Did the Idea of a Flat Earth Originate? (http://midwestapologetics.org/articles/bible/flatearth.htm)
Your retardant comment regarding the Catholic Church far from the truth. I suggest you read The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy) on a common controversy where some of the church's historical influence with science is accurately described.
This site also has information and references to the church's involvement in the modern scientific method and development of the college system: http://pseudo01.hddn.com/vod/cchvideo.catholicscomehom2/pdf/Epic_proof.pdf
Jack Daw
01-29-2012, 12:12 PM
Okay, this is wandering off-topic, but I'll acknowledge what I was taught in public school in the 1960s about the one time widespread belief of a flat earth was not correct.
Jack, in keeping this discussion constructive, I believe it is necessary to correct you in an area that I am quite sensitive to. You appear to be ignorant of the true facts around the history of the Catholic church and science. The Catholic Church did not spread the belief that the earth was flat.
See Where Did the Idea of a Flat Earth Originate? (http://midwestapologetics.org/articles/bible/flatearth.htm)
As for the flat Earth - I said it had dogmatic origins, not Catholic! Careful about mixing those together.
Your retardant comment regarding the Catholic Church far from the truth. I suggest you read The Galileo Controversy | Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy) on a common controversy where some of the church's historical influence with science is accurately described.
This site also has information and references to the church's involvement in the modern scientific method and development of the college system: http://pseudo01.hddn.com/vod/cchvideo.catholicscomehom2/pdf/Epic_proof.pdf
I won't be discussing religion and religious institutions. I believe in everybody's free choice in this matter, but I can respond to your links with this link:
Catholic Church and science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science)
This article is supposed to be without any bias and was edited by many people from what I can gather in the discussion section. As for me, the Catholic Church (and other religious institutions) topic is closed.
harveyc
01-29-2012, 12:32 PM
Okay, even the dogmatic comment is not correct. Most church leaders and scientists taught that the earth was a sphere and I can only find where individuals with religious affiliations had theories that the earth was flat with no official church teaching (dogma) on the matter.
I read the Wikipedia article and didn't find anything that contradicted the information in the sources I posted, though my sources included more examples of church involvement in science. The Wikipedia article, however, does appear to be much a work in progress document as many statements are still in need of a citation.
Nicolas Naranja
01-29-2012, 01:19 PM
I'll state again that there is a great risk in extrapolating trends. Climatologists did this in the early 70s and they probably thought that we would keep getting colder. If you took the trend line from 1980-2000 you would find out that we are far below where we should be according to that trend line. It's also important to note that as the atmosphere warms there is necessarily an increase in CO2. Here's the question you need to ask yourself. The causes of increased CO2 are largely anthropogenic, but the increase in CO2 only explains at most 25% of the increase in temperature during the industrial era. So what explains the other 75%?
Richard
01-29-2012, 09:11 PM
Ok Nicholas, I agree that there is a great danger in extrapolating trends. And likewise I don't find much merit in statistical studies that seem to be jumping on the bandwagon to show something is true or false. I think you are also aware that the paper that started this thread topic is a discussion of what was measured between 1880-2011, how reliable the measurements where, and what the measurements show. The authors conclude that for the continental U.S. there is no trend one way or another in average yearly temperatures. The continental U.S. is of course a minor portion of the global average temperature referred to in "global warming" studies.
I don't think about climatology in terms of statistics at all, but instead in terms of complicated interacting dynamical systems. Over the years I have developed a high respect for some of the teams involved in these kinds of studies. When these folks say "there is a problem" I think more people should take notice. This is why over the last two decades the consensus in the scientific community towards "global warming" and "climate change" has gone from the low twenty percentile to well over ninety percent.
harveyc
01-30-2012, 02:26 AM
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html)
Richard
01-30-2012, 12:00 PM
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html)
:ha:
Harvey -- you're aware that DailyMail is a UK tabloid?
harveyc
01-30-2012, 12:46 PM
Yeah, but I think it was fun to read. And it did quoting folks that seemed to have some expertise but I posted it mostly because it made me smile. :)
I also posted it without any comment and correctly predicted you'd be the first to respond. ;)
harveyc
01-30-2012, 01:07 PM
I still say how can I take any of this very seriously. Al Gore has been the biggest promoter of having to take drastic actions. However, while he's proposed big government action he's set a terrible example of taking personal responsibility with his huge mansion and use of a private jet. Also, I was also in a group that once promoted an international conference about dealing with global warming and the conference fee include a charge for carbon impact fees. I saw no reason why they just didn't hold an online video conference. These are mostly folks just trying to justify their jobs, IMO.
Nicolas Naranja
01-30-2012, 02:30 PM
I'm not going to disagree with climate change or global warming. Climate changes and the world is definitely warmer than it was 100 yrs ago. I do have a problem with the people who insist that CO2 is the driver of this change. I've had 2 climatology classes over my education, both taught by men in their 60s, that basically said that CO2 cannot explain all the warming. And explained the chemistry behind their assertion.
So what do I think.
I think you have a group of scientist who have figured out their gravy train. Scare people with thoughts of coastal flooding, mega-hurricane and dead polar bears and your grants get funded. Then you get a marketing team to figure out how to make money on it. Finally, you dismiss skeptics as lunatics.
People have an impact on the planet, what do you want to do about it. A plowed field heats up more than a forest or grassland, concrete holds heat, and when you add up the effects of each and every little thing that we do the only way to stop global warming is to stop having children and start killing people. We can compost the bodies and use them in our organic garden.
Eat a plant based diet, ride your bike to work, buy carbon credits and pray to Al Gore for salvation. An explanation to the warming based on sun spots or natural ENSO cycles just doesn't sell movies and books, so to hell with them. Just hope that this warming last long enough so that we can make emeritus status before it goes bust.
Richard
01-30-2012, 05:12 PM
Nicholas, I think you've described the bad apples of academia and we can find them in every discipline. However, it does not fit the two earth science modeling teams that I am familiar with, nor the 3 other teams they collaborate with.
In this field of studies, scientists do not work alone. Certainly someone with Einsteinian mental capabilities could grasp the entirety of the dynamics -- but carrying out the work single-handedly is intractable. Instead the serious research teams are lead by a group of 4 or so such individuals, each of which has a grasp of the whole but who focus on their individual specialty. To carry out the work, they also have anywhere from 15 to 35 more individuals on the team who are at the caliber of assistant professor or post-doc. The aim of their research is to model earth processes as a whole, and not to criticize the activities of humans.
They have no need for news conferences or other stunts designed to increase funding through beg-a-buck government grant programs. Their salaries exist primarily through endowments, supplemented by occasional contracts and the compensations they receive as reviewers of leading journals in their field.
Jack Daw
01-30-2012, 06:39 PM
Just hope that this warming last long enough so that we can make emeritus status before it goes bust.
I just hope it helps in warming the climate to such level, that my grandchildren will not know the frost at this latitude.
:ha:
harveyc
01-30-2012, 07:41 PM
I just hope it helps in warming the climate to such level, that my grandchildren will not know the frost at this latitude.
:ha:
I'd settle for two light frosts a year. ;)
Nicolas Naranja
01-30-2012, 10:30 PM
The aim of their research is to model earth processes as a whole, and not to criticize the activities of humans.
I have no problem with that. But, when people start advocating for a change one way or another I am highly suspicious especially with climate.
I don't know if you ever read super freakonomics but there is some discussion in there about all the problems associated with horse manure in major cities. It was a big problem with no solution in sight and then along came the automobile. We have a very poor ability to imagine what the future will look like. It took 30 years or so to completely move from horse and buggy to automobile. I'm sure I'll sound silly talking to my grandkids about driving a camaro. It'll be like my grandfather talking about driving cattle to Alexandria, VA
Richard
01-31-2012, 12:15 AM
I have no problem with that. But, when people start advocating for a change one way or another I am highly suspicious especially with climate.
Shoot your television. Real life is more interesting.
venturabananas
01-31-2012, 12:48 AM
As a non-expert, do you really want to gamble against 97% of the experts? I am a scientist with a PhD and I've seen the good the bad and ugly of science. The ugly is not not nearly so devious and evil as some of you imagine. The ugly tend to be pig-headed or self promoters, and end up making mistakes. They are the small minority. If you think there is big money for individual scientists doing climate science work, you are mistaken. Our salaries are set by the institutions we work for. These guys don't need global change money -- there will always be jobs and funding to do climate research of some type.
I know VERY LITTLE about climatology. But when the people who are experts in it are almost unanimous in their view of the reality of global warming and its chief causes, I will trust their opinions. When so many scientifically illiterate people (this comment is not targeted anyone who has posted here -- instead it is targeted more at the hypothetical "average American") are willing to gamble the future of their descendants and the other organisms we share this planet with, I find that disturbing and depressing.
Jack Daw
01-31-2012, 08:49 AM
If you think there is big money for individual scientists doing climate science work, you are mistaken. Our salaries are set by the institutions we work for.
It's difficult to explain to most of the people how money stops being that interesting to certain groups of people, when they reach some point. A true scientist does science, no matter the cost or lack of funds. A true scientist-talker just talks about what he's doing all the time.
Richard
02-01-2012, 12:16 PM
For a different view:
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com
It seems that we weren't the only people who thought the 16 scientists might be a bit far afield:
Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate — Letters to the Editor - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html?mod=wsj_share_t weet)
harveyc
02-01-2012, 02:03 PM
It seems that we weren't the only people who thought the 16 scientists might be a bit far afield:
Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate — Letters to the Editor - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html?mod=wsj_share_t weet)
I wish the author of that OpEd piece would educate us dummies and tell us what is extreme about the views of the "few" qualified folks in the original OpEd piece instead of introducing an entirely unrelated matter of a retrovirus scientist.
The author himself delves into an area where he seems to have no expertise, suggesting that we "invest" in low carbon energy to stimulate the economy. I suppose we will need some more taxes for that which would be lots of help. ;)
venturabananas
02-01-2012, 02:50 PM
I wish the author of that OpEd piece would educate us dummies and tell us what is extreme about the views of the "few" qualified folks in the original OpEd piece instead of introducing an entirely unrelated matter of a retrovirus scientist.
The author himself delves into an area where he seems to have no expertise, suggesting that we "invest" in low carbon energy to stimulate the economy. I suppose we will need some more taxes for that which would be lots of help. ;)
I take "extreme" to be used in the statistical sense, that is to say, far from the average view. If you disagree with 97% of chestnut growers, your views would be extreme, even though they could be correct. But if I were starting a chestnut growing business, I'd probably follow the advice of the 97%.
I include myself in the category of dummies, at least when it comes to understanding the details of climate change science. Sure, I have a PhD in a science, but it's not in climatology. I don't think climatologists or scientists in general are any smarter than the average person, but we are trained to be experts in whatever discipline we specialize in. That was the point of the article, in my mind. If your car needs a new transmission, do you take it to the genius French pastry chef who is smarter than anyone you know, but has never worked on a car in his life?
harveyc
02-01-2012, 03:16 PM
I take "extreme" to be used in the statistical sense, that is to say, far from the average view. If you disagree with 97% of chestnut growers, your views would be extreme, even though they could be correct. But if I were starting a chestnut growing business, I'd probably follow the advice of the 97%.
I include myself in the category of dummies, at least when it comes to understanding the details of climate change science. Sure, I have a PhD in a science, but it's not in climatology. I don't think climatologists or scientists in general are any smarter than the average person, but we are trained to be experts in whatever discipline we specialize in. That was the point of the article, in my mind. If your car needs a new transmission, do you take it to the genius French pastry chef who is smarter than anyone you know, but has never worked on a car in his life?
Based on the example of the HIV case, I think the writer was meaning "very unreasonable" when using "extreme". Yet, he didn't make any points refuting any of the specific information they had included in the original OpEd.
I don't think the transmission/pastry chef is anything pertinent to the points I was making.
I have a longer career in auditing than farming chestnuts, fyi. Yet, I did research chestnut growing a great deal before planting my orchard 13 years ago and read every bit of information I could find. In the end, I have now grafted over the entire orchard to other varieties because the general consensus on what was best to plant was wrong. :)
Nicolas Naranja
02-01-2012, 03:17 PM
If you think there is big money for individual scientists doing climate science work, you are mistaken. Our salaries are set by the institutions we work for. These guys don't need global change money -- there will always be jobs and funding to do climate research of some type.
I'll suppose for a minute that perhaps things are done differently in California. I'm an agronomist and I work for the University of Florida. I'm going back to get my PhD in August. Here, tenure and promotion is determined by a formula that looks at how many publications you have made, classes taught, and how much grant money you brought in. Having been a part of the grant-writing process over the past few years, I know that grants tend to have some kind of theme. When there is a perceived problem, the federal government directs more money towards it. I realize that the researchers don't get a direct share of that money, but it helps them along in their careers. It also increases the size and scope of their little fiefdoms. It's nice to have extra employees and grad students and new lab equipment. Like I said, I have no problem with the research, but rather with the apocalyptic predictions.
Richard
02-01-2012, 04:19 PM
If a comparison to any of the 38 authors co-signing the article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html?mod=wsj_share_t weet) is made to ourselves, you will find that by comparison most of us have the mental development, knowledge, and skills in our fields of an average student in 2nd grade at a public school. People such as Terry Root (http://www.stanford.edu/group/terryroot/cgi-bin/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/tlr-cv-2009.doc) do not chase careers -- instead the careers chase them. They are not your average tenure-track professor. It would take any of us at least 50 years -- without brain deterioration -- to acquire the knowledge and insight they acquire and integrate each and every year.
The whole "global warming" discussion by lay people such as ourselves draws out the most unusual responses. Some use it as a venue to complain about science -- and often this is due to an underlying misunderstanding about dynamic processes or simply quantity vs. rate. Others use it to complain about academia, and sometimes rightly so -- or because of some past poor experience, or a total misunderstanding of the great range of learning rates among humans. And finally there are those who like to take any opportunity to poke fun or argue about something they feel is vunerable -- such as Enfant Provocateur (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/enfantprovocateur.htm).
If we were to listen in (or simply read) the discussions of the authors, you will find that there is disagreement among themselves about some processes or another. Certainly they do not all feel that the situation is apocalyptic, although they all agree it is serious.
The topic is a political football. If it is entertaining for you to discuss it like a sports topic -- then go for it, have fun! But as great as he was, I really don't believe Merlin Olsen will be drafted into the Climatology Hall of Fame.
Jack Daw
02-01-2012, 07:34 PM
If a comparison to any of the 38 authors co-signing the article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.html?mod=wsj_share_t weet) is made to ourselves, you will find that by comparison most of us have the mental development, knowledge, and skills in our fields of an average student in 2nd grade at a public school.
I'm actively studying, creating and producing so that once I might be the 2-10% of people whose skills and knowledge are to be envied. Who knows... with enough time and work... I might just be there in several decades. :08:
venturabananas
02-01-2012, 11:33 PM
Based on the example of the HIV case, I think the writer was meaning "very unreasonable" when using "extreme". Yet, he didn't make any points refuting any of the specific information they had included in the original OpEd.
I don't think the transmission/pastry chef is anything pertinent to the points I was making.
I have a longer career in auditing than farming chestnuts, fyi. Yet, I did research chestnut growing a great deal before planting my orchard 13 years ago and read every bit of information I could find. In the end, I have now grafted over the entire orchard to other varieties because the general consensus on what was best to plant was wrong. :)
The 3% of climatologists who disagree with the 97% are viewed by their colleagues in exactly the same way as the virologist who doesn't believe AIDS is caused by the HIV virus is viewed by his colleagues.
My basic question is this: is it wise to ignore the warnings of the vast majority of experts, when it comes to such a complicated issue with such serious and far-reaching consequences? Maybe the 97% of experts are wrong and the 3% minority is right, but to me its seems reckless to gamble on that.
Nick, I agree with you that the predictions about how much the climate will change should be viewed with caution. I suspect most of the climatologists who've made those predictions would agree. They involve extrapolation beyond anything we have experienced, which is always risky. But shouldn't you prepare for the worst and be happy if does not occur?
My point about money, funding, and science is this: the good climatologists will always be able to fund their academic empires. They will always be able to write successful grant proposals for whatever the current "big issue" is. Yes, those of us in academia have egos and have all the flaws of other people, but we are not going to intentionally misrepresent what we view as the truth just to generate funding for our research programs. Our livelihoods and professional reputations depend on us presenting the facts as we know them. That's not to say we are never wrong, we are, but if you are caught lying to generate funding, it's over for you.
Jack Daw
02-02-2012, 03:26 AM
The 3% of climatologists who disagree with the 97% are viewed by their colleagues in exactly the same way as the virologist who doesn't believe AIDS is caused by the HIV virus is viewed by his colleagues.
And I have read somewhere (a blog of sort?) that there are "scientists", who actually believe that the HIV virus is NOT a deadly virus and can be cured using retroviral cure - a special virus designed to hunt down the HIV in the body.
When there was a conference in Vienna about this in 2010? or 2011?, they (the not "believers") organized a contra coonference, where they would discuss why HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Guess the turnout.
Nicolas Naranja
02-02-2012, 10:51 AM
The basic problem that we have is the same problem we have had for over 100 years. We have too many people on this planet to live sustainably. We are exhausting our resources and polluting the world. You don't hear many people talking about it, but I will likely see the end of commercial phosphorus fertilizer in my lifetime. Peak Phosphorus, and Why It Matters - By James Elser and Stuart White | Foreign Policy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/20/peak_phosphorus?hidecomments=yes)
So peak phosphorus and peak oil, declining levels of arable land. Food is going to get very expensive in the near future. Things have already gotten much more expensive than they used to be. I used to be able to buy nitrogen phosphorus and potash for about 0.25/lb, now they have all more than doubled in price. Of course these predictions have been made before, and technology has delivered us from doom. I'm sure the Europeans could use a little warming right now.
venturabananas
02-02-2012, 11:55 AM
The basic problem that we have is the same problem we have had for over 100 years. We have too many people on this planet to live sustainably. We are exhausting our resources and polluting the world.
Yep, that's it in a nutshell.
Jack Daw
02-02-2012, 12:46 PM
The basic problem that we have is the same problem we have had for over 100 years.
Frankly, no. The earth can carry much more people than it does now. What however people lack is a proper social and economical system, when the minority wouldn't own the majority.
Another problem is, that American way of life, or the way most of the Americans live their life, is not sustainable.
Consider it yourself: how many cars do you have on average? How much food do you throw away on average? Pollution per person... You [as a nation] lead in almost all of these negative aspects.
I was watching a movie the other day:
How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth (FULL) - YouTube (http://youtu.be/dN06tLRE4WE)
And some claims are made there about how many people could live on Earth, if it was supposed to be sustainable. If I remember correctly, "the African way living" would support even over 20 billion people. An estimate, right. But based on some logic.
Also, in the movie, there's a short passage about a man working for a university: Norman Borlaug. His approach is typical for most of the scientists, hence what we discussed earlier. His goal to help and educate... his commitment to this cause more than anything else.
Richard
02-02-2012, 01:01 PM
Frankly, no.
Actually yes -- even with dramatic changes in lifestyle for the current number of people on the planet. Check the studies from Cornell University.
In terms of Africa, some people are now knee-deep in the Stand On Zanzibar (http://books.google.com/books?id=FiWjzOZXXbEC).
Jack Daw
02-03-2012, 07:12 AM
Check the studies from Cornell University.
Could you link me to some of them, please?
There's way too much from that university.
In terms of Africa, some people are now knee-deep in the Stand On Zanzibar (http://books.google.com/books?id=FiWjzOZXXbEC).
I'm not sure I get this. :ha:
Nicolas Naranja
02-03-2012, 10:47 AM
From the same David Pimental, that I distrust as an energy economist. His specialty is population ecology. Getting large groups of people to willingly give up prosperity is a losing battle.
Some people are starting to ask just how many people the Earth can support if we want to cease degrading the environment and move to a sustainable solar energy system? There is no solid answer yet, but the best estimate is that Earth can support about 1 to 2 billion people with an American Standard of living, good health, nutrition, prosperity, personal dignity and freedom. This estimate suggests an optimal U.S. population of 100 to 200 million. To achieve this goal, humans must first stabilize their population and then gradually reduce their numbers to achieve a sustainable society in terms of both economics and environmental resources. With fair policies and realistic incentives, such a reduction in the human population can be achieved over the next century.
Richard
02-03-2012, 11:50 AM
Could you link me to some of them, please? There's way too much from that university.
Cornell is considered one of the leading centers for studies earth-sustainable agriculture, and many aspects of agriculture in general. It has been for decades, and in that sense I agree the number of journal publications alone is daunting. If you find the subject engaging, you might start by perusing the faculty list and their publications. I wish I had the time to be a reference librarian for you, but ... oh well. Here are a few tidbits from of David Pemintel (now emeritus) and Christian Peters (now at Tufts): "FOOD, LAND, POPULATION and the U.S. ECONOMY (http://dieoff.org/page40.htm)", "World Population, Agriculture, and Malnutrition (http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/EP175D.pdf)", and "Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land resource requirements of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity" (summary (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html)) (journal article (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1091328&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1742170507001767)).
From the same David Pimental, that I distrust as an energy economist. His specialty is population ecology. Getting large groups of people to willingly give up prosperity is a losing battle.
I agree on both points.
In terms of Africa, some people are now knee-deep in the Stand On Zanzibar (http://books.google.com/books?id=FiWjzOZXXbEC).
I'm not sure I get this. :ha:
Back in the early 1960's, some population study determined that if the earth's human population were all in one place, it would roughly fit in an area equal to the land area of the African island of Zanzibar. This fact is quoted in Brenner's futuristic novel of the day, and by the end of the story some of the population would be standing beyond the shoreline.
harveyc
02-03-2012, 12:17 PM
From the same David Pimental, that I distrust as an energy economist. His specialty is population ecology. Getting large groups of people to willingly give up prosperity is a losing battle.
Some people are starting to ask just how many people the Earth can support if we want to cease degrading the environment and move to a sustainable solar energy system? There is no solid answer yet, but the best estimate is that Earth can support about 1 to 2 billion people with an American Standard of living, good health, nutrition, prosperity, personal dignity and freedom. This estimate suggests an optimal U.S. population of 100 to 200 million. To achieve this goal, humans must first stabilize their population and then gradually reduce their numbers to achieve a sustainable society in terms of both economics and environmental resources. With fair policies and realistic incentives, such a reduction in the human population can be achieved over the next century.
To decrease population, we need to seek volunteers for folks over 50 to die early. I'm not willing to do so. We can't rely on reduced birth rates and have a smaller and smaller working force support us old geezers.
Jack Daw
02-03-2012, 12:58 PM
...If you find the subject engaging, you might start by perusing the faculty list and their publications...
Yup, I just want some basic articles to make a picture. As far as population dynamic's concerned, I have absolutely no worries. Nature has always limited species in this. In my lifetime and before 2100 I believe the real issue will be people not having enough children. But that won't concern you and probably by the time it comes neither me. :bananas_b
Richard
02-03-2012, 02:04 PM
In my lifetime and before 2100 I believe the real issue will be people not having enough children.
That is a very apocalyptic view. :0493:
Nicolas Naranja
02-03-2012, 02:46 PM
If children born in the past decade in this country only had one child on average, the US population might be halved by 2100, but that would depend on zero net migration. The bigger problem that I see in this country is that the "fittest" individuals are simply not having enough children. The bright, talented people of this country wait until they are in their 30s to start having children, while the high school dropout living in a trailer has 8 children from 6 different men, 5 of which are in prison. Of course, willingness to mate would be selected for trait. 2100 may look like a vegas brothel.
Jack Daw
02-03-2012, 06:36 PM
If children born in the past decade in this country only had one child on average, the US population might be halved by 2100, but that would depend on zero net migration. The bigger problem that I see in this country is that the "fittest" individuals are simply not having enough children...
Yeah... but because it takes so much time for your "fittest" to get the "basic background".
What we in Europe consider as basic priviliges (free health care, free education - even the university education,...) - it all creates a debt for your young generation - they owe ridiculous amounts of money without actually producing something.
The question also is - who would migrate under this scenario in 2100? All the major developed countries will be fighting the loss of original population and the need for skilled and qualified immigrants is extreme even nowadays. This net loss of populus will be dominant in Eastern European countries, China - major contributors of immigration to the rest of the Europe and Australia... India will still be probably "producing" many people but the question is - who will care (economically) for the elderly? It's a very serious problem even now.
Richard
02-03-2012, 10:52 PM
This net loss of populus will be dominant in Eastern European countries ...
People will view less populace as less mouths to feed. Any and every piece of arable land will be viciously defended or acquired. Xenophobia will run wild as people become hysterical about perceived threats to their local food production.
The bright, talented people of this country wait until they are in their 30s to start having children, while the high school dropout living in a trailer has 8 children from 6 different men, 5 of which are in prison.
Actually for that scenario, only 2 out of 6 are in prison ... which does not make your scenario any better or take anything away from your conclusion.
I'm all for paring back the US child credit on income taxes to a maximum of two -- or eliminating it altogether, plus charging $1000 for a birth permit. Over-population is just not science fiction anymore.
Nicolas Naranja
02-03-2012, 10:55 PM
The question also is - who would migrate under this scenario in 2100?
As bad as the USA is in terms of providing well-being to its citizenry, it still has the laws set up to encourage entrepreneurship. The US has some core values and fundamentals that will always attract people. A population crash is a definite cluster**** for just about everything that depends on their being more people. The USA has housing for well over 300 million people, what happens when there are only 150 million people here. You also have a tremendous concentration of wealth for individuals who happen to be from these much more common small families. That has become an issue recently for me. You have divorced parents and then grandparents and unfortunately they are all not in good health and before you know it you are trying to sell off all the accumulated property of 6 people. Of course, being able to sell these homes depends on their being people to sell them to. I just hope the USA can make it itself attractive to immigrants in the future, we need them over here to buy houses and shop in our stores and consume electricity and do work. As far as skill goes, the migrant farm worker is at the same skill level as the migrant programmer. Anyone can pick oranges, but the speed that the farm worker does it at is the skilled part of it.
Jack Daw
02-05-2012, 10:04 AM
As far as skill goes, the migrant farm worker is at the same skill level as the migrant programmer. Anyone can pick oranges, but the speed that the farm worker does it at is the skilled part of it.
:ha: Wow. Why the hell have I been studying so hardly? :ha:
Nicolas Naranja
02-05-2012, 07:41 PM
:ha: Wow. Why the hell have I been studying so hardly? :ha:
Society doesn't value the picker. Harvesting lettuce, tomatoes, oranges or sweet corn is a piece rate activity where you are paid according to how many packages you pick. A skilled harvester will make over $100/day, but you've got people making between $70 and $150. You could do it for six months and never figure out how to do it quickly, 10hrs/day 6 days/week.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.