Global Warming for Dummies

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by InTheServiceOfZeke

yep...for dummies.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature...ticle10866.htm

boo!

Surely, you aren't suggesting that a one year dip in mean global temperature establishes a trend?


Even so, the data in their own graph clearly contradict DailyTech's claims. They got their data from a blogger, Anthony Watts. Watts was apparently not impressed with DailyTech's take, and has stated:

I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.

[Emphasis in the original.]



As of yet, DailyTech does not seem to have acted in good faith, since their headline says:

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

This, despite the fact that the graph they use to illustrate the claim clearly shows that this is not the case at all.


Interestingly, the original data come, in part, from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Here's what they have to say:

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.

[My emphasis.]


I'm going to assume that the DailyTech claims aren't a case of deliberate lying, but are merely sloppy scholarship.

Cheers,

Michael

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

Just did

With language. From the decision.

Originally Posted by yguy

your brazen misrepresentations of Mass v EPA

Prove them. I'm waiting.

[yguy]

You really are turning into a crashing bore, you know that?

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by yguy

your brazen misrepresentations of Mass v EPA

Prove them. Or else just admit you're a lying cock.

(I take these accusations pretty seriously, in case anyone is wondering.)

[yguy]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Prove them.

As I said, I already have. I would nevertheless attempt to clarify were it not for your nearly unbroken record of dishonesty. Things being what they are, such a request will have to come from elsewhere for me to spend time on it.

[Thinker]

Dear Miss Shelby,

In resonse to your first post, starting this thread:

The Democrats have been using the drum beat of Global Warming to criticize Republicans. Republicans are in power, and there is some question as to how much our burning oil and coal, making CO2 and releasing Methane, etc, have had an impact on the Greenouse effect, which is probably one of the causes of Global Warming. There is nothing really that can be done about CO2 emissions or Methane releases by humans, without substantially changing the lifestyles of the rich.

The rich really don't want to change the Immigration, or population pressures from the poor, because many of the rich have a mixture of morals, (Anti-Abortion) and dreams of cheaper labor.

The science that measures the Sun Heat is cheap, unsophisictated, and not verified by redundant equipment verification. Little is done to accurately measure the heat given off by underwater volcanos. The shading of the atmosphere and formation of clouds is not well understood, and may be influenced by cosmic rays. So the scientific insturments used to make the claims of the proportionate causes of Global warming are junk science, as the instruments do not really have sophisticated accuracy.

The party in power, the Republicans for now, are in a tough place on Global Warming, because of the political will needed to fight the Christian Right, which has a stangle hold on the Republican Party.

It will be interesting to see how the tables turn, if the Democrats come to power, and find Republicans attacking the Democrats for not moving on Global Warming, CO2 and Methane emissions.

Personally, I think the the Global Warming controversy is a misdirection of the real harm to the planet. Mercury from coal and other sources is ending up in the Oceans. 5 kinds of fish have too much Mercury for humans to eat. Another 30 types of Ocean fish have Mercury Warnings. As more Mercury flows into the oceans, the fish will become inedible. During our life, the Mercury poisoning of the Oceans will become substantially irreversible.

Eco-Friendly Seafood Selector - Environmental Defense

GotMercury.Org Calculator for Mercury in Fish: Toxic Tuna in Los Angeles Sushi


..

[mickthinks]

YouTube - Mercy Mercy Me (The Ecology) - Marvin...

I think the the Global Warming controversy is a misdirection of the real harm to the planet. Mercury...
Certainly carbon-accelerated climate change is not the only damage that we humans are doing to our biosphere, but I'm surprised you think that it isn't where the real harm is being done. I'm not questioning the impact of mercury on the marine food chain, but can you say why you think this dwarfs the climate change problem?

Mick

[Thinker]

Dear Mick Thinks,

Mercury collecting in the oceans is increasingly tainting the food supply. There was a bay in Japan that accumulated too much Mercury. People were dying and getting sick eating the fish from the bay. The Bay in Japan was cleaned up, from the Mercury, and the main polluter stopped, but it will be a monumental task to clean up the whole ocean, as more Mercury builds up.

Global Warming shifts food supplies around, but Mercury poisons the food from the Oceans.

Global warming will shift some of the Plant and wild life Species around the Earth, but there will still be food, growing from the Earth. There is nothing that is politically possible to stop CO2, or significantly cut CO2 emissions, so it is also a monumental effort to stop CO2.

What is possible is to put scrubbers on Coal fired plants, and keep the Mercury out of the air, and out of the Oceans. More universal access to family planning can also reduce population pressures on smaller governments to allow industries to cut corners on pollution emissions.


..

[Doctor X]

The Democrats are in power in the Senate and House.

FYI. . . .

--J.D.

[godfry n. glad]

It makes no flippin' difference when there is insufficient representation to overrule the president's vetos.

Then, there's all that "signing statements" bullshit, like something the head dickwad happens to say while signing the bill into law has the force of law. What fookin' idiocy.

Nice, if futile, gesture coming up!

[Thinker]

The Lights Out for an Hour article must be from another year, because Tuesday does not match up with this year, 2008.

Since we are talking Politcs in the Science Category, here is some applied science to alleviate Global Warming by political changes.

Housing Changes for Tranportation to Work:

1. Property is now abscounded by the government. Any new housing must be within a mile of where the full time worker, works.

2. Property shall be allocated to people working within one mile of the property. More Highrises can be built, as joint ventures.

3. Any marriage where both partners don't live within a mile of where they work, the further out partner shall be moved to closer houseing. Divorces shall be granted for working too far away.

4. Singles are limited to dating within one mile of where they work. Tax breaks shall be given for cohabiting within one mile of where both partners work.

Airplane Travel:

An affidavit of attempted video conference shall be required, and a special judge shall be required to pass on the merits and necessity for travel by air.

Maybe a politcal Party: THE DECREASED TRAVEL PARTY

.

[Naru]

Originally Posted by Thinker

blah blah blah stupid neocon strawman shit

[Thinker]

Dear Naruto,

Neocons like war, and since War involves alot of tranportation, Is war bad?

What if the Sun is really just getting brighter? They really don't know.

Meanwhile we should be declaring assaults and special operations against unscrubbed coal burning plants. Make Tuna safe to eat again.



..

Tuesday, March 18.

*checks 2008 calendar*

Maybe you should put down the pipe?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Thinker

What if the Sun is really just getting brighter? They really don't know.

Surely, you're not unaware of the fact that radiative output is one of the easiest things in the Universe to measure?

You could argue that we don't know all the effects of cloud cover and how that affects how much sunlight reaches the Earth's surface, but you can't argue that we lack the capacity to measure the Sun's brightness. We can (and do) measure that with considerable precision.

Actually, the Sun's brightness has increased -- slightly -- over the past millennium. That increase has been far too small to account for the observed rise of mean global temperatures, however.

Cheers,

Michael

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Thinker

Make Tuna safe to eat again.

[Thinker]

Dear Lone Ranger,

How come the Oceans are getting cooler?

http://www.qando.net/ - Global Warming: A New Caveat

The graphs that I have seen measuring the Sun's intensity have significant variations, even on a single day, and include the full specturm of solar radiation, rather than just the solar heat wave spectrum that will warm the Earth. I am not ready to divorce my wife because she works too far from the house.

Do you like Tuna?

How does Mercury2 get converted to Methyl Mercury in areas of deep ocean beds? How do you spell the name of that zone between the deep oceans and warmer shallow ocean? [Phermocine Layer?] Do you believe that the Medrcury2 clings to the particles above the deep zone [Particle Reactive], and allows Anaroebic bacteria to convert Merecury2 to Methyl Mercury?

[fragment]

Can you leave the tuna thing? It has no connection to whether global warming is happening. Yes, it's a problem, but it's an entirely separate problem. Accepting global warming has no connection with whatever anyone may think about mercury. Deciding what, if anything, to do about climate and mercury should sit on their individual merits, so enough of the sideshow in this thread. Start a new one for mercury if you like.

While you're at it, quit with the straw men about divorce. No-one's suggested auch a thing, and even if they were the reality of global warming is not determined by whether you happen to like a policy suggestion.

Now for the actual scientific content of your post:

Cooling oceans:

Two systematic biases have been discovered in the ocean temperature data used by Lyman et al. [2006]. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work.

Correction to “Recent cooling of the upper ocean”

Varying solar intensity:
Are you really trying to suggest that a varying quantity cannot be measured and analysed?

Solar spectrum:
Here's a graph showing solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere and at sea level. What do you think the difference is?

Have you ever considered fact-checking your claims before you post them?

[Thinker]

Dear Fragment,

What percentage of Global Warming is due to Co2? How much of the CO2 causing global warming is from fossil fuels?

What do you suggest humans do to lessen Global Warming? How many years will be extended by each of your approaches?

There are graphs linked earlier on this thread that show variations of solar energy measured by satelite. Your graph is artfully done, but the raw data from the satelites of solar radiation show significant variations.

How much did the instruments cost that are the best measures of Solar Output we have?

You Use the term Global Warming as if all Global Warming is due to automobile exhaust. What do you mean by Global Warming? What part is man made? What do you want man to change?

Do you eat Ocean fish? Do you hate people who eat ocean fish? Why are humans poisoning a significant food source? Why do you want to keep Mercury a quiet secret? Mercury should probably be on every Science thread, because Science has a duty to inform about poison.

Strawmen are not insulting, and can help bring the argument home. The technolgy of today cannot support the 15% increase in population, per year.

..

[fragment]

Originally Posted by Thinker

What percentage of Global Warming is due to Co2?

Too vague a question to be quantifiable. Over what time period? Do you want that in terms of temperature or energy fluxes? Do you want CO2 forcing as a proportion of all the positive forcings (i.e. warming influences)? Or as a proportion of total forcing (i.e. accounting for negative forcings as well)? Or something else? Why are you only asking about CO2? I've never said CO2 is the only issue. For the record, the IPCC quantifies CO2 as the largest single positive forcing (1.49 to 1.83 W/m2 from 1750 to 2005, see fig SPM2 in the fourth assessment report working group 1 summary for policymakers), but hardly the only important influence on global temperatures.

How much of the CO2 causing global warming is from fossil fuels?

Again, this is a bit too vaguely worded for a quantifiable answer. Atmospheric CO2 has multiple sources and sinks - carbon is cycled through the atmosphere, oceans, living things and rocks - and all of the CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to the greenhouse effect equally, whatever the source. A better question is, how much of the increase in CO2 levels over pre-industrial times is a result of the burning of fossil fuels. The answer is most of it. Some is from land-use changes such as deforestation. Natural sources don't appear to have changed, and sinks have been taking up more CO2 than they were in pre-industrial times.

What do you suggest humans do to lessen Global Warming? How many years will be extended by each of your approaches?

I have no particularly good ideas, and doubt we're going to actually do a great deal soon enough to make a difference. I haven't read widely about others' proposals, but the wedge concept seems the closest I've seen to describing the sorts of things that would need to happen to mitigate global warming.

There are graphs linked earlier on this thread that show variations of solar energy measured by satelite. Your graph is artfully done, but the raw data from the satelites of solar radiation show significant variations.

I posted a graph of the solar spectrum and the difference between the sun's output and what reaches Earth. The earlier graphs were of total solar irradiance (i.e. across all wavelengths) through time. Do you understand the difference?

How much did the instruments cost that are the best measures of Solar Output we have?

No idea. There's several satellites doing this up there, so probably quite a bit. Why is this relevant?

You Use the term Global Warming as if all Global Warming is due to automobile exhaust.

No, I do not.

What do you mean by Global Warming?

Ultimately it's just the observation that the mean of global temperature anomalies shows a long-term positive trend. Informally, though, I and most other people I've discussed this use the term fairly interchangeably with anthropogenic climate change - mostly from greenhouse gas emissions. Most people seem to understand this, although if the loose terms are unacceptable to you we can agree to use more well-defined ones.

What part is man made? What do you want man to change?

Anwsered earlier in this post.

Why do you want to keep Mercury a quiet secret?

I don't, I think it deserves its own discussion.

The technolgy of today cannot support the 15% increase in population, per year.

15%???? Sounds unlikely, I guess that's a typo? But whatever the rate of increase, I agree, it cannot go on forever. In fact, I doubt that we can indefinitely sustain current population levels, without growth, with current technology.

Why does attract so many crazy people? And does that contribute to global warming?

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by Thinker

Strawmen are not insulting, and can help bring the argument home.

[Stormlight]

Originally Posted by Thinker

Mercury should probably be on every Science thread,

Including astro-physics, algebra and software engineering.

[Farren]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

Home to imagination-land, where you burp where you fart and you fart where you burp.

[/family guy]