My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Moontanman]

Hmmm.... We're gonna Freeze, we're gonna burn, we're gonna starve, we're gonna die of obesity
Surely reality will be somewhere in between, maybe we're simply gonna die no matter what

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

All the social activism in the world plus near-infinite sheaves of parameterized non-linear differential equations cannot overrule the implacable reality of mere arithmetic,

AN ARITHMETIC TRUTH

(0.99)^4 = 96.06%
(1.01)^4 = 104.06%
==================
0.12% imbalance (less the mean).

While it’s all well and good to note that the Stefan–Boltzmann law shows that a 1% increase in absolute temperature of a black or grey body results in a greater increase in radiant power than the power decrease for a 1% decrease, I’m unaware of any data suggesting that the Sun’s temperature increases and decreases by such exact amounts. As many sources, including the wikipedia article “sunspot”, describe, sunspot activity appears to follow somewhat regular patterns, most noticeably an 11-year cycle, the maximum observed variation is not the roughly 4% in Al’s example, but less than 0.1%.

Originally Posted by UncleAl

No sunspots --> Ice Age. That fractional percent is enough to decide between the Garden of Eden and glaciation.

Although the 16th to 19th century Little Ice Age spanned a 70 year period (1645 to 1715 AD) of nearly zero sunspot activity, the was preceded by other potential causes, such as an increase in ocean pack ice, by nearly 400 years.

In short, climate is complicated, IMHO, poorly modeled by “simple arithmetic truth”.

Originally Posted by UncleAl

BURN COAL. Hell, burn anything! WE'RE GONNA FREEZE!

With 17th century government and technology, the human population increased by an estimated 10-20% from 1600 to 1700 AD (source: Historical Estimates of World Population), a far cry from extinction by freezing. I suspect that 21st century civilization would do at least as well.

Without good emission control systems (ie: scrubbers) burning coal or burning anything that can burn releases large amounts of particulate pollution. There’s strong medical explanation and empirical evidence (sources: many, including Particulate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) that this sort of pollution greatly increases the incidence of preventable disease and death. I don’t think it’s a good idea to intentionally expose people to avoidable particulate pollution.

[freeztar]

CO2 levels have reached the highest in 650,000 years.

World carbon dioxide levels highest for 650,000 years, says US report | Environment | The Guardian

[freeztar]

Hmmm...Can someone explain to me why the church is getting wrapped up in the climate debate?

Christians Launch Campaign against Global Warming Hype | Christianpost.com

I quite like Grist's take on it:

Conservative Christian leaders have launched a "We Get It!" campaign that just goes to prove that saying something doesn't make it so.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Hmmm...Can someone explain to me why the church is getting wrapped up in the climate debate?

Christians Launch Campaign against Global Warming Hype | Christianpost.com

I quite like Grist's take on it:

Because the Right Wing Christian Conservatives want the end of the world to some about as fast as possible and think they should do anything possible to hurry it along!

[freeztar]

An internal NASA report has shown that the press office interfered with climate science. Read about it here:
The Associated Press: NASA's own watchdog: Agency misled on global warming

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

An internal NASA report has shown that the press office interfered with climate science. Read about it here:
The Associated Press: NASA's own watchdog: Agency misled on global warming

Sounds like a story for the 'Science is Close-Minded' thread. In all fairness though, the perps didn't interfere with the science itself, according to the article, but rather access to it.

Originally Posted by AP

... In its response, NASA's legal office noted that the report showed that actual research on global warming was not interfered with, and that neither NASA senior management nor other senior administration officials were involved. ...

Still, something bothers me about Senior officials & managers not having involvement in the agency they are supposed to be running. I hope this isn't a widespread phenomenon.

[InfiniteNow]

I like that it was NASA's own watchdog group that caught this and published the report.

NASA public affairs officials criticized by the report called it wrong, saying they were always open and truthful.

Not so, according to the report. The report did not directly accuse them of lying, but used more nuanced terms such as "mendacity" and "dissembling." The space agency complained those terms were unjust.

The report concluded that "inappropriate political posturing or advantage" was behind some of these actions.

NASA and the Bush administration instantly drew criticism as a result of the report.

"Our government's response to global warming must be based on science, and the Bush administration's manipulation of that information violates the public trust," said Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J.

Originally Posted by Turtle

Still, something bothers me about Senior officials & managers not having involvement in the agency they are supposed to be running. I hope this isn't a widespread phenomenon.

If you truly believe that they were not involved or were unaware, Turtle, then I've got a bridge I want to sell you.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Still, something bothers me about Senior officials & managers not having involvement in the agency they are supposed to be running. I hope this isn't a widespread phenomenon.

From the wording I think the AP is a little unclear but I would assume they mean NASA Senior officials were uninvolved with the manipulation - not that they were uninvolved with the public affairs office.

It would maybe be better for public affairs if senior officials were more directly involved with the office. However, that might be worse off for the senior officials - I would argue public affairs is something they don't need to be spending too much time on. The third option of having NASA's watchdog agency fill the role may be the lesser of all evils. The system did kinda work. Not that a system that breaks then fixes itself is a shiny example - but, the lesser of all evils it may be.

-modest

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by freeztar

An internal NASA report has shown that the press office interfered with climate science. Read about it here:
The Associated Press: NASA's own watchdog: Agency misled on global warming

Quote from the full report:

With respect to NASA’s climate change research activities, we found no evidence indicating that NASA blocked or interfered with the actual research activities of its climate change scientists. In contrast to our findings associated with the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs, we found that NASA systematically distributed its technical climate change research throughout the scientific community and otherwise made it available through a variety of specialized forums, such as scientific journals, professional conferences, and public appearances by NASA scientists. Further, our recent
audit of NASA’s formal process for releasing scientific and technical data resulting from research conducted by its employees and contractors found no evidence that the process was used as a means to inappropriately suppress the release of scientific or technical data at the four NASA Field Centers reviewed.

Of the 287 authors surveyed at those Field Centers, none indicated that they had experienced or knew of someone who had experienced actual or perceived suppression of their research by NASA management.

Full report here:
http://oig.nasa.gov/investigations/OI_STI_Summary.pdf