Global Warming a fake?

[pgrmdave]

Nobody in particular, I'm just curious as to whether there is a scientifically determined 'good temperature' or not. If there is no determined desirable temperature, then I would think that finding the ideal temperature would be the first priority. If there is an ideal temperature, I'm interested in what it is and how people came to that conclusion. Of course my questions are more directed at those who think that humans can reverse the warming trend, though.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Nobody in particular, I'm just curious as to whether there is a scientifically determined 'good temperature' or not. If there is no determined desirable temperature, then I would think that finding the ideal temperature would be the first priority. If there is an ideal temperature, I'm interested in what it is and how people came to that conclusion. Of course my questions are more directed at those who think that humans can reverse the warming trend, though.

On the "good" temperature question, I think giving a temperature answer is silly. One only has to live with one other person in the house to see no agreement is possible even between two on what the ideal temperature is.
Sorry for taking questions not directed directly toward me. I think people need to reduce their contributions now and that any schemes to sequester large amounts of carbon consider very carefully the law of uninteneded consequences.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

Nobody in particular, I'm just curious as to whether there is a scientifically determined 'good temperature' or not.

There's no 'good temperature', as far as I know. This is to say if you want to peg down the average Summer/Winter temperatures to a few degrees. It will always vary from year to year. There have been Ice Ages followed by warm ages according to the ice cores, and they have been cycling for millions of years.

The problem comes in when the temperatures climb or fall too quick. A drop (or rise) of a few degrees on average over a thousand or so years is completely natural. The same change over a few decades is disastrous.

The rate of change is the enemy here - but if you want to define a 'good temperature' for Earth, I suppose that'll be any temperature that allows life. Problem here, of course, is that the variation in that specific 'good temperature' will be from -80C to more than 180C if you allow for extremophiles...

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Nope. Not a single percent increase in measurement accuracy. Sorry. This is a famous (and particularly silly) strawman argument fashioned by the 'There is no Global Warming' crowd.

And the reason for this is that mercury have expanded and contracted through heat input exactly as much a hundred years ago as last year. Or the year before. Or today.

The last few years have been the hottest on record. And our records, made with kick-ass reliable mercury thermometers calibrated at the freezing and boiling points of water (which, incidentally, haven't changed over the last hundred-odd years, either) go back a good hundred and fifty/two hundred years. Now what on earth does that tell you? Yeah! There's nothin' wrong! It's all a big hoax!

Err on the side of caution, like my momma always used to say. Because the alternative is unthinkable.

Boer, I don't know what scientific background you have. Thermometers more than 100 years ago were made with mercury. Funny thing, mercury can evaporate. Thermometers break and mercury gets out. So then they started using alcohol in thermometers (and most thermometers in the developed world were exchanged for these new ones). Then along came the personal computer with thermistors which are accurate down to the thousandth of a degree. These coupled with wireless communication made it possible to place electronic (not mercury) thermometers all over the place as long as they had a power line and communications equipment to transmit these things.

Now you ever use a mercury, alcohol, and digital thermometer in a hot water bath? Which one are you going to trust to be accurate? Since every grade schooler in the US has done this experiment and realized that the glass tubes holding the liquids can move up and down according to the scale just by picking the thermometer up off a shelf, they all learn to use the digital. Then when they learn how easy it is to calibrate the digital by running a simple piece of software, and that they can get an accurate reading down to the thousandth of a degree, verses maybe an inaccurate tenth using a liquid based thermometer, they never go back.

Now besides the innacuracies of the measuring device, let's consider number of devices and locations. 100 years ago, how many locations were attempting to record an accurate temperature? Were these recording the temperature of the ground or the air? Were they dry or were they being affected by relative humidity? Were they in urban environments only or were they spread equally all across the surface of the earth (land and sea)? You go draw up a bath of water and vary the temperature while your filling it and stick one thermometer in after you are done. Is that thermometer going to accurately read the temperature of the entire bath? NO. Just one single point. Will data based on that point represent the trend of the entire bath? NO. Just one point.

How do you compare data from the past 100 years when you keep adding new points, methods, equipment, etc.? You try to find a datapoint for which these things has not changed.
So they went to the poles. What did they find? Not a temperature, but a trend between thickness in the ice and CO2 trapped within that band of ice.
Well that's a start, now we have a good idea that temperature of the air and thickness of the ice are related, and we have a strong correlation between thickness and CO2, and we believe that we can say that the CO2 levels are higher now than they have been in a very long time (again how long is questionable) and we can begin to say that there might be some relationship between that and industrialization. Except that industrialization began more than 100 years ago, and the temperatures only appear to have begun rising in the past 30 years and before that they were actually falling enough to make some people think we were entering another ice age (look at those people now and shake your head shamefully). So now someone needs to provide data on whether industrialization 30 years ago suddenly drastically increased in production of CO2.
Oh and don't even try to say that it took a while for the increase in CO2 to kick in. The study of the 2 mile deep core sample in Vostok shows that there is a strict relationship between air temperature and CO2 levels (not an offset of 70 years relationship but a strict relationship meaning every hot year there was an abnormally high amount of CO2).

Now take into consideration the effects of the sun on Mars on the movement of the dry ice from one pole to the next and the rise and fall of CO2 levels in the atmospher when this happens. On the hottest years more CO2 is realeased into the atmosphere, thus the following year more is frozen into the ice because there is more in the atmosphere to freeze out. Seems like CO2 from an ice core sample should follow the hot years (of course on earth we don't have dry ice at the poles, we have gas bubles in the ice.)

[Boerseun]

cwes00_03, this being my 2,000th post, it's cause for celebration. Bring out the bubbly, I say. I have had ideas for how to celebrate my 2,000th post, and replying to this specific post of yours will do just fine:

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Boer, I don't know what scientific background you have.

Information Technology, Geography, Geology and Physics. Does it matter?

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Thermometers more than 100 years ago were made with mercury. Funny thing, mercury can evaporate.

Besides being poisonous, mercury thermometers (the kind not bought at the bargain-basement counter) are normally sealed. You have a bulb and a stem, and the top part of the stem is sealed so that the nasty mercury can't get out. And they are still manufactured, to this day.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Thermometers break and mercury gets out. So then they started using alcohol in thermometers (and most thermometers in the developed world were exchanged for these new ones). Then along came the personal computer with thermistors which are accurate down to the thousandth of a degree. These coupled with wireless communication made it possible to place electronic (not mercury) thermometers all over the place as long as they had a power line and communications equipment to transmit these things.

I don't dispute that for a second. Although, as anybody using Microsoft products would testify, stupid is as stupid does. The fact that is has all kinds of bells and whistles and wireless connections and email facilities and can sing the blues in three different shades of muave does not make it one whit more accurate than, say, a good ol'fashioned mercury thermometer. It all depends on the initial calibration.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Now you ever use a mercury, alcohol, and digital thermometer in a hot water bath? Which one are you going to trust to be accurate?

Seeing as I'm biased, I won't tell you. You know what I'm a'gonna say, dontcha?

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Since every grade schooler in the US has done this experiment and realized that the glass tubes holding the liquids can move up and down according to the scale just by picking the thermometer up off a shelf, they all learn to use the digital.

DUDE!!! I toldya not to use the bargain basement stuff! Go to any lab supply shop and see if they sell those cheapie glass-tube-with-the-movable-scale models! You need to shop around sum, brother! If that's your idea of how the liquid thermometers work, I can understand why you'd wanna go for the electronic gizmos...

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Then when they learn how easy it is to calibrate the digital by running a simple piece of software, and that they can get an accurate reading down to the thousandth of a degree, verses maybe an inaccurate tenth using a liquid based thermometer, they never go back.

I'm at a loss. Once again - the Microsoft parable...
Calibrate a digital. Fine. Use a calculator. Fine. Do you now why you're doing what you're doing, or why the answer is what it is? There's a reason they call it a sliderule... the sucker rules...

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Now besides the innacuracies of the measuring device, let's consider number of devices and locations. 100 years ago, how many locations were attempting to record an accurate temperature?

I dunno. Depends what country you're talkin' about. We've had metereological stations over here for many years, now. And they've been keeping very accurate records... all with mercury thermometers.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Were these recording the temperature of the ground or the air?

The air.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Were they dry or were they being affected by relative humidity?

Neither - they were sealed mercury thermometers. Do you actually know how they work, or are you regurgitating anti-global warming propaganda here?

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Were they in urban environments only or were they spread equally all across the surface of the earth (land and sea)?

We had weather stations set up in all the big metropolitan areas, as well as in godforsaken little towns in the Kalahari desert. The ocean temperatures were taken by the Royal Navy as they cruised the world's oceans. And every reading's position was recorded at sea, as accurate as it was at the time. They did this in order to learn more about ocean currents, the knowledge of which were crucial to commercial and military shipping in those days.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

You go draw up a bath of water and vary the temperature while your filling it and stick one thermometer in after you are done. Is that thermometer going to accurately read the temperature of the entire bath? NO. Just one single point. Will data based on that point represent the trend of the entire bath? NO. Just one point.

'zacktly. That's why we measure the ocean all over, not only at one point. One spot might be cold where a current comes from the poles, whilst another spot only a few hundred miles away will be mild to warm, bringing water from the tropics. You can make strawman arguments all you like, but I still fail to see your point.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

How do you compare data from the past 100 years when you keep adding new points, methods, equipment, etc.? You try to find a datapoint for which these things has not changed.
So they went to the poles. What did they find? Not a temperature, but a trend between thickness in the ice and CO2 trapped within that band of ice.

Nobody measured the temperatures of core samples. Even alluding to that simply displays your ignorance of the matter. It is impossible to measure the temperature of air bubbles that was locked into solid ice thousands of years ago - all we can do is infer a likely temperature based on our knowledge of the gases the sample of the atmosphere trapped in the sample consist out of.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Well that's a start, now we have a good idea that temperature of the air and thickness of the ice are related, and we have a strong correlation between thickness and CO2,

THICKNESS of the ice and CO2? Er... No.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

and we believe that we can say that the CO2 levels are higher now than they have been in a very long time (again how long is questionable)

We don't *believe* it, we can measure it in the samples. There is no *belief* here. It's empirical. Cold-blooded. Black-and-white.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

and we can begin to say that there might be some relationship between that and industrialization.

No. It's all a big conspiracy.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Except that industrialization began more than 100 years ago, and the temperatures only appear to have begun rising in the past 30 years and before that they were actually falling enough to make some people think we were entering another ice age (look at those people now and shake your head shamefully). So now someone needs to provide data on whether industrialization 30 years ago suddenly drastically increased in production of CO2.

If I fart right now, I can guarantee you won't smell it. Not right now. The stuff need to spread. You dig? Besides the fact that industry have been growing exponentially over the last hundred-odd years, the atmosphere's a big place - but by no means boundless. It will reach its fill. It takes time, though.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Oh and don't even try to say that it took a while for the increase in CO2 to kick in.

Why can't I say it? It's the truth, brother. You might not like it, though.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

The study of the 2 mile deep core sample in Vostok shows that there is a strict relationship between air temperature and CO2 levels (not an offset of 70 years relationship but a strict relationship meaning every hot year there was an abnormally high amount of CO2).

Yes?...

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Now take into consideration the effects of the sun on Mars on the movement of the dry ice from one pole to the next and the rise and fall of CO2 levels in the atmospher when this happens. On the hottest years more CO2 is realeased into the atmosphere, thus the following year more is frozen into the ice because there is more in the atmosphere to freeze out. Seems like CO2 from an ice core sample should follow the hot years (of course on earth we don't have dry ice at the poles, we have gas bubles in the ice.)

[cwes99_03]

Sorry Boer, guess I can't argue with you. You obviously have this all figured out and there can't be a shred of a thought that a global warming crisis might not be real or caused by man. Guess we'll see who is most like those people from the 60s who thought the earth was heading for a major ice age.

[Zythryn]

Or Cwes we may find out who is more like the pro cigarette lobby of the 70s and 80s.

The problem is if we wait until we have enough evidence for 100% of the people it will be too late.

Whie there was sarcasm in some of B's answers to you, there were also a number of valid points which you failed to address.

Please also keep in mind that the locations of tests were not randomized each year. Sure, some new locations were added, but most attempt to keep variables as limited/controlled as possible.

[Boerseun]

Cwes, I was probably a bit nasty in my last reply to you. Heck - it was late at night, had a long day, you know the drill.

In the Global Warming debate, the stakes are so high that if we were to err, we have to err on the side of caution. End of story. There are no alternatives.

Unless you want to sit back and let the world carry on as is, saying "Global Warming is a natural phenomena", and let what will be, be. Let's say you've got a 50% chance of being right. Let's say that all the evidence pointing towards human activity adding to Global Warming and accellerating it's pace beyond the ability of hundreds of thousands of species to cope is only 50% reliable. What's gonna happen if you're right? What's gonna happen if you're wrong?

Thing is, nobody is disputing Global Warming as a natural occurence. The biggest part of the planet was a steamy swamp in the time of the dinosaurs. This is clearly not the case today. So, there are cycles of heating and cooling. Nobody is disputing that. What we are worried about, matter of fact, let's call a spade a spade - what we are shit scared about, is the rate of change. If only the industrial bigwigs with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo could see that simple fact, life on Planet Earth might be a lot easier. Would short-term financial gain for a few win over long-term prudence, with a benefit to many?

Let's say there's a box on your desk. Let's say someone told you there's a bomb inside, booby-trapped to go off if you open the box. Are you simply going to laugh at them, saying a bomb on your desk is impossible and open it, or are you at least going to consider the possibility?

In the Grand Scheme of Things, who'll live longer with a box that might contain a bomb on their desks - those tearing into the package to find a giftwrapped book, a box of chocolates, a coffee mug with your name on it (or, pray tell, a bomb), or the guy taking the warning seriously and devising ways to probe and test the package (without opening it) to determine the contents? Heck - he might be wrong, but like I said; he's erring on the side of caution.

Ignorance and denial of the Global Warming issue is understandable only in terms of those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. In the abolishment of slavery, who complained the most? Yep - you guessed it. The slave owners.

[ughaibu]

I've been wondering about the prevalence of global warming denial, not amongst industrialists but amongst apparently sensible people, such as the members of this site. I suspect this behaviour is similar to AIDS denial, a reaction to something personally and ultimately threatening. Whatever the cause, reading threads like this certainly doesn't inspire me with the confidence that any sensible steps will be taken in response to the threat.

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

The following websites are on my recommended reading list before you get into any debate on Global warming. These are scientific and blog sites, so read them carefully and extract the viable data from them and the ideas presented for the ACCURACY of data presented.

The simple fact is that while there is reason for some concern, the amount of data is lacking, and the accuracy of that data is of serious concern.

1) The data that is supposed to show CO2 levels for the last 400,000 years from the Vostok, Russia station 11 years ago used a lot of other global data to make estimated guesses at what year each ring on the core referred to. This is because if there were a significant enough warming trend the year after the ice was made, the data for that year could have been completely lost. (After all isn't this what brought up the concern over global warming, that polar caps can and are melting away?) If that really is the case then how can there be 400,000 years of rings?

2) Global temperature readings via land stations and satellites have dramatically increased over the past 100 years (after all we didn't have any satellites to measure temperature 100 years ago.) However, the location of these stations has remained largely urban, and largely land based (not on the ocean or large lakes like the great lakes.) This will of course skew the results. They are also largely northern hemisphere and on the European and North American continent. (map on one of the sites listed below shows them) Also the accuracy of these has greatly increased over the past 100 years, (how accurate was a thermometer made in 1900 compared to the digital type that are constantly recalibrated from 2000.)

The fact of the matter is that there is way more data to be skeptical about it than to be supportive of it. That being said, there is no reason why scientists and businesses alike shouldn't take precaution and reduce the amount of CO2 production by industry worldwide even if it does only contribute 0.28% annually (again see the websites below.)

Does this satisfy you?

Edit: Bold added here for emphasis was not in the original post.


http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources...forwarming.htm

http://www.thedailyspork.com/archive..._warming_2.php

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html

http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming10.htm

http://polynya.gsfc.nasa.gov/seaice_..._image_10.html

B, thanks for the minor apology for the sarcasm. Now may I ask if you read this post, or did you just jump on this thread assuming it to be like all the rest you participated in on this subject. Please read the quoted post above as it was made and given kudos by another person who like you feels like we can't wait and see.

All I ask for is for people to admit that there isn't nearly enough evidence to show that man is causing global warming. There are some sneaking suspicions about mankind's involvement, there is definitely ability among mankind to remove the human element nearly completely, but we can't just suddenly force everyone to bend to the will of some people who unreasonably believe that mankind is the main and only cause of global warming.

I am all for reduction of mankind produced greenhouse gasses, but not at the cost of throwing all society and life on this planet into a tail spin (which is what many claim will happen, and I cannot vouch for). Perhaps that last little bit is what needs to be discussed, because discussing the science behind global warming just leads to wildly false claims on both sides.