Fundamental flaws in the analysis of global warming model? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

onetime2 · 10-29-2003, 10:49 AM

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...9/5631011s.htm

Page 21A

Researchers question key global-warming study
By Nick Schulz

An important new paper in the journal Energy & Environment upsets a key scientific claim about climate change. If it withstands scrutiny, the collective scientific understanding of recent global warming might need an overhaul.

A little background is needed to understand the importance of the new research behind this paper by Stephen McIntyre, a statistics expert who works in the mining industry, and Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario. As scientists and governments have tried to understand mankind's influence on the environment, global warming has become a primary concern. Do mankind's activities -- especially burning fossil fuels to create energy -- affect climate? If so, how? What should be done?

These questions were so important that in 1988 the United Nations, along with the World Meteorological Organization, formed the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to study ''human-induced climate change.''

Ten years after IPCC's founding, a paper from Michael Mann, now an assistant professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and his colleagues in the journal Nature shook scientific and political circles. It reconstructed temperatures dating back to the year 1400 by looking at tree rings, ice cores and other so-called proxy records to derive a temperature signature. This was before the sophisticated climate-measuring equipment we use today.

What Mann claimed to find was startling: The late-20th century was unusually warm -- warmer than at any time in the previous six centuries. (Later research by Mann extended the climate history back 1,000 years.) The reason? ''It really looks like (the recent warming) can only be explained by greenhouse gases,'' Mann said then. His clear implication: The Earth's climate was changing dramatically, and mankind was responsible.

Earth heats up?

The U.N. used Mann's research to declare the 1990s ''the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium.'' Countless news stories picked up on this idea that the past few years have been unusually warm.

Efforts to limit the emission of the greenhouse gases blamed for this warming were bolstered by Mann's research. In fact, this week the Senate plans to consider legislation co-sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. McCain's Web site says, ''Global warming is a growing problem. . . . The 10 warmest years (on record) have all occurred since 1987.'' The statement is based on Mann's research.

But what if it's not true?

When McIntyre and McKitrick audited Mann's data to see whether its conclusions could be replicated, they discovered significant problems. Once they corrected the errors, the two researchers made a remarkable conclusion: The late 20th century was not unusually warm by historical standards.

Not alone in his conclusion

When asked about the paper, which had undergone review by other scientists before being published, Mann said he had heard about it but had not seen it. He called it a ''political stunt'' and said ''dozens of independent studies published by leading journals'' had come to conclusions similar to his.

What's to guarantee McKitrick and McIntyre's research will withstand the kind of scrutiny they gave Mann's research?

In an interview, McKitrick said, ''If a study is going to be the basis for a major policy decision, then the original data must be disseminated and the results have to be reproducible. That's why in our case we have posted everything online and invite outside scrutiny.''

Mann never made his data available online -- nor did many of the earlier researchers whose data Mann relied upon for his research. That by itself raises questions about the U.N. climate-change panel's scientific process.

It remains to be seen whether the McKitrick and McIntyre study will withstand the ''outside scrutiny'' they have asked for and will no doubt receive. But given the implications of the errors and problems they apparently have unearthed within the Mann study, the two researchers have done a tremendous service to science and the public, which should rely on facts to make informed public policy decisions.

Nick Schulz is editor of TechCentralStation.com, a science, technology and public policy Web site.

It will be interesting to see whether this new look at the data will withstand review. What if the warming we have seen evidence of over the recent past is just a part of the natural cycle of the earth? How many trillions of dollars have been/will have been wasted on an imagined problem?

Conclamo Ludus · 10-29-2003, 11:06 AM

Quote:

It remains to be seen whether the McKitrick and McIntyre study will withstand the ''outside scrutiny'' they have asked for and will no doubt receive. But given the implications of the errors and problems they apparently have unearthed within the Mann study, the two researchers have done a tremendous service to science and the public, which should rely on facts to make informed public policy decisions.

I think this really says it all. It amazes me that science still isn't on the same page with global warming. Politics have gotten way to involved and the data is no longer questioned, or if it is its considered a political move. Even if humans are not responsible for global warming entirely, I don't think that pollution in general is an imagined problem. I think the money is well-spent to keep things a little tidier, but there has to be a reasonable balance. Global warming really doesn't frighten me, I believe technology will help us adapt slowly but surely towards a more "green" society.

Ustwo · 10-29-2003, 11:20 AM

My first degree was in Ethology, Ecology, and Evolution, yes thats a total Tree Hugger degree.

Global warming based on HUMAN causes has always been a farce. The evidence is not there. None of the global warming models fit each other, none would work to predict the present with past data, and all made assumptions about unknowns. A meteorologist can't get the forecast right for more then a few days yet somehow they would know the trend for the next 100 years. A single volcanic eruption puts more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then we humans can dream of. You hear on the news that 90% of the scientists believe that global warming is occurring and the like, but they never separate human/natural causes and they don't mention that a 'scientist' is a general term. Its not only geologists or meteorologists or the like, its EVERYONE with a MS degree in some subject, be it biology or political science. Sadly a lot of politics and careers are based on global warming being a human cause, plus the anti-technology people are quick to latch onto anything which would slow growth. You may also remember the global cooling scare of the late 70's and how we were all going to be starving by the 1990's.

Global warming MAY be happening, but its a natural cycle. Ocean levels used to be higher in the 1800's then they are currently, and a cyclical nature of the average temp has been noted for the last 13k years.

Before then we had HUGE swings in temperature, and we have been very lucky so far and is based on ocean currents. It’s a bit too deep to get into here.

I think the key with global warming is that its being used as an excuse to lower pollution (which is good) and slow technologic progress and economic development (which is bad). You have to understand that most environmentalists think people are stupid and are the real problem in the world. They will be happy to lie about problems in order to get anyone on their side. They tried it with the deforestation of the Amazon (which is bad) by claiming that we would run out of oxygen. Well most of the oxygen in the world is produced in the seas, the Amazon could be a desert and we would still be able to breath just fine. The real reason that deforestation is bad is because the soil there is poor, the erosion is very pronounced, and the loss of biodiversity is a tragedy. That doesn't get headlines though. Another personal example I found was earth day 1990 (I think) at UoIllinois. It was an anti nuclear power display and had nuclear power as a source of CO2. I pointed out that CO2 wasn't produced in nuclear power production, but they didn't want to hear it.

One of my more touching moments with environmentalists was taking a grad level class on water pollution. The professor was late so we were all chatting, and several stated the best way to solve the 'earth's' problem was a virus that would kill 2/3rds of the people off. Lovely.

Superbelt · 10-29-2003, 11:25 AM

From what I have learned, I believe that global warming exists as it currently is, as a human induced problem. I have a bachelors in environmental science and am in the process of getting my Masters for the same.

Like Mann said, his data has been reproduced, independently, dozens of times. And his data is online, when you look in the right places, like ebscohost and lexisnexis.

These guys come up with something different now, and ask for independent review. Good, let the study begin.

Thing is, there have been dozens of similar studies that sought to discredit what Mann did, none of them have thus far stood up to academic strutiny. This one will fare no differently I would wager.

Superbelt · 10-29-2003, 11:30 AM

Quote:

It was an anti nuclear power display and had nuclear power as a source of CO2. I pointed out that CO2 wasn't produced in nuclear power production, but they didn't want to hear it.

Nuclear power plants need to be powered themselves. It is done primarially through coal power. Coal plants do produce CO2, therefore the production of Nuclear power produces CO2.
Still, it's much less CO2 than is created if you just used oil or coal plants to supply us with energy

I'm an environmentalist but I'm also pro nuclear power. I know there are safe ways to store it in the short term, and I think that we will find some way to neutralize permanently what we have created over the long term.

Superbelt · 10-29-2003, 11:44 AM

This, to me is some of the best evidence for Global warming as it is now having a significant human factor. This is part of what I did in a structured debate I took part in this semester.

____________
The world is getting warmer. That is a fact.
Short term weather doesn't prove global warming. It is long term trends. The warming is apparent in glaciers that respond slugishly to climate change. This dampens out chaotic weather fluctuations. For instance. The European Alps have lost half their volume since 1850. All studied glaciers around the world have measured retreats.

In 1991 a Bronze Age mummy was discovered in the Alps. He was trapped there for 5300 years and was supposed to stay there for 100,000. Natural long-term oscillations of climate related to changes in the Earth's orbit are dominated by 100,000 year swings between relately warm interglacial periods and ice ages. The warmth of our present interglacial peaked about 6000 years ago.

Since then the world has been cooling slowly. The coldest of these was in the "Little Ice Age" of 1600 -1850. Now this ice age was an abberant blip, but was still part of a downward trend. At times during this ice Age, the River Thames and Manhattan to Staten Island could be completely iced over so people and troops could walk over them.
Since the Industrial Revolution began the long-term cooling trend has reversed. The Earth, on average, has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1850 with the most rapid warming occuring in the 1960's.

In our 130 years of instrumental data 1990 broke the temperature record.
Models were used when Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines blasted millions of tons of fine particles into the stratosphere in 1991 one of the same climate models that had been used to predict greenhouse warming was used to simulate the expected effect of the volcanic aerosols. The model predicted a 3 year global cooling, peaking at almost 1 degree fahrenheit a year after the eruption. Observations proved the computer's predictions right.

_____________

Finally Occam's Razor.

Increases in CO2 in a closed environment subject to solar heating retain more of that solar energy.
If the CO2 concentration goes up globally (which it has), then theory states the earth should be retaining greater solar energy.

eple · 10-29-2003, 11:50 AM

Hmm...I am an enviromentalist myself, but I do see that it is important to develop alternative theories to test the one currently accepted in most countries. I do not, however, believe it is wise to trash the entire theory of a man-made increase in the global warming. The consequenses are simply too severe for us to ignore them based on a few alternate reports. As an enviromentalist, nothing would please me more than reports that increased global warming is a fraud. Then I could focus on local pollution, and I wouldn't have to feel ashamed for the pollution caused by Norwegian oil. Anyway, until reliable proof is shown, I choose to rather be safe than sorry, and trust the reports supported by the UN.

Peryn · 10-29-2003, 03:02 PM

I am no environmentalist major, but the facts i have seen, simply put, show that "global warming" as we know it, is nothing but a bunch of political BS. Yes, there is global warming. No, it is not our fault. Yes, it will go back. The planet naturally has temperature shifts. Remember the Ice Age...we weren't around and yet the planet got warmer. You want to blame that on the Industrial Revolution? No....these things are naturally occuring, and will continue to fluctuate long after we are gone from this planet. When one decent volcanic erruption will put out more greenhouse gasses than humans have produced, in total, since the industrial revolution....i have a hard time believing that we are making anywhere near as big of an impact as politicians want us to believe. I find it extremely arrogant to think we can make that large of an impact on the planet that fast, without thinking at all about what happens by itself in nature.

eple · 10-29-2003, 03:30 PM

Peryn: you must understand that the impact on human emissoins are only relevant in a realtively short period of time. We are talking a few hundred years more or less. The normal shifts of temperature are happening all the time, what scientists are arguing are numbers that show that we are straying from the normal pre-ice age heating. Volcanoes, underwater earthquakes, meteors and thousands of other factors pose a much bigger threat to the enviroment in the long run, but when we remember that 90% of human scientific progression have occured the last 60 years, those few hundred years of supposed climate change might be quite important. As an enviromentalist, I do not believe that we can do any real damage to the planet, all life on the planet have been nearly wiped out approximately (could someone teach me how to spell that? Too tired to look it up) 5 times, the human race can't do any real damage in the long run.

Enviromentalism is about preserving the earth for the coming generatinos a few hundred years forward, not about saving the planet or nature or anything like that. We are far too insignificant to be worried about the world, we are worrying about coming generations. Is that really so bad?

There are way too many myths and way too much aggression in the enviromental debate, and I realize that most people have a quite bad and flawed impression of enviromentalism and enviromental issues as such.

Did you for example know that the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming, and that the internationsal community through progress and treaties have solved the problem with ozone holes? Within 20 years, the ozone layer will be repaired. The problem was solved thorugh research and reaction, and we now have ozone-friendly gasees in most of the formerly dangerous products.

You now know what I stand for, and you should know that this is what the UN are talking about as well. I do not believe that advocating a sensible "rather safe than sorry" policy on enviromental issues is very radical, it is a reasonable approatch to a problem.

lordjeebus · 10-29-2003, 05:34 PM

Here's what I think. There's a lot of uncertainty about the existence of global warming as well as what causes it, if it does exist. In addition, there is a lot of risk involved -- if it is indeed real and caused by humans, it could have substantial effects on people a few generations from now (flooded cities, etc.).

Considering that the technology now exists to meet our energy needs without burning lots of fossil fuels, is it not in our best interest to promote its use? By the time we know for sure what's going on, it may be too late to take action.

Global warming might not be real, but I think there's enough evidence and enough risk involved to justify working to phase out fossil fuels anyway.

Ustwo · 10-29-2003, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lordjeebus

Considering that the technology now exists to meet our energy needs without burning lots of fossil fuels, is it not in our best interest to promote its use? By the time we know for sure what's going on, it may be too late to take action.

I'd love to agree with you, but if you take oil/coal out of the mix we are in a world of hurt energy wise.

Superbelt · 10-29-2003, 08:47 PM

You're right Ustwo. But the problem we have is Bush subsidizing fossil fuels at a factor of about 300x what he allocated towards r&d of renewables.

We need serious attention to solar and wind power. As it is we have to wait 30-50 years for solar cells to be able to be actually Printed on paper like you would a document because of nanotech. That's amazing and we should be pouring money into that instead of giving tax breaks to Exxon/Mobil.

And in the same amount of time we will be able to incorporate solar cells into our roof shingles for almost no additional cost. That virtually solves our energy problem. We can make fossil fuels a thing of the past. We just need a serious commitment.

seretogis · 10-29-2003, 08:53 PM

Another article that some may find interesting and/or enlightening.

LINKY: Harvard Gazette

Quote:

Global warming is not so hot:
1003 was worse, researchers find
By William J. Cromie
Gazette Staff

The heat and droughts of 2001 and 2002, and the unending winter of 2002-2003 in the Northeast have people wondering what on Earth is happening to the weather. Is there anything natural about such variability?

To answer that question, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) - right in the heart of New England's bad weather - took a look at how things have changed in the past 1,000 years. They looked at studies of changes in glaciers, corals, stalagmites, and fossils. They checked investigations of cores drilled out of ice caps and sediments lying on the bottom of lakes, rivers, and seas. They examined research on pollen, tree rings, tree lines, and junk left over from old cultures and colonies. Their conclusion: We are not living either in the warmest years of the past millennium nor in a time with the most extreme weather.

Sallie Baliunas argues that an increasing brightness of the sun plays a large role in the present global warm-up. (Staff photo by Jon Chase)
This review of changes in nature and culture during the past 1,000 years was published in the April 11 issue of the Journal of Energy and Environment. It puts subjective observations of climate change on a much firmer objective foundation. For example, tree-ring data show that temperatures were warmer than now in many far northern regions from 950 to 1100 A.D.

From 800 to 1300 A.D., the Medieval Warm Period, many parts of the world were warmer than they have been in recent decades. But temperatures now (including last winter) are generally much milder than they were from 1300 to 1900, the Little Ice Age.

To come to this coclusion, CfA researchers, along with colleagues from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Ariz., and the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, reviewed more than 200 studies of climate done over the past 10 years. "Many research advances in reconstructing ancient climate have occurred over the past two decades, so we felt it was time to pull together a large sample of them and look for patterns of variability and change," says Willie Soon of CfA. "Clear patterns did emerge showing that regions worldwide experienced higher temperatures from 800 to 1300 and lower temperatures from 1300 to 1900 than we have felt during our lifetimes."

Nature still rules

Does this mean that the present global warming is more a product of natural changes than of carbon dioxide emissions and other industrial regurgitations? Soon won't go that far. But he does say "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. [The year 1998 was the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, then 2001.] In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."

Willie Soon describes changes in Earth's climate during the past 1,000 years, shifts that caused The Little Ice Age recently and a global warming in medieval times. (Staff photo by Jon Chase)

Soon and colleagues believe their findings will contribute to computer models that simulate natural and human influences on climate more accurately. That should lead to better climate forecasts, including those on local and regional levels. Such forecasts, in turn, could help make it easier to reach international agreements on treaties to control emissions of industrial gases that contribute to global warming. One reason the administration of President Bush gives for not signing the international 1997 Kyoto Protocol to limit carbon dioxide emissions is that sufficient scientific information about the cause of global warming is lacking.

Vikings enjoy Greenland beaches

Plenty of anecdotal evidence exists for warmer times and decades of more frigid and extreme weather than we are now experiencing.

Extended television and government forecasts didn't exist during the 16th to 18th centuries, but many Flemish and Dutch artists, like Pieter Brueghel and Hendrick Avercamp, depicted severe Little Ice Age winters in their paintings.

CfA's Sallie Baliunas, a co-author of the study, refers to the medieval Viking sagas as examples of unusual warming around 1003 A.D. "The Vikings established colonies in Greenland at the beginning of the second millennium, but they died out several hundred years later when the climate turned colder," she notes. "And good evidence exists that vineyards flourished in Scotland and England during the medieval warmth."

The evidence also shows that the warmer and colder times occurred not just in Europe, but in places all over the world. Entered into computer simulations that can send us backward and forward hundreds of years in a matter of days, the new information should make forecasts and hindcasts of climate much more accurate.

Macheath · 10-29-2003, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
Even if humans are not responsible for global warming entirely, I don't think that pollution in general is an imagined problem. I think the money is well-spent to keep things a little tidier, but there has to be a reasonable balance. Global warming really doesn't frighten me, I believe technology will help us adapt slowly but surely towards a more "green" society.

This point is worth highlighting. Again, this seems like one of those issues that certain idiots would like to highlight as an either/or, black and white issue. Either humans live in trees and eat grass or we let industry pour arsenic down our throats and wander through the forests with flamethrowers or some shit.

As in all things - balance. Personally, I'm waiting for those hybrid/hydrogen humvees that nobody seems interested in building. I'm waiting for Gas Guzzler Joe to challenge me to a drag race - his internal combustion engine against my green technology supercharger. Americans like power - let's give it to them in a shade of green with some subwoofers thrown in to simulate the distinctive old timey petrol engine sound.

eple · 10-30-2003, 02:15 AM

Hopefully, you guys are right when discarding the theory as a whole. I am still glad that the interanational community is making moves to prevent the possible climate changes. We will at some point need to turn to renewable sources of energy anyway, so it can't hurt starting now. It is not worth gambling with our climate, and as I have said many times before: We should rather be safe than sorry.

Nad Adam · 10-30-2003, 04:28 AM

I saw some scientists on TV put a diagram of the increased tempratures of the last decades over a diagram of incrased solar activity and they where practicly identical. I don't know but maybe there's something to look at.

eple · 10-30-2003, 04:38 AM

The solar activity-theory have been discarded in most scientific data, as they seem to have little effect. There have been an increase in solar activity the last years, but this seems to be unrelated to the increased global warming. There are, as we all know, extreme solar activity right now, giving displays of norther light in many regions of the world, but this has so far not effected the wetather in any way. In fact, solar winds may often "blow away" some of the galactic dust that are known to influence the climate.

Nad Adam · 10-30-2003, 04:43 AM

what is 'galactic dust'?

eple · 10-30-2003, 04:56 AM

er....something the metereologist on the TV this morning said that the solar winds would blow away :P. He was a meterologist, and was was asked how the increased solar activity this week will affect the weather, he said that there hadn't bewen any records of changes due to solar activity, but that it might "blow away" this galactic dust thingie.

onetime2 · 10-30-2003, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
...and they don't mention that a 'scientist' is a general term. Its not only geologists or meteorologists or the like, its EVERYONE with a MS degree in some subject, be it biology or political science.

I've avoided commenting in the thread since I already have a firm belief with regard to global warming and there's little that anyone can/will say to change it until there is better research on the subject.

But I will say that this statement from Ustwo points out a real issue in the discussion. There are far too many points of view in the discussion without an agreement on any basic points.

I minored in geology while in college, so my pov is colored by the fact that the sample of time we are looking at in studying the subject is a pimple on the ass of a flea on a leaf in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Environmentalists come from the angle that the environment is screwed up, so it makes sense that man is causing global warming.

Politicians mostly care about the image they're portraying and anything that gets them camera time is a good thing.

Statisticians love the numbers (I fall into this category a bit as well but have no interest in wading through the near infinite assumptions associated with these theories) and will debate data and models forever.

Every other group comes to the table with at least some bias in the way the issue is looked at. In this situation, there is little chance of progress and the cycle will continue to be one of dueling theories and publications.

The reason for my post was a more philosophical one. What a waste of time this issue may turn out to be. I mean there are people devoting their lives to this and tons of money that could be useful to a lot of people being spent on something that may not even exist.

eple · 10-30-2003, 07:05 AM

....

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2

I mean there are people devoting their lives to this and tons of money that could be useful to a lot of people being spent on something that may not even exist.

What has the church got to do with this?

onetime2 · 10-30-2003, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
....

What has the church got to do with this?

That's an entirely different subject. But I guess your previous quote should come into play in that regard too. Just replace climate with eternal soul or something.

"It is not worth gambling with our climate, and as I have said many times before: We should rather be safe than sorry."

eple · 10-30-2003, 08:03 AM

touche

But I am serious about that though....we cannot be sure about global warming, but given the choise, I say we prepare for the worst, instead of hoping for the best.

mark747 · 06-01-2007, 02:31 AM

yes lets all get boats...like the navy has would be cool...

Jinn · 06-01-2007, 07:25 AM

Did you just do a search for 4 year old posts and reply to them with some random picture? This is the second thread I've seen it in.

seretogis · 06-01-2007, 09:18 AM

Go back to 4chan.

10-29-2003, 10:49 AM	#1 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Fundamental flaws in the analysis of global warming model? http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...9/5631011s.htm Page 21A Researchers question key global-warming study By Nick Schulz An important new paper in the journal Energy & Environment upsets a key scientific claim about climate change. If it withstands scrutiny, the collective scientific understanding of recent global warming might need an overhaul. A little background is needed to understand the importance of the new research behind this paper by Stephen McIntyre, a statistics expert who works in the mining industry, and Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario. As scientists and governments have tried to understand mankind's influence on the environment, global warming has become a primary concern. Do mankind's activities -- especially burning fossil fuels to create energy -- affect climate? If so, how? What should be done? These questions were so important that in 1988 the United Nations, along with the World Meteorological Organization, formed the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to study ''human-induced climate change.'' Ten years after IPCC's founding, a paper from Michael Mann, now an assistant professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and his colleagues in the journal Nature shook scientific and political circles. It reconstructed temperatures dating back to the year 1400 by looking at tree rings, ice cores and other so-called proxy records to derive a temperature signature. This was before the sophisticated climate-measuring equipment we use today. What Mann claimed to find was startling: The late-20th century was unusually warm -- warmer than at any time in the previous six centuries. (Later research by Mann extended the climate history back 1,000 years.) The reason? ''It really looks like (the recent warming) can only be explained by greenhouse gases,'' Mann said then. His clear implication: The Earth's climate was changing dramatically, and mankind was responsible. Earth heats up? The U.N. used Mann's research to declare the 1990s ''the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium.'' Countless news stories picked up on this idea that the past few years have been unusually warm. Efforts to limit the emission of the greenhouse gases blamed for this warming were bolstered by Mann's research. In fact, this week the Senate plans to consider legislation co-sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. McCain's Web site says, ''Global warming is a growing problem. . . . The 10 warmest years (on record) have all occurred since 1987.'' The statement is based on Mann's research. But what if it's not true? When McIntyre and McKitrick audited Mann's data to see whether its conclusions could be replicated, they discovered significant problems. Once they corrected the errors, the two researchers made a remarkable conclusion: The late 20th century was not unusually warm by historical standards. Not alone in his conclusion When asked about the paper, which had undergone review by other scientists before being published, Mann said he had heard about it but had not seen it. He called it a ''political stunt'' and said ''dozens of independent studies published by leading journals'' had come to conclusions similar to his. What's to guarantee McKitrick and McIntyre's research will withstand the kind of scrutiny they gave Mann's research? In an interview, McKitrick said, ''If a study is going to be the basis for a major policy decision, then the original data must be disseminated and the results have to be reproducible. That's why in our case we have posted everything online and invite outside scrutiny.'' Mann never made his data available online -- nor did many of the earlier researchers whose data Mann relied upon for his research. That by itself raises questions about the U.N. climate-change panel's scientific process. It remains to be seen whether the McKitrick and McIntyre study will withstand the ''outside scrutiny'' they have asked for and will no doubt receive. But given the implications of the errors and problems they apparently have unearthed within the Mann study, the two researchers have done a tremendous service to science and the public, which should rely on facts to make informed public policy decisions. Nick Schulz is editor of TechCentralStation.com, a science, technology and public policy Web site. It will be interesting to see whether this new look at the data will withstand review. What if the warming we have seen evidence of over the recent past is just a part of the natural cycle of the earth? How many trillions of dollars have been/will have been wasted on an imagined problem?

10-29-2003, 11:20 AM	#3 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	My first degree was in Ethology, Ecology, and Evolution, yes thats a total Tree Hugger degree. Global warming based on HUMAN causes has always been a farce. The evidence is not there. None of the global warming models fit each other, none would work to predict the present with past data, and all made assumptions about unknowns. A meteorologist can't get the forecast right for more then a few days yet somehow they would know the trend for the next 100 years. A single volcanic eruption puts more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere then we humans can dream of. You hear on the news that 90% of the scientists believe that global warming is occurring and the like, but they never separate human/natural causes and they don't mention that a 'scientist' is a general term. Its not only geologists or meteorologists or the like, its EVERYONE with a MS degree in some subject, be it biology or political science. Sadly a lot of politics and careers are based on global warming being a human cause, plus the anti-technology people are quick to latch onto anything which would slow growth. You may also remember the global cooling scare of the late 70's and how we were all going to be starving by the 1990's. Global warming MAY be happening, but its a natural cycle. Ocean levels used to be higher in the 1800's then they are currently, and a cyclical nature of the average temp has been noted for the last 13k years. Before then we had HUGE swings in temperature, and we have been very lucky so far and is based on ocean currents. It’s a bit too deep to get into here. I think the key with global warming is that its being used as an excuse to lower pollution (which is good) and slow technologic progress and economic development (which is bad). You have to understand that most environmentalists think people are stupid and are the real problem in the world. They will be happy to lie about problems in order to get anyone on their side. They tried it with the deforestation of the Amazon (which is bad) by claiming that we would run out of oxygen. Well most of the oxygen in the world is produced in the seas, the Amazon could be a desert and we would still be able to breath just fine. The real reason that deforestation is bad is because the soil there is poor, the erosion is very pronounced, and the loss of biodiversity is a tragedy. That doesn't get headlines though. Another personal example I found was earth day 1990 (I think) at UoIllinois. It was an anti nuclear power display and had nuclear power as a source of CO2. I pointed out that CO2 wasn't produced in nuclear power production, but they didn't want to hear it. One of my more touching moments with environmentalists was taking a grad level class on water pollution. The professor was late so we were all chatting, and several stated the best way to solve the 'earth's' problem was a virus that would kill 2/3rds of the people off. Lovely. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 10-29-2003 at 11:25 AM..

10-29-2003, 03:02 PM	#8 (permalink)
Peryn Junkie Location: San Diego, CA.	I am no environmentalist major, but the facts i have seen, simply put, show that "global warming" as we know it, is nothing but a bunch of political BS. Yes, there is global warming. No, it is not our fault. Yes, it will go back. The planet naturally has temperature shifts. Remember the Ice Age...we weren't around and yet the planet got warmer. You want to blame that on the Industrial Revolution? No....these things are naturally occuring, and will continue to fluctuate long after we are gone from this planet. When one decent volcanic erruption will put out more greenhouse gasses than humans have produced, in total, since the industrial revolution....i have a hard time believing that we are making anywhere near as big of an impact as politicians want us to believe. I find it extremely arrogant to think we can make that large of an impact on the planet that fast, without thinking at all about what happens by itself in nature. __________________ Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

10-29-2003, 03:30 PM	#9 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Peryn: you must understand that the impact on human emissoins are only relevant in a realtively short period of time. We are talking a few hundred years more or less. The normal shifts of temperature are happening all the time, what scientists are arguing are numbers that show that we are straying from the normal pre-ice age heating. Volcanoes, underwater earthquakes, meteors and thousands of other factors pose a much bigger threat to the enviroment in the long run, but when we remember that 90% of human scientific progression have occured the last 60 years, those few hundred years of supposed climate change might be quite important. As an enviromentalist, I do not believe that we can do any real damage to the planet, all life on the planet have been nearly wiped out approximately (could someone teach me how to spell that? Too tired to look it up) 5 times, the human race can't do any real damage in the long run. Enviromentalism is about preserving the earth for the coming generatinos a few hundred years forward, not about saving the planet or nature or anything like that. We are far too insignificant to be worried about the world, we are worrying about coming generations. Is that really so bad? There are way too many myths and way too much aggression in the enviromental debate, and I realize that most people have a quite bad and flawed impression of enviromentalism and enviromental issues as such. Did you for example know that the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming, and that the internationsal community through progress and treaties have solved the problem with ozone holes? Within 20 years, the ozone layer will be repaired. The problem was solved thorugh research and reaction, and we now have ozone-friendly gasees in most of the formerly dangerous products. You now know what I stand for, and you should know that this is what the UN are talking about as well. I do not believe that advocating a sensible "rather safe than sorry" policy on enviromental issues is very radical, it is a reasonable approatch to a problem. Last edited by eple; 10-29-2003 at 03:33 PM..

10-30-2003, 04:28 AM	#16 (permalink)
Nad Adam Psycho Location: Sweden	I saw some scientists on TV put a diagram of the increased tempratures of the last decades over a diagram of incrased solar activity and they where practicly identical. I don't know but maybe there's something to look at. __________________ Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalms 137:9

10-29-2003, 11:25 AM	#4 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	From what I have learned, I believe that global warming exists as it currently is, as a human induced problem. I have a bachelors in environmental science and am in the process of getting my Masters for the same. Like Mann said, his data has been reproduced, independently, dozens of times. And his data is online, when you look in the right places, like ebscohost and lexisnexis. These guys come up with something different now, and ask for independent review. Good, let the study begin. Thing is, there have been dozens of similar studies that sought to discredit what Mann did, none of them have thus far stood up to academic strutiny. This one will fare no differently I would wager.

10-29-2003, 11:44 AM	#6 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	This, to me is some of the best evidence for Global warming as it is now having a significant human factor. This is part of what I did in a structured debate I took part in this semester. ____________ The world is getting warmer. That is a fact. Short term weather doesn't prove global warming. It is long term trends. The warming is apparent in glaciers that respond slugishly to climate change. This dampens out chaotic weather fluctuations. For instance. The European Alps have lost half their volume since 1850. All studied glaciers around the world have measured retreats. In 1991 a Bronze Age mummy was discovered in the Alps. He was trapped there for 5300 years and was supposed to stay there for 100,000. Natural long-term oscillations of climate related to changes in the Earth's orbit are dominated by 100,000 year swings between relately warm interglacial periods and ice ages. The warmth of our present interglacial peaked about 6000 years ago. Since then the world has been cooling slowly. The coldest of these was in the "Little Ice Age" of 1600 -1850. Now this ice age was an abberant blip, but was still part of a downward trend. At times during this ice Age, the River Thames and Manhattan to Staten Island could be completely iced over so people and troops could walk over them. Since the Industrial Revolution began the long-term cooling trend has reversed. The Earth, on average, has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1850 with the most rapid warming occuring in the 1960's. In our 130 years of instrumental data 1990 broke the temperature record. Models were used when Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines blasted millions of tons of fine particles into the stratosphere in 1991 one of the same climate models that had been used to predict greenhouse warming was used to simulate the expected effect of the volcanic aerosols. The model predicted a 3 year global cooling, peaking at almost 1 degree fahrenheit a year after the eruption. Observations proved the computer's predictions right. _____________ Finally Occam's Razor. Increases in CO2 in a closed environment subject to solar heating retain more of that solar energy. If the CO2 concentration goes up globally (which it has), then theory states the earth should be retaining greater solar energy.

10-29-2003, 11:50 AM	#7 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Hmm...I am an enviromentalist myself, but I do see that it is important to develop alternative theories to test the one currently accepted in most countries. I do not, however, believe it is wise to trash the entire theory of a man-made increase in the global warming. The consequenses are simply too severe for us to ignore them based on a few alternate reports. As an enviromentalist, nothing would please me more than reports that increased global warming is a fraud. Then I could focus on local pollution, and I wouldn't have to feel ashamed for the pollution caused by Norwegian oil. Anyway, until reliable proof is shown, I choose to rather be safe than sorry, and trust the reports supported by the UN.

10-29-2003, 05:34 PM	#10 (permalink)
lordjeebus ‚±‚Ìˆó˜U‚ª–Ú‚É“ü‚ç‚Ê‚© Location: College	Here's what I think. There's a lot of uncertainty about the existence of global warming as well as what causes it, if it does exist. In addition, there is a lot of risk involved -- if it is indeed real and caused by humans, it could have substantial effects on people a few generations from now (flooded cities, etc.). Considering that the technology now exists to meet our energy needs without burning lots of fossil fuels, is it not in our best interest to promote its use? By the time we know for sure what's going on, it may be too late to take action. Global warming might not be real, but I think there's enough evidence and enough risk involved to justify working to phase out fossil fuels anyway.

10-29-2003, 08:47 PM	#12 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	You're right Ustwo. But the problem we have is Bush subsidizing fossil fuels at a factor of about 300x what he allocated towards r&d of renewables. We need serious attention to solar and wind power. As it is we have to wait 30-50 years for solar cells to be able to be actually Printed on paper like you would a document because of nanotech. That's amazing and we should be pouring money into that instead of giving tax breaks to Exxon/Mobil. And in the same amount of time we will be able to incorporate solar cells into our roof shingles for almost no additional cost. That virtually solves our energy problem. We can make fossil fuels a thing of the past. We just need a serious commitment.

10-30-2003, 02:15 AM	#15 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Hopefully, you guys are right when discarding the theory as a whole. I am still glad that the interanational community is making moves to prevent the possible climate changes. We will at some point need to turn to renewable sources of energy anyway, so it can't hurt starting now. It is not worth gambling with our climate, and as I have said many times before: We should rather be safe than sorry.

10-30-2003, 04:38 AM	#17 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	The solar activity-theory have been discarded in most scientific data, as they seem to have little effect. There have been an increase in solar activity the last years, but this seems to be unrelated to the increased global warming. There are, as we all know, extreme solar activity right now, giving displays of norther light in many regions of the world, but this has so far not effected the wetather in any way. In fact, solar winds may often "blow away" some of the galactic dust that are known to influence the climate.

10-30-2003, 04:43 AM	#18 (permalink)
Nad Adam Psycho Location: Sweden	what is 'galactic dust'? __________________ Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalms 137:9

10-30-2003, 04:56 AM	#19 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	er....something the metereologist on the TV this morning said that the solar winds would blow away :P. He was a meterologist, and was was asked how the increased solar activity this week will affect the weather, he said that there hadn't bewen any records of changes due to solar activity, but that it might "blow away" this galactic dust thingie.

10-30-2003, 08:03 AM	#23 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	touche But I am serious about that though....we cannot be sure about global warming, but given the choise, I say we prepare for the worst, instead of hoping for the best.

06-01-2007, 02:31 AM	#24 (permalink)
mark747 Upright	yes lets all get boats...like the navy has would be cool... __________________ jhgcjgjc

06-01-2007, 07:25 AM	#25 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Did you just do a search for 4 year old posts and reply to them with some random picture? This is the second thread I've seen it in. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

06-01-2007, 09:18 AM	#26 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Go back to 4chan. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames