backtop


Print 155 comment(s) - last by aeroengineer1.. on Sep 3 at 12:34 PM


An example of the Y2K discontinuity in action  (Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies)
Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record

My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000. 

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place.  1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.  Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events. 

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again -- maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

what about the rest of the report?
By tabman on 8/10/2007 3:03:14 PM , Rating: 6
Good job of obfuscating the entire report, why not create a link to let everybody on the list see the report? But then it would blow your entire theory out of the water.....

For those interested in the data here are some interesting links to look at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.txt
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.txt
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.txt

Critical thought is not blindly following a voice, but analyzing what the voice has to say before following it.




RE: what about the rest of the report?
By byrneit on 8/10/2007 3:13:09 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks for those numbers. Clearly there is a pattern there, but (you knew the "but" was coming didn't you?) I still question the logic of looking for climatological patterns in data starting from the late 1800's.

I am certainly not ruling out the possibility of global climate change, but I would much rather look at the data from last 150 years as being fairly short term and avoid drawing conclusions that have multi-thousand year type implications from that data.


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By tabman on 8/10/2007 4:06:21 PM , Rating: 3
I agree more data would be great, and so would lots of money in my wallet. But as with both cases we have to deal with what we have.

If the data shows a trend that you are spending too much for the past ten minutes do you keep spending at the same rate because you only have data from the past ten minutes?

Expanding the data set may give a more refined answer but at what point do we stop asking for more data and act on what we found?

BTW acting on incomplete data that can save something as big as the overall environment is not fool hardy. It may be premature but never foolish.

Plus did you ever think how much money you could save if you used only compact fluorescent lights?
Average life of a standard light bulb is about 60 hours, a compact fluorescent is 5 years. You pay three times more for a compact Fluorescent, and it uses 1/10th the power. Over the five years of the bulb you have saved how much?

Great way to effect your wallet and possibly save some environmental effects from your local electric supply.

Oh yea I forgot this data is only a few years old, I guess we all might want to study it a bit longer before making a decision. (laugh please, this is not meant to be a flame post)


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By byrneit on 8/10/2007 4:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BTW acting on incomplete data that can save something as big as the overall environment is not fool hardy. It may be premature but never foolish.

I disagree.

I don't disagree with concepts of being more responsible citizens of the planet (see my comment below). After all I don't like smog, soot, foul air, foul water, or denuded landscapes any more than anyone else. I do agree that we should tread lightly on a planet that has been here a lot longer than we have.

Now to my point:
If, we as responsible citizens of this planet react (as you suggest) by doing something drastic to try to counteract our bad behavior, we may cause further damage that may be even worse than our original ignorance.

I'm sorry, but your argument of, "Well, gee, this is all the information we have to go on, so let's just use what we've got and to hell with the consequences..." *is* foolhardy.

quote:
Plus did you ever think how much money you could save if you used only compact fluorescent lights?
Average life of a standard light bulb is about 60 hours, a compact fluorescent is 5 years. You pay three times more for a compact Fluorescent, and it uses 1/10th the power. Over the five years of the bulb you have saved how much?

Eh? WTF does this have to do with the price of tea in China?


By tabman on 8/13/2007 12:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
WTF does this have to do with the price of tea in China?


Great way to make friends on a public list, when you flame someone in public you begin your way down the track of the someone who can't keep to polite conversation or making comments without denigrating others.

By your clear use of the English language I must assume that you mean what does the money saved mean to yourself? Or is it that you do not understand the simple concepts behind personal economics? Or the concept of placing your wallet before the environment?

What the statement was about was one simple way for you to save on a your electric bill, and reduce the impact you may have on the environment. Do you think that is too drastic, or are you only thinking that the only way you can impact the environment is with a nuclear bomb?

As for a foolhardy response to what data we have, the data shows the following trends rising temperatures and rising CO2. The correlation is significant but yes a correlation only shows a likely cause and effect. With that said if there is something that you can do to limit your personal amount of CO2 emission while impacting the overall amount of available cash you have available to yourself would this be a good thing?

Other than plants that use CO2 as part of photosynthesis what other living organism uses CO2 as an essential part of their survival? Do we as a rational species have a way to reduce our CO2 emissions, or will we blindly go on producing more CO2 and wait to see the overall effects. The argument you put forward is the same as what was being said in the 80's when scientists suggested banning CFC emissions to help reduce the hole in the ozone layer. Data was only a few years old and the size of the hole was debated as a cyclic event. So tell me what was the cost to the economy versus the environment? And who was the overall winner in this?

While I agree that the global environment is changing, and there are still some out there who publish differing points of view. The simple economics of what I can do to save some money and possibly help reduce the negative effects that my personal behavior may have on the environment are how I do make many of my purchasing decisions. Yes that does include the fact my house is over insulated. Last week when it was 104 degrees outside my home was a comfortable 72 inside, And my Air Conditioning was not running all the time to keep it cool. My investment of $10,000 to over insulate my home 5 years ago has reaped me a savings of close to $9,000. This is based on my neighbor with a similar size house has 25 to 40% higher utility bills, not very scientific I know but without a grant to study the effects of over insulating a home I will have to keep an eye on his energy consumption.

Now before I get blasted for the lack of return on my money over five years, lets all think about this. That money I have invested in my walls has now matured and will be producing greater dividends every year that I live in my home. By next year I should have recuperated all my investment and it should be showing a greater return on investment as my utilities cost increase.

So in closing the price of tea in China might not directly relate to the price of your utilities on a monthly basis, but if you take some simple steps that may lower your environmental impact you may find that you might find more money in your wallet for some of your favorite beverage.


By mindless1 on 8/19/2007 2:29:43 AM , Rating: 2
Everyone seems so caught up on how great the measurable effect is. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

We do know we have an impact on the planet and whether everyone simultaneously agrees with any particular study (which will never happen, of course) or not, this negative impact needs to be lessened as much as possible. We don't have the ability to morally claim "so long as we dont' kill everyone within 2000 years, it's ok". Leave the planet (or any smaller ecosystem for that matter) in as good or better shape as you found it. We don't need data to do this. Even pollution that eventually dissipates, doesn't do so instantaneously in most cases.


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/10/2007 5:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
> "BTW acting on incomplete data...may be premature but never foolish"

Really? I remember a past case where environmentalists told us we needed to act immediately, act on preliminary, sketchy data, and despite serious scientific doubts. We were told we needed to ban DDT immediately, while we still had any birds left.

So act we did, and the resultant surge in malaria rates resulted in the deaths of millions worldwide. Meanwhile, those few nations who didn't ban DDT continued to use it...and now, three decades later, their bird populations are as healthy as ever.

A similar situation exists now. Research into efficient energy usage is always good. But initiatives like Kyoto will result in trillions of dollars of cost. We have children dying in parts of the world for want of a 50 cent medical treatment...and instead of providing them the means to improve their standard of living, we're telling them to waste billions on windmill farms and biofuel plants? The only feasible method we have to drastically reduce carbon emissions without destroying our economies is nuclear power-- and that's an option no one seems to want to consider.

The fact is, even if we're seeing a real, continuing trend, the amount of warming we'll experience in the next century will likely to be a net positive, not a negative. Look at the warming during the Medieval Climate Optimum for a past example, or recent research indicating that GW will lead to a more mild climate and temperate planet. What few negative effects we're likely to experience can be addressed much more cheaply by other means. There is no looming catastrophe on hand, no matter which side is right.

Yes, many nations "acted" by signing Kyoto. And quickly found it was wholly unworkable. Britain failed to meet all quotas. Germany exempted its entire coal industry from the treaty. Canada signed...but increased its CO2 emissions faster than the US. Finland is on track to meet goals...but only by a massive investment in nuclear power, a move that incurred the horror of environmentalists worldwide.

Meanwhile, we're doing everything in our power to deny the Third World the benefits of cheap energy, forcing them to remain in their substandard, short-lived livestyles, while we squander billions on a problem that may not even exist and, even if it does, will be less costly than the so-called solution.

Do you call that wise? I certainly don't.


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By Suomynona on 8/10/2007 6:09:08 PM , Rating: 1
Gosh. You've gone from science discussion to policy discussion rather quickly. Do you think the latter has a lower evidentiary standard than the former?

quote:
We were told we needed to ban DDT immediately, while we still had any birds left.

So act we did, and the resultant surge in malaria rates resulted in the deaths of millions worldwide.


Oh? I've seen a lot of claims to this effect, all of which apparently originate from Steven Milloy (who famously claimed that asbestos wasn't harmful to anyone and, had it been left in the WTC, the towers would still be standing). The fact of the matter is that DDT was never banned for anti-malarial use; it was simply not used in cases where it was ineffective (it was, as you note, still used some places--because there was no ban). Offhand, http://membracid.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/ddt-junk... appears to be a decent refutation of this claim.

quote:
But initiatives like Kyoto will result in trillions of dollars of cost.


Source? I've seen really wide disagreement on the net cost of Kyoto; some estimates are, in fact, negative (i.e., Kyoto has positive net value--for instance, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/... ). The only way I can imagine you arriving at such a value is if you estimate the cost of warming to be minimal or 0.

quote:
We have children dying in parts of the world for want of a 50 cent medical treatment...and instead of providing them the means to improve their standard of living, we're telling them to waste billions on windmill farms and biofuel plants?


Kyoto's emissions targets don't apply to developing nations.

quote:
The only feasible method we have to drastically reduce carbon emissions without destroying our economies is nuclear power-- and that's an option no one seems to want to consider.


I want to consider it. The only people I've seen reject it are radicals like Greenpeace; sound environmental policy is, in fact, based upon nuclear as one of many greener options.

quote:
Look at the warming during the Medieval Climate Optimum for a past example


Odd. You doubt the evidence for the current warming trend, but embrace the theory of the MWP, even though the evidence for it is far weaker (e.g., http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medie... )... But that's a discussion for another time.

Making policy decisions based upon flimsy evidence such as that, extrapolating broad conclusions from minimal data in a possibly-geographically-localized climate change with a vastly different economy at the time is ridiculous, and I'm sure you know it.

quote:
Meanwhile, we're doing everything in our power to deny the Third World the benefits of cheap energy


Kyoto's emissions targets don't apply to developing nations.


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/10/2007 6:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "Oh? I've seen a lot of claims to this effect, all of which apparently originate from Steven Milloy"

The authors of the seminal study linking DDT to eggshell thinning (Hickey/Anderson, 1968) later recanted their conclusions and instead blamed PCBs. Also, I'm referencing the Bitman study (1971) , which linked eggshell thinning to low calcium diets rather than DDT, as well as the Milius study (1998) which found eggshell thinning began in Britain some 50 years before DDT began to be used. There are many other studies which refute the DDT-eggshell thinning link.

> "The fact of the matter is that DDT was never banned for anti-malarial use"

Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) used DDT from the 1940s to 1964. Malarial cases dropped from nearly 3 million/year down less than 20/year. Within 5 years of halting DDT spraying, malarial rates topped 2 million/year. The same pattern occurred in many other nations in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Was Ceylon "banned" from using DDT? No, but the fact remains it was motivated primarily by baseless fears of environmental damage.


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By Suomynona on 8/10/2007 7:04:45 PM , Rating: 3
I take it from your select response to only that one paragraph that you accept that the other flaws I pointed out in your original post are valid. Now we're making progress!

Regarding the eggshell thinning, I couldn't care less. I don't really care about the effects on birds; I care about the effects on people (e.g., http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-07/nio... http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1012 etc.).

More to the point, I never intended to show that DDT was criticized for the right reasons--again, I don't care. My claims were about the supposed impact of this "ban" on malaria deaths.

quote:
Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) used DDT from the 1940s to 1964. Malarial cases dropped from nearly 3 million/year down less than 20/year. Within 5 years of halting DDT spraying, malarial rates topped 2 million/year.

Funny that you should mention Sri Lanka. As we all know, correlations do not prove causation. Read below, please:

quote:
Sri Lanka went back to the spray guns, reducing malaria once more to 150,000 cases in 1972; but there the attack stalled. Anopheles culicifacies, completely susceptible to DDT when the spray stopped in 1964, was now found resistant presumably because of the use of DDT for crop protection in the interim. Within a couple of years, so many culicifacies survived that despite the spraying malaria spread in 1975 to more than 400,000 people.

From http://timlambert.org/2005/02/malaria/ , which contains much more information on DDT resistance in mosquitoes.

In short, Sri Lanka ineffectively halted that resurgance you're talking about not because they refused to use DDT--they did use it--but because it didn't work.


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/10/2007 8:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "In short, Sri Lanka ineffectively halted that resurgance you're talking about not because they refused to use DDT--they did use it--but because it didn't work"

You've misread your link. It clearly says DDT spraying stopped in the early 1960s and, only then, malarial rates surged. It also says a new program of spraying was attempted immediately, but delayed by problems in "the purchase of insecticides of which there was no residual stock". Why was there no residual stock? Because the large industrial giants in the West no longer produced DDT. Costs were therefore very high, and supplies low.

Eventually Sri Lanka did begin respraying DDT, several years after they stopped. But the hiatus had allowed the mosquito populations to acquire a limited degree of immunity. The situation is no different than a person who fails to take their entire antibiotic series, and thus winds up generating a bacterial strain resistant to the medication. Had Sri Lanka (and just as importantly, its neighbors) not halted their spraying programs, it is likely they would have fully eradicated the disease. Certainly they would have spared many millions of cases.


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By Suomynona on 8/10/2007 9:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
No, I didn't misread. But I think you did.

quote:
Had Sri Lanka (and just as importantly, its neighbors) not halted their spraying programs, it is likely they would have fully eradicated the disease.


Why did they stop spraying? Was it because of foreign pressure?

If you'd read that link closer (or this one, which summarizes the former: http://timlambert.org/2005/02/ddt3/ ), you'd have realized it was because they believed eradication to be complete. That's it.

I brought up the resurgence to illustrate that resistance was not as "limited" as you claimed (see, for instance, the extended spraying times ordered by the government to cope with that resistance, in the above link) and that DDT would not be nor necessarily have been, had spraying continued (though it didn't halt for the reasons you allege) a panacea.

Incidentally, as I'm sure you're going to make this other claim sooner or later, USAID never refused to fund DDT: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/id/mal... .

Finally, I just want to comment on how, each level deeper in this thread, you ignore the points where I've provided factual citation of your mistakes, refusing to either acknowledge those mistakes or provide counterpoints (for instance, your claims about Kyoto and developing nations, your claims about DDT and human effects, etc.).

If you're unable to admit when you're wrong--or provide counterpoints when your initial claims are refuted--I'm not sure why I should continue talking to you.


By Suomynona on 8/10/2007 9:13:03 PM , Rating: 1
I suppose, though, having posted this, that I'd really rather direct the topic back towards the original post, anyway.

You originally made a bunch of claims, of which the DDT thing was but one. I addressed them, and you only responded to the DDT point.

I believe you were originally trying to illustrate that science has sometimes been wrong, no? Why not pick a more uncontroversial example, then, like phrenology (one the creationists love) or the use of radium on watch dials? I have no desire to defend Rachel Carson--I couldn't give a shit, and I doubt she does, either--but I harped on your DDT post because it a) smacks of Steven Milloy, who I'd love to punch in the face and b) appears to be factually wrong.

So let's accept as a given that science--and environmentalists--have in the past been wrong. What does that tell us, logically? Does that tell us they're wrong now? Hmm? Is that your point?

In other words, what's the relevance of this discussion at all?


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/10/2007 7:34:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Kyoto's emissions targets don't apply to developing nations.

Then why have them at all? India and China are very quickly ramping their energy consumption and CO2 output.

I'm certainly no fan of Bush's policies, but I'll give the current administration credit for having some foresight on not signing Kyoto. Kyoto can really only work if everyone is onboard.


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By Suomynona on 8/10/2007 8:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't arguing that Kyoto is perfect. It's flawed. But masher's objection to it was stupid and counterfactual--Kyoto would not have imposed the claimed burden on developing nations.


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By crimson117 on 8/11/2007 1:37:03 AM , Rating: 2
When I first read masher's argument, I thought he was talking about whether to spend on fighting global warming, or whether to instead spend those billions on donating malaria vaccines to poor countries.


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By Suomynona on 8/13/2007 1:33:37 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps that's what he meant to say, but what he said was "Meanwhile, we're doing everything in our power to deny the Third World the benefits of cheap energy."

I assume that means he thinks Kyoto imposes caps on third world nations. Another poster ("Ringo") explicitly said it does, in fact.

It does not. Kyoto does not impose emissions caps on developing nations. If Asher meant something else, he can post a clarification and we can talk about it, but what he said was factually incorrect.


By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2007 2:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "but what he said was factually incorrect...."

The statement was not incorrect. Kyoto does not set carbon caps upon developing nations. But the UNFCCC requires funding from Annex II to developing nations to be used for "renewable" energy technologies. And the UN-- after pompously proclaiming that Africa must "never follow the path of developed nations"-- has cut off funding for energy development projects based on fossil fuels.

As a result, the funding that would otherwise have been used to provide cheap energy is now being used differently. How? Biodiesel plants in Swaziland. Windfarms in South Africa. Geothermal plants and biofuel cook stoves in Kenya. Solar arrays in Botswana and Zambia. Electricity generated from sugar mills in Zimbabwe.

Instead of medical treatments for the millions dying of malaria and AIDS, we get funding to buy Africans energy-saving CCFL light bulbs. We applaud the use of "biomass" (i.e. wood and cow dung) for heating and cooking in Africa...while Africans die like flies from the the respiratory problems associated with burning biomass in tiny wooden huts. Is this rational? I don't think so.

Here is a link to an article by a lecturer at a Ghana University, talking about some of the problems Africa faces from having "renewable" energy forced upon it in place of cheaper, more abundant alternatives:

http://allafrica.com/stories/200707120759.html


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By Ringold on 8/11/2007 3:05:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Kyoto would not have imposed the claimed burden on developing nations.


The economics involved are probably as simple as they possibly can be: anything to hinder *cheap* supplies of energy to a developing country represents a massive hinderance to development. Several studies have concluded that cheap, reliable energy is much more important to developing an impoverished area than is even clean water and basic health services.

Given that any sort of limit on CO2 raises the costs of energy any sort of global warming measure forced upon the developing world would represent hitting the breaks on their economies, slowing the emergence of a middle class and the political stability associated with it. The effect would be most dangerous if we tried to slow things down in Africa, as Eastern Asia has already made some good economic progress.

I'm sorry, but you wont be able to refute that. You can't turn to the global liberal organizations, as it was IMF and World Bank studies from which I'm speaking of the importance of cheap energy, and I'm speaking from simple economic theory that anything that constrains supply raises prices. Therefore, CO2 caps on Africa -> unnecessary poverty, death, and disease.

Of course, also potentially more global warming in the long run, but what do you think would be better able to withstand global warming? A modern, advanced society wealthy enough to slowly adapt to changing climate patterns, be they natural or not, or an impoverished society where floods kill hundreds every time it rains? Here's a hint: Rwanda's already made it's bet, and it's a nice little haven of capitalism and growth. Impressive after being abandoned in the middle of ethnic cleansing by the same UN that now tries to look as if it gives a damn about the developing people of the world.


By Suomynona on 8/13/2007 12:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Therefore, CO2 caps on Africa -> unnecessary poverty, death, and disease.

Kyoto doesn't require CO2 caps on developing nations. Who taught you to read?


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By sxr7171 on 8/11/2007 12:05:08 PM , Rating: 2
60 hours? I'd be changing it every week if that were so.


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By tabman on 8/13/2007 8:15:37 AM , Rating: 2
So you leave your lights on 24 - 7 365?


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By Alexvrb on 8/19/2007 1:06:49 PM , Rating: 3
Your point is valid, but your numbers are very wrong. Modern incandescents have a decent life. Most bulbs have a rated life of 750+ hours. Many quality bulbs are 1000 or even 3000 hour bulbs. CFLs have an excellent rated life and good quality type A CFLs are rated at at roughly 8000 to 10000 hours. That's excellent, but even regular bulbs will last longer than you are implying.

Also, while I love CFLs and use them in most of my fixtures, they are not THAT energy efficient. We're talking about Type A CFLs that are shaped much like regular bulbs. They consume roughly 1/5 the power. Which is still great. The long tube-shaped fluorescents are much more energy-efficent, perhaps you were thinking of those.

They have a few disadvantages too. They're generally not as suited for some enviroments, like in cold enviroments. They take much longer to warm up and aren't as bright and power efficient in my garage during the winter. In fact, I had to swap them out because they took so long to begin producing decent light. They can also die much faster than normal due to minor power fluctuations that regular bulbs are not as susceptible to. The warm-up times are annoying even indoors, particularly in a house with old wiring.

In conclusion, CFLs are great for most things, but incandescents are very cheap, more flexible, last longer than you realize, and are good enough for most people. Look to LED bulbs in the future to blow away both incandescents and CFLs at their own game.


By werepossum on 8/19/2007 2:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
Good points. I'd add that many cheaper self-ballasted (screw-type base with integral ballast) CFL lamps have shorter lives, around 6,000 hours, and that is rated at three hours per start. More frequent starts (i.e. shorter run times per start) drastically cut the life of CFL lamps, but have comparatively little affect on incandescent lamps. So incandescents are comparatively better for lights which are routinely turned on for only a very short time as well as lights which are subject to cold weather, although a quality mercury amalgam CFL lamp with an enclosed fixture and programmed start ballast goes a long way to minimizing the difference. These lamps are generally longer lived as well, typically 12,000 hours average, but the fixtures are more expensive. Also, CFL lose naturally light output over life, so you need to select a brighter model to get equivalent output.

The energy savings of CFL are significant; a Great value Soft White 60W A-19 lamp has a 1,000 hour average life, produces an initial 860 lumens and an average of about 817 over its life, and uses $32.40 worth of electricity (assuming 9 cents per KWH) over 6,000 hours (the average life of four of these lamps.) An equivalent cheap CFL would use 20 watts, produce an initial 1,100 lumens and an average of about 891 over its life, and use $10.80 worth of electricity (assuming 9 cents per KWH) over its 6,000 hour average life (assuming three hours on per start.) Plus, you only have to change one lamp versus four, and it would be brighter over most of its life (although less bright toward the end of its life.)

I use a lot of CFL lamps in my home, but unfortunately the only brand still made in America are Lights of America and hard to find!


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By AlexWade on 8/13/2007 10:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, a Compact Fluorescent light uses 1/4 the energy of an incandescent. I know because I've replaced all my lights with CF's. A 13 Watt CF = 52 Watt incandescent. 13 watt CF's are often advertised as being equal to a 60 watt incandescent, but I actually did the math with the lumens. LED lights use 1/5 the energy of incandescent and soon will use 1/10. This is according to the August Popular Science.

Not all CF's last 5 years, by the way. I've have had many die prematurely. The 5 year guarantee is based on "average" usage, based on whoever defined average.

Also, while I agree acting early is a good idea, we must never act in a way that harms other people. A lot of the eco-nazis hate people, that much is fact. They don't care if their radical ideas cause 2 children to die of starvation. We should prioritize: people first, environment second. The environment is a good thing to save, make no mistake. But if I had to choose between feeding starving families in Darfur or preventing 1 inch of the arctic from melting, I'm choosing to feed the hungry in Darfur. This isn't so much directed at you as it is the eco-nazis.

And lets be blunt, if the entire world never produced another ounce of CO2, the eco-nazis would STILL find something to make us panic. One immutable truth is if you don't have a crisis, you don't have funding because you don't have anyone's attention.


By Kuroyama on 8/13/2007 11:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if I had to choose between feeding starving families in Darfur or preventing 1 inch of the arctic from melting, I'm choosing to feed the hungry in Darfur

The decrease in global temperatures required to save that 1 inch of the arctic would save many people in Darfur and elsewhere, as increased temperatures lead to direct problems like increased famine, and indirect ones like more wars over food and/or water resources. So your decision here sounds rather counterproductive.


By Suomynona on 8/10/2007 4:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, that data can be used to tune proxies that do, in fact, go back many thousands of years. Perhaps you have some issue with temperature and atmospheric carbon proxies, but you should be aware that the data are not limited to the last 150 years.


RE: what about the rest of the report?
By B on 8/10/2007 10:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
Good point with 150 years being short term. However, what do you think is an appropriate time period to examine? You mention data over thousands of years, but even then there are other huge forces at work.

The Earth's systems are so complicated I don't know how one could isolate a human caused trend from a natural trend. The person that claims they can must be brilliant and an expert with multiple regression.

The Earth has always been changing. For example 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous period there was about 35% oxygen in the atmosphere. Currently, oxygen composes about 21%. Clearly, this is a huge shift in the composition of the atmosphere.

Burning fossile fuels does release carbon dioxide that was sequestered millions of years ago by plants. I just don't think the effect of this can be quanitified yet. Carbon Dioxide only composes 4 hundreths of 1% of all atmoshperic gases. Methane, another global warming gas is even more immaterial to the total composition of atmospheric gasses. So, how with any accuracy, does one measure the effect of a tiny change on a small planet thats infinetly complicated and has numerous co-dependant systems?


By Polynikes on 8/11/2007 8:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
That's what I wanna know. The global warming debate is just like the gun control debate. Both sides have their "scientific" data which oppose one another, and everyone is forced to simply believe one side or the other. I don't like that.


By aeroengineer1 on 9/3/2007 12:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
I have found myself curiously addicted to this website, though I think that is more to read these supposedly educated views that are rather off point and are not looking at the big overall picture.

Case in point; there is a reference to the fact that a person here would rather use a small amount of data, than make an effort to get a large amount of data and he used spending money as his example. I am going to illustrate the lack of information in this quote. There is a sampling law that states that you need to take data points at at least twice the rate of the frequency to get a smooth curve without any artifacts, and you must sample data over at least one period to quantify the signal properties. If this is not done, we are not sure that we are dealing with noise, which can also be periodic, or if we are actually looking at the signal. FM radio is a good example of this, though the signal that actually produces the sound on the radio could actually be said to be the noise of the main signal if loosely defined.

Let's relate this to main topic using the money example. We know that money in a persons life is periodic; he makes a certain amount every so often and he spends money every so often. Now he gets a flat tire and his laptop get damaged in the ensuing event. He absolutely needs to have the laptop data taken from the hard drive and put into another computer for the presentation he is to give in 2 hours, but the screen is busted as well as the video output, he also found that his spare tire is flat and he has no backup tire pump. Over the next ten minutes he makes calls to a towing company, and a computer company to have the hard drive swapped to a new computer. The total bill comes out to well over $700. So do I assume then if I was measuring his cash flow and trying to model it that if he had $800 in the bank and $200 on his credit card and a new expenditure of $700 over a ten minute period of time that in an hour he is going to be $3600 in debt and if this occurred at noon that he will be about $42000 in debt? Of course not, these were emergency expenditures, and perhaps we would learn by measuring a bit longer that his $2500 biweekly, direct deposit check cleared at 12:11 and that he had insurance that covered his computer costs and he will be reimbursed in a week or so. But say we look and see that the tow truck expenditure was $100 and he made that first in the first two minutes and acted on that and said that he could not spend any more because he was going to be in great debt before he went to bed based upon his spending rate and his current savings. The result is that because he does not have his computer data he looses his job because he does not file an important business forecast with the company investors on time and they decide to pull their funding. This is what can happen when we make decisions based upon noise and not solid data.

The climate we know is cyclic. From core samples we have seen that there are layers of extreme cold and extreme heat, then back to cold. We have historical records of crop failures and never ending winters, though no one took temperature measurements, then a few hundred years later they talk about crop abundances. Then in the early 1800's we have reports of volcanoes that erupted and then we have global reports of crop failures and never ending winters again for a few years. Now we are talking about never ending summers. But the current data trend shows relatively level temperatures with a few spikes in it both low and high.

I personally think that we need more data, and we need to make sure that we are not measuring noise.

Adam


Move on, move on
By Kuroyama on 8/9/2007 3:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
Dear Masher2 and Dailytech editors,

This is allegedly a site about new technology. Perhaps you could remind Masher2 about this, because in the last month he has written 5 columns on the debate over global warming, and of the 22 columns he has edited I count only 4 -- on big engineering, hd format wars, human-habitable planet, general purpose CPU -- that did not mention global warming or CO2 emissions.

Would it be unreasonable to ask that at least half his columns on this technology site not mention CO2 emissions or global warming?




RE: Move on, move on
By masher2 (blog) on 8/9/2007 4:11:11 PM , Rating: 5
Most large news organizations have journalists 100% dedicated to environmental topics, who never write a story that is outside this arena. On CNN's "Science/Tech" page right now are 5 articles (out of 11) that deal with environmental issues. Dailytech, on the other hand, averages less than one such story per week.

Are you truly offended by the level of coverage, or are you annoyed because the facts presented don't agree with your own particular viewpoint?


RE: Move on, move on
By Kuroyama on 8/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: Move on, move on
By Kuroyama on 8/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: Move on, move on
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/9/2007 6:15:17 PM , Rating: 5
DailyTech was always set up as a harbor for Technology *and* Science. A recent survey on our IP logs showed traffic from every major U.S. national lab. We've had articles with almost half the refer traffic from NASA and NOAA.

Mr. Asher's posts do have a particular trend -- he focuses more on a counter-point angle to global warming. I think this is a point that is often overlooked in mainstream media.

If anyone would like to construct well-researched posts that disagree with Mr. Asher's posts, I'd be more than willing to post those on DailyTech as well. Just drop me a line if you're interested.


RE: Move on, move on
By Kuroyama on 8/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: Move on, move on
By Kuroyama on 8/9/07, Rating: -1
RE: Move on, move on
By sxr7171 on 8/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: Move on, move on
By DiscussGlobalWarming on 8/12/2007 11:32:58 AM , Rating: 2
Sometimes. More than not, the major media got to great lengths to make sure that the "between the lines" wont be easily read by 90% of the audience.


RE: Move on, move on
By Ringold on 8/9/2007 9:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We've had articles with almost half the refer traffic from NASA and NOAA.


That's interesting. I just had an exchange recently with someone at NASA regarding the DIRECT v2.0 thing and learned a bit about the internal politics of NASA and its associated labs. When people complain at places like DT about NASA's failures it seems like at least middle management gets the picture (as do employees all the way down the food chain, though I'll leave everyone to find their way to the appropriate message boards themselves). It doesn't change the fact that the top brass at many of these places are incompetent, but at the ground level some of these places are more responsive than it initially would appear.

Just to take an example, from what I gather, the rank and file at NASA knows that the current Orion/Ares I/Ares V setup is a recipe for, at best, mediocrity, at worst, a huge existential risk. The brightest optimists seem to think that NASA will see the Democrats, after years of delays, budget over-runs and feature reductions, scrap the moon plans all together, and NASA will wake up one day in the next decade and find itself with an Orion doing nothing but taxi duty to the ISS. With no highly reuseable (now that it's water landing, the reuse of the Orion modules may be reduced), expensive spacecraft like the Shuttle sitting around, and a large chunk of the costs being in marginal launch costs rather than sunk investment sitting in a hanger, it becomes very, very easy to drop the entire program.

Which is just the same thing that's been repeated in DT comments by various people, which makes me wonder how many of them were NASA themselves. (I went looking for Direct v2.0 after someone noted the Jupiter 232 launch vehicle, and given that it's largelly an internal movement, I therefore assume that person works for, directly or indirectly, NASA). So, that's just interesting that people at these places really do swing by and get exposed to a little public opinion. I think it also says something of the quality of coverage, perhaps, provided by DT that these sort of people would frequent this site.

K. Long enough post. Back to EVE Online to sooth the nerves after a down 387 DOW day.


RE: Move on, move on
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/12/2007 6:44:37 AM , Rating: 2
Check out some of the International Space Update articles. I see NASA IPs from the comment posters all the time :)


RE: Move on, move on
By jacarte8 on 8/10/2007 1:28:22 PM , Rating: 4
I really enjoy articles on all topics. It's not like the titles are misleading... don't read articles on global warming if you don't want to. I find them interesting, and to be HIGHLY technology-related. The huge emphasis places on eco-friendly technology hinges on this debate, and I like to see it covered from both sides (which I think Dailytech does a great job of).


RE: Move on, move on
By crimson117 on 8/11/2007 1:20:17 AM , Rating: 3
I'm turned off by the quality of this particular column - "I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media." is not a very professional way to conclude a news article.

The whole thing is written with an obviously smug tone. You can't go claiming that people are just upset about the facts when half of your post was just smug comments about global-warming.


RE: Move on, move on
By crimson117 on 8/11/2007 1:25:39 AM , Rating: 2
*and when I read the headline, and read the facts in the post, I was excited - I'm all for accurate climate data! I think we need to be proactive about taking care of our planet, but I would never want to fudge facts to make one side look more right than the other side.

But I could just do without the smug slant in this particular blog post.


RE: Move on, move on
By S3anister on 8/11/2007 6:22:46 PM , Rating: 3
DT is like my only way of getting news, so PLEASE don't stop writing any kind of science articles, they make me happy!


RE: Move on, move on
By DiscussGlobalWarming on 8/12/2007 2:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
We experience this quite often at our forum on global warming and climate change. Folks, when faced with hard evidence (as apposed to the soft evidence coming out of the global warming camp lately) go hog-wild and become obviously defensive... Suddenly they're accusing of being "attacked".

We have read others write that when all is said and done, they hope that the general population still respects these climate scientists and we cant agree more. These people are losing credibility by the day.


RE: Move on, move on
By Kuroyama on 8/14/2007 1:15:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
go hog-wild and become obviously defensive

I cannot speak for others, but my primary complaint here is that (a) Masher has turned his Dailytech blog into a political column with a scientific theme, and (b) often resorts to the same exaggeration that he accuses others of. For instance, in the past 30 days I found the sports car column completely irrelevant to Dailytech and also ridiculously blown out of proportions, and Masher should have known better than to use early earthquake assessment as the basis for claiming anything (initial reports are notoriously unreliable; for instance the Japanese government first reported only ~5 people died in the Kobe earthquake when we later found that 6400 died).

Anyways, my point has been raised and Masher and Kristopher have both responded, so end of story.


RE: Move on, move on
By EglsFly on 8/13/2007 7:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's nice to see the global warming counterpoint. Global warming has been overblown by the liberal media and I doubt that I would have seen this covered by the major news outlets.

Thanks for the update Masher2.


RE: Move on, move on
By Keeir on 8/9/2007 4:11:18 PM , Rating: 5
Dear Kuroyama

Please note that this "column" is actually a BLOG maintained free of charge by M. Asher. M. Asher has, as stated by Editor Kristopher Kubicki, been offered the ability to post a blog on Dailytech due to high number of relevent and researched posts made in the past. Although his BLOG posts are rarely about consumer technology, they are usually, with some exceptions, well-researched pieces about scientific data and scientific arguement. In future, avoid BLOG posts by M. Asher (Masher2) if you do not wish to read about CO2 emissions or global warming.

-Keeir


RE: Move on, move on
By Rovemelt on 8/10/2007 5:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, many (not all, and not this particular posting) of Mashers blog postings are not well researched at all. He often presents outdated or fringe data that supports his agenda without showing or reporting on a wealth of data that supports the current scientific consensus. I've posted many times showing this to be plainly true. You should also understand that Masher is not:

A) a climatologist
B) a scientist who regularly publishes anything (or ever published anything) in a peer-reviewed process--If I'm wrong, please provide evidence to the contrary
C) a scientist who has gone through the normally rigorous training necessary to even interpret the data he does read--he doesn't have a Ph.D. (if I'm wrong, please provide evidence to the contrary--an I'll personally check to see if it's true.)

So Masher continues to insult the hundreds of scientists out there who dedicate their life to this field for his moment on the soapbox, to feed a vocal group who simply can't fathom humans having a negative impact on the global environment (with regards to human survival).

I still wonder what his true motivation is, despite his comically so-called 'pursuit of truth.' Is he getting paid by someone to post this? Is he just lashing out at successful scientists because he couldn't get through grad school?

Some of you readers may think I'm being too harsh here. Bear in mind that if the catastrophic global warming predictions do come true (it's not clear yet if they will), the quality of life for billions will be affected and it will even impact many of you reading this. The ramifications of feeding false hopes and inactivity is simply too costly to ignore.

There will be modifications and adjustments to climate models--this is part of the scientific process. Masher equates this with failure of the WHOLE model which shows a rapidly warming planet. The fact that he does this is why I already know the answers to the questions I presented in this post.


RE: Move on, move on
By grenableu on 8/10/2007 6:15:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So Masher continues to insult the hundreds of scientists out there
That's alright. There's many more reporters out there insulting the hundreds of scientists who disagree with global warming. If they can handle it, I'm sure this bunch can too.

His past blogs have linked many actual research papers, written by eminent Ph.Ds in peer-reviewed journals. So far all I've seen from you are personal insults and wild accusations.


RE: Move on, move on
By Keeir on 8/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: Move on, move on
By Rovemelt on 8/10/2007 8:34:08 PM , Rating: 5
You can see from some of my posts that I do sometimes agree with Masher's beliefs, only because they happen to match the scientific consensus. For example, he recently presented a blog post about predicting hurricanes and their link to global climate change. I agree that it is very difficult to predict hurricane behavior, and that it is certainly prone to error and that the link between hurricanes and global warming is weak at this point. However, he frames it to challenge global climate change and its potential impact.

I actually don't have a problem with what's reported above. Bad data needs to get fixed, and the error was found and fixed. The fact that the data was updated right away and reported by Nasa demonstrates that the scientists there are more interested in fixing bad data than reaching a particularly popular consensus on how the planet is warming.

A version of "An Incomplete Truth" that had every detail of climate science and the uncertainties behind it would work as well as a motion picture with a dictionary as the screenplay.

Masher is the author of a blog where he makes some pretty scientifically bold statements as if they are settled, when in fact many of them have been addressed and simply don't change the fact that the planet seems to be warming due to human activity. Yes, I'll read summary articles online, and then move to the actual article that was published and the basis of the summary. If it survived peer review in a major journal, I take it seriously, albeit with caution, to see if the conclusions are reasonable. I'll read papers that could contribute to an argument that global warming isn't happening. Yes, I've had to concede that I was wrong (both in professional publishing and in anon blog posts), but I accept the misunderstanding and give reference to every credible source, even if it shows that I made a mistake.

I don't care...I'm an information junkie. I'll even admit that Masher raised some valid points and got me to question some of my own assumptions about climate science. Since he began these posts, I've done a lot more reading in this area. The more I've read, the more I see that he Masher is really biased. Is he married to Svensmark? Masher certainly defends him like June Cleaver with battered wife syndrome. Go ahead and read through my past posts...most of them I link PRIMARY and MODERN references that completely challenge his conservative talking points Masher clings onto. The difference between Rush Limbaugh and this blog is the fact that people can show that he's full of sh*t here.

Go ahead and read the links I provide. I even try to find primary references that are available online so you don't have to pay for access. If the ones I provide don't satisfy your curiosity, those references have other references. You can get them at your local academic library, usually for free if it's a public school or through inter library loan. Research it yourself and come back to join the discussion. You know...like a scientist would.


RE: Move on, move on
By grenableu on 8/11/2007 12:52:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A version of "An Incomplete Truth" that had every detail of climate science and the uncertainties behind it would work as well as a motion picture with a dictionary as the screenplay.
Sounds like you're condoning fear-mongering and scientific inaccuracy, as long as its "entertaining". That's a bit sad.


RE: Move on, move on
By blackseed on 8/10/2007 12:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
Although I not a fan of Masher's point of view towards global warming, I really, love the points that he makes.

If new Mashers BLOG comes up, I find myself dashing for information that he is providing.

My 2 cents


RE: Move on, move on
By Dactyl on 8/11/2007 1:00:54 AM , Rating: 2
This is an excellent article.

It's about the Y2K bug, computer systems that receive, record, and analyze data, and about an intersection of technology with the "real world"

It's certainly not out of place on DT. And I doubt you would be complaining if he put up a blog post about a new NASA supercomputer whose simulations supposedly prove global warming is true and really happening. For some reason, I don't think you'd be upset by that . . .


RE: Move on, move on
By DiscussGlobalWarming on 8/12/2007 11:29:07 AM , Rating: 2
We agree 100% with the need to counter-point this global warming junk science being spewed by the major media outlets. http://www.discussglobalwarming.com/blog


RE: Move on, move on
By s12033722 on 8/13/2007 1:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
I enjoy these columns and would be displeased were they to be removed. If you do not wish to be exposed to the information, simply do not read them. Why is it so distressing for you to have this information disseminated?


NASA's corrected figures
By glitchc on 8/9/2007 12:11:20 PM , Rating: 3
The data also shows a consistent increase in temperature since 1985, barring anomalies. This is illustrated by the 5-year moving average window which is consistently higher than the mean for the entire range.

Just wanted to point out something masher failed to mention in his article....




RE: NASA's corrected figures
By 1078feba on 8/9/2007 1:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm confused: what's so special about 1985? Statistically or otherwise? Why pick it?


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By Martimus on 8/9/2007 3:45:05 PM , Rating: 5
Because that is when Marty McFly went back in time using his Delorean Time Machine. That 1.21 jigawatts really caused a lot of heat to begin the global warming phenomenon.


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By qrhetoric on 8/10/2007 1:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
lol
first useful post on this page


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By RobinGoodfellow on 8/9/2007 3:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
There is a similar consistent increase in temperature between 1929 and 1948 in the 5 year moving averages, and then again between 1951 and 1959. However, these "trends" went away.


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By Ringold on 8/9/2007 6:13:50 PM , Rating: 1
I had to make a similar defense just a few hours ago to a lefty friend who blamed Bush on the recent economic softness. He cited some short-term data that admittedly looks like a down turn as if it were supreme gospel.

I then had to pull up data off the Philedelphia Fed's FRED-II going back to 1900 and... I dont think he ended up accepting that it was a natural business cycle and in fact would be worse if not for the tax cuts, despite very clear data. Even went to the trouble of sketching AS/AD IS/LM and even inflation/growth to get the concepts across -- might as well have been trying to tell Urban VIII that the Earth revolves about the sun. The economy was tanking and it was all the Republican's fault.

One can bring a partisan to the water but can't make them drink.


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By TheBaker on 8/10/2007 12:24:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
One can bring a partisan to the water but can't make them drink.


Sorry dude, you got that one wrong.

One can bring a partisan to facts but can't make them think.

There, all better.


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By Kuroyama on 8/10/2007 2:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
in fact would be worse if not for the tax cuts

How do you know that? And don't tell me it's common sense, because it's not that simple. If it were then the tax rate would be a flat 5% and the resulting economic boom would finance all lost revenues, but of course that's not the case. Reminds me of Reagan's claim that defense spending does not increase the national debt, because the economic stimulus makes up for the money being spent.

I suppose you believe that the economic boom in the Reagan years was due to Reagan, and the pain during Bush I years was due to Bush raising taxes, BUT the boom in the Clinton years was also due to Reagan? Perhaps not, but all too many pro-Republican anti-Democrat folks are just as inconsistent as the "supreme gospel" approach of your friend.


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By Timetheos on 8/10/2007 2:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take your point further:

1) According the the US comptroller in congressional testimony, tax cuts never pay for themselves in terms of revenue.

2) There is no proof of the Laffer Curve:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2...
http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/003184.html


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By ttowntom on 8/10/2007 2:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
Your "proof" that the Laffer Curve doesn't exist is a couple of links to blog posts, one of which by a guy who openly admits his fringe-liberal status?

'scuse me while I laugh.


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By Timetheos on 8/10/2007 4:09:23 PM , Rating: 1
Ad Hominem fallacy

Try again.


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By Ringold on 8/11/2007 3:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
On the blog guy; he's a nut. He talks about supply-siders as if he can call himself an economist (as implied by 'Economists View'), but as Milton Friedman said, we're all Keynesian's now.

I haven't looked at the article he's debunking, but his arguments are weak. His charts are oversimplifications; economies get revenue from more than just corporate taxes, and different types of taxes are more damaging to economic growth than others.

But then there's the real kicker. Growth. The 2004 tax cuts, now that we've had record revenue this year, is a pretty solid indicator that Laffer's idea has merit. We cut taxes, growth occured, and here we are with record revenue and a projected 2012 budget surplus of $41b, all while at the bottom of a business cycle!

Looking through his other posts he's clearly both liberal and out of the mainstream of economic theory. Probably educated, as he covers an interesting set of topics, but very much out of the mainstream.

Much the same applies to the second link.

For whatever it's worth, the Laffer curve is noted in at least Intermediate Macro, Public Finance/Econ, and some times (depending on the professor) noted in Money & Banking, and not in a negative light but as something that's difficult to know for certain without testing -- and of course the only way to test is to play games with multi-trillion dollar economies. While the 04 tax cuts gave us a revenue increase it's hard to say if more identical cuts would lead to the same or not.

At any rate, the mechanics behind how a tax cut leads to revenue increases can't possibly be summed up here or in a blog post, and attempts to debunk it with a few one-liners just shows lack of understanding what it even really deals with.


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By Ringold on 8/11/2007 3:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
I just checked the MaxSpeak guy's other blog posts as well, and he's even worse!

Random attack on Ben Bernanke's principles of economics book for failing, apparently, to be a ten thousand page tome that would dominate a college freshman's entire first year which would include every little wrinkle in every economic principle that there is. At least, that's the impression.

He also goes on to continually attack the Federal Reserve, Frank Paulson (highly, highly respected in the business world) for suggesting the fundamentals of the economy are solid (which they are -- which isn't related necessarily to liquidity, despite what the guy seems to think)..

Buddy, when Google comes up with links, it's usually a good idea to check their credibility. You waste other peoples time less that way.


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By Kuroyama on 8/10/2007 7:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
Certainly there will be a Laffer style curve to at least some degree, because common sense tells us that at a 0% or 100% tax rate the total tax revenue will be $0, with a peak somewhere in between. However, it certainly seems highly unlikely that our current tax rates are past the peak, i.e. that cutting rates from their current level will increase revenue. Certainly if I look around the rich world it seems that the lower the tax rate the stingier the government is in their spending, which suggests that the lower tax rate resulted in less revenue and not more. But sure, I'll buy that a 100% tax rate is unlikely to net any non-trivial amount of revenue.


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By Ringold on 8/11/2007 3:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
Did the invisible hand touch you as a child?

Yes, it is common sense, and very simple to imagine. Tax cuts increase investment, especially those targeted to the wealthy. It's almost a fundamental assumption of macroeconomics; please, read some macro texts. Investment keeps interest rates low (people buy bonds, driving up their price and the yields down), low yields encourage investment in business projects/cap-ex (improved internal rates of return), and that of course creates jobs.

Therefore, had the tax cuts I referenced not occured we'd be in a marginally worse off situation than we are presently. Find me an economist that'd disagree, and I'll show you a proud graduate of Pheonix Online. Budget deficits are a seperate issue from the economy, as they're small enough now (much improved from 2004) that the economy can grow quite happily without concerning itself with them.


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By Kuroyama on 8/12/2007 1:19:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Budget deficits are a separate issue from the economy

If investors are willing to buy $100 of debt, and the government needs $10 of that to finance your tax cut, then that's $10 less that companies can borrow. Of course this is a gross oversimplification, but the point is that no, it is not "very simple" to be certain that tax cuts improve the economy (perhaps if they are matched with comparably sized spending cuts, but that is almost never the case).

And I have no idea what "Did the invisible hand touch you as a child?" is supposed to mean.


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By Ringold on 8/12/2007 2:32:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I have no idea what "Did the invisible hand touch you as a child?" is supposed to mean.


Which is why you wouldn't easily see the logic. I was fishing to see if you remembered anything at all from principles of macro/micro from college. :P The invisible hand is unseen influence of the free market that guides consumers to optimal choices. And I saw an ODE shirt the other day with that on the back.

Anyway, the debt market isn't fixed in size, and government bonds, being risk free, attract a somewhat different investor group than does corporate paper. The key concept at any rate is that with lower taxes but not crushing deficits growth is encouraged which ultimately means the smaller portion of income being taxed in real dollars ends up being the same as a larger portion of taxed income would be at the same point in the future had the cuts not occured.

I'd admit the Laffer Curve idea has limits, and it probably only works as Republicans think in a narrow range, and I personally suspect that the "low hanging fruit" was all picked with Bush's tax cuts. Much greater revenue increases could be seen in the future by changing the tax structure (FairTax proposal) while being revenue-neutral in the short term. There are huge economic losses being sustained due to complexity, government intervention, out-dated code and the very concept of corporate and marginal income taxes, all of which could be removed, unlocking huge growth, some of which gets removed with tax cuts, providing some of the benefit. But I still think that many economic indicators seem to suggest the Bush tax cuts put juice in the economy right when it needed it.

A good non-US example that comes to mind is the Irish Miracle. They essentially decided to be competitive rather than import socialist laziness from mainland Europe, but a fundamental part of it was spectacular tax cuts. The results were just what a liberal economist (which translates to conservative these days), and Reagan, Laffer and Friedman would suspect.


RE: NASA's corrected figures
By Kuroyama on 8/12/2007 8:04:09 AM , Rating: 2
Of course I know all about the "invisible hand", and have even seen t-shirts resembling the one you refer to, but I do not know what "touch you as a child" is supposed to mean in this context.

The Irish miracle has also been greatly helped by the huge amount of subsidies they receive from the EU, ie. socialist charity. They also have that ultimate evil, national health care (i.e. socialized medicine). But yeah, they have done a good job with their economy.

Nearly every time you post on economic topics (quite often) you sound extremely conceited and leave little room for the possibility that anyone not agreeing with your libertarian views might have intelligence higher than that of a small rodent. Actually, I'd say that this is one of your less arrogant posts, excluding the first paragraph.

PS. I'd look up some non-Phoenix economists who disagree with you, but I have a long trip ahead of me today and don't have the time.


This is amazingly dishonest
By Onlooker on 8/10/2007 11:03:56 AM , Rating: 1
Why didn't you mention that the data refers only to the 48 contiguous states? You seem to be vague on that key fact.

That fact makes all the difference in the world. It's well known that even during global warming, there are places here and there that have cooler temperatures. The question is, Does this data change the global numbers so significantly that it affects global averages? For some reason, the manipulative report doesn't provide all the data needed to answer that obvious question.

This is the sort of information that is abused by those who for some bizarre reason oppose global warming. (They apparently don't want to spend money taking care of our air, which I think is a good thing to do with or without global warming.)




RE: This is amazingly dishonest
By grenableu on 8/10/2007 11:16:03 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like someone needs to work on their reading comprehension. The article clearly states this was a problem with US temperature data. Also, the next to last paragraph states the overall effect on global trends (1-2% less warming than originally thought)


RE: This is amazingly dishonest
By Onlooker on 8/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: This is amazingly dishonest
By grenableu on 8/10/2007 11:57:53 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, seriously, read the article. ALL those questions are answered in it.

(1) Yes, a "reputable scientist" answered-- the original NASA scientists who publish the global warming dataset. They admitted the error (see link 3) and changed their figures (see link 4)

(2) The data changed by up to 0.14 degrees for certain years.-- see the chart in link 5.

(3) The effect on global (not US) temperatures is expected to be around 0.01 degrees.

Now stop blindly grasping at straws and embarrassing yourself.


RE: This is amazingly dishonest
By arazok on 8/10/2007 11:16:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is the sort of information that is abused by those who for some bizarre reason oppose global warming.


Bizarre? Perhaps they have looked at the available information and concluded that global warming is not caused by human activity? There is ample evidence to support both sides here, so seeing somebody reach a conclusion on either side of the fence is anything but bizarre.

Apparently, the GW doubters don't want money pissed away recklessly fighting a gas they believe is not a pollutant. Would you like to see a multi-trillion dollar program implemented to reduce the amount of Nitrogen in the air? Probably not...


RE: This is amazingly dishonest
By Onlooker on 8/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: This is amazingly dishonest
By masher2 (blog) on 8/10/2007 12:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "If the world spent $1 trillion to clean up our air, our water, our land, and protect the world for the future, would that be so bad even if global warming was discovered to be false?"

This is, unfortunately, the basic philosphy behind many global warming supporters. As famed enviromentalist Steven Schneider said:
quote:
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
Regardless, there are hundreds of scientists who have never received a grant from Exxon or anyone else who disbelieve in anthropogenic global warming-- and have the research to back it up. My past stories have detailed just a few of them.

The amount of funding for scientists who *do* believe in global warming far outweighs the tiny amount given to skeptics-- by some $50B dollars, in fact, according to statistics from the Senate EPW. And even those scientists who most ardently believe-- the chair heads who crafted the UN IPCC report-- admit to a 10% uncertainty than man is not influencing climate temperatures at all (look up the definition of the "very likely" term used in the IPCC's Fourth Report).


RE: This is amazingly dishonest
By wien on 8/11/2007 9:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The amount of funding for scientists who *do* believe in global warming far outweighs the tiny amount given to skeptics-- by some $50B dollars, in fact, according to statistics from the Senate EPW.
Reference?

And as I asked in another thread where these numbers were brought up; what kind of scientist goes on record as being a GW believer/skeptic before they have done any research on the matter?

Unless of course the $50B difference refers to the amount of research that concludes GW is real as opposed to hype and FUD, in which case... well.


RE: This is amazingly dishonest
By Ringold on 8/11/2007 8:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
It took ten seconds with Google to get the reference. Googles your friend, especially when Asher gives a precise number and the name of the source.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

It appears like a blog.. but it's a .gov.. and has supporting links. Seems credible. And it essentially calls Newsweek a bunch of liberal global-warming pandering fanatics, so, seems a good enough source for me. :P


RE: This is amazingly dishonest
By Kuroyama on 8/14/2007 2:07:16 AM , Rating: 2
<sarcasm>
quote:
it's a .gov.. and has supporting links.

One of the first times I've seen you mention something government related as giving credibility. Of course, the only real government connection here is that it's basically Inhofe's buddies posting on a government server, and so it is neither more nor less credible than the information posted on any other politicians site. And links are easy; those in this article don't really point to anything special (although the "related links" section is interesting).

quote:
it essentially calls Newsweek a bunch of liberal global-warming pandering fanatics

Newsweek and CNN pander to whatever side they think will result in more copies of their magazine being sold. And alarmism sells many more copies than saying "everything's OK". For instance, even if there was only a 1% chance of terrorists attacking America in the next 50 years (which I'm not at all claiming), I'm sure the Newsweek story would be titled "Study find terrorists to attack America" (while Sean Hannity would probably report "Terrorist attack imminent, probably nuclear"). Hardly likely that liberal magazines would have any such title.

For instance, to find a liberal view of the Iraq war then look in any genuinely liberal magazine and you'll find that Newsweek treads quite lightly vs "liberal media". A quick 10 second search on Google (it's your friend) turned up a few such articles:

LINK1 http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
LINK2 http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index....
LINK3 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/who-n...

Oooh, Kuroyama must have written a credible post, because it has links. And it attacks a conservative anti-global-warming pandering fanatic. And it's on a Tech site so I'm sure it's well researched too!

Yawn. Guess I'll go read the evil liberal European magazine "The Economist" (yes, I'm pathetic, that is my bedtime reading, honestly). Oops, forgot, Ringold thinks liberals don't know what the "invisible hand" is, so I probably can't understand the "hard" articles in it.

Can't resist it. Ringold, you'll love the cover to this week's Economist: http://economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm...

</sarcasm>


thank goodness for skepticism
By byrneit on 8/10/2007 2:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with others who've said that the comments regarding the "global warming machine" in the article. Granted, this is just a blog posting and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it makes me a little suspicious...

Regardless, perhaps the author would care to comment regarding the earlier comment about the reduction in ice that is being observed at the poles?

I, personally, think it is still premature to suggest any sort of trends regarding ice caps when we've not been monitoring ice levels until very recently.

Even weather monitoring since the early 1900's/1800's doesn't leave me feeling confident regarding trends. Quite honestly, our world has been around a very, very long time so to suggest that a trend that appears to be occurring in the last 100 or even 200 years is suspect in my mind.

With all that being said, I still agree that we humans should be making strides to be better citizens of this planet. We should definitely be exhausting less poisonous gas into the air and we should not be destroying resources that we will regret destroying later. I don't know if these activities have anything to do with global warming or not, but I think as citizens concerned for our home, we should try to impact it as little as possible (without impacting ourselves in big ways).

There. That makes me feel better.




RE: thank goodness for skepticism
By masher2 (blog) on 8/10/2007 3:51:39 PM , Rating: 3
> "Perhaps the author would care to comment regarding the earlier comment about the reduction in ice that is being observed at the poles?"

I'd love to. Polar ice has been continually melting-- and sea-level rising- for the last 20,000 years or so. Its a consistent trend that in no way implicates humanity. During Meltwater Pulse 1A (19,000 years ago) sea levels rose by up to 15 meters in 500 years time. Compared that to the current rise rate of some 2 i>millimeters/year, the older event was far more dramatic.

The situation at the North pole is pretty clear-- it's losing mass. Of course, the entire North Pole can melt without affecting sea level at all. The South Pole, on the other hand, would dramatically affect sea levels...but the most recent measurements seem to indicate its gaining mass.

That leaves glacial ice in areas like Greenland, which is indeed slowly losing ice mass (some 0.25% per century). But as the ice retreats, we find some interesting results underneath them, such as thousand-year old villages and silver mines, positive proof that, at that time, Greenland was warmer than it is today. So is the ice retreating due to SUV usage, or just a natural reversion to a state its already held before?


RE: thank goodness for skepticism
By Suomynona on 8/10/2007 4:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course, the entire North Pole can melt without affecting sea level at all.


That statement presumes that changing the albedo of the area would have no affect on temperature.


RE: thank goodness for skepticism
By Suomynona on 8/10/2007 4:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The South Pole, on the other hand, would dramatically affect sea levels...but the most recent measurements seem to indicate its gaining mass.


Could you please provide a link for this claim? It seems you might be thinking only of the east Antarctic ice sheet (http://www.physorg.com/news4180.html); a number of sources indicate that as a whole, Antarctica is losing ice mass (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoc... http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_...

Though as you know, IPCC predicted an increase in Antarctic ice mass due to increased precipitation.


RE: thank goodness for skepticism
By masher2 (blog) on 8/10/2007 5:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
I am referring to the Wingham paper from 2006, "Mass Balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet", which concluded a net gain in overall mass:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006RSPTA.364.1627W

Your links didn't work, but I assume you're referring to the GRACE data. Using different methodology, it indicated a mass loss...but you must know that dataset only covers a very brief period...some 3 years, I believe.


RE: thank goodness for skepticism
By Suomynona on 8/10/2007 5:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
The URLs work fine. Your bulletin board software tries to turn them into hyperlinks, but is unable to identify the end of the link if it ends in punctuation rather than whitespace. Would it be too much of an imposition for me to ask that you remove that erroneous punctuation from the end of the URLs? I'm new here, and wasn't aware of that behavior.

And yes, I am referring to the GRACE studies. Regarding differences in methodologies, the Wingham study has a large error margin due to variability in density. I'm not sure, offhand, about the margin in the GRACE studies, but given that that methodology measures mass directly, it may well be more accurate. Perhaps you can put in the time to find the authors' estimations; I'm a little busy right now.

Further, the IPCC report and the underlying models predict exactly what you describe, an increase in Antarctic mass, due to increased precipitation. I wouldn't tout it as evidence that the models are wrong.

Of course, you might have merely been commenting on the net sea level rise projections. Increasing the ice mass on Antarctica is indeed projected to limit sea level rise, but your earlier comments are still off-base; it's very hard to imagine the Arctic ice melting and yet Greenland not--like I said, this either presumes a chance in albedo does not affect temperature, or it presumes that a change in temperature does not affect Greenland ice. That said, the IPCC predictions for sea level rise are conservative, and do take into account the projected increase in Antarctic mass, so I'm still not sure what your point was.


Misleading story
By The Cunctator on 8/9/2007 9:02:56 PM , Rating: 1
The error was in the US surface temperature record, not in the global temperature record. It is actually correct that 1998 is not the hottest year on record any more -- that is now 2005. I commend Steve McIntyre for his attention to detail.

Just to drive in the point, the top twenty hottest years on earth since 1880:
* 2005
* 1998
* 2002
* 2003
* 2006
* 2004
* 2001
* 1997
* 1995
* 1990
* 1991
* 2000
* 1999
* 1988
* 1996
* 1987
* 1983
* 1981
* 1994
* 1944




RE: Misleading story
By grenableu on 8/9/2007 9:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
Totally wrong. NASA admitted months ago they made a mistake about 2005. Also your list (even when it was thought correct) was only for the Nrthern hemisphere, not the entire world. Now, this latest mistake will change the ranking of other years in that list also.


RE: Misleading story
By novacthall on 8/10/2007 8:42:37 AM , Rating: 5
Being one of the uneducated masses, myself, I request that you provide a source for you list. This goes directly counter to what Michael's post above states, quote:
quote:
In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.

Performing an Excel dump, then sort of the data Michael provides, the list looks like this:
(Year::Average::5yr Average)
1934::1.25::0.44
1998::1.23::0.51
1921::1.15::0.15
2006::1.13::*
1931::1.08::0.27
1999::0.93::0.69
1953::0.9::0.32
1990::0.87::0.4
1938::0.86::0.36
1939::0.85::0.45
1954::0.85::0.47
1987::0.83::0.25
2001::0.76::0.65
1986::0.73::0.29
1946::0.72::0.17
1991::0.69::0.25
2005::0.69::*
1933::0.68::0.61
1981::0.64::-0.02
1941::0.61::0.35
source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Years after 1945 are bolded. The list supports the initial claim that only five of the top ten are post-World War II, whereas your list has 19 of the top 20 years being warmest.

I'm not saying one is right or wrong, but I'm just trying to get my ducks in a row.


RE: Misleading story
By The Cunctator on 8/10/2007 2:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
We are both correct, but are looking at different data.

Only 5 of the 10 hottest years in the contiguous lower 48 states occured after World War II.

19 of the 20 hottest years on the planet occured after World War II.

Subarctic land surface temperatures have a much greater variability than do arctic or oceanic surface temperatures.

The lower-48 US and global temperature records have very similar trendlines (0.48C/century vs. 0.55C/century) but the US has a much greater variability (R-squared of 0.14 vs. R-squared of 0.73).

There's a reason it's called global warming, not lower-48 warming.

The local effects are much more variable and less predictable, which increases the risk factor calculation since the effects aren't being averaged out on the local level.


RE: Misleading story
By grenableu on 8/10/2007 3:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We are both correct, but are looking at different data
Yet you've failed to provide the source of your data though you've been asked twice. I strongly suspect its based on the same GISS readings which has been corrected twice now. The first of those corrections took 2005 off the list entirely, but you still incorrectly show it as top of the heap.


of course we won't hear about this anywhere else!
By johnsonx on 8/9/2007 1:44:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.


Obviously you are part of the well-funded anti global warming disinformation machine!




By deeznuts on 8/9/2007 2:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
Somebody's been listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning or maybe read Newseek? Lol, I just heard about this report and that term this morning. I have a choice to listen to music (too early for me, I'm groggy) Rush, Jim Rome or Money 101.

Not great choices.


By johnsonx on 8/10/2007 12:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
I was referring to the laughable Newsweek article trumpetted by MSN.

I found their 'Global Warming Timeline' graph most interesting. I couldn't help but notice the absence of the equally dire Global Cooling predictions on the timeline... including Newsweek's own doom and gloom stories from the era.


By Ringold on 8/11/2007 3:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
All part of the reason I dropped my Newsweek subscription long ago. If I wanted a liberal news organization to make me feel bad as a human, I'd turn on CNN!


NYTimes picked this up
By gdillon on 8/10/2007 4:32:58 PM , Rating: 6
Just a FYI, the NYTimes blog The Opinionator picked this story up and is citing DT:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/ho...

~g




RE: NYTimes picked this up
By dluther on 8/14/2007 8:10:00 AM , Rating: 1
Wow.

A blog, citing another blog as a source, which cites yet another blog as it's source.

. . .


RE: NYTimes picked this up
By onelittleindian on 8/14/2007 10:35:25 AM , Rating: 2
Are you trying to imply its all unsubstantiated? Since NASA already admitted they were wrong, you're climbing up the wrong tree.


Quite the Effort
By ChronoReverse on 8/9/2007 12:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm amazed at the great volunteer effort put into this to analyse the data to be able to find a bug in NASA's code.

BTW, http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868 gives a Wordpress error.




RE: Quite the Effort
By grenableu on 8/9/2007 12:57:05 PM , Rating: 3
The words 'unsung hero' leap to mind. Truly amazing work.


RE: Quite the Effort
By cchittleborough on 8/10/2007 3:16:42 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, McIntyre has put a great deal of time and skill into his auditing project. And he's been so successful that someone has now paid him the great compliment of DDOSing his website into silence. (Isn't that special?) His webmaster hopes to have it back on the innertubes within a few days, behind a much better firewall.


Facinating
By Timetheos on 8/10/2007 1:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
With all this discussion about data validity (which is good by the way; peer reviews are how science works), there seems to be 2 major problems:
1) The bringing of political views. Rather than accusing the other side of preaching partisan views, present data on why the existing data is right or wrong.
2) The ignoring of physical observation. Global warming is occuring, as measured by the reduction in the majority of glaciers and the nothern ice plate.




RE: Facinating
By grenableu on 8/10/2007 2:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
The Southern ice plate is increasing, though. And the Northern ice cap has been melting steadily for the last 7,000 years, so that fact alone certainly doesn't prove mankind is responsible for some looming catastrophe.


RE: Facinating
By Timetheos on 8/10/2007 2:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
What southern ice plate? Antarctica is a continent not an ice plate.

Would you please post a reference to help clarify my understanding?


RE: Facinating
By Fritzr on 8/12/2007 5:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
The Antarctic ice plate is the largely unbroken glacial ground cover. It is sliding off the continent into the ocean in the same manner as the tourist friendly glaciers of Greenland and Alaska. One of the measurements affecting the gain or loss of ice mass above sea level in the Antarctic is the rate of this glacial flow. It is uneven and there are 'rivers' of ice where the movement is faster than surrouning portions. When the ice is leaving faster than the buildup replaces the inland glacier, then you have a reduction in the ice plate. When the buildup is faster than you have a growth in the iceplate.


ROI of alternative energi
By jege on 8/11/2007 1:34:04 AM , Rating: 2
There is a couple of things about global warming which are never really considered.

First of all, using if you are a sceptic of man being the cause of global warming, your job should not be to dismiss evidence that we are. I would think that you should prove that carbon dioxide emision does not have an effect on global warming. Has anyone done that? Because if you think about, that is pretty much what you have to about any other product. Food sold in the civilized world must be healthy to eat. Lotions and pharmaceutical products must go through enormous testing to be accepted. Because we know things can go wrong. We also know that things which have been incredible good for mankind like the X-rays and nuclear power (even the nuclear bomb) can have catastrophic consquences when used in ill fashion.

So why do we not have to prove that fosile fuels have no consequences are "healthy"? Surely society should require retailers of fosile fuels to prove that their product is enviromentally sane, just like we do with everything else.

The other thing which strikes me as odd is why no one does the math. What is the cost of switching energy source. Let's look at the facts.

Right now our civilization is based almost completely on fosile fuels. If oil disappears and it will, then the whole thing will crumble, because we have no alternatives today and our infrastructure is not set on it.

Never mind that most of the worlds oil comes from a fairly politically unstable part of the world. Most estimates are that we will run out of oil in between 20 and 70 years. That's pretty bad if you think about. However, nobody knows. The oil companies do not report how much oil they have in their tanks so we don't know what the currect assets are. Nor do we know what is left on the planet. And the oil price is dictated by OPEC which pretty much desides what price oil should have. So is it really based on market price and is this a healthy way to control a limited resource which we are depending on? I don't think so.

Therefore it would make good sense to look at alternative energi. I know that in Denmark, where I am from, the switch 60 % of our energy from fosile fuels to windmills can be done by an investment of a mere 4 billion US dollars. More importantly the savings by switching energy source on society level is around 200 million US dollars a year. In my book that is a return of investment in 20 years after which the price of energy would be lower than the current price and certainly cleaner.

How does this scale up?

I thought about it but I did not do a careful analasis. The best I can figure is that even with pessimistic projections the whole world can be covered by clean renewable energy for a mere $ 20000 billion, perhaps with the same return of investment horizon of 20 years. Now if you think about it that's not so bad, because quite a lot of money is being spend on the war in Iraq.

The war in Iraq may be about a lot of things, but one of the key purposes was to ensure stability and control of large parts of oil in that region. This is important because most of the civilized world depends on oil. So actually you could see the money spend on Iraq as an investment in ensuring a stable energy source.

However, it is a bit like the old fashioned light bulb that you might buy for $4 vs. that new energy preserving one which costs 5 times as much (And the numbers are not even that different). We all know that the long term cost of the expensive light bulb are going to be lower than the cheap 100 year old technology. Yet we persist in buying the cheap light bulb? Why?

So my point is really.

We now have climate models that predicts that we are going to hit a wall with a car right now. The models are not perfect. Nor is the physics when it comes to hitting a wall. It is the first anyone is driving a car this fast. We can see the wall -- everyone knows there is global warming and that we are emitting gas. The question is simply what are the consequences. Now we might turn the wheel of the car and drive around the wall, but the sceptics say:"No, nothing is going to happen when we hit the wall at 100 miles per hour" and "It is cheaper driving through the wall". If you are a sceptic in this case it means you want to take chances because you feel it will be cheaper.

So the question is this. Is it really cheaper? Because I think that it will be a lot cheaper to switch energy sources anyway. Catastrophe or not. And certainly it is a lot safer since we do not really know the consequences of what we are doing.

I think it would be great if Dailytech could check into this. It would be a lot more important.

So what is really the cost and cost benefit of switching to renewable energy with the technology we have today? Is it like that light bulb cheaper in the long run? Or is it as the sceptics claim more expensive?

And I know there is lot of alternatives there. What about switching to wind energy and geothermal energy. Let's have some journalism on that. Let's top bashing each other of something which is almost a religious believe. It is hard to prove anything about climate models because it is hard to predict the future. But what about the financial stuff?

Of course, the oil industry might not be interested in this. However, Dailytech is indepedent, yes?

So let's hear it! And I am really curious about this!




RE: ROI of alternative energi
By disarticulate on 8/11/2007 8:23:11 PM , Rating: 2
The main benefit of alternative energy sources is that they're localize.

The less energy you spend to move energy the more energy you have, that's pure conservation.

The ideal system would have completely local, backyard distribution, such as solar panels on your house, with a redundant nationwide back up of any cobbled together infrastructure, including oil reserves.

When you talk about switching fuel sources, you have to talk about investment into all the different modes of transport and storage of said energy.

This is why hydrogen fuel cells are being investigated, not as a energy generation device, but as a storage medium.

Theres energy all around us, but there is not yet a better delivery method than oil.

Oil is the best medium we have to distribute energy for transport, and it's infrastructure is 100 years already in the making.

So talking about switching to another energy source requires considering the massive infrastructure being replicated for something such as another renewable energy source.

This is why they're investigating fuel cells that could be delivered in the same way as gas, so that gas stations will not completely shut.

When it comes to economics, you have to consider the large barriers to entry into any market.

Renewable energy has a very high barrier to entry, and when you suggest diverting tonnes of cash into building the necessary infrastructure, you have to account for the entire economic system that's based around it.

That's a hefty thing to do, just as it's complex to study the natural weather phenomenon. The science and the economics is not yet in on how feasible it would be from a political, environmental stand point.

Instead of spending your time writing your diatribe, you could go learn more about the many facets of the intersection of economics and environmental decisions.

Try the MIT class videos on google.


RE: ROI of alternative energi
By jege on 8/12/2007 1:04:07 AM , Rating: 2
Diatribe? Most of the stuff in this discussion does sound like that, but I was trying to avoid it.

With respect to distributing energy, I think we use electric wires for most of it today. Hybrid cars are being sold now, so that technology exists. I don't really think distribution is a huge problem anymore.

However, my point is that global warming may be a good reason although not the only one to look at replacing energy sources. Our current energy sources are not all that great.

We will have to switch anyway, eventually. Right now we are discussing if we should or not. So is it really that complicated? Does it really take a lot of cash? I looked up some of the things. I was wrong about what I wrote previously. In my country they did the maths. Use wind for 50% of the energy and it costs $50 extra a year per person for a 20 year period. After that, the price is the same as the current price.

$50 a year over 20 years... Granted that's only for the first half of the energy.

Now I have trouble believing that most people in the western world do not have an extra $50 to spend. People buy useless stuff all the time. I understand you may have different priorities. But if the energy will cost the same after 20 years?

Oil prices will most likely climb as depots run out. So in the end you could end up saving a lot of money by switching energy. Especially if the margin is just $50 per person a year with current prices. I at least spend a lot more on electricity than that.

Of course, wind might not work for everyone but there are other alternatives and they will keep getting better. I suppose I should watch the MIT videos, but it will take longer than reading about it and most people will not read about it. Have you watched them?

Most sceptics about global warming say that it is too expensive to be careful. Well... What if it is not? What if it is actually cheaper?

I cannot image it can be that complicated to do the maths. You calculate how much it costs to put up the devices for renable energy, determine the price maintenance required and take into accout over how long a period they last. Then you compare with current prices of energy. At least that would work for electricity.

Most cars are replaced after a 10 year period anyway so there is a constant change there. I guess modern factories are all based on electricity. Then there is not much left to replace. Yes, it might take some time to replace. So let's get started now!

The complicated thing about it, is that it is going to be huge pill to swallow for people working in the oil business. Society? Well, society will base its energy on multiple sources which do not depend on political climate, so I think everyone will be happy.

Diverting money into renewable energy will likely stay in the country, so that would be better than diverting them into the pockets of oil sheiks who might use them to for terror.

Now I am going to write my diatribe: It would help immensely if the current unoffcial world leader was not affiliated with the oil industry, which is more than happy about the war in Iraq, and if his focus moved from the non-issue of terror. Terror has been part of human history for thousands of years when a group of people feel oppressed, so good luck fighting that.


By onelittleindian on 8/12/2007 10:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have trouble believing that most people in the western world do not have an extra $50 to spend
You live in Denmark, one of the very best sites in the world for locations with strong reliable winds. Your numbers are meaningless for the rest of the world.

Here in the US wind power is 5-7 times more expensive than other sources. Switching to it would cost the average family several thousand dollars per year. And even if we wanted to generate 50% of our electricity from wind we couldn't. There just aren't that many good locations for wind farms here.


AGW movement
By werepossum on 8/13/2007 7:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
Good entry, Asher. I always get a chuckle from the relative difference in media attention between pro-AGW and anti-AGW science news.

What grinds my gears is the blatant and rampant dishonesty by the pro-AGW crowd. (Witness the demise of the MWP, the dismissal of the Little Ice Age, and almost pathological reliance on ice core data - in spite of the fact that ice core CO2 data does not correlate at all with other, datable phenomena.) If combatting global warming is so important that you're willing to lie to convince us, please don't claim to be a scientist. (Looking at you, Hansen.) Pop culture media would have us believe it is now warmer than it has ever been, in spite of facts like farms being discovered under retreating ice in Greenland, villages and mines being discovered under retreating ice in the Alps (with passes still not usable which were crossed in the MWP), evidence of crop culture in the Andes not possible in today's climate. Everyone knows the Earth is gradually warming from the last ice age as well as from the Little Ice Age. AGW is being marketed every bit as aggressively as a computer whose manufacturer cuts off the graph to make its 2% advantage look like a 2000% advantage. Not surprisingly, the preferred solutions - less personal freedom, more government control, and lower standards of living for Westerners (and Americans in particular) - are the same as were suggested (might I say demanded?) to combat catestrophic global cooling in the 70's.

That being said, I'm actually glad we're going to begin regulating CO2 output. Acidification of smaller streams,especially oligotrophic montane and alpine streams with little buffering capacity, and oligotrophic natural lakes is doing a great deal of damage to aquatic ecosystems, and probably doing a good deal of the damage seen in coral reefs regardless of increasing temperatures. Excess CO2 - hell, excess anything - can have nasty consequences.

And I think the desired quote is:

You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think. At least, that's what the T-shirt says.




RE: AGW movement
By piotrr on 8/14/2007 10:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
If you want honesty in this debate, might I suggest that you not deliberately use local weather-pattern changes as an argument against global climate change?

In other words, using the European Middle-age Warm Period as a way of saying "It's not that warm now!" is misleading in two ways. It is confusing the regional with the global, and it is failing to mention the fact that the middle-age warm period was no way near as warm, even locally in the affected regions, as it is today.

Greenland, Alps, Andes... three examples of local weather differences, very much like how Norway can be cold and Sweden warm, how Canada can be arable when Greenland is not, and neither one any form of evidence against global warming. Yet that is how you present them. One must wonder what the motivation is for doing that.

/ Per


RE: AGW movement
By onelittleindian on 8/14/2007 10:42:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
it is failing to mention the fact that the middle-age warm period was no way near as warm, even locally in the affected regions, as it is today
Wrong. First of all, its the Medieval Warm Period. And it was much warmer then than now. Even today, as glaciers retreat in Greenland, we find farms and towns underneath the miles of ice, places that were occupied during the MWP. That's how Greenland got its name. It was a green, warm, island at the time.

And the MWP wasn't a "regional" warming. We just don't records to show how much warming existed in the Southern hemisphere. That doesn't mean it wasn't happening though.


RE: AGW movement
By piotrr on 8/17/2007 8:16:40 AM , Rating: 2
Middle-ages, medieval, potato, potato, you know very well what I mean, and the mean temperature in Europe at the time was well below tha tof the past 50 years. The problem with trying to say that it was not regional to Europe is that when you attempt to connect it to warm periods in other parts of the world, notably Australia, you suddenly get a MWP that stretches for two hundred years and wasn't warm in all places at once, which sorts of defeats the definition of a global event.

As we lack confirmation that this was a global event, there is no reason to assume that it was.

/ Per


Isn't There a 2nd Error Being Corrected?
By DWPittelli on 8/9/2007 5:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps I am just confused. But how could a Y2K glitch with a January 2000 break affect the relative positions of 1934 and 1998, both years before 2000? It would seem that the corrected data must include a second factor other than the Y2K break.




RE: Isn't There a 2nd Error Being Corrected?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/9/2007 5:51:48 PM , Rating: 1
1934 wasn't affected, but 1998 was. Apparently the GISS algorithm uses a filtering process by which temperature anomalies are checked against a few years both before and afterwards. So the large error on years 2000-2006 led to a small error for 1998-1999. Once corrected, 1998 was no longer the hottest year on record.


By Suomynona on 8/10/2007 1:40:27 PM , Rating: 4
It wasn't a "Y2K bug" at all. "Y2K bug" refers to the imprecision introduced by small data types that have a range of 0-99 being used for the year. That has nothing to do with this supposed error, which was allegedly introduced by relying upon a different source for US surface temperature data post-2000. The fact that it's coincident with the year 2000 does not make it a "Y2K bug."

I'm afraid I'm quite new to this website, but whoever wrote the story at the top of this page is a bonehead.


By the way
By AlexWade on 8/9/2007 2:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
Reto Ruedy or James Hansen or both were big John Kerry contributers, I forget which. But I do know for a fact that one or both of these two put money in the Kerry presidential campaign. In other words, there was a reason why they said "Bush was silencing them", because they were trying to help John Kerry's campaign. You'll have to give me lots and lots of time to find the links to prove that.




RE: By the way
By grenableu on 8/9/2007 2:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
Hansen was the one who gave big to Kerry. And he said he was being 'silenced' because one low-level staffer sent him an email saying it "might be more appropriate" if someone else gave one particular interview.

I found it funny that, in the 12 months prior, he gave over 400 official interviews in his NASA role, over 30 of them in the very same month he claimed all this in.


RE: By the way
By warnergt on 8/9/2007 4:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Dr. James Hansen who runs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies obstructed the investigation that found this problem. He clearly runs counter to the intent of the whole taxpayer funded program which is to understand the climate in the most objective and thorough way. He should be fired.


Juse use Common Sense
By Dharl on 8/10/2007 11:07:44 AM , Rating: 2
First off Steve McIntyre should be commended for his work on proofing NASA's data. As well as anyone else on an associated team. It's people like him that allow for discussion of an issue. So many topics are forced upon people without any counter-points. This is one reason I cannot stand to watch or read any Mainstream Media. Case in point: Last night's CNN update on the trapped miners. The anchor kept badgering the official to try and make him say the miners are dead or are most likely dead. "It's been 72 hours sir. Don't you think all hope is lost?" "Sir wouldn't you say the chances of these men being found alive is unlikely." ...

Masher2 you should be commended as well. For a long time now I've been asking people very simple questions pertaining to global warming. Yet the only response I am blessed with reminds me of Chicken Little and the sky is falling. Blindly following whatever Mainstream Media or people like Al Gore tell them.

Katrina & Rita are prime examples of this. The season that spawned these two Hurricanes was a record breaking season to say the least. Yet the following year was one of the mildest in memory. If global warming was only becoming progressively worse... wouldn't each successive year be worse than the last? Where are the next Katrina and Rita? I guess Mother Nature was tired after her hard work with those two storms. She'll be back with her full fury after a short nap.

Common sense will tell you it's all a pattern. Ever heard of the Farmer's Almanac? Anyone can look at data and see patterns in the weather, temperatures, etc. It's the cycle of life.




RE: Juse use Common Sense
By Timetheos on 8/10/2007 1:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If global warming was only becoming progressively worse... wouldn't each successive year be worse than the last?


Even in a progessive system, you will get variation from year to year. Furthermore, the weather is changing so you may, for example, see a wet season in one area one year, then dry the next, as the various jet streams and such change.


RE: Juse use Common Sense
By bfonnes on 8/10/2007 4:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
The weather system is a very complex system and it's unlikely to see linear change in such a complex system.

I wanted to point something out that I never hear anyone talk about...

http://www.nineplanets.org/venus.html

The pressure of Venus' atmosphere at the surface is 90 atmospheres (about the same as the pressure at a depth of 1 km in Earth's oceans). It is composed mostly of carbon dioxide. There are several layers of clouds many kilometers thick composed of sulfuric acid. These clouds completely obscure our view of the surface. This dense atmosphere produces a run-away greenhouse effect that raises Venus' surface temperature by about 400 degrees to over 740 K (hot enough to melt lead). Venus' surface is actually hotter than Mercury's despite being nearly twice as far from the Sun.

Venus probably once had large amounts of water like Earth but it all boiled away. Venus is now quite dry. Earth would have suffered the same fate had it been just a little closer to the Sun. We may learn a lot about Earth by learning why the basically similar Venus turned out so differently.


From what I understand, we first started developing theories about global warming based on planetary science and on discoveries from various satellites and space probes. This new information helped us to first understand the effects of carbon dioxide as it pertains to warming. The changes occurring now were predicted. It's not just someone looking back at temperature data over the past 20 years or "localized heating due to urban development" as masher puts it (unless you are referring to automobile pollution).


Check the new data on a graph!
By Lou Cabron on 8/10/2007 10:53:17 PM , Rating: 6
See what this data looks like when you put it on a graph!

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/08/10/ne...

This article also goes through Daily Tech's post point-by-point, and offers a statistical analysis on whether the graph confirms global warming or rebuts it.




By thepudds on 8/11/2007 12:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's not really a Y2K bug in the conventional sense, and it has nothing to do with Y2K software compliance. It's more like 2000 happened to be the year that the organization collecting the temperature data in the USA changed their procedures for correcting the data for the "time of day" that the temperature reading was taken. This meant a slight difference between the pre-2000 dataset and the 2000-and-later dataset, which is the inconsistency correctly recognized by the guy mentioned in the article.

So, it's merely a coincidence that the change happened to occur in 2000. It could have happened any other year. Referring to this as a result of a "Y2K bug" is misleading. If it is, then anything that changed in 2000 could be called a "Y2K bug".

I don't think demoting 1998 to the 2nd-highest US temperature in a century (barely -- by 0.01 annual average degree) is a big deal either. 1998 is an awfully close second. I also wouldn't ascribe much to the the claim that "half" the top ten years in the US were before WWII (1921, 1931, 1934, 1938). Last I checked, 4 is less than half of ten :-) Two others were in the 1950s (1953, 1954), and the rest were 1990, 1998, 1999, and 2006. Perhaps this is merely indicating that, in the US, lately it's been the hottest it's been since the "dust bowl" years. That's not a pleasant thought.

The TOP 10 annual temperature years in the US are (celcius degrees from mean):

year annual 5-year mean
1 1934 1.25 0.44
2 1998 1.23 0.51
3 1921 1.15 0.15
4 2006 1.13
5 1931 1.08 0.27
6 1999 0.93 0.69
7 1953 0.90 0.32
8 1990 0.87 0.40
9 1938 0.86 0.36
10 1954 0.85 0.47

If you look at the top ten ranking for the 5-year means, the pattern is pretty clear:
1 2000 0.52 0.79
2 1999 0.93 0.69
3 2004 0.44 0.66
4 2001 0.76 0.65
5 1932 0.00 0.63
6 1933 0.68 0.61
7 2003 0.50 0.58
8 2002 0.53 0.55
9 1998 1.23 0.51
10 1988 0.32 0.51

The 1930s are down at 5th and 6th place. 2005 and 2006 are left out because you can't calculate a 5-year window around them yet.

Finally, the error changes the GLOBAL pattern insignificantly, and the global trend in the last couple of decades is greater than the USA trend.

In all, it's a worthwhile error to catch for the US data, but it doesn't change much about the overall pattern.

Grabbed from a slashdot comment.




By grenableu on 8/11/2007 12:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(1921, 1931, 1934, 1938). Last I checked, 4 is less than half of ten :-)
You forgot 1939. That makes 5 of the 10 hottest years before WW2.

quote:
this is merely indicating that, in the US, lately it's been the hottest it's been since the "dust bowl" years. That's not a pleasant thought
Way to be misleading. The "dust bowl" was about ground erosion in the midwest, and had nothing to do with temperature.

You people really are funny. When the data indicates 1998 is the hottest year, you claim its a crisis. When the data indicates 1934 is, you say one year doesn't matter and start mumbling about "five year averages".

It got hot in the 1930s then cooled off. Its getting hot now, and it will cool off again. The planet is still not nearly as hot as it was a thousand years ago and we survived just then fine.


By tcsenter on 8/15/2007 8:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Finally, the error changes the GLOBAL pattern insignificantly, and the global trend in the last couple of decades is greater than the USA trend. In all, it's a worthwhile error to catch for the US data, but it doesn't change much about the overall pattern.
Ah...so one of the most wealthy and modern countries in the world, which spends tens of billions per annum supporting extensive public programs, projects, initiatives, agencies and services for the purpose of scientific inquiry and research, is newly finding flaws in its unrivaled regional system of over 1200 weather stations heavily utilized as a key baseline data set in support of global warming alarmism, but this is not really a problem because we still have key baseline datasets for the rest of the 'globe' provided by all those other systems in countries or regions like India, Pakistan, Indonesia, China, Russia, Africa, and South America?

WOW.


1985
By warnergt on 8/9/2007 4:29:47 PM , Rating: 5
1985 is significant because that is the year they installed a window air conditioner next to the temperature sensor.




By Nukeitout on 8/9/2007 7:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
If you go to the following link you will see that NASA hasn't changed it to reflect their incorrect data. It is sad that kids in schools are having the global warming crap forced down their throats.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_world...

I wonder how long it will take for NASA to make the appropriate changes.

Has anyone heard of how Al Gore is feeling about the data correction. I bet he had to count to ten a couple of times.

I went to foxnews.com and did a search for "nasa temperature data". It is interesting that they don't have anything along those lines on their website. How can we influence MSM (Main Stream Media) to put up the latest news on very controversial topics?

I am very happy that Rush Limbaugh talked about the data correction. I am also very proud that people are taking action to investigate supposed data for inaccuracies.

Keep up the good work!

Johnny




By Suomynona on 8/9/2007 8:56:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It is sad that kids in schools are having the global warming crap forced down their throats.


It's even more sad they have to have that evolutionism crap forced down their throats.


By etherreal on 8/10/2007 1:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
You mean, so that we can cram Intelligent Design instead?

How about, instead of propogandizing our children, we teach them the scientific method instead?


Stevenson screens
By Stephen Jones on 8/10/2007 9:13:52 AM , Rating: 3
The pre-WW2figures are higher because it was not general practice to use Stevenson screens. Adjusted for that the highest temperatures are the most recent ones.




RE: Stevenson screens
By masher2 (blog) on 8/10/2007 9:31:43 AM , Rating: 1
Stevenson Screens were invented over 150 years ago. If you visit my previous column on the subject, you'll see such a screen on an NOAA weather station, circa 1935. Visit the site linked in that article, and you'll see many modern-day stations that *should* be screened, but are not:

http://www.dailytech.com/NOAA+Global+Warming+Data+...

Claiming pre-WW2 temperatures are higher because of inadequate shielding doesn't stand up to the facts. A much larger effect is urbanization, which is continually putting stations in contact with persistent heat islands.


New glacial melting news
By Rovemelt on 8/10/2007 5:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
While Masher feeds his personal agenda through DailyTech in the form of concern trolling, global ice continues to decline and coral reefs are disappearing faster than previously thought (both reports came out this week.)

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action...

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Some new findings showing a historic sea ice minimum and acceleration of melting ice and accelerated loss of coral reefs.

The data correction that the bloggers discovered has little impact on the overall finding that human activity is contributing to global climate change. It's good that someone found this error and that the correction was made to the dataset, but unfortunately it doesn't significantly change the temperature trends which continue upward, as confirmed by both satellite and surface measurements.




RE: New glacial melting news
By Procurion on 8/12/2007 7:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
How short-sighted. What those of us that question this frenzy are saying is NOT that we should stop trying to act responsibly concerning the environement-that has never been said by ANYONE who's questioning the data. That hyperbole comes from the other side, in this manner "If you question this, then your an ass and irresponsible".

Questioning data that covers 100 years(reliably) when our planet cycles are thousands of years long isn't irresponsible. As said above, when we had the cold period in the late 70's the hue and cry was that we were heading for a possible ice-age. A thinking person who approaches this as such understands the need to treat the environment with as much respect as we can but doesn't take the information as golden because the only information offered is about the equivalent of one-half a second in the earths' day.

The "samples" being offered are woefully inadequate and references to condtions from thousands and millions of year ago(greenhouse gases present in ice samples) are being used to demonstrate that global warming is here. Did the dinosaurs drive cars? Did the dinosaurs generate electricity? When core samples are drilled, they are ONLY a snapshot of that exact moment. I'm not arguing that we don't need to cut emissions-we do. I'm not saying we shouldn't be worried.

I AM saying that these greenhouse gases are what occupies space when our atmosphere is hot-it is a chemical function of our atmosphere. Without one human on the planet we could take readings and get increased greenhouse gases whenever the atmosphere gets hot. Even the function of these greenhouse gases are suspect also. Continue to do what we are doing, try to improve our "record", but also understand that this is mostly a bait-and-switch so that people are paying attention to this and not paying attention to other things.


RE: New glacial melting news
By dluther on 8/20/07, Rating: 0
Wow!
By Ichinisan on 8/14/2007 12:05:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is huge. JunkScience.com is going to have a field day with this!




RE: Wow!
By CZroe on 8/14/2007 1:05:34 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I think http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ will need a serious update!


Too many counter-points to each point
By piotrr on 8/14/2007 10:23:19 AM , Rating: 2
There are too many counter-points and not enough points made in this debate. Too many people rush to defend the fringe believers, the people who think they have found a conspiracy or that one piece of data that somehow proves all other data false. Possibly because such a discovery would be monumental, and these vocal advocates of their own theories want to be famous, more than they want to be right.

The news, and this is a news article, will continue to report on things out of the ordinary. About men biting dogs, about fishes out of water and about data that has not yet been incorporated into the climate model. But do not delude yourself, dear reader, into thinking that the balance of reporting somehow means that more men bite dogs than vice versa, that more fishes are out of water than in it, or that climatologists who disagree with the majority must be right.

I can see how anyone would root for the underdog. I can see how anyone would be attracted to the idea of undearthing a hidden conspiracy, be the next Bob Woodward. But I am more interested in the scientificly arrived-at most probable model, and I am content that it is actually so well-established, that only its "counter-point" are reported on with such vigor.

/ Per




By Christopher1 on 8/18/2007 3:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
Really, we need to tread carefully on this matter. Do we need to decrease carbon dioxide emissions? Yes, but that is not going to happen unless we kill off half the earth's population of animals and humans (which anyone who suggests doing that is a nutcase that needs to be put in a mental institution for the protection of society) or plant more trees and other things around the world.
Do we need to cut down on the use of fossil fuels? Yes, but right now there is no other fuel source that comes close to the power of fossil fuels. We could make our cars more fuel efficient, and really should have by now..... but the big corporations keep on lying to us about it costing too much.


Complex Non-Linear Systems and Human Hysteria
By skroh on 8/14/2007 5:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
For a thoughtful exploration of the issues surrounding the global warming debate, I highly recommend this article by Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park etc. and a Harvard-trained scientist:

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironme...

Any of the other speeches on his site are also highly enlightening. We have a problem, a serious problem, in our society with the gap between the perception of the objectivity of science and the reality. Science is practiced by human beings, with all of their prejudices, emotionalisms, and ethical shortcomings included.




By piotrr on 8/17/2007 8:21:05 AM , Rating: 2
A "Harvard-trained" doctor of medicine who once plagiarized Orwell. As a scientist, I am sure he will understand if I prefer to get my climate data from climatologists, rather than from medical doctors and thriller authors.

Yes, I have read him too.

/ Per


Something fishy going on here
By dluther on 8/13/2007 9:27:32 AM , Rating: 1
There's something that just doesn't quite make sense to me, so if some intrepid soul with insight into the algorithm used to provide this data has the answers, I'd be very grateful.

First of all, how does the date affect the temperature? Is there some kind of sliding "heat index" scale being used, where 94deg/F in 1944 is somehow analogous to 97deg/F in 1988? Adjust the timeline all you want, but 102deg/F is still 102deg/F.

Second, if the "corrected" data modifies the actual temperatures, the integrity of both the original data, and especially the "corrected" data must to be called into question.

Third, the 1998 data shouldn't be affected by so-called "Y2K" bugs for obvious reasons.

Finally, consider the source. Michael Asher has an unrivaled track record of "reporting" any news that supports is self-admitted agenda of furthering the cause of global warming detractors. In fact, the linkage provided seems to not be so much of a story than it is an opportunity for Michael to say "see, I told you so."

Remember folks, this is a blog -- not a news story. There is no oversight, no fact checking or data validation other than what the author says, no efforts to contact official sources for comment or rebuttal, and he is using links to other 'blogs' as sources. While this may seem part of the great new frontier in journalism, it's only someone's online diary. Allowing people to anonymously post opinion as facts or "news" does not allow for any kind of journalistic integrity, and if this is what "news" is devolving to, then I'd say we have a lot more than global warming to worry about.

-- Dan




By onelittleindian on 8/13/2007 11:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
Wake up, NASA already acknowledged the error. My local TV station reported this yesterday, along with about a thousand other sites now. Its not something Asher just made up.


Y2K bug?
By afstanton on 8/10/2007 1:25:48 AM , Rating: 1
I'm not going to take credit for this, but as pointed out here http://www.crazyontap.com/topic.php?TopicId=21550#... - how would a Y2K bug alter 1998 data?




RE: Y2K bug?
By nekobawt on 8/10/2007 11:07:09 AM , Rating: 1
Hot and Cold
By pubwvj on 8/11/2007 9:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
Way back in the 1970's the scientists warned us of the dangers of an impending global chilling, a new ice age. Now it is global warming. Historically the temperature goes up and down. It's reality. Given my preferences I would much prefer global warming rather than global chilling. I know full well what deep winter is like - we don't want an ice age. In comparison, global warming is a walk in the park.

Cheers

-Walter
Sugar Mountain Farm
in the mountains of Vermont
http://SugarMtnFarm.com/blog/




global warming
By Karolynaz on 8/13/2007 12:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
no wonder USA don't care about climate & nature. If there is so many negative emotion about this article:( to bad, New York will go first.




The title of the story is wrong!
By alefsin on 8/14/2007 12:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
According to RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007... this had nothing to do with a Y2K bug! Moreover, it didn't have any statistically significant impact on the results.




Talk Radio
By wxrecon54 on 8/9/07, Rating: -1
"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Related Articles
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki