Archive for January, 2009

We’re praying for global warming now?

Got this link sent to me. It’s an op-ed penned by John Tomlinson about global warning and the skepticism surrounding it.

I’m going to pick apart his argument. I actually don’t care what side he’s on, but I do care when bad data starts getting thrown around.

If you’re wondering why North America is starting to resemble nuclear winter, then you missed the news.

Climate change is about changes in volatility, not trend.

At December’s U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650 of the world’s top climatologists stood up and said man-made global warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?”

I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a ridiculous thing? But it turns out he’s right.

650 people sounds like a lot. But the conference had 11,000 participants. That’s a 5% deviance, which is a poor statistical result. Also, David Gee specializes in geology and tectonic plates, not in cliamatology, although he has some experience in the arctic so there may be a vertical there.

The earth’s temperature peaked in 1998. It’s been falling ever since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when temperatures touched 1980 levels.

That’s quite a small data set. If I were to turn around and say that the trend has been up for 20 years, then you would complain about the data set as well. Again, I don’t care about the results of the data but the statistically insignificant sample size.

Meanwhile, the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice is back to 1979 levels. What’s more, measurements of Antarctic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.

That data may be true, but the conclusions that they are reaching are the exact opposite of what you are advocating.

In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going to melt Antarctica? But don’t worry, we’re safe now, that was the nineties.

Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan’s Institute of Science and Technology said this: “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other … every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.” Now why would a learned man say such a crazy thing?

I found the source that you used, and apparently Dr. Kunihiko is a specialist in uranium enrichment, not the climate. It just seems that his views align with yours so it’s quite convinient to quote him.

This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth’s temperature rise. But ask yourself — if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise — how can it be true?

Once again, bad sample size and bad conclusions.

Ironically, in spite of being shown false, we must now pray for it. Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age.

In the same article you source, the say ‘The Russian academy, meanwhile, did not use its predictions to weigh in on whether greenhouse gases will lead to catastrophic global warming.” Stop using selective listening.

Based on core samples from Russia’s Vostok Station in Antarctica, we now know earth’s atmosphere and temperature for the last 420,000 years. This evidence suggests that the 12,000 years of warmth we call the Holocene period is over.

There’s no evidence that the Holocene period is over. Also, the Vostok ice core sample, although one of the largest ice cores we have taken, has some interpretation problems.

Apparently, we’re headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years — give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth’s temperature rise, not lead it.

Bad conclusions from the data.

It turns out CO2 fluctuations follow the change in sea temperature. As water temperatures rise, oceans release additional dissolved CO2 — like opening a warm brewsky.

Great analogy for the average joe. It’s a bit of a more complicated system than that.

To think, early last year, liberals suggested we spend 45 trillion dollars and give up five million jobs to fix global warming. But there is good news: now that we don’t have to spend any of that money, we can give it all to the banks.

I hope we don’t give it to the banks, we could discuss economics, but that’s obviously beyond the scope of the article.

This is what happens when politics get involved with science. Selective data and sources are used to prove a point or a political view, but if the data is bad then we should consider the political view to be invalid until proper evidence is garnered.

Once again, I don’t care about the actual political view, it’s the abdication of intellectual responsibility on the part of the author’s to try and match a worldview.