Junk Science

[AikiRooster]

I used to help the environment a lot, I used to pee on trees when I was in the field. Does that count?

 

[A Can of Man]

Actually very bad for the tree. -1.

 

[perseus]

You still haven't answered this point:
Many of the sensing stations have been affected because of the urban heat island effect. Cities as they grow bigger and bigger also grow hotter and hotter. Many of these sensors, even if they were not on the edge of the towns or cities have been affected by this phenomenon.

The 13th redneck

There are some sites specifically dedicated to these sort of questions, this is one of the best answers to this particular one

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/224634/48

The only year for which a significant error was found was 1945, which partly addresses the issue MontyB mentioned to a limited extent. This proves the records aren't infallible, but it is important not to blow this out of context.

The sudden drop in temperatures in 1945 now appears to be an artefact of a switch from using mainly US ships to collect sea surface temperature data to using mainly UK ships. The two fleets used a different method. The temperature record is currently being updated to reflect this bias, but in essence it means that the cooling after 1940 was more gradual and less pronounced than previously thought.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11639

This link also confirms the issue about sulphate's and cooling more generally. Incidentally Aerosols scatter light as well as form clouds as indicated

 

[A Can of Man]

Checked out your site. The temperature map is a temperature anomaly map. Which in turn doesn't tell us the full picture. We need an actual temperature map. If you say there really is no difference, well that's going to shock me to hell. I'll have you stand in a clearing in a forest (no shade) and then try standing the same sort of time out in an open area smack in the middle of the city. Let's see where you pass out first.
As you can probably tell, these areas have been urbanized for a long time, so if you compare the darn thing to temperature data going back to 1950, you're still not doing very good because those areas were urbanized anyway so the rise in temperature would be gradual. Compare that to say 1800 (I challenge you to find accurate temperature readings) and you'll probably see a huge difference.

 

[perseus]

Checked out your site. The temperature map is a temperature anomaly map. Which in turn doesn't tell us the full picture. We need an actual temperature map.

A temperature anomoly picture combined with an urbanisation picture is surely what you need. This shows the temperature difference now relative to some average reference period in the past for every area on the earth. If areas that have no urbanisation show a large increase in temperature then urbanisation cannot have anything to do with it. In practice the largest anomolies are outside the urban areas as you can see. Of course even those temperatures within urban areas would be corrected for any heat island effect.

 

[A Can of Man]

No you need the urbanization map with an actual temperature map. Actual temperatures. One at 2PM and one at 2AM (or something similar to that nature).
But I don't think you're willing to listen enough to figure out why you'd need those two readings.
When you go into anomalies, you're already going straight into analysis. You have to go through a lot of steps before you get your neat little anomaly map. Lots of variables, lots of parameters and all.

 

[perseus]

Sorry, I just don't understand why you require this information or how to get it. Do you wish a full proof that the measurements made in heat islands have been adjusted properly to account for the heating effect. London is always a bit warmer than the surrounding countryside, why not just ignore these and focus on the countryside? Perhaps you think all the temperatures may be unrepresentative due to some man made artifact. Do any of these not answer you questions?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/population/article2abstract.pdf

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43

 

[Del Boy]

We are told today in a new book by MacKay, one of our Physics academics, that our personal efforts at effecting the issue are too small to count in the scheme of things, amounting to 1% of requirement; Windmills would need to cover an area twice the size of Wales to keep up. He claims that our action requirement is that of demanding big action from politicians to do either that or provide other big technology, or hurry forward nuclear power replenishment. Yes, we can affect the issue ourselves, by pressurising them to develop the big answer which will contribute, and not allow them to pass the buck by once again loading our shoulders.

We should be asking - 'what are going to do about it'. 'Al Gore - real solutions please'!
Instead of that they simply want to tell us that it is our fault.

 

[perseus]

Del Boy

It's difficult to distinguish between the politicians and the electorate, don't they really represent our views (on average) but act as our whipping boy to take the unpopular decisions? If not why do we vote them in (I am talking generally since I assume you are Conservative, not much difference nowadays anyway).

The recent increase on energy prices over here is partly down to wind and nuclear, it is cheaper to use coal and gas, do you really want to pay the extra and go the full hog?

Do you want innovative ideas instead? well would like to think I could make a contribution here but being a poor old scientist/engineer no-one takes any notice of me.

Large scale strategic planning (yes very leftie) is the solution, we need all the buildings insulated and equipped with some sort of heat store. A heat pump could then store the energy from wind/ barrage/ solar intermittent power, it would still cost though. Less ideology as well, go for carbon sequestration, a stop gap and not greenie but necessary. We have already discussed electric vehicles (another store charge overnight ). Biofuels try biogas for the time being, but also as a combined heat and power source. Hardly mind blowing but cordon of the rainforest's (this is the cheapest option) Yes it is our old Frank Field who has one of the most cost effective solutions! Should be PM in my opinion.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article664544.ece
http://www.coolearth.org/

PS sorry for rambling, glass of whisky not used to it.

 

[MontyB]

We are told today in a new book by MacKay, one of our Physics academics, that our personal efforts at effecting the issue are too small to count in the scheme of things, amounting to 1% of requirement; Windmills would need to cover an area twice the size of Wales to keep up. He claims that our action requirement is that of demanding big action from politicians to do either that or provide other big technology, or hurry forward nuclear power replenishment. Yes, we can affect the issue ourselves, by pressurising them to develop the big answer which will contribute, and not allow them to pass the buck by once again loading our shoulders.

We should be asking - 'what are going to do about it'. 'Al Gore - real solutions please'!
Instead of that they simply want to tell us that it is our fault.

Kind of confused here, are you saying:
A) We have had no effect on causing GW?
B) We are having no effect at fixing GW?

The first line of the post leads me to option A but the last part leads to option B.

Also for the record what the hell does Al Gore have to do with this he is no more responsible for GW than Jacques Cousteau is for over fishing.

I am still convinced that no matter how far along the GW track we are the only solutions are measured ones that involve the replacement of offending technology with economically viable replacements not some knee jerk government reactions to send us back to the stone age and start again.

 

[Del Boy]

I am not going over it again, it is simply a top academic rebuffing the Al Gore bandwagon by pointing out that each little man 'doing his bit' ain't going to affect matters relating to our position . Big solutions needed and needed now, enormous decisions to be taken and put into action now. Fossil fuels - OUT. If we don't want here a windfarm twice as big as Wales, then nuclear without delay. Other wise , stop the greenwash. Yes, that's what I said, the Greenwash. I didn't write the book; I'll try to find the reference. (Television news discussion , involving Al Gore's presention. Greenwash - everything to do with Al Gore.) We can't prevent Global warming, and while we can learn to live with it, the Greenwash is futile .


I am not getting into arguments as I have not yet had the chance of reading the book, so I have to wipe my sword for the time being. You will hear from me again on this one.

 

[A Can of Man]

Alright here's my issues with the data you represented.

Here's the full report of Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities in gridded global climate data (I assume you know what this means without looking it up).
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdf
Have fun going through all the formulas.
I just wished they had used better language choice in the report. It sounds a bit defensive in some parts and they really could have done without it.

If you can't deal with it here's the report for common folks:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGR07-background.pdf

Below is the link on climate scenarios on the homepage of the two Dutch researchers that the main report above refers to. I hope you understand some Dutch. Or you can use some online translator which can help a bit.
http://www.knmi.nl/klimaatscenarios/
You should check out their FAQ. They do not forecast climate because they know it's a very complicated system where MANY different results are possible and has an incredible range of variables. Probably more to it but my Dutch isn't THAT great or anything.

 

[perseus]

Alright here's my issues with the data you represented.

Thanks for that, I understand what you are getting at now. It seems that their study includes the effect of mild urbanisation/agriculture, time bias and station closure.

I don't know is the honest answer, it seems on the face of it to be a professionally research piece of work, although it would take some time to examine the details.

The only issue that instantly come to mind is that most of the earth is water and many temperature measurements are by ship which should not be sensitive to this effect. The other factor is when do you accept the temperature as a bias, if it is over a wide enough district then the temperature is what it is rather than unrepresentative. Our direct heat emissions have a small effect on global warming although this shouldn't be enough to cause the anomaly shown in the report. They should be aware of these issues though so I would have to read further.

A better critique than most I have seen anyway.

 

[senojekips]

The simple fact remains, that for every argument supporting man's influence on GW, if one cares to look, and is willing to accept the word of one "expert" against another, there is always an equally vehement argument disputing the data of the first, and vice versa.

We can argue until we're blue in the face and fill the pages with graphs and data, but as yet there is still no proof that man is influencing our weather patterns to any significant degree if at all, and even if he was, there's a better than even chance that we couldn't turn it around even if we went back to living like cavemen.

I don't like it either, but I feel that we'd better get used to it. In the meantime we'd better get serious about finding ways to live with it. If our plans work we may survive without too much pain, if the trend goes into decline, we're a mile ahead technologically.

It may not be Win/Win, but I feel it's our best hope for the future.

 

[A Can of Man]

On the note of the high seas, seas can actually be extremely hot. There are regions over oceans which actually account for "desert" regions because they get little to no precipitation. In fact, exposure to the sun is a killer on the high seas when it comes to people on life rafts. Yeah, you wouldn't believe what it's like to be out in an open area with absolutely no tree cover. Surrounded by sea water or not. Plus, decks of ships can get real hot during the day. So again, we have variables, unknowns and uncertainties that are truly real. Plus, we don't know at what altitude they are taking in the information. In the military we had temperature sensors at two different heights and it wasn't made that way for fun.

This is the way I see it.
Whether or not people have a direct and major effect on global warming or if the warming is as bad as many people claim... I don't know the answer to that. I don't think anyone really does.
But this is how I see it.
Pollution IS bad. There just isn't any two ways about it. When you fill the air with noxious gases that cause acid rain, asthma, sore eyes and plain pissed offness on my part, it's not a good thing. So we should cut down on pollution anyway. Improper disposal of wastes can cause infestations and disease. Garbage in the streets, parks, beaches etc. look real lousy and actually affect the property values.
So be responsible, reduce trash whenever possible, try to walk or take a bike if it's practical, use public transportation as much as you can, buy a SMALL car. Dammit, isn't it hard enough to park as it is? The only reason for a regular Joe to have a big car is to fill his damned ego for his small mind.
I don't think we should have environmental laws that are so stiff that industry and businesses find it so uncomfortable that they pack up and go elsewhere (usually China).
We have to stop taking politicians who ride on this environmental message too seriously. Would you believe a politician who makes a documentary on open heart surgery? I wouldn't think so.
We got to respect our environment and stop poisoning ourselves. That's the way I see it. Global warming or not.

 

[Del Boy]

I feel that the last 2 posts, one by Seno and one by Redneck, draw the line just right, and this seems to be point of academic Mackays latest figures. Live with it, and hammer our politicians to face the big decisions. Of course it is sensible to cut down on electricity use, etc. - it is damned expensive. Of course recycle as much as possible. Of course avoid pollution. Just don't impose yet another new fascist philosophy of state control to go with the others, and undermine many very personal freedoms. Much of this imposition has the reverse effect - increasing pollution by encouraging fly-tipping and increased rat population etc. And don't allow it to become a personal bandwagon for ambitious politicians , bureaucrats, and their empire building.

But in coping with the problem, press for the big solutions that can match the size of the challenge.

 

[A Can of Man]

Invest in education.
It'll save you TRILLIONS of dollars on useless crap later on.

 

[AikiRooster]

 

[A Can of Man]

Personally I'd try to make education the #1 place to put government money.
This is why.

#1 You don't have to waste time on setting up protectionist laws to save your people from their own incompetence.
#2 Smart people figure out things themselves and realize it's not worth making a fuss about it. Rules stay simple, therefore efficiency is high.
#3 A smart work force is a strong work force. Local companies can grow because they will have a good talent pool and foreign companies will want to invest so they too can hire competent employees.
#4 The high tech industry will benefit and that means improvement in everything including the military.
#5 People will no better than to believe everything in the newspapers.
#6 You will attract excellent teachers because the pay will be attractive and it will now be a position of respect.

And so on and so forth.

 

[AikiRooster]

The problem with investing excessively in education is the spending where it's not needed. Teacher's would spend more on their luxury items while working than on actual education material. I don't know if more education money is required vs. better micromanaging of how it's spent.
However, so I don't too far off topic, I'll stop there and recommend going to buy more SUV's and guns since we cling to them.