Climate Change

[flyguy]

I accidentally ran into a site where climate guys are discussing the techniques of measuring global temperatures. It got me to thinking.

I worked in a calibration lab that used temperature sensing devices traceable to NIST (NBS back then,) and when I see charts of GLOBAL warming of 8 tenths of a degree being a realistic average increase for the ENTIRE earth since 1880 or so--well--

It is hard enough to get an accurate average temperature for a small controlled bath, and tenths of a degree in 1880, give me a break.

Now, there is obviously something going on; there are a lot of things melting out there, but I think their confidence in world average temp change needs to be considered skeptically.

Then there is the period on all the accepted charts that shows the temperature for the last 10,000 years just varying up and down in a small amount around the present temperature. Every time before in the 124 k year cycle the temperature sailed right on past the present high and went up from 3 to six degrees higher and then crashed into an ice age.

I sure would like to ask someone for their best explanation of what that little 10k year weirdness is about. Thanks that it is there, because that is what allowed us to have our civilization, but what caused it, and how come no one mentions it as being strange/interesting/curious.

If you are wondering, it is a little slow here tonight, chuckle.

Darryl

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Climate Change

I have a pant load of REAL data on climate and temp measurement. NASA has been doing this for years and the data is good (just what some people at NASA have done with it is messed up).
First lesson is you have to learn the difference between weather change and climate change. Both sides of the argument bend the definition to suit their arguments.
This is something to talk about off line since every time it comes up the fanatics on both sides end up calling us names.
A SCIENTIST doesn't know the answer before the study is done. Anyone who says the debate is over is NOT a scientist, ignore them! Look at the RAW DATA and decide for yourself.
Hank

[mohawktipi]

Re: Climate Change

In economics there is a principle that, all things being equal, a change in one input will have an effect on the output. I think the discussion should not be whether the climate is changing but what impact humans have on the change. You can heat a house with a hair dryer but it would take a very long time. Use 1000 hair dryers and the house will heat faster.

Evidence indicates that the climate has been in a state of change for an extremely long time, with extremes at both ends of the spectrum. The question should be how do we influence this change not if change will occur.

There are thousands of jets flying around in the upper atmosphere injesting cool air and exhausting hot. Over time the cool air becomes warmer and the impact of all the jets is increased. Add to this all the other sources of hot air (politicians maybe) and the green house gases being produce and the cycle between extremes could be influenced.

Now the discussion should change from "do humans impact the climate" to what is the impact of humans on the climate.

[flyguy]

Re: Climate Change

Tom, I think I can safely agree with your last statement. How and how much are the keywords.

Hank, you have any suggestions for a climate guy(s) who could comment on the 10,000 year "flat" spot I mentioned. I have been curious about that for some time, just waiting for some authority/researcher to mention it.

University, National Weather Service? Guess I could go ahead and try Stanford or UC here.

DC
Edit, more: Seems to me that if you look at that flat spot for the last 10k years that we should be about 3 to 5 degrees (C) higher now or even already turned around and headed downhill. All without any help from man. Either the process has changed (flattened out cooler,) or there really isn't very good correlation with the 10k year and current temperatures and those developed from the last 500k of ice cores (that everyone swears by.)

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Climate Change

After seeing the garbage that was being faked on global warming I am afraid I don't trust ANY educational institutions interpretation of the data. WAY to many academics are willing to bend the data to support their position. I am really disgusted at what I have seen.
Moving temperature sensors every year to warmer locations to show a warming trend, filtering data that didn't agree with preconceived beliefs and out right lying and faking of data.
The first step is to understand the difference between climate change and weather change.
The second is to understand that contrary to what some people will tell you WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TEMPERATURE WAS THAT ACCURATELY A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, much less 1,000! Anyone who says they know what the global temperature was over 100 years ago is LYING.
Third, and most importantly, BOTH SIDES in the argument have a huge financial stake in the public believing their view. You CAN'T BELIEVE EITHER SIDE.
Science is about SEEKING the truth, NOT PROVING YOUR POSITION! There is no proof on either side. There IS evidence that there has been climate change. There is proof that there is MASSIVE weather change (and that is normal, IT'S CALLED SEASONAL WEATHER!) There are MANY DIRT BAGS who talk about the Ozone hole. They have NO IDEA how atmospheric chemistry works. They don't even understand how Ozone works! It's ALL BS on BOTH SIDES.
End of rant. Now you know why I left atmospheric science sensors and went to NASA's GA program, and why when I went back to space I focused on launch systems. Big dumb rockets. They are honest. They go up, or we blow them up.
Hank

I'll never understand how those guys can claim they can track temperatures to 5* over 10,000 years. Their methods and models DON'T work and they don't allow peer review unless you already agree with them. That isn't a peer review!


OK, so the rant wasn't quite over after all.

[flyguy]

Re: Climate Change

Well Hank, your take on this is about the same as mine except that yours is based more on experience and inside knowledge than mine. I just look at what is being published now and over the years and say it looks like even the experts don't know.
I don't have an axe to grind, I just find it interesting to watch things as they develop.
It sure appears that they contradict their own data with great regularity.

Wonder what happened to the information from the research on particulate from Asia producing increased cloud formation and cooling over large areas?
Darryl

[rammon3]

Re: Climate Change

Keep in mind that there is a lot of money being made by corporations who can sell the idea of "Going Green". Fact or fiction, it's all about money, not the environment. There are some legitimate players in all this, but (as Hank pointed out) with all of the junk science out there, who do you believe? I always been a believer in technology as the solver of problems. Old folks are dying in the heat in summer because there isn't sufficient power available, but God forbid, we don't want any more nukes. It is truly unfortunate that nuclear power has become such a political football. It is really about the cleanest power source out there. True, there is an issue with waste fuel rods, but again, technology will solve that issue as well. Enough ranting for now, I think I'll go have a beer and review my engine logs..

[jim cooper]

Re: Climate Change

I know nothing about who is right. I DID read one article that was written by a core drilling PHD who has studied the ice in anartica and the artic circle for many years. He says it really is getting warmer and then explained the various cores he had saved and examined. He had a big room full of them! He claimed coring the ice was the definative way to prove it. I was born in Western N.Y. state and the winters there are much milder than they were in the 40's and 50's. There is a picture in a yacht club in northern Maryland of a locomotive crossing the sesquahanna river ,(near Havre de Grace Maryland) on tracks laid on the ICE! It had a coal tender and maybe 6 cars behind it. (early 1900's) They sure could not do that in the last 30 years! Speaking of railroads, I was taught this was the least expensive way to move things, (steel to steel) Most have been destroyed, rails torn up, etc. Seems to me this was a great waste. Nuclear energy is great but no one wants or knows what to do with the waste which is building up and presenting a BIG dilemma. It would seem logical to remedy this problem....THEN build more plants PROVIDED they are staffed by capable people and security is GOOD!. JC

[Steve Green]

Re: Climate Change

Jim,

Not meaning to change the subject, but do you have a copy of the picture could you either post or PM it to me. I'd love to see it. If not, could you tell me where it is. I'll try to get it from the yacht club.

I grew up near there and our family lived in that area about that time (and long before it).

[jim cooper]

Re: Climate Change

YES! (RE picture
It is called the Wellwood yacht club in Charlestown, Maryland. It was a very good place to eat in the 70's. I'm sure someone in Charlestown will know where the rest of the family is and possibly the son still runs the place or lives there. I think the picture was taken in late 1800's or early 1900's. I also think the Cecil county Maryland historical society probably has a copy of this. JC

[wingwalkers]

Re: Climate Change

I agree with you 100 %.
wingwalkers

[wingwalkers]

Re: Climate Change

I agree with you 100% Hank!
wingwalkers

[jim cooper]

Re: Climate Change

I think the article I read was in the Smithsonian magazine. (The one about the PHD who drilled core samples in the ice for MANY years.) His findings were very impressive although I am a layman and NOT a scientist. He claimed the findings were pretty easy to understand by drilling very deep and then reading the core samples. He further stated that MANY folks like him agreed that this method was a very accurate way to determine the past, and probably the best way. My feeling is...why take a chance? With current technology, why not break away from "Clean Coal" Big Oil,and situations like the almost disaster at three mile island (VERY close call) and the current and tragic situation in Japan. (It was the stored rods that caused the real problem. We have thousands of them sitting in the same type storage pools.) We also have lots of Lobbyists telling us not to worry. Much like the lobbyists who told us not to worry about the banks and that they didn't need regulation either.

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Climate Change

WHOA JIM!! Lots of logic jumps there.
First ice cores tell you a lot. Most of it is about the nature of the gas balance in the atmosphere from the trapped air bubbles. Should work great on Mars. If they find a way to get a temperature on June 3ed 4,643 BC be sure to let me know how they did it. Kind of a logic jump from atmospheric gas balance and suspended contaminants to global temperature measurements over centuries measured to 0.1*. We can't even tell what the global temperature was 30 years ago on a single day. We WEREN'T MEASURING IT. They (core samples) DO very accurately provide data on the past. Just because they provide accurate data on one thing doesn't mean they provide ANY data on others. How exactly did you say gas bubbles in ice tell the temperature when they were frozen? Tell you what, I will send you an ice cube from my freezer and you see if you can tell me the temperature of my house the day I froze it. (Hint, it's a trick question. Guess 32*)
As for "Why take a chance?" I had a guy with a sandwich board on the corner tell me the word would end tomorrow if I didn't give him $20. I didn't. Guess we should all say goodby now. The doom sayers are full of c**p.
When you make decisions, you measure the risk AND the probability, as well as the possible consequences. EVERYTHING has risk. If you ignore the probability of the risk happening and on top of that accept the persons claims of the consequences, you get what you deserve, and that is usually just what the guy with the sandwich board really wants (follow the money moving towards the guy saying the world will end). Ever wonder how Al Gore affords that big jet?
If you want to eliminate "Clean Coal", Big Oil, and nuclear power I suggest you provide a feasible alternative. In the absence of an alternative, THAT WORKS, I suggest YOU turn off YOUR heat.
Sorry, but I WORK with this stuff and I'm tired of the people with political agendas telling me "we can't take the chance" and "we have to act now" with data I KNOW is being manipulated to make THEM rich. When I was still at NASA, ONLY those who agreed with "Global Warming" were allowed to express an opinion (FACT, I was THERE, MANY TIMES). I was actually called a Nazi for wanting to see base data (which has now been shown to be falsified). What Nazis have to do with climate data I have no idea.
I'll say it again, I DON'T trust ANY of them till I see the raw data.
Hank

We probably should take this of line. Climate change junkies get mad when they hear their data was falsified and deniers get mad when they hear questionable climate change data. I am a SCIENTIST. I make conclusions from facts, not scare tactics. Both sides make me mad, and none of this has a thing to do with Taylorcrafts. I would rather stay friends with Jim and stick to Taylorcrafts and not climate change or politics.

[Ron Coleman]

Re: Climate Change

Hank is right and I can prove it.
I can run my body at half speed from breakfast to lunch on one bowl of Cocoa Puffs and a glass of milk.
And I can run my '50 Studebaker from breakfast to lunch (at half speed) on 6 gal. of gas and 1 qt. of oil.
So if I pay a to have farmers raise more chocolate wheat and feed Cocoa Puffs to my Studebaker,I will I save the world?
The one thing that won't happen is to cause opinion to rise from truth.

RonC