Monday, December 15, 2008
It May Be Too Late
Too late for what you ask? Well, the article I'm talking about is referring to global warming, but I'm actually referring to my desire to see people using a little common sense. I was reading this article today about global warming. There are several reasons why this is mind-boggling to me. First, the tone in this article is that we are past the point of saving our planet from catastrophic man-made global warming, or atleast at the tipping point. Second, methane gas increases are used as a cause for alarm, but I've already posted previously that MIT scientists have shown this is not man-made. To claim that it is is either naive at best, or a deliberate lie at worst. Third, the integrity of the temperature data is not very good. This was brought to the forefront again a few weeks ago when it was found that the GISS had faulty data and admitted it did not have the resources to validate its data. Anthony Watts has also been documenting the abysmal temperature measuring practices here in the US. Fourth, the article claims that polar ice is melting. No doubt this is true, the ice caps do melt, but they then subsequently freeze up again in the corresponding winter season. Here are one article with data to support that the total polar ice is actually increasing. Sidebar, who cares if that weren't true and all the ice caps did melt? That shouldn't effect the sea levels at all. When water freezes and becomes ice it takes up more volume than when its in liquid form. Don't believe me, stick a bottle of water in you freezer. When it freezes it will either blow a hole in your plastic bottle or deform the bottle as the water expands. So melting ice to water takes up less volume, not more. And the fifth reason I think this argument is garbage and why I have no time to listen to it, see the image below. Its a snapshot of the first article linked in this post. The point of interest is at the bottom of the image where you can see the current weather here in MN as of this posting. Its from a plug-in I have installed in Firefox. I'm sorry, but when I see a temperature like that I don't really care to read article like this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
It is not my mission in life to try to straighten you out, Ryan, but once again, I'm afraid I have to take you to task. Here is an article explaining how your source on the MIT study is misleading people: http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/comfortably-dumb-the-tgdaily-mitmethane-fraud/
Your sidebar about how it would make no difference if all the polar ice melted is also wrong. If all the polar ice were floating, you would be right. It's not. The ice at the South Pole is sitting on a land mass. See: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070731164236AABIA74
Crockhead,
I've been on vacation for 2 weeks and haven't been online, now I'm back and ready to banter.
First, let me address the MIT study. I read the website you sent (greenfyre). Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seemed to me the gist of his article was that Hodgin's doesn't understand real climate science. He only criticizes the "Denier's" for being dumb and misleading the masses. I guess I don't really understand "real" climate science either because according to Greenfyre if you don't believe in global warming then you don't understand "real" climate science. He also uses a defense via a link to DailyKos. I'm not saying that website doesn't have legit information, but if you think they are unbiased you are diluding yourself. That would be like me using Rush Limbaugh to defend all my points... no liberal would stand for it.
Further, from the link on Greenfyre's site to the actual MIT article it says,
"One surprising feature of this recent growth is that it occurred almost simultaneously at all measurement locations across the globe. However, the majority of methane emissions are in the Northern Hemisphere, and it takes more than one year for gases to be mixed from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. Hence, theoretical analysis of the measurements shows that if an increase in emissions is solely responsible, these emissions must have risen by a similar amount in both hemispheres at the same time."
That proves the point of the article that Hodgin's wrote. The point is NOT that the globe isn't warming, its that the warming is not man-made. While the vast majority of emission centers are in the Northern Hemisphere, both Hemispheres reported an equal increase. Since it takes more than a year for these emissions to switch hemispheres if the man made emissions were the problem, the Northern Hemisphere would have registered significantly higher totals.
All that to say, I'm not a climatologist, nor do I claim to understand all these intricate science discussions. But its seems "logical" to assume that if 85% of the methane production is in the Northern Hemisphere then it should read significantly higher.
As for the second part on the polar ice caps. I'll take your word for it for now. I haven't had time to read up on what actually sits under the polar ice. If there really is land under the Antarctic that is news to me, but your point would be valid.
Oh, one more thing. Just curious. I think its pretty obvious that we've been told that higher temperatures are bad, two questions. (1) What is the ideal global surface temperature? (2) How did you arrive at that number?
Post a Comment