Re: [asa] climate change severity #2

On 1/15/07, Fivefree@aol.com <Fivefree@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Apologies for answering so late. This is of minor interest to me.
>
> By the way. You never did respond to my NASA quote about global warming on
> Mars or the McCarthyism-like hysteria attributed to a scientist of
> impeccable credentials in the Wall Street Journal piece.
>

Please do remind me.

I have some other data not found at the left wing URLS you prefer. My
> personal observation is that left wing groups skew data to further their
> ideology and viciously attack those that disagree. Whether they be
> scientific or political.
>

Interesting suggestion. Is this unique to liberal sites or typical for any
political ideology as I have found?

In a message dated 1/5/2007 9:46:11 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
> pvm.pandas@gmail.com writes:
>
> So we agree that it is getting warmer
>
> Yes. But why is the issue. What about the Max Planck Institute study
> saying the sun is 'burning' around 30% hotter in the last 30 years or so. Or
> the studies that suggest the Polar ice is melting not because of warmer
> global temperatures but a shift in wind patterns is bringing warmer air to
> the arctic? Their are many others you know. I find this information reading
> the newspaper or the 'net.
>

Cool, the question of course is: what caused the shift in wind patterns in
the first place? I am not familiar with the Planck study. Is it related to
this news article?

<quote>On the September 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio
show, Rush Limbaugh selectively read from a year-old
article<http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html>to
falsely suggest that a 2004 study by the Max
Planck Institute for Solar System
Research<http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/>found
that an increase in solar brightness is the sole cause of global
warming. In fact, the article, which appeared in the London *Telegraph* on
July 18, 2004*,* specifically noted that the study's lead author did not
believe increased solar brightness was responsible for the dramatic rise in
global temperatures over the past 20 years;</quote>

and

<quote>

Moreover, the Max Planck Society (MPS) -- of which the Planck Institute is a
part -- issued an August 2, 2004, press
release<http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.maxplanck.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/>that
confirms Viner's interpretation of the Planck Institute study. The
press release noted in its subtitle that according to the study, "solar
activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current
global warming." The press release continued:

These scientific results therefore bring the influence of the Sun on the
terrestrial climate, and in particular its contribution to the global
warming of the 20th century, into the forefront of current interest.
However, *researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible
for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30
years.*They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar
brightness
over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth.
Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly
the first 120 years, *the Earth's temperature has risen dramatically in the
last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in
this time.*

 A graph<http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate.gif>on
the Plank Institute
website<http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/>illustrates
the divergence between changes in solar brightness (irradiance)
and global temperature increases since 1980:</quote>
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509230005

and given the strong evidence
> correlating CO2 and temperatures, it seems that the case is already
> quite strong from the start.
>
> Incorrect. See below. Their are many, many correlations such as this that
> NEVER brought into discussion. Wouldn't you agree? Or are you not familiar
> with this chart?
>

The chart did not make it. The correlation between CO2 and temperature
however is quite strong. Combine this with a causal explanation and you have
a very strong case.

...Perhaps once we can resolve your confusion
> about the heating of the atmosphere we can pursue some of your other
> 'objections'...
>
> Please do. Data from balloons and other transient measurement devices
> measure everything from weather fronts to jet stream effects or the thermal
> plumes from major cities. Satellite data (to my mind) will yield more
> generalized, regional data.
>

Again, after correcting from some of the measurement problems these data do
seem to fall in line with other data. When most data agree, one should first
look for biases before concluding that the vaste amount of data must be
wrong.

These satellites are "a very blunt probe for observing climate
> change," said Graeme Stephens at Colorado State University. "It is
> like looking for the SARS virus in a microscope that is totally out of
> focus. You can see a little something, but that is all you can really
> say."
>
> Stephens is a flaming global warming nut. I heard of his shouting match
> with Gray (the dean of Hurricane forecasters) in Boulder, CO when Gray
> challenged his data and conclusions. I've also heard him interviewed on the
> radio. A partisan, not a neutral scientist going where the data leads him.
> His reputation is now at stake.
>

Not a very good rebuttal. Perhaps you could focus on less ad hominem
approaches?

The satellites weren't designed to find global warming, but for daily
> weather forecasting.
>
> You mean they don't measure temperatures?
>

Missing the point

For the new study, a group based at Remote Sensing Systems in Santa
> Rosa, California, applied a revised set of corrections to the
> satellite data. These corrections accounted for the effects of heating
> on the radiation sensor itself—the first time this source of error had
> been addressed fully, according to the authors—as well as new
> adjustments for the drifting orbit of each satellite and other
> factors.
>
> The group found a warming trend of 0.16°F per decade in the layer
> between about 1.5 and 7.5 miles high, compared to a trend of 0.02°F in
> the previously published UAH analysis. Both estimates have a margin of
> error of nearly 0.2°F (plus or minus). According to the authors, the
> new results are a closer match with surface warming, as well as with
> four computer-model simulations of 20th-century climate produced by
> NCAR and Los Alamos National Laboratory.
>
> So, the corrected trend is still within the margin of error? Not much help
> for your cause.
> Here are some CO2 facts.
>

What part of a 'closer match do you not understand. Was it not that people
rejected global warming because of satellites failing to support the data?
As far as your CO2 facts are concerned, they are interesting but irrelevant.
The doubling of CO2 concentrations has been mostly linked to anthropogenic
sources.

So let's compare apples and apples....
Perhaps those liberal web sites are worth exploring after all, one should
not believe all that one reads on a site which supports one's own beliefs.
Hence I typically like to double check global warming arguments from both
sides. Most cases, global warming deniers (human caused) tend to make a lot
of mistakes when presenting their arguments.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 16 01:17:07 2007