Key Fact In National Review’s Global Warming Article Is ‘Completely Wrong’
Key Fact In National Review’s Global Warming Article Is ‘Completely Wrong’
In the June 5 global warming cover story in the print edition of the National Review, scientist Curt Davis said author Jason Steorts completely misrepresented his study to argue that Antartica gained ice between 1992 and 2003. Steorts now maintains he omitted the fact that Davis’ study only covered the eastern interior of the continent – and did not consider the western and costal areas that other studies show are losing mass at a rapid pace — “for the sake of brevity.”
In his cover story, Steorts then references a study by Isabella Velicogna that examined the whole continent from 2002 to 2005 and found is was losing substantial amounts of ice. But Steorts provides this rebuttal:
2002 — the year in which the study began — was a high-water mark for Antarctic ice, so it’s not too surprising to see some decline since then. Alarmism over Velicogna’s study is on the order of going to the beach at high tide, drawing a line at the water’s edge, and fretting a few hours later that the oceans are drying up.
The original article does not provide a source for the claim that 2002 “was a high-water mark for Antarctic ice” but in an online piece today Steorts said that he was told that information from the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels.
ThinkProgress talked to Patrick Michaels this afternoon. Michaels said he was referring to a graph in the study by Curt Davis. ThinkProgress then called Curt Davis. Here is what he had to say:
If Michaels is using my study to claim that 2002 was a high water mark in terms of ice for all Antartica, that is completely wrong. My study result only demonstrated this for the interior of East Antarctica. You can’t use that for Antartica as a whole because the coastal areas of the ice sheet were not included in my analysis. My study clearly stated that the overall mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet depends on the sum of the contributions from the interior and coastal areas.
So it’s the same shell game again. Take a finding for the interior of the eastern part of the continent and pretend the whole continent is gaining ice, even though studies show the western and coastal areas are losing ice at a rapid pace.
Steorts now claims these serious factual errors are immaterial. In his most recent online commentary, Steorts says his article “hinges neither on the question whether Antarctica is presently gaining or losing ice.” That’s odd considering it was promoted on the cover of the National Review with the title “Snow Job: The Truth About the Great Overhyped Glacier Melt.” Seems like what’s happening to the ice is a pretty central point.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
76 Responses to “Key Fact In National Review’s Global Warming Article Is ‘Completely Wrong’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
TP has been doing a spectacular job holding the denialists' feet to the fire on this issue. (So to speak.) Keep up the good work!
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:53 pmTP, stop confusing the issue with facts! Waaaaaah!
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:55 pm-Jason Steorts
Why can't you guys leave 'lil po' Mr. (dis)Stoerts alone. Can't you see he really just wants to be loved and appreciated. Go on give him a hug. At least shake his Eastern hand and then you can say you gave him a full body hug.
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:56 pmIs anyone out there surprised by this?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:56 pmIsn't Steorts tired of being spanked by TP?
June 2nd, 2006 at 2:59 pmAdmit it, pal!
You screwed up!
It's a bit redundant to say that facts in National Review are completely wrong, isn't it.
Visit News Corpse, The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:00 pmAin't faith based liberalism a bitch? I mean, in our secular liberal Western Tradition Mr. Steorts gets his place in the sun so to speak. He publishes a bit of fiction, passes it off as empiricism, and when he is held accountable for his mistakes, (whether intentional or unintentional), his faith that he knows better the hour of the day allows him to denounce the polemic he himself has initiated; and also allows him to try to weasel out of what I read as the original intent of his article - to call environmentally concerned citizens dolts and to work to dismiss any alternative view of our planet Earth. Bravo Think Progress! It's funny how vested some of these talking heads are in the company they keep. -Kevo
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:01 pmI owe an apology to TP for thinking that taking on right-wing press lies and distortions was useless and nonsensical. Essentially, I used to think the truth will out given time. Except the truth only comes out when people like TP put it out there! I apologize for my myopia and naivete. Keep 'em on the ropes, TP!
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:02 pmHere again, as is the usual method, the central purpose of publishing an article such as this is not to present an incisive, factual article on the subject. The purpose is to set forth a narrative, a blatantly dishonest one at that, so that it can be used as a springboard for the proliferation of other narratives which feed off the previously erroneous information. And before long the water has been so muddied that those who desire to discuss this factually and intelligently end up spending all their constructive time fighting straw men bred from the metastasizing erroneous narrative presented in the first place !!!
It's just that those damn facts are so annoying, aren't they?? And they have such a liberal bias, to boot.
Your tenacious effort to stay on top of the endless spinning and whirling that is NR's trademark is greatly appreciated.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:04 pmIn other words, the “call to action†that Think Progress says he issues comprises many solutions other than the draconian CO2 caps so beloved of the Left.
The idea of having CO2 caps alone is dumb. That is like wrapping a bad wound with a bandage and pretending that since the blood has stoped running out that all is now well.
New technologies will mean more jobs for more high techonology science and engineering and all the support people needed to run it. This would not only cure the addiction to oil it would also reverse the trend of humanity using dirty energy. The technology will not remain in America alone. It will spread... so then India and China will not ever get as bad as America is today while we continue to decline in destroying the environment.... and of coarse it would help the economy with all those jobs and all that money being made by many small and medium companies instead of all this money going into a few oil companies.... and that just might help make our congress a little less beholden to at least the big oil companies.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:22 pmIt’s a bit redundant to say that facts in National Review are completely wrong, isn’t it.
Visit News Corpse, The Internet’s Chronicle of Media Decay.
Comment by Mark Howard
Well maybe ...
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document042602.asp
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:23 pmHere again, as is the usual method, the central purpose of publishing an article such as this is not to present an incisive, factual article on the subject. The purpose is to set forth a narrative, a blatantly dishonest one at that, so that it can be used as a springboard for the proliferation of other narratives which feed off the previously erroneous information. And before long the water has been so muddied that those who desire to discuss this factually and intelligently end up spending all their constructive time fighting straw men bred from the metastasizing erroneous narrative presented in the first place !!!
It’s just that those damn facts are so annoying, aren’t they?? And they have such a liberal bias, to boot.
Your tenacious effort to stay on top of the endless spinning and whirling that is NR’s trademark is greatly appreciated.
Comment by Mike
hear, hear!
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:29 pmWow. Just wow.
Great job TP. D-storts the destorter has been thoroughly emasculated.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:35 pmI am stunned and thoroughly impressed by TP's perseverance on this issue.
Like #8, I also used to believe truth finds it way to the top. However, I've come to believe our Nation is less robust than I expected. It can be (and is being) usurped by people who intentionaly or thoughtlessly misinform, casting aside the means to get a poorly conceived end.
Thank-you TP! It is this type of relentless drive that delivers the truth.
-m
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:37 pmQuit picking on us Hermaneutic intellectuals!
We are but misleading intentionalists, we promise not to eat any more dialectical convolution paste and tell massive fibs.
Oh Wahh, anyone got some Oxycodone, what was Rushes number again? Oh my aching ingrown Rush derrier hair.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:43 pmI guess it is our progressive bent to believe that truth will always win out. We need to learn from what the repugnuts did in 2004 to Kerry, in 200 to Gore and McCain, that they "fight dirty." They will lie, cheat, and steal to win. We need to keep calling them on it at eery turn.
Good job TP, now if the so called liberal media would report the truth.....
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:44 pmOn the rare occasion that I read an article from the National Review, I am never disappointed by the twisted logic the writers utilize to spin truth into sheer nonsense. There are 1000s who take the National Review seriously, however, and I, for the life of me, cannot figure out why that is.
Reading comprehension problems?
It would be good idea to find out who owns and operates the National Review.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:50 pmIt is way too difficult for the REPUGnicans to "fix the facts" to support their view that there is no such thing as global warming, so dumbya admits that there wasn't (another dumbya lie) enough research to prove or disprove global warming.
Anyone with half a brain and a little willingness to do some googleing can either step outside and notice how much warmer it is even in winter than before. If they are afraid to step outside they can look at the temperature trends on the internet.
Keep spanking TP, the REICH-wingers need it.
June 2nd, 2006 at 3:55 pmFor all you idiots who do not beleive in global warming would you not think it would be nicer just to have a cleaner world just for the fun of it
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:01 pmFirst of all, we are not idiots. Second of all, most of us believe in global warming, just that man is not responsible for it. But go ahead, ruin our economy, put all of us out of work just to find out that we have no effect on the climate. Thank you!
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:09 pmRandy, how is trying to come up with a clean energy policy going to put us all out of work?
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:13 pm#23 - I'm pretty sure he won't be back -- because his talking points didn't cover that.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:17 pm#23. If we don't use gas..what are going to happen to the people who pump it?
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:17 pmBut go ahead, ruin our economy, put all of us out of work just to find out that we have no effect on the climate. Thank you!
Comment by Randy — June 2, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
Considering you're not a finacial genius, I'm gonna assume you blindly accept that from the Rightwing propaganda. Damn, I wondered how low a person's I.Q. would have to be to buy into that ridiculous garbage. Guess, now we know.
That's a lie Randy. Our economy has nothing to do with it. Nothing. Go learn some conomics and come back then.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:19 pm#24 - True.
Isn't it funny how the right is so heavy on believing something they have no proof in (Jesus and God), and they are so insistent on not believing something that there is mountains of evidence to prove (man's effect on global warming)?
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:19 pmdid anyone else notice that randy knew just who tobey tall was talking to? he jumped in right on time!
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:24 pmExcellent! I'm loving this continuing rip of NR. They deserve it. There's a special place in hell for people who twist facts like this that bear on the lives of millions to protect profit margins. GET 'EM BOYS.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:27 pmHere's my solution to this problem:
1. Enact term limits on congress. We have them for the executive branch, we should have them in the legislative branch as well. Senate: 2 terms House 6 terms. This would ensure a new congress at least every 24 years.
2. Get rid of McCain-Feingold. Waste of time. Never even came close to accomplishing what it was supposed to.
3. Publically fund political races. Take the dirty money out of Washington, especially from the Oil companies. This way, the party with the best ideas, wins.
4. Once, the first three objectives have been met, end the PIK program that pays farmers to idle ground. Enforce higher standards for the auto industry for mpg and start building ethanol plants supplied by corn.
5. Build more nuclear power plants and shut down inefficient coal plants.
I think that sometimes environmentalists get too excited and want to scare us to death. We do need to work together to make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil and develop alternative sources of energy. I just don't want more government regulations or a solution that will effect make our economy weaker if we can't compete with other countries. There is so much hype out there right now about this, I just don't know what to believe.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:29 pmIs this the same Randy?
Because I agree with just about all 5 points. All though I have some reservations about 4 and 5. I could work with you on those two.
Public financing is something I've been scream from the mountaintops for sometime now.
With regards to environmentalist 'scaring us to death,' I can see your point. But most Americans need to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer for it to register with them. I think once people spend a few minutes looking at the issue, they'd be able to discern facts and reality from propaganda and rhetoric.
From my point of view, I look at it this way: the people who are really concerned about global warming are doing it because they have general concern about the welfare of the entire planet and long term effects our rapid consumption of resources is having. The opposition is funded by Big Oil trying to convince us the CO2 is really good because we breathe it out. Gee, I wonder which side of the issue Big Oil is going to support. Their motivation is money. Plain and simple.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:45 pmGreat work TP. Haven't seen a take down this lopsided since Juan Cole disemboweled the doughy pantload last year.
June 2nd, 2006 at 5:06 pmRandy says "I just don’t want more government regulations or a solution that will effect make our economy weaker if we can’t compete with other countries." The thing is Randy, if the US doesn't put more real money into alternative enregies then other countries will out compete the US and make the US weaker (setting aside the drain on the economy brought on by the War on Terror). Bush and the Neocons would rather the US stay in the 20th century.
By the way, can you imagine what the billions of dollars spent in Iraq could have done for alternative energies?
June 2nd, 2006 at 5:29 pmRandy,
Instead of looking towards nuclear options, if every home were to get solar and wind energy, then the power drain would not be as massive and many corporations could convert that excess energy into recycled energy uses that would help the environment.
The savings for the city would reduce the emissions from coal usage and would reduce the toxic effects of nuclear energy and the dangers! Although it would not be a permanent solution, each home would have more money...therefore investing in the economy to purchase durable goods...
Cars that run on water, batteries and other efficient fuels could help save our world...What good is it for term limits on Senators and Representatives when there are none of us left to govern?
June 2nd, 2006 at 6:43 pm# 22 Randy, hug your pillow tightly cause the Bolsheviks are running down the hill!!! Retrograd.
June 2nd, 2006 at 6:52 pmJust for fun: biomass fuels will also be dangerous if all cars are to be run with that. Fuel cells working with CxHx need precisely CxHx, therefore Oil industry is not yet over. Fuel cells dumps water vapor which is also a greenhouse contributor. Hydrogen, I think will be the future fuel, which -bad news- is extremely explosive (Just ask the Hindenburg). So I stick with solar driven devices, (PV, thermal, eolic, etc.) but what about all the flat collectors, concentrators, machinery, steel for the wind turbines and materials to make massive amounts of them? A steel-manufacturing furnace needs near 2000°C to operate...what fuel is going to reach that temperature? The solar furnace in France? You see...there is no just one solution, there has to be a balance use of resources. Chau. Suerte.
June 2nd, 2006 at 7:04 pmNotice Steorts says he had a "friendly conversation with Davis" and then tries to make it look like Davis backed up his claims...
June 2nd, 2006 at 7:36 pmif every home had solar and wind energy facilities, not only would america be moving towards energy independence, but even individual american families could gain energy independence.
no more price gouging by energy companies.
no more enron-style profiteering at the expense of energy consumers.
vastly less emissions from fossil fuels (cleaner air & water).
a renewable energy industry fueled by r&d that can invigorate the engineering and science dropoff in america, and supplant the oil and coal industries in relevance and economic clout.
the end to the global warming debate, because as tobey (#21) says, "would you not think it would be nicer just to have a cleaner world just for the fun of it?"
a severely diminished threat of brown-outs or black-outs.
btw randy, those who scream, "go ahead, ruin our economy" are being just as alarmist (if not more) then those who argue that global warming is human-caused. it's a simple fact: fossil fuels are a limited resource. peak oil may have already been achieved. it is simply madness to cling to the idea that immediate action will result in an economic disaster. several studies have shown that the loss to the oil & coal industries can very readily be offset by the gains in the renewable energy sector.
furthermore, if we listen to big oil (& coal) and do nothing, we are absolutely headed for an economic disaster, not to mention a likely worldwide humanitarian disaster.
and we will be totally unprepared for it.
June 2nd, 2006 at 9:24 pmBut Progressaurus Rex if we had a system of economic fairness as well as equality those like Randy couldn't dream of making it to the top to rip off everybody else like Exxon..Enron...the repugs and corporate USA in general
June 2nd, 2006 at 10:33 pmConservatives have many reasons to distort facts - one is an Ayn-Randian ideology that promotes individuals alone, and abhors any common concern or care -
another, for those more mature members of the Rethugs, is to use this adolescent ideology to reinforce their raiding of (creaming off the top) the treasure of the planet in their greedy "immortality project". Both motives are puerile - one is, blinkered, myopic, stuck in devlopment (the ideological) - the other (the Machiavellian) is just plain indecent in a developed country in 2006.
June 2nd, 2006 at 11:48 pmglobal warming can be summed up in two words.....junk science
June 3rd, 2006 at 12:04 amglobal warming can be summed up in two words…..junk science
Comment by Ron — June 3, 2006 @ 12:04 am
Spoken like a true repug brainless ignorer inconvient facts smear the oponoent idiot...thank you for your ignorance...
June 3rd, 2006 at 12:12 amdon't pick on ron, he's just one of those people that would rather believe whatever allows him to remain ignorant, selfish and lazy.
that's right, ron!
June 3rd, 2006 at 1:05 amremember, the less you know, the less you have to do.
Ron's spelling bee lesson for today: FLOCCIÂNAUCINIÂHILIPILÂIFICATION = an estimation of something as worthless. From the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.
June 3rd, 2006 at 1:56 amEastern? Western? Silly me, I thought there were only southern interior and northern coast.
June 3rd, 2006 at 2:24 amThe propaganda aimed at global warming is so similar to the propaganda aimed at the causal relationship between smoking and cancer. For nearly 40 years, the tobacco companies successfully delayed real regulation on smoking while they accumulated the funds to pay for settlements and to buy other companies with no affiliation to tobacco. Is it so hard to imagine that the oil companies are using the same approach. Fund the propaganda so that they can accumulate the cash. When the oil starts to run out (but not the profits), they can buy a Google or a Microsoft and morph into another enterprise entirely. And this is pretty simplistic -- I'm certain the oil CFOs have a much more sophisticated approach.
June 3rd, 2006 at 9:03 amAs a conservative I refuse to believe global warming exists no matter how much evidence scientists come up with.
June 3rd, 2006 at 2:58 pmhttp://jonswift.blogspot.com/2006/01/whos-afraid-of-global-warming.html
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't taking steps to increase fuel efficiency, make CO2 caps, and conserve fuel create a lot of environmental and fuel-related jobs?
June 3rd, 2006 at 11:13 pm[...] I’m not keeping official track, but there is a game that the Kingdom of Wingnuttia loves to play where they find one or two people a month on the progressive side that says something a little over the top. It is game that they work awfully hard at, they have to. For two reasons; one is that we as a group are usually pretty rational and two, it is their interests to try and define us by those few individuals on the fringe. The deep irony of all this effort on the fringe right’s part is that their entire movement is made up of different flavors of fringe. Patriotic rational Americans don’t have to exert much effort to define conservatism as a largely fringe movement because they offer up their bizarre zealotry like a horn-o-plenty, over flowing with the strange, the hypocritical, and the finely ground rationalized, Key Fact In National Review’s Global Warming Article Is ‘Completely Wrong’ [...]
June 4th, 2006 at 2:51 am[...] Key Fact In National Review’s Global Warming Article Is ‘Completely Wrong’ "In the June 5 global warming cover story in the print edition of the National Review, scientist Curt Davis said author Jason Steorts completely misrepresented his study to argue that Antartica gained ice between 1992 and 2003." [...]
June 4th, 2006 at 2:28 pmExplorer Will Steger gave a presentation on his expeditions across Antarctica and the Arctic at a Town Meeting in Minneapolis on May 13, 2006. In Greenland, although snow accumulation is increasing in the high elevations, low elevation snowpack is thinning rapidly. Water beneath the snow is acting like a lubricant. Massive amounts of snow and ice are likely to slip into the sea suddenly, producing a 5-10 foot
June 4th, 2006 at 6:39 pmsurge in world sea level. Not sure when ... within the decade? My guess is that Will Steger agrees with what Curt Davis said about the recent report.
Corretion ... producing a 5-10 meter surge in world sea level ...
June 4th, 2006 at 6:41 pmSooner or later you Americans are going to have to put BOOT to BUTT in washinton. How many piles of BS are yu going to step over to fill up that HUMMER?
June 4th, 2006 at 10:35 pm[...] Jason Steorts, author of the National Review cover story on global warming, dismisses multiple factual errors exposed by ThinkProgress as “irrelevancies.” Apparently, even though Steorts concedes he made numerous mistakes, we need to correct ourselves for pointing them out. Steorts says ThinkProgress has “failed to correct the errors and omissions I have pointed out in its replies to me.” [...]
June 5th, 2006 at 11:25 amHey Think Progress -
Darn, you folks should read the scientific reports, not the articles of news reporters.
Here is the graph showing that 2000 was the high mark in ice accumulation and that the long term trend is for INCREASING ice accumulation.
http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/s_plot.html
June 5th, 2006 at 11:52 amHey Tim,
The nsidc website on extent trends says:
... "it is important to remember that the value of an ice extent trend and even its sign (usually expressed in the literature as percentage change in ice extent per decade) may depend on the start and end point of the time series." ...
The nsidc graph (Southern Hemisphere Trends in Extent) shows the extent is down by 15 percent from year 2000 to May 2006.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:30 pmA long time ago, in a galaxy far away...
The democrats stood for something big. When they fought against racism they were a good thing.
The key concept that had to be shown in that noble struggle was that individuals do not represent a race. Wallace could mention a rape or murder committed by an African-american, and those who wished to continue to believe that 'blacks were evil' found comfort.
Now the left has learned from this-selectively relasing information that will support and demoniing anything which changes their beliefs.
In their effort to demonize, they would have one believe that solar radiation, geothermal events, and natural climate changes, preceeding the rise of man. Want to discuss the changes in the earth's environment?
Geophysicists, astrophysicists, and paleontologists need not apply.
Data that has been collected from 99.99998% of the earth's history is irrelevant. We need to talk about, and only about, .00002 of earth's history? George Wallace would be proud.
Take into consideration the eruption of Pinatubo. Genreal geological text ascribe a 1.2 centigrade temp drop. Find it on the global temp bible that is being pandered by the far left. You won't. How does the emission of partivulate matter cause the dropping of temp for everyone but global warming conspiracists.
How the world has changed since the sixties. The tactics that were so in vogue by the proponents of discrimination is now being adopted by the party that once sought about doing away with 'straw men' now is heavily invested in building them. If there is any doubt, consider the emotional reaction that 'anecdotes' of global warming instills in you.
There is a larger system in play, a complex equation, and rahter than examine it, you spend 90% of the time keeping all other variables out, despite a poor understanding of the events that are occuring.
Bona fortuna.
June 5th, 2006 at 1:05 pmPat -
"the nsidc graph (Southern Hemisphere Trends in Extent) shows the extent is down by 15 percent from year 2000 to May 2006."
The long term trend is still ice accumulatiing, not decreasing. If statisicts is focused on just a narrow viewpoint, then extrapolations into the future are definitly not robust if most of the data set is ignored.
Tim
June 5th, 2006 at 1:14 pmA brain teaser:
Mars is experiencing global warming.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html
The earth is experiencing global warming.
Explain the the warming of two different planets, circling the same sun based upon two different theories. Remember, to maintain good global warming ethics, you must come up with seperate reasons independent of solar radiation-as the earth's global warming must be completely attributable to man, and Mar's global warming must be independant of man(but I will allow for Martians).
June 5th, 2006 at 1:21 pmHey Paul,
Check this out:
Global warming on Mars?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/
and, more recently, this:
... both hemispheres have experienced enhanced tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling in the 15 to 45° latitude belt, which is a pattern indicative of a widening of the tropical circulation and a poleward shift of the tropospheric jet streams and their associated subtropical dry zones. This distinctive spatial pattern in the trends appears to be a robust feature of this 27-year record. ...
June 5th, 2006 at 1:50 pmhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5777/1179
It is a very strange predicament:
The right is characterized as having made a leap of faith regarding the existance of god, for which the left ridicules them.
And now, with global warming, the left is being ridiculed for its leap of faith into the unknown by the right.
And people thought they could rid themselves of relgion. Zealots all.
June 5th, 2006 at 2:00 pmPat-
This is a very funny site-I have been referred ther more than once.
Some good stuff, from people who seem to have done too much 'specialization'. They are incapable of leaving their field of expertise to incorporate much larger ideals. Very scared of looking at the change in earth temperature beyond their 150 years.
Bottom line-the earth has experienced a significant amount of temp fluctuation, beyond what we are seeing today. Climate change on a grand scale? Yep. Events in a much larger system are occurring and the site you have chosen champions discussion of only their 150 year graph from only the aspect of man's sins.
This is the equivalent of taking the change in the Dow Jones for one day, and extrapolating the effects of 7 years of the market. The statistical set that proponents are offering is irrelevant.
The crux of the article's argument presented is that Mars can experience temp changes by outside factors.
I concur.
June 5th, 2006 at 2:16 pmMy math was poor on the dow Jones comparison.
I'll do it openly-
150 years/4500000000years=1/30 million.
250 trading days/year....250/30 million=.0000083,
1/.0000083=120482.
120482/250 days= 481 years.
Now please correct my previous comparison to state:
"Using 150 years of temperature data is like extrapolating 481 years of data on the effect of the DJ, based on one day of trading."
Now if you became a creationist, with the earth being only 5000 years old, your data would be a lot better.
June 5th, 2006 at 2:48 pmHey Paul,
How far back beyond 150 years do you want to go? For instance...
... "Human activities are releasing greenhouse gases more than 30 times faster than the rate of emissions that triggered a period of extreme global warming in the Earth's past, according to an expert on ancient climates." ...
... This abrupt shift in the Earth's climate took place 55 million years ago at the end of the Paleocene epoch as the result of a massive release of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of two greenhouse gases: methane and carbon dioxide. ...
'... "The emissions that caused this past episode of global warming probably lasted 10,000 years. By burning fossil fuels, we are likely to emit the same amount over the next three centuries," said James Zachos, professor of Earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz." ...'
' ... "Records of past climate change show that change starts slowly and
then accelerates," he said. "The system crosses some kind of
threshold." ...'
Ancient Climate Studies Suggest Earth On Fast Track To Global Warming
June 5th, 2006 at 2:51 pmSanta Cruz CA (SPX) Feb 16, 2006
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ancient_Climate_Studies_Suggest_Earth_On_Fast_Track_To_Global_Warming.html
Note the title of the article:
Ancient Climate Studies SUGGEST...
Proof? No way.
Theory? Absolutely.
June 5th, 2006 at 2:58 pmEarth's history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Note the extreme fluctuations between temp...repetitive as a solar clock, but then external factors are an 'inconvienient truth'.
A data stream of hundreds of thousands years...and the only one we get is a 150 year span, which would serve as little more than a dot on the graph of waht we actually know. Scares the little kids in school.
June 5th, 2006 at 5:19 pmTut, tut, tsk, tsk. All this high emotion - don't any of you boys (no girls seem silly enough to even go anywhere near here) remember advice your mother gave you? You know, the one where she says, "Better safe, than sorry." By the way, I think the second paragraph has an 'is' that should be an 'it' - not that I want to get into any arguments about what is is!
June 9th, 2006 at 6:10 pm[...] ThinkProgress has documented several critical errors in the National Review’s June 5 cover story on global warming, “Scare of the Century.” [...]
June 16th, 2006 at 5:09 pmYou guys sound like a bunch of chicken littlies telling the farmer the sky is falling...
Nature class 101, you should have been taught this in the first grade, but I will educate you non the less; You breathe out CO2... Trees breathe it in and produce oxygen... The circle of life, nature always provides a balance... Car combustion, be it Corn alcohol or oil based gasoline, both produce CO2... Switching to GREEN fuel will not stop this, actually it is 10 percent less efficient so it would POLLUTE(as you do every time you take a breath) more... So I say all you tree hugging nature nazis hold your breath... Sorry couldn't resist... It would however lessen our dependants on foreign oil so I am for it...
The earths temp has always been changing and will always do so... i.e.... Past oceans are now deserts. Lets suppose you are sitting on your coach and your house began getting to warm. Would you sit there and swear that there was to much CO2 warming the house? No, you would get up and walk to the thermostat and turn down the heat! Why would you do that? Because it is your furnace heating your home... Guess what, we get our heat from the sun, the solar cycles match our past hot and cool stages... Hmmmm... Sounds logical to me... Hotter sun = Warmer Earth...
That makes as much sense as a "scientist" telling half the truth or declaring worst case scenarios to recieve his grants... Many are just trying to collect thier paycheck and look for "science" to justify thier existence while ignoring conflicting facts to thier belief system...
That being said you may have a valid point about CO2 holding in the heat. The solution then would be to plant more trees, or let nature take its course and let the plants catch up with our CO2 output... Unless all that shade led to global cooling...
PS CO2 is also used for carbonation in soda so fear the poison, and please consider holding your breath...
June 19th, 2006 at 1:18 pm[...] Jason Steort’s “clarification” of his misleading National Review cover story is accompanied by a letter-to-the-editor by Pat Michaels. Mr. Michaels is the one who told Steorts that 2002 was a “high-water mark for Antarctic ice†based on a grossly inaccurate interpretation of a study by Curt Davis. [...]
June 21st, 2006 at 10:24 amHi Paul;
I liked your metaphor about the house warming - if it warms you don't blame CO2, you go and turn down the thermostat (the sun) - nice image but a more accurate metaphor would be your house is getting warmer, you have no control over the thermostat, and someone is closing all the windows.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to how carbonation is relevant to the discussion - but you may want to get in a bit more soda as your house heats up.
July 5th, 2006 at 12:23 pm[...] – This year, Michaels completely misrepresented a study by Curt Davis to falsely claim that Antartica has been gaining ice in recent years. [...]
July 27th, 2006 at 6:45 pm[...] – This year, Michaels completely misrepresented a study by Curt Davis to falsely claim that Antarctica has been gaining ice in recent years. [...]
July 28th, 2006 at 12:36 pm[...] Some right-wing groups have used a study by Curt Davis to claim Antarctica is gaining ice. But Davis’ study only looked at the interior of the continent. Since global warming leads to more precipitation, increased snow on the interior of Antarctica is consistent with climate change. In June, Davis told ThinkProgress that using his study to claim Antarctica is gaining ice is “completely wrong.” [...]
November 13th, 2006 at 4:50 pm[...] Some right-wing groups have used a study by Curt Davis to claim Antarctica is gaining ice. But Davis’ study only looked at the interior of the continent. Since global warming leads to more precipitation, increased snow on the interior of Antarctica is consistent with climate change. In June, Davis told ThinkProgress that using his study to claim Antarctica is gaining ice is “completely wrong.†[...]
November 14th, 2006 at 1:30 pmSmoking out Michaels' misleding quote of Davis' study on the Antarctic ice sheet is a good service. But Steort's article is chock full of mathematical data & arguments, especially on the Greenland ice sheet, and badly needs a rebuttal by someone who is able & willing to do the math. Does anyone know of a rebuttal that does this?
January 17th, 2007 at 10:59 pmThe planet is warming. Ok, got that. 1 degree farenheit in the last 120 years of measurement. 30 years ago the cover of Time magazine was "Coming Ice Age" because man was polluting the atmosphere. That crap didn't hold water so they shifted to the "global warming" bandwagon. Does anyone have a clue what the data means? According to the scientific community the Earth has been on a warming trend since the last Ice Age. What caused that? During the last ice age the ocean depths were 300 ft. less than they are today. In 1985 when my daughter was born I went into a funk because according to leading scientists the oceans were going to raise 2 -3 ft by 2005. Beach looks the same to me today. The dynamics of "global warming" are too complicated to pull a guess out of your ass and impose your views on me. As for computer models......I can get whatever results I want by the input that's given. How many local weather "computer models" are worth a damn. CO2 output by man is miniscule to what is produced by Mother Nature. Rotting vegetation, volcanoes and other things. Can anyone explain why Mastodons were flash frozen in Siberia and Alaska with grasses in their stomachs? That was one hell of a rapid climate change and as far as I know they weren't driving Chevy's. Maybe if they had the CO2 would have prevented it. You never know. Wow, maybe we have saved the Earth from the ice age doom of the 70's by driving SUV's and cooking the world with greenhouse gases.
January 27th, 2007 at 2:19 amAm I for a cleaner planet? Do I value endangered species? Do I want my great grandchildren to live in a better world than this? Yes yes and yes. Panic,hype and hysteria isn't going to get the job done. Neither is Al Gore. Humans aren't really as important as we'd like to think. Did anyone factor in solar activity, orbital position and just plain old glitches and trends of nature? I realize also that you all have guilt for having the big house, the new car and all the comforts society has to give but think.... maybe it's not a bad thing. I guess it's a " left wing burden". Anyway, in closing my maple trees in front of my house thanked me for buying a Corvette.
Felipe Tamez
thanks to help us to think in other directions.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:14 pm