Thursday, January 6, 2011

Good Video On Historical Global Warming

A commenter under another post said, "If you really believe man is responsible for climate change, then you are easily fooled by some clever people. I guess ancient man caused the earth to warm and bring an end to the ice-age. Just maybe the cycles of the earth's temperatures are caused by something far greater than man-made causes. Just maybe it is the Sun and its cycles of sunspots, or maybe tilt of the earth, or CO2 from natural sources."

He's right about one thing: Naturally, the earth's climate can change quite a bit... over thousands of years with typical geological cycles. Unfortunately, concluding that what took several millenia to happen way back when (or several million years even further back) bears an equivalency to or responsbility for what has happened in just 20 or 30 years in today's day and age is obviously fanstastically wrong.

Watch this video below where this scientist (the head of Atmospheric Science at NASA) explains how climate change was brought about in the past... and how little resemblance it bears to what is happening on earth today due to human industry.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hansen has been called a fraud by his boss. This video proves nothing, except that you are still being fooled by some clever people.

Read about Hansen and his junk science and manipulated data here.
And his possible motives to promote such nonsense.

http://tinyurl.com/aawoj5

Anonymous said...

If it is too hard to read, here is a video to counter Hansen's video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAgN3jYgX4w&feature=player_embedded#!

Anonymous said...

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2010/12/nasa-giss-%E2%80%93-adjusting-the-adjustments/

Shows you that Hansen is:

1. Bad scientist
2. Bad at math
3. Can't interpret data
4. Liar
5. Paid actor for AGW

Bottom line his data was flawed.
Oooops, there goes his credibility.

Jungle Jil said...

Define irony: Claiming I'm being tricked by clever people by sending links of trickery by clever people.

Here's my own link about the "Hansen's former supervisor" trying to tear him down:

Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen's 'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His "some scientists" quote is simply a smear - which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the 'debate', but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations.

This is the strategy that Wingnuts use in the global warming denial process: Attach the scientists, accuse them of fraud. That way they never have to argue the hard facts of science.

Jungle Jil said...

Also, here is a link that refutes your 4:28 post, Anon: Sorry, I have to get to work and don't have time to write more.

To summarize though, I'll use your phrase though: Clever people are fooling you into thinking that the climate data is manipulated. The problem is that it is manipulated — and the scientists don't debate that — because models change and data sets have to be reconciled. Unfortunately, Wingnut denialists pounce on this fact as a reason to discredit the whole process (when it works to their benefit).

http://clearclimatecode.org/the-1990s-station-dropout-does-not-have-a-warming-effect/

tasij said...

The White House has promised to create 5 million green-collar jobs over the next decade using the tax code to stimulate clean-energy programs. It's a proposal that has mass appeal, a hip idea from a cool president. Which should tell us a lot about its substance — or lack thereof.
Spain tried to green its economy and in the process lost jobs, according to Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, Spain. Alvarez, who authored a 41-page study on his country's experiment, said the U.S. should expect to lose nine jobs for every four that it creates through green stimulus programs, I ask can we really afford this? At this time?

Jungle Jil said...

Tasij... that's a much more sensible argument about environmental issues than Anon's "global warming hoax" tack.

I would be interested in reading how creating 4 jobs in, say, making solar panels, or nuclear power plants, or building electric cars, will take 9 jobs away from other places. Are there any actual facts to go with these assertions, or is it just the ephermeral "while Spain created 400,000 new Green Jobs, it lost 900,000 jobs at the same time" that people use to cloud the issue?

tasij said...

I don't think green jobs includes nuclear power plants, but here is bloomberg report http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0 and here is said report http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf i don't believe I said how many jobs Spain created or lost, but it is intersting to note, The internal report of the Spanish administration admits that the price of electricity has gone up, as well as the debt, due to the extra costs of solar and wind energy.

Jungle Jil said...

Those are good points Tasij: I have no doubt that (a) renewable energy sources require less manpower than conventional sources (which was what they were mostly talking about in the "2 jobs gained for every 9 lost" factor), or that (b) renewable energy will cost more than conventional energy.

But, one thing that you have to understand is that this is a single moment in time being described. Renewable energy is a shifting industry with new technology and improvements being brought to bear every day. To use an example, I'm sure that when cars first came out, they were much less economical than horses. Gasoline was probably horrendously expensive compared to oats. In addition, I imagine that one Model T factory when it first opened may have hired a few thousand people, but probably put hundreds of thousands of people involved in the maintenance of America's horse population out of work... or at least on the hunt for new jobs.

I saw a documentary on Spain's renewable energy efforts. Their equipment is 15 years old and generates (generated) a fraction what newer equipment does today.