Comments on: If Global Warming was a company decision, how would you vote?

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:55:16 +0000

Hmm… I’ll vote for opening the window. Less electricity consumption & the fresh air will do the staff some good.

By: tim

tim — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:11:09 +0000

unfortunately, you missed the other point though. the workers are hot, you need to do something for the workers?

i only gave a suggestion, this is a worldwide company and should be able to pull it´s resources together and figure out what´s going on with the heating.

i don´t really like the analogy here. this is an isolated situation that only has implications on a finite number of people/workers/shareholders. whereas, trying to debunk climate change, while not doing anything about it (i´ll assume), is pretty risky behaviour.

if you are doing something about it, maybe you should post something. i doubt that would be very popular with your readers though. what do you think?

By: tim

tim — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:20:21 +0000

i think the board needs to look at alternatives to air conditioners and listen to the workers.

the workers are hot, it doesn’t matter if they were just as hot 5years ago, 10years ago or 50 years ago.

maybe simple ventilation will fix their problem. if they are in a high wind location, they could put a wind turbine on top of the factories to pay for the additional costs of the electricity from the fans. when fans aren’t in use they could tie it back into the power grid and sell it back to the power people. or, if they are in a high sun area they could do the same with solar panels.

if this factory is a successful one, they should be able to see the value in the potential of free power. Google does. this company needs to think outside the box and not get stuck on proving the workers wrong.

REPLY: “free power” is a myth, it does not exist. There is a cost involved no matter what. I have solar, and put a 125 kw solar array ona local school, so I know from experience.

By: Bobby Lane

Bobby Lane — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 01:32:40 +0000

Isn’t it odd how James Hansen can advocate that our government try to sue energy companies for crimes against humanity and the environment via alleged disinformation, but that no group of pro-NCCers (natural climate change – versus AGW or ACC, anthropocentric global warming or climate change) has gotten together (with the data in hand) to sue Hansen and his ilk for like charges, and also perhaps slander and libel? Do we just sit and content ourselves with the facts that the data prove our POV and not theirs? Or do we do something about it that people will notice? If we’re talking about the average person on the street, then we need to create some drama to get their attention so they will listen to us. It seems like we keep expecting reasonable action from those whose actions (like James Hansen) illustrate that they are anything but and don’t plan on changing anytime soon. Do we do nothing?

PS – First heard of wattsupwiththat.com via EUReferendum.com (even though I live in the US). They link to you all the time, being themselves huge fans of your work. What happens in Europe eventually comes to America. Watch and learn. That is what history teaches us.

By: SteveSadlov

SteveSadlov — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:52:18 +0000

Shareholders revolt, Ichan moves in for the kill, BOD and execs fired, company taken private, rebuilt than reissued via a new IPO.

By: Paul Clark

Paul Clark — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:00:29 +0000

Jared: When was the 1999 La Nina? June 1999 has a very similar divergence (0.2K) to now (0.3K):

1999:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999.2/to:2000/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/from:1999.2/to:2000/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/from:1999.2/to:2000/plot/rss/from:1999.2/to:2000

now:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:12/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/last:12/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/last:12/plot/rss/last:12

But I’m not sure this level of detail really matters. The key point is that all the sources show warming has basically stopped in the last decade (+/- some noise).

By: Gary Gulrud

Gary Gulrud — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:45:23 +0000

I do not find the case for adjustment on the part of statisticians of the data worthy:
1. The adustments, as a commenter argued a few months back, are by definition themselves hypotheses.
2. The pattern established: of continued necessary correction to preceding adjustments is inexorable and insidious, and is so acknowledged, in scientific research generally. Such practice is treated as fraud regardless of intent.
3. As Mosher has pointed out, the ‘research’ (programming), carried out over decades by sequences of faceless grad students of uncertain training and discipline has resulted in an unmitigated abortion. At the same time, appeals for an effort by real professionals that might provide the appropriate documentation are impracticable, even ludicrous.
4. The theory of proper measurement of a ‘global temperature’ implemented therein is itself nowhere set down in any verifiable form. No validation of the implementation is therefore possible.

Close GISS and begin the reform of our Republic’s government!

By: Paul Penrose

Paul Penrose — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:50:07 +0000

Personally I don’t think that we should throw out any of these datasets, but it is vitally important that we characterize the uncertainty of each one. Except for the satellites the land surface datasets were developed using instruments and methods that were not designed to measure such small temperature changes over such long timescales. If the maintainers of these datasets were to be brutally honest and propagated all the errors and uncertainties forward I suspect that the current warming trend might very will disappear inside the error bars.

By: Jared

Jared — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:50:07 +0000

RE: Paul Clark

One problem with your theory: there was indeed more divergence in 1998, due to the El Nino we presume, but 2008′s Nina has brought much more divergence than the equally strong La Nina of 1999. So the data does not suggest necessarily that the recent land/satellite divergence is due mostly to La Nina.

By: Forrest

Forrest — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:43:42 +0000

First the question should be is this really a problem? Is a warmer office space a worse off office space. It is different to be sure, but is it worse? Well the only way to know is to go there. Currently Humans live in all weather extremes. And even if the temperature were to go up by 10 degress Celsius I cannot see any area being destroyed because of it. Shift happens, one day it rains the next it snows, then it is sunny and life goes on.

I guess I am tired of the doom and gloom, I have as of yet to see any real indication of problems occuring, this despite 20 years of alarmism. Some would say it is better to be safe then sorry, I have not met many of them who then convert to a Religion because of that same logic. Well if there is a God I guess I better be good. Better Safe then Sorry is a weak argument used when you cannot prove the evidence 100%.

Anyway sorry to rant I am fed up with Hansen, I am fed up with people who say I am ignorant despite all the time I have spent educating myself on the issue. I see no CO2 to temperature trend, other then a loose association. For that same system to hold true I can apply the same logic to the amount of Urban area that exist, or Farmland, how much do you want to bet I can show the same kind of trend with that as well. Oh well the amount of farmland has increased, so I guess it must be the cause of Global Warming, it is becuase all the plants are absorbing sunlight during the day and then resperating the heat out at night.

again I apologize, I am just so tired of it, I have as of yet to here a conclusive arguement other then appeals to authority. Well the IPCC… Then James Hansen says… Well the Consensus is…

By: Paul Clark

Paul Clark — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:20:57 +0000

Nice analogy, Anthony, but like Lucia, Diatribical (Joe) and others here, I’m not sure GISTEMP is as much of an outlier as you think. If you adjust for baselines, and look at the last 6 or so years (after the 1998 blip and recovery), there’s not much to choose between them:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/offset:-0.15/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:2002/offset:-0.24/mean:12/plot/uah/from:2002/mean:12/plot/rss/from:2002/mean:12

OK, GISS has moved to the top of the range, but the change is only 0.05K – within the error range of the different series, and less than the mysterious (at least to me!) 18 month cycle we’ve seen in the past few years.

If you look at very recent history, then granted there’s more of a divergence between air (UAH/RSS) and land/sea (GISTEMP/HADCRUT3):

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:12/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/last:12/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/last:12/plot/rss/last:12

But if you look at how the series diverged around the 1998 El Nino and the bounce afterward, you can see that UAH/RSS is more sensitive to short-term blips, both positive and negative – maybe this is just a simple matter of thermal mass?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2000/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2000/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2000/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2000

I’d therefore guess that the current low UAH/RSS values are reflecting the current La Nina, in a mirror of 1998, and actually things are pretty stable (actually unusually stable…), as indicated by GISTEMP/HADCRUT3. The next year will tell.

So the question for the board is this: In fact all four of the consultants are pretty clear that the working temperature hasn’t changed much in the last ten years (after a rather wild blip due to the 1998 Christmas Party), although some of the older employees report a general slight drift upwards since the cool days of the 1960s.

The problem comes because one consultant in particular – the one with all the claimed ‘teleconnections’ with people with other agendas – claims that this is a just brief respite in an otherwise catastrophic rise, apparently made worse by a corresponding increase in humidity caused by the kettles in the canteen (the hotter people get, the more tea they make, apparently).

What the board should do is call for an urgent conclusive study of this positive feedback theory; beside this, everything else is really just workplace noise.

By: MarkW

MarkW — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:42:47 +0000

“Scientists may one day retrieve carbon dioxide that wold otherwise pollute the atmosphere, …”

I may be just an ignorant yokel, but I could of sworn we already had something to do this. I believe it was called photosynthesis?

By: Mike Bryant

Mike Bryant — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:09:15 +0000

Evan,
I care. Language is very important. There is probably a post in there somewhere. Maybe you should (or maybe could?) do a guest post that documents the deceitful use of language in the AGW circus.
Mike Bryant

By: Eredux

Eredux — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:19:21 +0000

Check out this Interactive US Energy Footprint Chart, an interactive United States Energy Consumption Footprint chart, illustrating Greenest States and more. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State energy consumptions, demographics and State energy offices – drill down to your local city.

http://www.eredux.com/states/

By: Radical Green Watch HQ » Why Throw Out GISS Temperature?

Radical Green Watch HQ » Why Throw Out GISS Temperature? — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:33:23 +0000

[...] Filed under: Climate Change — HQ @ 3:33 pm The following appeared on the excellent “Wattsupwiththat” [...]