Posts Tagged ‘Climate Change’

Climate Change Researchers just make it up?


I found this news article

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64827

I think, as a scientist, I would be run out of my field if I just made stuff up as I went along. Now they may have had two datasets both of which go up. Climate change on the rise and we look at some small snippet of the human population and mental illness or cancer goes up…WOW There must be a connection.

Were these people (the scientists who wrote the report) insane? Maybe they are brain damaged? Mentally ill?

This is a giant leap. Were the researchers looking? Did the people that were examined have lifestyle differences that caused this increase? Are we as humans just better at diagnosing things than we were 10 years ago? How can you connect those two? If you can’t tell I’m a little annoyed here but mainly because I can’t figure out how to work the phrase ‘Zeus’s butthole’ into my rant.

DaScienceGuy

Al Gore and The University of Tennessee, Global Warming etc


I just want to start with I don’t like pollution more than anyone else.  I hate LA for this reason.  I don’t want to inhale it and I am a strong supporter in not polluting.

I do have issue with the man made global warming debate.  I want to say that I have not seen credible scientific evidence that man caused any kind of warming.  If warming existed, and its so close to in the noise that is a tough call, its difficult to assign a source to it.  Maybe it is man, maybe it isn’t.  The sun does vary its output that is well known so perhaps there is a connection there.

Ok now to my main point of this rant.  I heard on the news that Al Gore is getting an honorary degree from University of Tennessee…

Normally who cares, he is an alumni, a famous one and if it makes them feel better have fun with it.

I think the timing is interesting.  Its in some kind of climate science (I don’t remember how they are phrasing it but you get the point).  Given the current debate not only on the news but what I am sure is about to be in the open scientific literature given the news is this a good thing?

Is it a smart idea to give an unqualified man who takes the data he wants and ignores data he doesn’t like a degree in a science?  I say no.

Global Climate Change a.k.a. Global Warming


Ok I have been thinking a lot on this subject.  Before I start here I have to say I do have a PhD in Physics.

When I heard the President say, a few months back, that every scientist agrees that man made global warming (he may have said climate change) was real I laughed out loud.  If you put a dozen scientists in a room you can barely get a consensus on color of the sky.  Sure blue but the shade of blue will be up for debate.  Its not that we are bad people its just that we like precision.  So the wavelength of blue light is something we will argue based on who did the measurement, how many clouds, time of year, latitude and longitude, see there is no one correct answer.

Climate Change….I, as a graduate student, did some work in this area.  Yes I was just a student and the work I did and published in a refereed journal didn’t turn the world on its ear but it did show one thing.  Our Sun, the source the of Earth’s warmth, does change its output over time.  It gets warming it gets cooler.  VERY slightly…This is pretty well known to happen even outside the physics community in the astronomy community even amongst amateur astronomers.  Probably not that wide outside of that community.

So we studied changing global temperature vs changing solar temperature.  You get a GENERAL match.  I say general because global temperature data is a mess…We saw it at the time.  There have been changes in instrumentation which changes your accuracy.  These changes can be by as much as a degree or so.  Over the last hundred years if I remember right there have been 3 major changes in the types of instrumentation (I probably am off on that number but you get the point).  That throws error into the data.  Whenever I sit and watch a story on the news of global climate change or see Al Gore talking about it they never talk about the potential error rate.  There are error bars.

If the error rate is what I believe it to be the global climate change they talk about is well within the error bars.  Meaning that it may be a mistake.  Just like political polls have an error rate of plus or minus something.  Temperature data has an error rate of plus or minus something yet you never see that quoted.

Now I hate pollution like anyone but before we spend LUDICROUS amounts of money funding reversing, shifting or whatever climate around which I don’t think man can really do shouldn’t we fund a few million bucks for a study that says what the heck are those error rates?  See just what the real data looks like since it all seems to be missing at this point?  I’m just saying lets do this right.  Look at it from first principals and not go off half cocked with something like cap and trade which will cause much higher taxes on everyone regardless of income bracket?