Michael Crichton dead at 66

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

No, Harry, you are wrong. Assuming higher CO2 concentration causes higher temperature, if year A has higher CO2 than year B, then Year A should have a higher temperature. The year to year temperatures do not support that claim.

The yearly temperature data does not support the claim that higher CO2 causes higher temperature. There must be other causes.

From the middle of winter to the middle of summer, the trend is for higher daily temperatures but every day is not always warmer than the previous one. There is a scatter in the data from various sources on top of the underlying seasonal trend. The same is true in the mean global temperature data particularly since it is the result of a finite number of discrete measurements. The scatter is not evidence that the underlying trend doesn't exist.

[Nate the great]

I just can't let this go. I fed the US Mean Temperature into a spreadsheet, and then plotted it.

The data only goes back to 1880, but the graph does suggest that the mean temperature peaked around 1954 and then crashed. It looks like we are approaching another peak.

But, I do see 2 cycles in this graph. The peak and valley of the 50's and 60's would tend to refute the claim that temperature trends were rising consistently throughout the 20th century.

P.S. The spreadsheet is attached. The data is in reverse chronological order.

[RWJ]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

Yes, I believe that we should start now, since the consequences are possibly dire. Will it cost trillions? I don't know and frankly don't care, if the consequences are as serious as they might be.

I'm not normally one for political discussions online, for the obvious reasons. It is worth emphasizing, though, that public budgets, and thus to an extent public policy, are zero-sum; the trillions going to reducing emissions are therefore not being used to vaccinate children in the Third World, shelter the homeless in the USA, develop farming in Africa, and any other causes that could, with proper funding, save lives, often in the millions. Any decision about how to spend budgets involves trade-offs, but if we're going to devote more time and money to reducing global warming/climate change/ManBearPig than we are to the 5 million people (actual people, not hypothetical or potential victims) who die every year from malaria and TV, it's reasonable to ask for solid evidence.

ETA: malaria and TB. Heavens, too much TV has clearly rotted my brain.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by RWJ

who die every year from malaria and TV, it's reasonable to ask for solid evidence.

I know there is some bad television shows out there... but I didn't know it was killing people.

BOb

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I know there is some bad television shows out there... but I didn't know it was killing people.

BOb

There are a few that damn near killed me.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I know there is some bad television shows out there... but I didn't know it was killing people.

BOb

I want to kill myself every time I watch a Seinfeld rerun...

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I just can't let this go. I fed the US Mean Temperature into a spreadsheet, and then plotted it.

The data only goes back to 1880, but the graph does suggest that the mean temperature peaked around 1954 and then crashed. It looks like we are approaching another peak.

But, I do see 2 cycles in this graph. The peak and valley of the 50's and 60's would tend to refute the claim that temperature trends were rising consistently throughout the 20th century.

P.S. The spreadsheet is attached. The data is in reverse chronological order.

A hint of that momentary peak in the data from one continent can also be seen in the global data, although it is much smaller there. The data that is displayed in the graphs at the link that Harry posted covers a longer period of time (and there is data from less direct measurements that go back very much further) and is of the global mean temperature. And the general trend upwards (with momentary variations) is clearly visible.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

I haven't read the book in question nor do I have any prior knowledge about Crichton's opinions on the matter of global warming, but if you are interested in what he said on the matter in an interview with Charlie Rose, you might watch it.

After viewing the video, I stand by my earlier statement that it is consistent with Crichton's views on technology, and on scientists (and non-scientists) who do not do their due diligence before applying technology to a problem or issue. He does have a valid point in that it makes sense to verify the data and compare it to the conclusions, before assuming the problem is a crisis.

The issue to address at that point is exactly how much and how well the data has been vetted by independent and impartial sources? And as a side note, was there verification that Crichton either did not know about, or did not accept as valid?

Perhaps most importantly: If there is a need to independently verify (or disprove) the data and support (or deny) the conclusions, in order to clarify the issue for all parties concerned... and this has, in fact, not been done... why not? Considering the potential danger to global health, you'd think it would be important enough to do exactly that. Or... has it in fact been done, and the independent conclusions are merely being thrown into doubt by others who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?

It's no wonder that these issues have been bandied about for the past 30 years without a solid consensus... much like many of the issues Crichton has taken up in his novels...

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

A hint of that momentary peak in the data from one continent can also be seen in the global data, although it is much smaller there. The data that is displayed in the graphs at the link that Harry posted covers a longer period of time (and there is data from less direct measurements that go back very much further) and is of the global mean temperature. And the general trend upwards (with momentary variations) is clearly visible.

The graph form the source Harry provided cannot be relied upon. It still incorporates invalid temperature data from the US. The temperature trend attributed to the northern hemisphere should have a peak that is much lower.

Also, before citing it as a source you should verify that the temperature from the 1800s is based on actual measurements, and not on a computer extrapolation. Furthermore, I wonder how many data points were actually recorded for each year, and where they were on the globe.

The difference with the US data is that I'm slightly more confident that the US had a sufficiency of data points each year, as well as a system to catch recording errors.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The graph form the source Harry provided cannot be relied upon. It still incorporates invalid temperature data from the US. The temperature trend attributed to the northern hemisphere should have a peak that is much lower.

Could you explain why you believe the data to be invalid, please?

Also, before citing it as a source you should verify that the temperature from the 1800s is based on actual measurements, and not on a computer extrapolation. Furthermore, I wonder how many data points were actually recorded for each year, and where they were on the globe.

I don't know where those particular data originated, but just a note that a continuous record of climatic conditions in the world's "temperate zones" doing back to around 6-7000 BC has been created largely from dendrochronology - ie the study of tree rings. From studying tree rings it's possible to obtain data on both temperature and rainfall to a high level of accuracy.

[digitalzen]

I remember reading Jurassic Park when I was in 4th grade -- it was the first big book I read on my own. But my mom would not let me see the movie haha.

[bill_mchale]

Ok,
Unless someone is a professional climatologist or at least a meteorologist I think we are going to have to disagree. That being said:

1. All data regarding climate taken before the 1970s (or at least the 1960s) is going to be far less reliable than data from later years. The reasons are simple. Prior to climate observation satellites being launched, temperature records essentially were based on collecting local observations. These observations tended to be biased towards areas with large populations (i.e. cities) and thus large areas could have poor coverage and thus not have their temperatures properly recorded.

2. The United States, while large, is not the same as the entire Globe. The key to global warming is world wide trends, not local or even continental trends. Even during ice ages, there were probably parts of the equatorial belt that experienced years of extreme heat.

3. Consensus may not be science, but it is the best tool for the public to gauge the scientific data. Most hypothesis and theories go through a stage when few in the scientific community believe them. Over time, experiments and observations will start to confirm or deny the the hypothesis or theory. As the theories are confirmed, more and more scientists will jump on the band wagon. Now every conclusion in science is always tentative; always subject to change based on new observations. That being said, most scientists, ultimately recognize when they are beating a dead horse and will ultimately accept the theory that has the most evidence for it. At the same time however, there will almost always be scientists who resist the consensus for a long time; for example, Fred Hoyle, to his dieing day, resisted the Big Bang/Inflation model for the creation of the Universe it didn't make him right, just stubborn (Though he may be right.. check back in on cosmology in 50 years ).

Just a general thought; most scientists I have had the pleasure of meeting, regardless of their politics, hate being wrong. What they hate more though is cooking the books. They would prefer show they are wrong than ever fake their data or their conclusions to agree with their politics.

--
Bill

[RWJ]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Just a general thought; most scientists I have had the pleasure of meeting, regardless of their politics, hate being wrong. What they hate more though is cooking the books. They would prefer show they are wrong than ever fake their data or their conclusions to agree with their politics.

--
Bill

This is an excellent point, because it illustrates the problem a lot of people have with the scientists who endorse climate change orthodoxy. (There is also an ever-growing body of climatologists inter alia who criticize that orthodoxy.) I agree with you that the great majority of scientists are dedicated to truth and intellectual integrity in their field. What they're doing on the public stage, however, isn't science, it's politics, and their integrity and honesty in the pursuit of science doesn't carry over into their political lobbying. Further, since politics by its very nature is never subjected to objective verification, the way to ensure that you're not "wrong" when debating policy is to squelch all debate and railroad the opposition, usually with cries for the rest of us to think of the children, the polar bear, the declining bumblebee population, etc.

One reason why Michael Crichton offends me a lot less in this regard than actual scientists who have entered the fray is that he never pretended to be a scientific expert, or appealed to authority; he was a novelist, who was unapologetic and honest about his ideas and bias, and was completely transparent in his arguments. (He frequently imputed ill will to the other side, which is a problem in almost all political debate these days, but that's a different issue.)

[vivaldirules]

I work for a big oil company (as big as they come). In the early to mid-1990's, there were a lot of my colleagues (physicists, chemists, and chemical engineers with doctorates, though not climatologists) who exhibited disbelief in the concept of global warming and of a human cause of it. Certainly, that can't be a surprise. Accepting it is against our personal financial benefit and that's on top of it being downright scary. Now, I personally neither know or know of anyone here who has looked at the problem at any depth who does not now fully accept the idea. The only questions are how bad will it be and what can we do about it. I find that pretty amazing. I realize, again, that this is not popularity contest. But the number of people who have looked at the data and the science and who have consented is overwhelming. I find it unfortunate that there are political pundits and those with strong vested financial interests who continue to be successful in confounding resolution of the issue by claiming that it is untested science or tenuous in some manner. In the meantime, the situation becomes more difficult, perhaps irreversibly.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by RWJ

This is an excellent point, because it illustrates the problem a lot of people have with the scientists who endorse climate change orthodoxy. (There is also an ever-growing body of climatologists inter alia who criticize that orthodoxy.) I agree with you that the great majority of scientists are dedicated to truth and intellectual integrity in their field. What they're doing on the public stage, however, isn't science, it's politics, and their integrity and honesty in the pursuit of science doesn't carry over into their political lobbying. Further, since politics by its very nature is never subjected to objective verification, the way to ensure that you're not "wrong" when debating policy is to squelch all debate and railroad the opposition, usually with cries for the rest of us to think of the children, the polar bear, the declining bumblebee population, etc.

What you say may be so, but I think it is safe to say that making science political started on the political side. A number of interests, both inside and outside the government didn't like what the science said about global warming and then they looked very hard for scientists who agreed with their viewpoint. Then they would point to a few scientists and then say "see the debate is still open", even when the vast majority of scientists had accepted the evidence that suggested global warming is real. Ultimately, the political process is what has corrupted the lobbying of scientists. No one can really go in and claim that there is a 75% probability that global warming will continue and an 82% chance that if it does continue that there will be negative effects in 150 years and expect the politicians to act.

Frankly, the basic problem is that too much of the government is run by lawyers and business men who are not educationally equipped to deal with how science works.

In any case, the science behind the politics is subject to verification and it appears to me that every year there are fewer and fewer scientists who are arguing that global warming is 1. not real and 2. that human activity has not played a significant part in that warming.

--
Bill