Is the following article against global warming by an associate proffessor of Geology accurate?

Question

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba337/ba337.html

Please read the previous article in full and if you find it to be misleading or innaccurate I'd appreciate some feedback on what evidence you have backing up your statements. Is this borehole method accurate and please check out the graph showing global temperatures.

Answer 1

The article is not accurate.  Please check my references, otherwise I'm just another guy shooting off my mouth.

First, he plays word games about the warmest year "on record".  The phrase means since we starting keeping records.  And, in that sense, the stuff about the warmest years on record is all true.  Here's solid peer reviewed data:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

Shows _something_ is going on, yes?  And that everything he questions about the "warmest years on record" is absolutely true.

There are a variety of ways of estimating temperatures before that.  He has one way.  I have no clue about its' validity.  But here are ten (10) other ways, all from peer reviewed literature, all showing about the same thing, that this is a very unusual warming going on now.  And these are the data the vast majority of scientists consider valid.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

The story about "global cooling hysteria" is a myth, a very old chestnut global warming deniers use to appeal to emotion.  It's not relevant to the science, nor is it true.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=9...

Actually the few scientists who suggested global cooling in the 70s more closely resemble the global warming skeptics of today.  Few in number, with theories but little data to support them, and without the backing of major scientific organizations.

Global warming proponents have both the data on the major scientific organizations on their side.

Finally, consider the source.  The NCPA is a right wing think tank, mostly funded by corporations including Exxon-Mobil.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact...

The article is not accurate.  Here are two summaries of the peer reviewed data, showing global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.  Short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Note that this post hasn't referred to Gore.  Gore's movie is basically correct, but there are things in it that are only the majority scientific position, and are subject to reasonable questions.  Everything listed here is very solid, the conservative consensus of almost all scientists.

"Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist." -gavin

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics". -Deltoid, ECOS Letter

Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Answer 2

i read the article and then did a quick google search to see other evidence to link boreholes and global warming, and the majority of what popped up actually supported global warming theories rather than disclaim them.  

Also, the article is from 2000, it is 2007, it is possible that his conclusions are outdated.  Recent evidence is probably more accurate and if you saw "An Inconvenient Truth" i believe Gore uses Boreholes to support him as well.

Answer 3

Had a read of the article and it is misleading in that it fails to address any of the key issues relating to global warming, foremost of which is that temperatures are rising faster now than has ever before been known.

Nowhere does it explain, or attempt to explain, any of the events that are currently attributed to global warming.

In short, it is very selective.  That said, it must be remembered that the author is a geologist and had approached the subject from the perspective of a geologist and not a climatologist or meteorologist.  This in itself leads one to speculate that he isn't necessarily qualified to speak on matters outside his sphere of expertice.

There is a crossover between geology and the climate sciences but the methodology is usually opposite to that which has been adopted. Namely that the geologists present their reports and findings to the relevant experts for analysis and review.

Further, the geological record is much less accurate at determining previous climatic conditions.  It is a valuable tool in the overall scientific toolbox but it's only one tool and not the most suitable one at that.

At the end of the day, if you want to know about rock metamorphis or the difference between basalt and gabbro then ask a geologist.  If you want to know about temperatures or global warming then ask a climatologist.  Obtain the information from the relevant experts and not someone who has strayed from their field of expertice into someone else's territory.

Answer 4

Global warming is a myth.

myth - A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable. This word originates from the Sanskrit word "Mithya"; with the same meaning.

Answer 5

I would say that they might have some correct facts, but they certainly are trying to mislead people.  I would suggest watching AN INCOVENIENT TRUTH for another viewpoint.  Remember, the earth is having climate problems, not just getting steadily warmer.

Answer 6

The 1 deg F. in 100 years could be attributed to the inaccuracy's of the thermometers.that art over 70 years old. Just a couple of months ago here in Texas we broke a low temperature record that had been for 100 years. So which side of the cycle do we look at or have they just looked at what they wanted to present.

Answer 7

NOT REALLY

I don´t see taken into account the fact that the present warming is taking place at a much higher pace than the ones before.

The story of the colonization of Greenland is fake since Greenland was the same as recently. The name "Green-Land" has been given to mislead colonist to this place in order to developp it. The fact that human settlements disappeared from there is probably not related to changes in the climate pattern.

Lack of account from the influence of the ash content of the atmosphere (Volcano & Pollution).

The author criticizes extrapolations but is glad to use them for his opinion.

Nigel Calder´s one man prediction is set as the same level as the entire 2000 scientitists body from the IPPC (which he probably meant by "doomsday sayer"

No good separation between facts, analysis and discussion. The results are clearly political and not scientific.

I doubt this person has a real good scientific background and lacks of methodology.

No single source quoted !!!!!! Which normally leads every paper claiming to be scientific in the trashcan.

Answer 8

YES... I would say that article is 100 percent accurate.

If the borehole method is a waste of time then the huge laboratory that NCAR and USGS maintains at a considerable expense  in AnArtica is not needed... the the experts feel it is.