When I first looked into 9/11 one thing that struck me most was that the building fell at free-fall speed. Over time I have seen a number of video clips and documentaries that make a number of interesting points about 911 that just didn’t make sense with the official story.
My position have changed from a government cover up to possible involvement and now back to no cover up (except minor things).
The comments on this blog have convinced me of this and the arguments I cited or linked to seems to fall with further research.
I am by no means the authority on this subject and I still respect people who differ in opinion but I for one have switched positions.
I suggest you check out the comments here and here for details.
Here is a video showing that the buildings, in fact, did not fall at free-fall speed.
September 6th, 2009 at 5:40 am
And the 5 hijackers that are still alive mean that?
September 6th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Here is the comment submitted by Andrew addressing that:
Hijackers are still alive?
“Shortly after the attacks and before the FBI had released the pictures of all the hijackers, several reports appeared claiming that some of the men named as hijackers on 9/11 were alive, and were feared to have been victims of identity theft.[23][24][25] These cases, however, turned out to be instances of mistaken identities.[26][27]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
September 11th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
You have changed your opinion over this little bit of info? There is overwhelming evidence showing the official story is a blatant lie and cover up.The info that changed your mind so easily, does nothing to change all the evidence of what really happened. Keep seeking truth my friend, you have not even come close to an informed opinion.
September 11th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
My primary reason for believing that the official story was a cover up was the free-fall theory. If you look at the other comments from the other entries you will see there was more then just one thing.
If you have convincing evidence I suggest you post it.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/documentaries.php if you would like to take the time, there are plenty of documetaries on this subject at this website. I would hope that you look at this Dave, and anyone else. I have said before that ” ingnorance is bliss”, because even if you look at these documentaries and make a different conclusion, everything in a sense stays the same.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Oh, my, how easily swayed you are……….quite a let down in my opinion…
September 25th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
@Peter
Sorry to let you down. I think is the only only position change I have made on this blog.
I just don’t feel strongly enough about my original position and when you are not well versed or passionate enough about a position then it can be easily changed I guess.
I don’t feel compelled to research it further.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:23 pm
You conspiracy advocates still haven’t explained a few things to MY satisfaction. First, how do crews of thousands of engineers get into the towers over a period of weeks, and plant all the explosives? And nobody in the towers notices, not security, or the people working there every day. Afterwards, how does the government keep everyone quiet?
The planes were captured on film hitting the towers. The second one, on live TV. We know when the planes took off, and we know there was very little time for anyone to somehow rig them with some sort of auto-pilot directional device (and then safely exit the planes undetected.) Furthermore, were all the people on board the planes, who were communicating with their families via cell phones, somehow in on the suicide plot and being coached as to what to say?
If you conspiracy advocates want to give credit to our government, which demonstrates its general ineptitude daily, for pulling off this massive conspiracy involving thousands of people, and then keeping it all quiet, that’s your right. Personally, I give our government WAY less credit on the competency scale.
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:03 pm
@Mark – You know my updated position now so I am just playing devil’s advocate.
Some believe that the Builderburg group is pulling the strings. They could be more competent then a puppet government.
Also you could have the engineers come in over a period of weeks if they were explained as being something else to the workers in the building.
I do know of at least one specific thing was covered up from a source I will not disclose. It is an understandable cover up but it does ask the question: what else are they hiding?
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Dave,
To bring down buildings like that, wouldn’t you need tons and tons of explosives, set in strategic locations on virtually every floor? Aren’t demolition explosives usually wired together, to assure detonation in a certain sequence (radio-controlled detonation of thousands of individual charges would, it would seem to me, be highly impractical if the sequence does in fact matter?) How in the world could that be done in secret, with tens of thousands of people working in those towers? Not to mention the security guards, building managers, and so on?
And remember, we’re talking about 2 buildings, not just one. And each one, how many stories tall?
What about the plane that was caught on live TV (by several networks, and home video?) A magic trick?
What about all the phone calls from passengers on the planes? Not to mention air traffic controllers, don’t they have electronic evidence of the planes going non-stop from Logan into the towers?
The one or two possible minor inconsistencies the conspiracy advocates point to are nothing compared to all the far-fetched explanations THEY would need, to put together a comprehensive, compelling argument.
Some people just want to believe there’s a conspiracy behind everything. Sometimes however, life really is as simple as it seems.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:07 am
Someone else who actually holds the position should answer your questions about the demolition.
As far as the planes. They still crashed into the building but the explosives would be what actually takes the buildings down.
I don’t focus on conspiracy stuff. Their is already enough stuff to to focus on that is more important.
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Agree totally, that past conspiracies are more the venue for books and movies than political debate. And while I disagree with the 911 conspiracy crowd, I am glad that people remain skeptical of our government and “conventional wisdom.” There are, in fact, some conspiracies I definitely believe are out there, active and destructive to our country.
For example, the man-made global warming propaganda has always been a conspiracy (and the lies are starting to come to light, and the truth is coming out.)
I believe there has been a conspiracy to keep energy prices high in the USA, by artificially limitinmg oil production, nuclear production, and forcing inefficient wind and solar on consumers.
Ethanol is far more expensive to make than its counterpart (refined oil.) It uses way too much water too, which is a very much under-appreciated natural resource that we’d better start taking better care of. I think the whole ethanol movement (championed by red-state Republicans like Bob Dole, as well as big-government Democrats) could be called a conspiracy as well, with all the disinformation about how “green” ethanol is for our planet.
Always good to be skeptical, but also a good idea to stay this side of reasonable.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Well, that’s completely false according to the nonpartisan FactCheck.org:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
But, I do agree it’s always good to be skeptical. The Ethanol (E85) movement was very strange and abused in the most recent presidential primaries:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/audacious_ethanol_hopes.html
One quick point on nuclear power: we don’t know what to do with nuclear waste. Nuclear power plants are great, but the waste is the issue. There’s no conspiracy there.
Wind & solar have huge potential. They are relatively inefficient, but they can currently allow buildings and towns to be self-sustaining. Solar panels & wind farms need to get cheaper (and that WILL eventually happen, just like the cost of computer memory has fallen). Solar & wind will also get more efficient over time. It’s kind of unfair to ignore technologies that are basically brand new, especially when they have such a huge environmental bonus. If we don’t invest in these technologies, then they will never be developed to the point where they are more efficient.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
@Andrew:
Besides the emails, what about the claim the Himalayan glaciers would likely be gone by 2035, when that estimate is, in fact, off by over 300 years, and was based on an interview with ONE person, and even then he was misquoted? Or about thesame UN report using a student’s essay as their basis for other draconian “global warming” dangers? And today I see they have also lied about how much of the Netherlands is below sea level.
Your majority of scientists and overwhelming body of evidence is turning out to be fabricated lies, as almost daily another lie is exposed. What does factcheck.org say about the melting of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035? What do they say about the percentage of Netherlands below sea level?
Do you realize, this totally discredited 2007 UN report won a Nobel prize? Of course, so did Barack Obama, after being in office just 11 days.
The man-made global warming “crisis” is and always has been, a complete fraud, and many of its “scientists” have a lot of explaining to do. Their work wasn’t just sloppy; it is filled with outright lies. No way to defend that.
February 5th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
@Mark S.
Yes, there are errors in the IPCC report, but you have to understand that it’s like picking moss off of a rock. The errors don’t even remotely touch the overwhelming body of scientific research. So, (by your logic) since there are a few mistakes in the report, all 20k references to the IPCC report are “sloppy”? Do you realize that the research behind every legitimate reference was subject to rigorous standards and review? Do you have any idea how much work goes into a PhD thesis? Most of the 20k references could be or was a PhD thesis. The IPCC report was quite an effort. It was basically a large global effort to collect and summarize the entire body of research. They had to go through much more than 20k papers to whittle their references list down to 20k.
Here’s what happened with the Himalayan glaciers quote:
“Totally discredited”? Hardly.
In need of editing? Yep.
February 5th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Andrew,
I’m confused here. First you say “Do you realize that the research behind every legitimate reference was subject to rigorous standards and review?”
Then you dismiss the LIE (not merely “sloppiness”) that the Himalayan glaciers are likely to melt by 2035 as a “relatively minor error.” I can find you plenty of research that says it will take at minimum, 300 years for the Himalayan glaciers to melt, a FAR cry from 25, wouldn’t you have to admit?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8d6e5773c60565dfc6e882b0a8dcbf18.4e1&show_article=1
“No evidence could be found to show the claim had been published in a peer-reviewed journal and reports in Britain have said the reference came from green group the WWF, who in turn sourced it to the New Scientist magazine.”
And with all that scientific rigor, how did this same esteemed panel manage to vastly over-state the amount of Netherlands that is below sea level?
On the one hand you’re clinging to the notion that these are brilliant scientists, working diligently to be accurate as they continually review each others’ work. Meanwhile, the report has errors that can only be there either by GROSS ineptitude, or by intentional, purposeful deceit.
Oh, and by the way, how about this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html
“Scientist at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.
The Information Commissioner’s office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics…”
Lies and deceit, Andrew, not merely sloppiness by dozens and dozens of diligent, detail-oriented, brilliant scientists devoted to determining the truth.
February 7th, 2010 at 10:59 am
@Mark S.
I thought I was clear, but let me try to re-word for you.
The Himalayan quote was a mistake, no one disputes that. By the way, no one disputes that the glaciers are melting at a rapid pace (more like the 300 years you said above). The Himalayan quote was not a peer-reviewed study, and somehow made it into the IPCC 2007 report. But it did not make it into the summary report, which is what policymakers review.
Again, here is an explanation of what happened (also posted in my last comment, but I don’t think you read it):
There were 20k references in the IPCC report. Most of these references were peer-reviewed research or PhD theses. Based on your comments, I’m guessing you’re not very familiar with doctorate (PhD) programs, so here’s a summary for you from VT:
http://www.soe.vt.edu/idt/doctoral/checklist.html (note: all of this is after you’ve completed a Master’s degree, applied, and taken a qualifying exam like the GRE).
Moving on to the Netherlands error, this was from another non-peer reviewed source, as stated in the last paragraph of the link you posted. Also in the article the IPCC admitted that correcting the number was on their agenda.
Regarding the last link you posted, you clearly did not read the FactCheck.org article I posted on “climategate”, since there’s a whole section on the University of East Anglia:
Please read before commenting, because you seem to be quick to the keyboard. I can’t debate if you don’t even read my comments. You seem to be convinced about what you believe and I’m reading the articles that supposedly have convinced you. I’m responding with what I have read, from what are widely considered to be non-partisan sources. You’re replying with partisan links and not reading my sources. Please be considerate if you are truly interested in the truth. Thanks.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Andrew,
I do check out the links you provide. I still find the explanations to be inadequate. Quoting your last post, this is what I mean:
“Regardless of how the statement remained in the full report after the review process, it is important to put it into scientific and political context, UCS experts said…” Andrew, HOW did it get in the report, without anyone noticing such a GROSS error? Also in your previous post you say: “By the way, no one disputes that the glaciers are melting at a rapid pace (more like the 300 years you said above)…” So when a report says they’ll be gone in TWENTY-FIVE years, how in the world doesn’t at least one of these scientists catch that mistake? The article says: “the writing and review process involved more than 2,500 expert scientific reviewers…” And nobody caught it?
You may want to defend this bureaucracy, but someone put that report in, and of the 2,500 scientific reviewers, nobody either noticed it or cared enough to correct it. Yet, you hold their work in high regard. It would be like NASA issuing a report that included a study saying the moon is made of bleu cheese, and nobody challenging it.
The link you referenced also says this: “Presumably the working group did not consider the 2035 Himalayan glaciers claim to be reliable enough for its policymaker summary…” Really?? Why didn’t they find the claim to be patently ABSURD? Yet the article continues by stating this is a relatively minor error.
Yeah, glaciers melting in 300 years, glaciers melting in 25 years, no big difference, right? And although you claim this and your other sources to be “non-partisan,” did you notice the final sentence: “It is incumbent upon journalists to resist giving these attacks more credence than they deserve and avoid confusing the public about the real threat of global warming.” Translation: people who don’t just roll over and believe everything these scientists feed us are easily confused, so journalists would be doing us dummies a favor by simplifying things and only giving us the party line.
You say: “Based on your comments, I’m guessing you’re not very familiar with doctorate (PhD) programs, so here’s a summary for you from VT…” Well, I did check out the link and was very impressed with the rigor of the process, especially the Final Defense. It’s too bad the IPCC didn’t maintain consistently high standards such as these, because if they did, it sounds like it would be very hard to get something as ridiculous as Himalayan Glaciers melting away in 25 years past so many peers, or for that matter the percentage of the Netherlands that is below sea level.
I wonder why they do allow these non-peer reviewed documents to make it into their reports. Do they include ANY non-peer reviewed documents that might cast doubt on global warming?
Andrew says: “Regarding the last link you posted, you clearly did not read the FactCheck.org article I posted on “climategate”, since there’s a whole section on the University of East Anglia..” I did in fact read it, actually. And you have yourself quoted the key to it: “It’s clear from the e-mails that there are people with whom the scientists would rather not share…” My question is, Why? Andrew, you and I are trying to convince each other of a position. We bring evidence and logic to the table to make our strongest arguments. If the data show conclusively that man-made global warming is in fact indisputable, why in the world would scientists of that belief not want the entire WORLD to see the data? Yet, Phil Jones doesn’t.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html
“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone… We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”
Andrew…. Why are the global warming scientists so afraid of having their data reviewed by others not in their fraternal circle? I’m not afraid of the truth, or where it may lead. Why are they?
In closing, I do read your links and comments. But rather than being convinced by them, I find more things to be curios about. And I have to smile when you say MY links are partisan while yours are not. Your links are defending the suppression of data, and minimizing major disinformation. Mine are exposing both. I believe I am being considerate, as are you. My questions are simple. Why the secrecy with the data? Why the incredible sloppiness in the otherwise rigorously reviewed IPCC 2007 report?
Tripping on a sidewalk is a mistake. Those errors were put into that report, and unless nobody read it, they were seen by many. Yet they remained in there. Why?
February 11th, 2010 at 12:18 am
@Mark S.
Sadly, much like the bills passed through congress and EULAs, reading the 3000+ page report is a large task and errors will be made. The most important thing to read is the summary, which is what policymakers review. There haven’t been any errors reported in the summary.
Global warming deniers are blowing up these errors way out of proportion. The Himalayan error WASN’T a big mistake. The glaciers are melting at a rapid pace. In the grand scheme of things, there isn’t a lot of difference between 300 and 25 years. One is in our lifetime–but we’re still destroying our habitable atmosphere very quickly.
I agree with you that more rigor should have been put into the IPCC report. I would like to know how many eyes looked over the non-peer reviewed sources. Some of the sources (like the Netherlands sea level) were flagged but never updated. I suspect there is probably just a lack of time and good reviewers. It seems like some non-scientific personnel were part of the committee (much like are part of the EPA). I’m not arguing the IPCC is perfect, but I am arguing that a few bad references doesn’t invalidate a wealth of good data.
Why would scientists not want to share data with some people? Well, as FactCheck states, the majority of their data is freely available and they don’t trust the motives of the people/groups requesting the small amount of remaining data. The person most cited as requesting the data is Stephen McIntyre, who is well known for distorting and cherry-picking (misrepresenting) data. He isn’t a scientist and scientists suspect that he is being funded because of corporate interests.
Regarding partisanship of sources, I was trying to defend FactCheck, which is widely regarded as a non-partisan website. I have never heard any information about them being liberal. In fact, I’ve only heard them being criticized of being conservative. They are operated by the Anneberg Foundation, which is very conservative leaning and was a huge contributor to McCain. In my last post, I did cite the Union of Concerned Scientists, which ARE criticized of being liberal. The Daily Mail checked out to be conservative on a quick Google search.
Lastly, I noticed Sarah Palin called climate change data “snake oil science” today. I want to point out that when she was petitioning the endangerment finding of polar bears, she cited a study funded by… *drumroll*… Exxon Mobil. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/10/02/exxon-palin-mccain/
Meanwhile, Bush’s Fish and Wildlife Services Director Dale Hall found no scientific uncertainty that polar bears were endangered because of global warming http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/05/14/polar-bear-threatened/
February 11th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Here’s more info on why the errors are insignificant:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2834
This one talks about the Amazon “error”. Basically in all cases, the information in the report is consistent with the peer-reviewed research, but there were lazy citations. (and again the exact date of the complete melting of the Himalayan glaciers is a moot point… the fact is that they are melting very, very fast.)
How did the lazy citations get in there? That remains a good question. Probably some non-scientific or lazy people using Google to add citations retrospectively.
Again, a few lazy citations does not mean climate science is bogus. That’s absurd. Deniers seem to be looking for any excuse to dismiss this is as a hoax.
Reminds me of a famous W quote:
Bush: “Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers.”
It seems to me that people don’t understand science and therefore are afraid of it. According to some psychologists, people often vote against their own interests if policies are complex to the point where politicians struggle to explain concisely. People are lazy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8474611.stm
February 15th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Andrew,
I agree, psychology is a big part of this, and its why the whole man-made global warming nonsense has become almost a religion among believers. Sure, there are some (like most of the scientists you rely on) who receive funding for their employment, and obviously if they aren’t making new, headline-grabbing “discoveries” their funding sources may become disinterested.
But for the most part, I believe what’s going on is what Sarah Palin calls “The arrogance of man.” We just assume we are in control, or to give order and meaning to our lives we desperately want to believe we are in control. Liberals/socialists/communists of course are much more susceptible to this notion, as controlling others is what their political philosophy is all about to begin with.
Global warming and cooling has been going on forever, this is indesputable, and the internal combustion engine wasn’t around during 99.9999999% of that time. Yet, somehow, man MUST be in control of climate changes today. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is LESS THAN one-half of one-tenth of one percent. Maybe a tenth of THAT can be attributed to humans. We’re talking about a really really small number here, but since it’s the only thing that can be blamed on humans, that’s where the blame goes. We “skeptics” give more credit to the sun, sunspots, solar rays, gravitatiuonal pull, ocean currents, and natural forces that are considerably more dominant than a trace amount of a gas vital for all plant life, and all life itself.
It is absolutely ridiculous on its face, yet people buy into it, because it fits nicely with the entire agenda: Higher taxes to support more government, more regulation to hinder capitalism, more control over everyone to inhibit individual freedom and liberty in the name of centralized control and planning.
Now, as far as facts go, you have been asserting that this global warming thing is real, the planet is getting warmer, and because of it glaciers are melting. Since you seem to consider these scientists to be the only credible sources on this matter (even though they have just as much vested interest in propping up their fear-mongering theories as oil companies have in debunking them), I’m wondering what your take is on this recent news story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Some highlights from Phil Jones himself, possessive keeper of the data at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit:
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
So, Andrew…. see the problem I keep running into? People like you and Al Gore are telling us the planet is warming, ice is melting, and on and on, but the data show otherwise, and Phil Jones himself admits this. If you were me, Andrew, and I mean this politely, should I believe you or Phil Jones, and why?
February 15th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
@Mark S.
We figured out in the early 20th century that greenhouse gases increase global temperatures. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) gets all of the attention, but in fact other gases have much higher global warming potential including sulfur hexaflouride, hydoflurocarbon, nitrous oxide, and methane. Together, these gases are a small percentage of the atmosphere, but it’s ignorant to say that a something with a small percentage can’t have a big impact (e.g. cayenne pepper in a casserole). If the atmosphere was 12% carbon dioxide (like in the Devonian period 359.2 million years ago), the Earth would be 350x as warm. But, oh wait. The Earth is only 6000 years old according to creationists, right?
Sure, you can listen to Phil Jones, but you need to actually be able to understand what he says. “Statistical significance” is hard to achieve (i.e. near impossible) with small data sets. Paul Jones said that the period from 1995 to 2009 was near significant, which is actually quite remarkable and very strong evidence pointing toward global warming. Any statistician (and myself–I use stats in my job) will tell you that you need quite a large data set to achieve what we call “significance”. I get very excited when my results in research even remotely close to significance levels!
Here’s a good summary of how Phil Jones’s words were misunderstood:
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/7593
There are passionate groups of believers and of deniers. The believers have science on their side. The deniers seem to be poorly interpreting science and trying to make common sense arguments. As I’ve said before on here, common sense arguments have been very popular in history. For example, we used to think that the Earth was the center of the universe (i.e. geocentric). This made a lot of sense, since stars and planets all rotate through the sky. But, it’s simply not true and now everyone (ok, most everyone) understands that the Earth rotates the Sun and we’re part of a solar system. Could I find someone on the street that could explain to me Kepler’s Law of Planetary Motion though? Highly unlikely.
February 15th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
All right, as always I checked out the link you provided. Here’s what else it says, not by the reporter, but by those who, like me, focus on the inconsistencies:
1. More significant was his admission that he believes it is possible that the planet was warmer in the Medieval Period (Middle Ages) than it is today. That would make it pretty hard to argue your point that global warming is due to human activity, no?
2. You did an excellant job commenting on Question B. However you elected to ignore Question C. Here it is.
C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
So, Andrew, he’s saying the planet is cooling down.
And by the way, I don’t have stats in front of me but didn’t most of the warming in the 20th century occur from 1900-1940? How is that explained by your theory?
February 16th, 2010 at 10:50 am
@Mark S.
I’m going to reference the original interview instead of looking at other sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Regarding #1, Jones states that there is debate whether the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) was global or not. For example, there is evidence that globally, temperature was actually cooler than in the early-mid 20th century (Source: http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley2003d.pdf).
With the best data we have, you can see that even if we are in another warm period, the temperature anomaly is much greater and sharper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Not quite. First, I have no idea what data he is using (for both warming and cooling) because he doesn’t say in his interview. Jones is basically saying that a slight cooling trend has been observed during the warming period. Here’s a graph of surface/satellite that temperatures that seems to indicate that too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
NASA’s temperature recordings don’t show a cooling period though. This has led many to question NASA’s accuracy (and I’ll leave that up to the experts).
Anyway, the fact is that over the long-term, there has definitely been a strong warming trend.
Finally, I want to cite a key part of the interview:
Regarding your last comment about 1900-1940, please understand all of the industrial and technological advancements slightly before and during that period. We went from -0.4 C to 0.0 C. Here’s the chart from NASA data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
What was your question regarding that specifically?
February 17th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Andrew,
Thanks for your replies and the information you have provided. We’re dealing with two different concepts here. First, are we experiencing a warming trend, and second, if we are, can it be attributed to one-tenth (the approximate man-made component) of one half of one-tenth of one percent of our atmosphere being CO2.
Phil Jones is telling me that from 2002 through today, there has been slight cooling. You are telling me there is continued warming. I’m not sure what your credentials are but he seems to be regarded in his field as an expert.
I’m not sure I would trust Wikipedia as an authoritative source, but what the link you sent tells me is that there has been a lot of temperature fluctuation in the past thousand years, and for the majority of that time, mankind cannot possibly be held responsible for it. This in my opinion proves the obvious: climate change is and always has been, a naturally occurring process that has nothing to do with the activities of humans.
The point about temperature increases from 1900-1940 being greater than from 1940-1990 is further illustration of that. If increases in CO2 levels (and the other “greenhouse gasses” you mention, which are all trace amounts in the atmosphere) are the primary cause for climate warming, then why the leveling off period following 1940? Why the decline from 2002 to today? Shouldn’t global temperatures be steadily on the rise?
As soon as you answer that question with some explanation about ocean currents, or sunspot activity, or el nino or la nina, you are making my point for me. There are, clearly, natural forces that easily offset anything humans are doing.
I think we’re going round and round with this… You’re telling me the theories and models show there should be warming. Phil Jones is saying the warming trend has changed now to a cooling trend.
Frankly, from what I’ve read, there tends to be much more global prosperity associated with warming periods than ice age periods (more food supply being an obvious by product of warmer temperatures.) So even if you are correct, the doomsday scenarios being painted by the Al Gore alarmists are also at odds with reality.
Anyway, here’s a new question for you. Has anyone performed an experiment such as this: Take a large indoor pool, fill it with saltwater, then pump an additional amount of CO2 into the building in the amount of one two-hundredths of one percent (one tenth of one half of one tenth of one percent as mentioned above), and see what it does to the temperature inside the building?
Then do the reverse: Warm the salt water slightly, maybe a degree or 2, and see if in fact CO2 is emitted from the water as a result of the warming.
In other words, has there been an experiment done to try and determine cause and effect between warming and increased CO2 levels? If so I’d really like to see it. Seems like this is at the heart of the whole matter, although I still contend natural forces are clearly dominating the Mann hockey stick theory as evidenced by all the warming-cooling-warming-cooling fluctuations evident.
Thanks again for your time, I’m enjoying the discussion.
Mark
February 17th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
@Mark S.
Regarding the slight cooling trend, how did I deny it? I did say that NASA does not show a cooling trend, however their methods of measuring global temperature are criticized.
By the way, I am not a climatologist and I highly doubt anyone who ever looked at this blog is. They have better things to do. I do applied research in human factors and have an MS degree. None of that qualifies me to talk about climate science, but I can definitely comment on stats and how research is typically conducted (I’ve read way too many research papers).
The Wikipedia charts I referenced were just summarizing data. They were probably not created by scientists, but they were created with their data.
There’s no doubt climate change has always been happening and that there are periods of warmth and cold. The question is why recent temperature data is drastically warmer than anything on record. The sharp difference, according to the majority of scientists in the world and all scientific bodies, is caused by man.
We are going around and around with this, but I think that I’m being misinterpreted quite often, which causes me to have to repeat previous statements.
Anyway, skipping to your question. Yes, the greenhouse effect (first discovered in 1824) has been validated. It is a scientific theory (again, http://notjustatheory.com/ if you need to know what a “scientific theory” is).
Unfortunately, your study design is flawed since it’s missing something kind of big (the Sun). But anyway, it sounds like you’re trying to construct something like… a greenhouse. Have you ever been in a greenhouse? You know why they’re so damn hot? Do you know what plants emit? CO2.
The greenhouse effect is further proven by climate models, ice rings, tree trunks, and geology. There is absolutely no scientific debate that CO2 and other greenhouse gases cause a warmer Earth. The question is how much of an impact greenhouse gases had compared to other known ways man is causing Earth to get warmer (aerosols, deforestation, etc.).
I can’t debate any further about natural forces without digging through an abundance of sources, which I don’t really have time for. All I know is that the temperature increase is so drastic and based on historical and climate model data it cannot all have been caused by natural forces.
February 21st, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Andrew,
Yes, I am looking for a repeatable experiment that shows conclusively that increased levels of CO2 at trace levels actually does cause atmospheric warming (and not vice-versa.)
As to your comment:
“Have you ever been in a greenhouse? You know why they’re so damn hot? Do you know what plants emit? CO2.”
That is consistent with what I’m reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
Plants also emit CO2 during respiration, and so the majority of plants and algae, which use C3 photosynthesis, are only net absorbers during the day. Though a growing forest will absorb many tons of CO2 each year, the World Bank writes that a mature forest will produce as much CO2 from respiration and decomposition of dead specimens (e.g. fallen branches) as is used in biosynthesis in growing plants.[40] However six experts in biochemistry, biogeology, forestry and related areas writing in the science journal Nature that “Our results demonstrate that old-growth forests can continue to accumulate carbon, contrary to the long-standing view that they are carbon neutral.” [41] Mature forests are valuable carbon sinks, helping maintain balance in the Earth’s atmosphere. Additionally, and crucially to life on earth, photosynthesis by phytoplankton consumes dissolved CO2 in the upper ocean and thereby promotes the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bot00/bot00191.htm
Question – I vaguely remember having learned in biology that plants emit carbon dioxide at night. Is this true? How is it done?
————————————————
My botany is a bit rusty but as I recall, during the day while photosynthesis is the dominant process in leaves, carbon dioxide is taken up from the air and used in the process of making sugars. At night, when photosynthesis does not occur – no sunlight for energy – respiration does occur, which gives off carbon dioxide just as it does in animals. On balance, though, plants take up much more carbon dioxide in photosynthesis than they give off in respiration.
J. Elliott
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:09 am
Andrew,
Sorry… I meant your quote is inconsistent with what I’ve read. Plants reduce the amount of CO2, they don’t increase it. Yet, as you say, greenhouses can get rather warm. So… how do you explain that?
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:50 pm
@Mark S.
Sorry, I was misinformed. The parallel between the greenhouse effect and greenhouses is that both trap heat inside. The greenhouse effect does this via “greenhouse gases” like CO2 and methane that re-radiate escaping heat back to Earth. We shouldn’t look beyond that.
Now, back to the original question of creating a physical model. NOAA has simple one that can be performed in class, but this is simply to prove that trapping radiation increases surface temperatures:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/education/lesson_plans/Modeling%20the%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf
To really measure the radiative effects of gases, you need a spectrophotometer. Back in 1861, Tyndall published “On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connection of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction”. He measured different gases and found that CO2 in trace amounts acts similar to a sheet of paper. The analogy provided from the American Institute of Physics (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) is that a sheet of paper is much more effective than a pool of water in blocking light.
The article also cites other research and experiments, but I didn’t have time to go through it.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Does that help?
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:12 pm
@Mark and Andrew
I appreciate that you guys are being respectful and civil. Keep it up.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Andrew,
You say:
“The parallel between the greenhouse effect and greenhouses is that both trap heat inside. The greenhouse effect does this via “greenhouse gases” like CO2 and methane that re-radiate escaping heat back to Earth. We shouldn’t look beyond that.”
Well, I’m not quite ready to stop looking beyound that.
We now agree the plants in a greenhouse reduce the levels of CO2 relative to the atmosphere in general. Yet greenhouses are hotter than the atmosphere. The correlation I’m seeing here is LOWER CO2 levels “causing” greenhouses to be warmer.
Here’s another one (call it a “mini-greenhouse” experiment.) Take your nice, average summer day when it’s about 80 degrees outside. Now, put your car in direct sunlight, close all the windows and doors, wait a couple hours, and see which is warmer- inside the car, or just outside it? And again, nothing to do with CO2.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:42 pm
@Dave
Thanks!
@Mark
Greenhouses and cars don’t have an atmosphere and thus can’t replicate our atmosphere. The solar energy is absorbed by the contents of the greenhouse or car, and converted to heat energy. The heat energy can’t escape the greenhouse or car because of the glass. The glass works similar to the greenhouse gases in the real greenhouse effect:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-1.1.html
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:27 pm
In other words, CO2 by itself doesn’t cause heat. In the atmosphere, greenhouse gases absorb and emit longwave radiation. At the surface level, you don’t have radiation of the same wavelength and therefore CO2 will not behave the same.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
I want to take a look at the links you posted above, but haven’t had the time yet. I do have another angle I’d like your thoughts on.
Think of a wooded area with lakes, rivers, streams. Beavers live there and take down trees, altering the course of some of the waterways. That makes there environment “different”, and I suppose some people could debate that it might be for the better and some might say its overall for the worse. In a hypothetical situation like that, would you tend to be in favor of putting some sort of skirts on the base of the trees, perhaps sheet metal, to prevent the beavers from living their lives as they had been?
Now look at mankind. Are we part of nature too? If the fact there are about 7,000,000,000 of us will cause the planet to warm maybe one degree celsius over the next 100 years, does that mean, first, that the change is “bad”? Would our activity causing the planet to cool one degree over the next 100 years likewise be “bad”?
Andrew, we agree natural climate change has been happening since forever and the planet has not only survived nicely, the glaciers have given us wonderful lakes and interesting topography.
Here’s my point: Why is all the naturally-occuring warming/cooling history of earth over the last hundreds of millions of years okay, but this next degree is going to cause disaster?
If beavers can alter their environment and that’s okay, it’s nature, then suppose you are right and 7 billion of us are also altering our environment slightly. Why do you and others leap to the conclusion that we must be completely neutral in our environment?
Another thought. Since the temperature hasn’t been rising the past 10 years, can we at least agree that CO2 and other “greenhouse gasses” aren’t the only factor at play here? I would argue the sun (and sunspots) is almost infinitely more important to climate than the trace amount of those gasses and in addition we hear scientists talk about ocean currents, prevailing winds, and on and on.
So, suppose there are 50 different factors in climate change, 49 are natural and out of our control, and one small one, CO2, is something we are partially (at most, one-tenth) responsible for. Isn’t there about a 50-50 chance that the natural forces are trending cooler, and that our impact is actually to very slightly moderate that shift? In other words, when you see that the planet has cooled slightly in the past 10 years, if our impact on climate is in the warming direction, haven’t we actually moderated that change, and in fact, aren’t we actually responsible for LESS cooling (LESS climate change?)
Now, I have not in any way conceded any of the fundamental points:
1. I’m not convinced we can be said to be in a significant warming trend. It all depends what timeframe we’re looking at.
2. I’m not convinced of the effect of CO2 in our atmosphere at trace levels. Hopefully the links you provided will enlighten me on this point.
Now, IF the man-made warming effect is in fact true, then I move on to these questions:
3. Is it a significant enough impact to outweigh all the other factors that we have no control over?
4. If the factors we have no control over are trending cooler, then isn’t our contribution to the equation actually a good thing, in that it would be providing moderation to the cooling trend?
Andrew, I live in Minnesota. I won’t live to see it, but the next ice age will destroy everything in my community and everything north of me all the way to Canada and beyond. The last one was just 10,000 years ago. If you want to think about catastrophe, imagine the northern 2/3 of Minnesota completely wiped out. If mankind’s activity is a force that is very minutely, but steadily, keeping the next ice age that much further off, wouldn’t that be a good thing?
Your position seems to be that if mankind’s activity has any impact on the climate whatsoever, it is a bad thing and must be reduced or stopped. I see us as part of nature.
We will probably agree that reasonable pollution control is a good thing (wishing China and India would focus on their efforts a little more… I’m sure in time they will improve in that area.) But I cannot get to the point where I see CO2 as a pollutant. I also don’t see how the cooling of the past 10 years fits into the Mann hockey stick model, and eventually I come to the big one:
Sarah Palin calls it “the arrogance of man.” Andrew, why is the climate as it is in our lifetimes somehow deemed the ideal, from which we must never again deviate? Is it simply because we walk the earth now, and therefore we just assume this is how it should always be?
Or is this just another excuse for people inclined towards big government to grab more control over people who just want to heat their homes and have a mobile lifestyle?
February 26th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
It all boils down to the data. The reason is that the data shows it is dramatically different from the climate change the Earth has experienced before. I know that you are not convinced it is significant, but the majority of scientists are and they are a lot more qualified to make that call.
Regarding beavers(!): Other animals have not even come close to developing the type of technology that we have. We are intelligent. We can measure other animals’ impact and our own impact on the environment. Sometimes we do have to step into mother nature carefully and alter things for the good of the environment (e.g. when invasive plants or fish try to take over).
There is no debate that other natural factors are also in play. I haven’t done much research into sunspots and ocean currents, but I know the sunspot argument was debunked.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sunspots-do-not-cause-climate-change-say-scientists-1839867.html
1. At this point, I’m not sure if you can be convinced unless a real climate scientist stepped in. This is an issue that’s important to me, so I hope I gave it my best shot.
2. As I said before, CO2′s impact at trace levels has been known since the mid-19th century.
3. Yes, according to most climate scientists.
4. Ok, so I read more about the “cooling trend”. It turns out that if you take the data from 1998-2007 you get a 0.3 cooling trend. If you take the data from 1997-2006, there is a 0.6 warming trend. Over the long term, we are warming. This article explains how climate skeptics are cherry picking the data to make it look like climate change isn’t a big deal:
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_14472650
Unfortunately, we can’t control how much we warm the planet. We can’t just pull the plug right now and say “well, we aren’t going to put any more CO2 in the air because the planet is at a good temperature.” If we pull the plug today, there will still be enough greenhouse gases from previous years to keep the planet warming.
We should be arrogant. We are highly evolved beings. Big corporations are throwing money around trying to kill off green policies and are ignoring scientific data so that they can make more profits.
I want to leave you with today a TED presentation by Bill Gates. Toward the end of the video, Bill has a message toward climate skeptics that basically says even if you don’t believe in man-made climate change, you should believe that it’s important to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions because it will be good for our economy and the world.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bill_gates.html
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Hi again Andrew,
In my last post I was asking you different types of questions, trying to get you to think outside the proverbial box a little bit. It seems to me your reply basically is:
Science indicates mankind is causing some climate change, and therefore we need government action to force a stop to it.
Andrew, this is the exact type of logic that brings us all big government initiatives.
In the healthcare debate, how many times to we hear a story of someone who didn’t receive free healthcare and died… with the natural conclusion being, we need a big government program to prevent that from ever happening again, to anyone.
Or, a child finds a handgun in his home and accidentally shoots his friend with it. Well, obviously, that means we need strict gun control legislation.
What I was trying to get you to think about is the nature of mankind, and the total impact we make on our environment. If the other factors that affect climate, and we agree there are many, are trending cooler short-term (from 2003 through today) and graphs indicate we’re between ice ages, so we’ll be trending cooler long-term as well, then if we impact the climate ever so slightly in the direction of warming, isn’t that impact in a positive direction?
Obviously we can’t prevent the next ice age. I would argue that our impact on doing that would be about as much as throwing a ping pong ball at the windshield of a semi moving at 60 miles per hour. The law of physics indicates that ping pong ball must’ve slowed the truck some, but for all intents and purposes the impact was negligible.
Anyway, what I’m asking you about now is the coupling of believing human impact on climate is in the direction of warming rather than cooling, and your conclusion that this is bad and must be stopped.
Again, why is the climate, as we know it today, considered ideal?
And when natural forces again cause the climate to change, towards warming or cooling, as natural forces have been continually doing since forever, why will this natural evolution from now on be seen as bad?
It’s as though you want creatures 100 million years from now to look at the earth’s climate graph and see all the ups and downs, all the ice ages and so on, right up until 2010, and then see a steady flat line, with zero deviation, not even a degree, for the next 100 million years.
Anyway, you’re obviously a very intelligent guy, that’s why I enjoy our conversation, and I’d really like to explore this angle of the subject with you. I want to better understand how the logic of the man-made global warming advocates holds together, in context of the big picture.
Thanks,
Mark
March 11th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Well, I agree that we shouldn’t just create government programs to solve problems. Government can lead initiatives that don’t increase the budget. That’s a bit of a different topic though.
I don’t actually agree with the cooling trend. As I stated before, the cooling trend was just manipulating data (see my comment #35).
This climate is ideal because otherwise we will potentially see famine, fires, floods, droughts, disease, and basically problems on a massive scale. Developing nations just do not have the infrastructure to handle the affects of climate change that we have seen so far.
Personally, I don’t want to see that happen any more than it already has.
Anyway, I obviously cannot convince you of the science, so I hoped you watched Bill Gates’ presentation and are at least supportive of cleaner and more efficient energy production methods.