This is a short document containing some starting thoughts relating to climate change.

Some starting global warming thoughts

Global warming links. I did some web searches on Saturday evening, December 15, 2012. I was successful in locating actual data files, including tabular data files, pertaining to global warming. The NASA site contains data which appears to be very useful. A few links are given below.

I am interested in obtaining actual data files so that I can do analysis using tools such as the R statistical package, and other related plotting and data analysis tools. Quite a number of nice pieces of analysis as well as nice graphics are presented online.

A good question is how one defines average temperature. A quick entry into this area reveals that this is a very naïve question. The question of temperature or average temperature is complex, and may involve a variety of different kinds of definitions, and or averaging techniques. For example, how does one perform an average, given that there are nearly an infinite number of possible ways of performing a weighted average. Another example is that the temperature can depend on latitude, country, and on many other factors and variables. So the idea of something as simple as temperature itself turns out to be a very difficult concept in itself. The very notion, or concept, of the temperature of the planet is a very complex notion. How does one normalize to remove effects:  such as seasonal variations or other things that are typically performed when performing data analysis. It’s an interesting question. The earth is sick. How do you take the temperature of the planet?

Links

Begin by using Google to search for appropriate key phrases, such as: global warming data files. A search such as this produced items that lead to the links below.

Wikipedia. This Wikipedia resource does reference NASA, and this contains a nice set of data files. Wikipedia is always a good reference, especially one that should be checked out probably first. In this case, I was not disappointed with the Wikipedia presentation.

NASA. NASA has some excellent graphics, analysis, and actual data files. Some good data including tables is found here. General NASA datasets of various sorts are given here.

• berylium-10, 2, 3.
• Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications, 2.
• Climate Simulations for 1880-2003. Methane oxidation.
• Climate Model Simulations. Calculate on line.
• NASA simulation software.

Other closely related links: 1, 2, 3, 4 (b), 5, 6 found by search.

Other thoughts

A really nice set of data is given, and also see the referenced links. Note that data here is available in tabular form as well. I may attempt to try to do some curve fitting type analysis. But I'm not sure since I think it's all already been done.

I think there is really no question that there is a clear upward trend in temperature. I'm sure if one did an analysis that one would find that the slope is significantly different from zero. I may or may not attempt to do such an analysis, since I'm sure it's been done before.

The question of temperature is actually kind of strange. The question is: how does one really define it. It really ought to be thought of as some sort of weighted average. Another thought is that it's actually the entire set of temperature data which could be considered, instead of just a single weighted value. Another thought is that it may be temperature variation or volatility, either spatially and temporally, that is also a significant contributor to the problem. Anyway, there are lots of questions related to this. I can't define or discuss it all right now. The notion of temperature, and the term global warming, are actually somewhat naïve, and instead we should really think of this problem as climate change, as you pointed out. And we should keep in mind that the end result is not really temperature, but instead impact on the planet.

There is a problem in going back through the history of temperature data in that new methods for collecting and measuring temperature are better than the old methods, and therefore the question is how the two can be compared. There are all sorts of similar questions.

More thoughts

This global warming stuff is actually better to be referred to as climate change. I believe that I have been very naive on this subject, and I've been skeptical, as many people have been. However, somewhat embarrassingly, I am finally catching on and joining the mainstream of thought regarding climate change. It seems somewhat indisputable now that the planet is warming up. The items discussed below include an analysis based on over 100 years of temperature data, and it appears to be true, conclusively, that there is a definite upward trend in global planet temperature. Some of the links below refer to temperature data that goes back to the late 1800s.

It is interesting though that the planet's temperature was trending upward even at a time which was before we were outpouring green gases into the atmosphere. So this is somewhat of a mystery. Certainly in the last three decades there is also a strong upward trend in temperature, and this particularly is when we are outpouring many of the green gases into the atmosphere. But a good question is why was the planet warming up during the time when we were not outpouring green gases into the atmosphere. Maybe something else is causing the upward trend in temperature, and not the CO2 concentration.

Another post in this blog points out the fact that it appears that the temperature is the cause of the CO2 instead of the CO2 being the cause of the temperature. Anyway, this observation strongly shows the notion that each is the cause of the other, and this direction, which is a feedback direction, shows that there is a strong compensation mechanism to control the CO2 based on temperature, when the temperature goes out of line. So the argument, based on this blog post, should have the CO2 concentration lagging the temperature by 800 years. So when the temperature increases, it should push the CO2 concentration back down. There is very little talk of this feedback compensation mechanism, but it appears to be true based on the blog post showing the 800 year time lag. This is hard to explain.

One possible compensation mechanism is the algae in the oceans. When the CO2 concentration increases, the algae increases, and this tends to cleanse the CO2 from the atmosphere in that this small green life form feeds on CO2. I do not see this compensation mechanism mentioned in some of the simulations. Of course there is a problem with algae, as has been noted in recent articles. The problem is that there appears to be a depletion of iron in the ocean, and this is preventing the new growth of algae, which is the CO2 cleansing mechanism. There are questions as to what is causing the iron depletion. I am not an expert on this aspect, however I have noted it mentioned. A question, therefore, is: should we tamper with the iron balance in the oceans.

The nuclear crisis in Japan is now about a month old. The crisis occurred on March 11 after the magnitude 9 earthquake triggered a series of catastrophes. I am keeping a set of notes giving some links and analysis pertaining to the nuclear and radiation aspects of the disaster. This set of notes is being updated periodically.

I did some preliminary calculations on the size of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This set of notes appears here.

A pessimistic estimate says that the amount of oil spilled could be around 10 times worse than the Exon Valdez spill. This amount is still less than the worst spills on record. However, we shall have to wait to see what the actual numbers are.

On July 14 I did a blog news source search on the global warming topic. This search produced this list of summary articles.

This article discusses that it is the the gas concentration that lags temperature, and the lag time is 800 years. Normally it is regarded that gases such as CO2 are causing the temperature rise, but he argues that the causality is in the other direction. This thinking is very much against the current convention in America.

See the graphic given just below

Motls is an interesting fellow, and it may be worth following his blog.

Maybe it should not come as a surprise that someone found causality in the reverse direction. This makes sense from the point of view of equilibrium. At one time before "global warming", planet earth's ecosystem was at equilibrium. This means that the co2 that was present resulted in some heat absorption. But it also means that there is a reverse mechanism in which the temperature results in the co2 concentration. (At equilibrium each is the cause of the other because co2 and temperature are in balance.) Then when the system has been pushed out of equilibrium, the reverse mechanism is still operating, as noted in the above article. Equilibrium arguments must have the system balancing in both directions, and the article above seems to have noted the reverse balancing mechanism.

When the system is pushed out of equilibrium, it may be that the reverse mechanism is more powerful. The Motls article above seems to argue for this point.

Updated.

• Wisconsin Green Party.
• Green Party of the United States.
• Envoronmental Law Foundation.
• Growing a Green Family.

This blog entry is dynamic in that new entries are added. The date reflects the date of the last update.

This blog is related to Ecodreamer. I communicate with Mike Iltis frequently.

Unlike Ecodreamer, this current site is not a coop. It contains work done at my own expense using tools developed under my own money and time and using my own computer and connection. However much/some of the work here (this blog) can be credited to Mike Iltis and Ecodreamer. Note also that the work I did for Ecodreamer also was for no pay.

Work that I do that uses the Ecodreamer server is found at the George Schils Ecodreamer site.

For any other questions regarding these clarifications, see George Schils.

I have found a blog compiler which will make it fairly simple to create blog style web pages. (See the bottom of this page for the link.) I am experimenting with it here.

I do not know how to specify the title of the blog. Hopefully I will figure out these subtlties over time. For now it's the content that counts.

Publishing and publishing tools are a large interest of mine. This new tool seems to make the creation of output fast and easy.

I like the idea of having a blog generate static html output, since then the pages can be snapshotted and saved. I am a bit OCD about having backup copies of work and snapshots, etc. This comes from my experience in software engineering. This is more legal than pages which are dynamic. Further the pages can be viewed offline. There is lots to say about all of this stuff.

I am creating this blog site to be a place to record things on ecoscience and related matters.

There are lots of qualifications that go with this writing. I do not specify them for now.

Michael Iltis is a reference for much of the contained content. Much of it is based on personal correspondence: discussion and email. Mike explains theorems, gives references, specifies high level strategies, and serves as a quasi-consultant, mentor, and motivator for much of the work discussed here pertaining to advanced computer science, mathematics, statistics, and other things.