Global Climate Change : Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

Previous topic:

Next topic:

Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

topic started 1/10/04; 11:00:45 AM
last post 5/6/05; 11:46:11 AM

Dr. Hays Cummins - Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/10/04; 11:00:45 AM (reads: 39224, responses: 37)

Please Ponder and Post after reading the essay:

Virtual Climate Alert

Reflection Essay Format: -Title
-What was "Done" (methods. true source of data)
-What was learned (results)
-What it means (what did I get out of it.)
-How did/will this article change my thinking.

Add your comments here!

caritymr@m... - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/14/04; 2:14:25 PM (reads: 40711, responses: 1)

What was "done"?

Methods: Three global temeperature records were obtained from 1977-2002. The data was collected from:

1) NASA 2) The National Climatic Data Center 3) World Meteorological Organization

Two graphs were made. Both graphs used the year as the X-axis, plotting annual temperature data. In Figure 1 the Y-axis shows what I am assuming is the difference in average annual temperature (C) from one year to the next. They don't really explain it outright in the article. In Figure 2 they are instead choosing to plot all of the data as the difference in temperature between the current year's data, and the data from 1977.

What is the true data?

I feel like the second figure is sort of obscure. They tell us that in '77 we emerged from a cooling trend, so to me it seems like the average annual temperature should be considerably lower. Well, if I'm interpretting the graph correctly, figure two says we are still cooling if we compare average annual temperatures to '77. The data in the second chart totally contradicts the data in the first figure. In the first figure it's pretty clear to me that temperatures are rising. However, according to the second figure it says that the difference in temperatures (between the measured year and 1977) is decreasing, meaning they're becoming cooler [I think]... if 1977 was the end of a cooling period. To me figure two seems to say that we are still in a cooling period. There's just something about the figure two data I just can't put my finger on. If I was doing some research and came across both of these sets of data, I would feel inclined to use the first set of data just due to the fact that there's not much number manipulation.

What was learned?

I feel like the author(s) intentionally contradicted themselves between figures one and two to sort of raise a question about global climate change. At the same time, though, they are sort of presenting a quandry about reputable data. Just like we learned in class I feel like how you choose to display your results/data can make a world of difference. Looking at figure one it looks to me like there's a climate increase. However, in figure two I feel like there's a global cooling trend.

What did I get out of it?

The tone of the article is pretty cynical so I think that the author is just wanting us to question what we think about global climate change as well as sort of analyze sources of data along with how that data is represented.

How did/will this article change my thinking?

After seeing how confusing ways of representing data can become, I feel like I will be making a distinct effort to clearly set out how I obtained my data and what exactly all of the data means. In addition, I feel like I should be more skeptical of what the media is spoon-feeding.

EDITORIAL NOTE: Just in case you couldn't tell, I had some difficulty interpretting what they were trying to show us in the second figure!

Add your comments here!

nagyrc@m... - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/14/04; 3:45:38 PM (reads: 40690, responses: 0)

Virtual Climate Alert 2004
-What was "Done" (methods. true source of data)

In 2002, it was stated in the press that the world was on an accelerated warming trend since 1977. There are three main organizations that have data on this subject including NASA, the National Climatic Data Center, and the World Meteorological Organization. Figures 1 and 2 in the article are two different ways of displaying the same data obtained from these organizations.

-What was learned (results)

From Figure 1, the temperature does appear to be increasing over the indicated time period. However, this relationship is linear. If the temperature warming was accelerating and not merely increasing as was suggested, the relationship would not be linear, but rather exponential. Figure 2 displayed the combined temperatures from 1977 to that year. What was shown was that the difference between the years was actually getting closer together as all the years were combined. Again, this did not support the statement about accelerated global warming.

-What it means (what did I get out of it.)

This article reminded me of the article that Dr. Boardman presented in class. It is possible to "spin" the data in order to get the point that you want across to the audience. The data that this article presented, however, did not support this trend of acceleration. Therefore, I assume that this assumption of acceleration was not made by using all the data objectively, but rather a selection of the data for their purposes.

-How did/will this article change my thinking

From this article and some that I read last semester, I realized that there are so many different perspectives, opinions, and assumptions about global warming and climate change. For a while, all I heard were statements about how burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide which then warms the earth by trapping the sun's rays. However, many people still oppose the whole idea of global warming and suggest that this is just a natural variation in the global climate, such as those occured in the past. With all the contradictory studies and evidence, it is hard to believe either side of the argument. It seems that no one really knows exactly what is happening or the effects that it will have on the future climate of the world.

Add your comments here!

panzake@m... - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/14/04; 6:22:30 PM (reads: 40622, responses: 0)

What was "done"?

The "big 3" names in meteorology including NASA, National Climatic Data Center, and the World Meteorological Organization prematurely announced that the year 2002 was the second warmest in recorded history, behind the el nino year of 1998. It is believed by the author of this article that increased creativity in these announcements is needed to give a flare to the last few uneventful meteorologic years. These announcements create the idea of increased global warming, which this author believes is unsupported.
He/she presents two graphs of each displaying the innaccuracy of the announcements. The graphs indicate that temperature is not increasing.

What was learned?

Despite the "big 3"'s announcements, the author of this article had his own opposing evidence. He showed two graphs. The first indicated that if temperature was increasing the graph should be curvilinear, but instead it was linear. The second graph also did not show valid signs of temperature increase over the last three decades.

What it means?

What I have learned from this article reflects back to class yesterday. We can not always trust news that may be intentionally hyped up to provide the media with more attention grabbing headlines.

How did this article change my thinking?
This article changed my thinking greatly. It is hard to trust the general media, but considering it is difficult to find the truth many people, including myself, resort to trusting the headlines. This article, as did the Iraq war article, has helped me to realize that just because it is in the newspaper or on TV does not make it true. One must consider the source and also the motivations of the source.

Add your comments here!

maikutdl@m... - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/14/04; 7:21:46 PM (reads: 40659, responses: 0)

Q:What was "Done" (methods. true source of data)
A:Three organizations, NASA, National Climatic Data Center, and World Meteorological Organization, all jumped on information they had compiled together global surface temperature records to determine the year's average global temperature as "whatever-warmest-on-record". These 3 organizations believe that there was an acceleration in temperature throughout the years since 1977. The author shows graphs that do not prove what the 3 organizations are saying are true. They say that the temperature has not been accelerating since 1977. They have been rather linear where as if they were accelerating, they would have been more curved.

Q:What was learned (results)
A:These 3 organizations believe that there was an acceleration in temperature throughout the years since 1977. The author shows graphs that do not prove what the 3 organizations are stating. In Figure 1,the data is linear where as if the temperatures where indeed accelerating, the data would have more of a curvilinear. Figure 2 also does not support the 3 organizations statement. Instead of increasing, as the data would be doing if the statement was true, there is really no change shown in the temperatures.

Q: What it means (what did I get out of it.)
A:The evidence (graphs) the author puts in this article prove that the statement that the temperatures have been increasing since 1977, is indeed false and that the temperatures have been, for the most part, stable. So basically, the data that the 3 organizations have put together to form their "predictions/statements" was not looked at as closely as it should have been. The graphs show clearly that the temperatures are not accelerating and the worry of global warming will not be considered serious for quite a while.

Q:How did/will this article change my thinking.
A:For a while I have been learning that carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has been increasing the temperature. I have also been taught that this could have a serious affect in global warming in the future. While the temperatures have been slowly increasing, and this will affect the future of the earth, it is not as close as I had imagined. I thought that the temperatures were accelerating before I read this article. Now I konw that I will definitely not be around when this will be a serious problem. In fact, this may start having a serious affect many, many, many years after my death, which I did not believe this would be so far into the future.

Add your comments here!

Headenln@m... - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/14/04; 7:51:26 PM (reads: 40552, responses: 0)

In this article the author took data presented by NASA, the National Climatic Data Center, and the World Meteorological Organization and created two graphs depicting aspects of global temperature. The first graph shows the average global temperature recorded by each of the organizations. The second graph shows the difference between the temperature recorded in 1977 and the temperature at that time.

The graphs showed that the there has been little trend toward global temperature increase. The first graph shows a linear change in the temperatures recorded by the organizations. Although there was a general upwards movement the article states that if there were a great increase in global temperature the points would have shown a more curved line, something more exponential. The second graph pretty much shows a horizontal line indicating that the overall difference in temperature has really increased at all. As the article stated if the temperatures were increasing then the graph would have showed a diagonal line or at least greater difference between the left side and the right side.

From the two graphs presented in the article it shows that the so-called problem of global warming is not at much of a problem as we may have been lead to believe. With all of the talk about global warming it is hard to determine if this article was written to convince us that global warming is not an issue or if it was written objectively.

This article did not really change my views of the topic too much because I have done a lot of research on the topic. I have looked at temperature data from other sources that date back father and some of that data moves more toward the idea that we are on the onset of global cooling. Based on historical data there was a time when the earth was much warmer, people were farming in Greenland and in Western Europe. Also this article does not mention the mini ice age that the earth went though (I don‚t remember when).

Add your comments here!

hamannmm@m... - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/14/04; 7:51:35 PM (reads: 40519, responses: 0)

-What was "done"?

Global surface temperature records- from the 1800s to 2002- were compared. The data was obtained from the "Big Three:" NASA, the National Climatic Center, and the World Meteorological Organization.

These organizations claimed that temperatures were accelerating. However, this article by Virtual Climate Alert that is coordinated by New Hope Environmental Services challenges these claims. Their challenges are presented in two figures- one of which records temperature anomaly and the other temperature trend. Both are plotted from the 1980s to 2002.

-What was the true source of data?

I think that data is data; all of it is true. However, I think that both the Big Three and the authors of this article are very vague in their use of temperature data. Neither figure had any data before the mid-1970s. Therefore, how do I know how ≥much cooler≈ was the surface temperature from the 1800s to the mid-1970s. I also find it troubling that this article is so unclear when it is trying to convey the message that mainstream media headlines are misleading. Hmmm... maybe these types of writers have created the need for there to be resuscitation "of a dimming paradigm, that humans≠ use of fossil fuels results in carbon dioxide emissions.."

I agree with Matt in that figure two is particularly disturbing. The x-axis on that graph appears to be semi-logarithmic, but the scale doesn≠t look right to me. I know they are trying to prove a point, but I think it≠s not helping their cause.

-What was learned?

From Figure 1, I learned that temperatures are not accelerating; rather, all three organizations have shown a rather linear progression since the 197os. The smaller scale on Figure 2 makes the cooling from the 1980s look much larger. This figure also doesn≠t show a pronounced rise in temperature, but the ultimate objective of this figure is unclear to me.

-What it means (what did I get out of it)?

Ultimately, this article debunks the claims of other articles although their argument is rather weak. The organization that sponsored this article was pretty much trying to make a point and I think they made that point.

-How did/will this article change my thinking?
This article has caused me to want to statistically scrutinize popular magazine articles that make science claims. I was annoyed by this article (even though it is fairly short) because all the figures were at the end. It would have made the article much stronger to have examples dispersed throughout. And finally, if you say you have data from the 1800s THEN SHOW IT!

Add your comments here!

hamannmm@m... -

1/14/04; 7:54:48 PM (reads: 40539, responses: 0)

Add your comments here!

dormancs@m... - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/14/04; 8:58:32 PM (reads: 40602, responses: 0)

This article presents data that shows the heating trend of the earth. The data comes from three sources, NASA, the National Climatic Data Center and the World Meteorological Organization. This warming trend is presented through two graphs the first showing the temperature increase every year since 1977 and the second showing the average temperature since 1977.

It can be seen from the two graphs that there has not been as great of a warming trend as the media and other scientists have portrayed. In 1977 we started to come out of a cool period which means that the temperatures are simply rising back to their normal level. The linearity of the first graph shows that the warming of the earth is not accelerated. The second graph confirms this since its plot is almost a straight line as more years are averaged into the data.

This article presents data to lead you to believe that global warming is not a big issue. However, it does not show what the trend has been since 1800. This makes it difficult to see if there really is any difference between before and after we started heavily relying on fossil fuels.

This article hasn‚t really changed my thinking at all. I feel like it hasn‚t offered quite enough information for me to be satisfied with it and it doesn‚t seem to be written from an objective point of view.

Add your comments here!

greenerr@m... - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/14/04; 9:31:16 PM (reads: 40583, responses: 0)

What was "done"?

In an effort to have hard data that there is a recent increase in global climate, three organizations (NASA, WMO, and The National Climatic Data Center) put there data together to show that there was this increase.

What was learned?

The graphs does not show a huge increase and figure 2 shows a cooling that there is an increase from the overall data through out the century. It was hoped that the collection of data would show a dramatic increase in the temperature but instead there is a minor increase. I find it important to note that even a small rise in temperature is still significant. While it might seem minor to humans, that doesn't account for the countless other species that live on the planet. These organizations should continue to monitor the continuing data because there still could be an increase in progress but it might not be causing an effect yet.

What it means (what did I get out of it)?

I find that there is a lot of people that want dramatic increases but continue to turn their backs on the little increases. It seems wrong that we would be willing to test our fate because the data is only minor at the moment. While I agree that there is no proof from these graphs, we should pay attention to the amounts of gases we pump into the atmosphere.

How did/will this article change my thinking?
There is a statistic joke that goes "An ecologist, an economist, and a statistician were going hunting. The ecologist shoots first and misses a bit to the left. The economist shoots and misses to the right, but the statistician shoots a bullseye." While our own beliefs can influence our results, we must step back from our bias states and look at the data as it is. This is something we all must realize when looking at data. I might see an increase because of my beliefs but what this article does is give insights of what really is.

Add your comments here!

jenkinml@m... - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/14/04; 10:17:24 PM (reads: 40552, responses: 0)

Methods:

The author is basically establishing a test to the ever-increasing claims of accelerated global surface temperatures. Global surface temperature data is produced annually by three organizations including NASA, the National Climatic Data Center, and the World Meteorological Organization. Two figures have been composed in order to establish the validity of the statement that the year 2002 is the "second warmest on record" and that this is an indication of "accelerated" global temp. increase. Figure 1. displays the global temperature record from 1977 (a recent warming), while Figure 2. displays temperatures for each year as an average of previous years to 1977.

Results:

From interpretation of the figures, the validity of the statement of "accelerated" temperatures is not supported. For instance, it is acknowledged by the author that a trend of accelerated increase would appear to be more exponential in nature. However Figure 1. displays a clear linear trend (along with annual variation), in other words, there is no support for acceleration. Additionally in Figure 2., if accelerated warming was occurring, there would be an upward rise, yet this is not occurring based on temperature averages.

What did I get out of it:

This article reminded of a book called The Honest Truth About Lying With Statistics. Not that the three organizations are blatantly lying about trends in global temperatures, but it definitely shows a very strong type of persuasion. However, I kind of gave it some thought. Not that it's right, BUT would there be harm in this particular case?? I mean, what if of the few hundred thousand people that read these articles on "accelerating" global temperature increase, a couple thousand, in some way reduced their use of fossil fuels?

How did it change my thinking:

I don≠t think it really changed my thinking much, but reassured me of how important it is to realize where data is coming from... how trustworthy is it? Also, think about the intent of publishers and the media in "manipulating" such data.

Add your comments here!

Gattje@m... - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/14/04; 10:28:48 PM (reads: 40625, responses: 0)

In this article, the author used data from three major organizations; NASA, The National Climatic Data Center, and the World Mereorological Organization. In December 2002 the conclusion was made that 2002 was the second warmest year in history which shows proof of "accelerated warming". In the article 2 graphs were presented displaying the same data in climate change from 1977-2002, and proving inaccurate predictions of these organizations. Instead of a curvilinear line, the line plotted is linear, therefore showing no significant "acceleration" in temperature warming.

In the article the author used two figures to support that temperatures are on a steady increase over the past 25 years. In figure 1, the temperature is shown to be increasing over the indicated time period, but the graph is linear, which means it is warming at a steady, continuous rate and acctually not accelerating. Figure 2 showed the combined temperatures from 1977 to each year. The earlier years showed a greater change compared to more recent years. If the warming were accelerating, the biggest changes would be in the more recent years. Basically, the author presented the data in a way that makes it obvious that the warming trend hasn't changed, and is rising at the same rate as in past years.

From this article i learned not to believe everything the media tells you. People need to look more deeply into the data being presented than just reading the words. Many times, as Dr. Boardman presented in class, the media tries to trick us into believing false headlines to get a certain reaction. Also the article made me realize that the temperature is on a steady increase and if it continues, who knows what effects it could have on our every day lives.

After reading the article it made me think a lot about the future. Global Warming is a serious problem, and even though the rate of increase isnt accelerating, it is still warming gradually. I believe that with the reduction of fossil fuel emissons we can slow this rate of increase some. Even one degree can make a huge difference in the weather and change entire ecosystems. In the past 25 years it has gone up almost a entire degree, so in the next century this could have major effects on the world climate. Though the message was that the problem isnt as severe as we have been told, it still is a serious problem, that effects everyone and everything.

Add your comments here!

smithdb1@m... - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/14/04; 11:34:30 PM (reads: 40538, responses: 0)

Virtual Climate Alert 2004

What was done?

Three organizations, NASA, the World Meterological Association, and the National Climatic Data Center, compiled data of global warming since 1977 with the recordings of global temperature. Two graphs were made showing the variations in temperature. The first graph depicts an increase in temperture from 1977 to 2002. However, the second graph, measuring average annual global temperatures shows virtually no increase in temperature.

What was learned?

The author of this article shows that the data from these organizations in inconclusive because both graphs to not agree with one another. Graph 1 shows a slight increase in temperature from the year 1977 to 2002 based on recorded temperatures that were warmer than average for each given year. Graph 2 however, shows that temperatures have not really increased since 1977. Average annual temperatures indicate a cooling affect that took place in the first ten years or so and annual global temperatures begin to level off.

What it means?

More research needs to be conducted to show if average annual temperatures are increasing and if warming trends like El Nino are in correlation to this. More research needs to be conducted on the relationship of greenhouse gases and the correlation to a rise in temperature and how much it is contriubting to this rise.

How did/will this artilce change my thinking?

I am more skeptical now about how organizations like NASA and the World Meterological Association records global temperatures. Similar to the disussion about the war in Iraq on tuesday, it depends on how the data is presented that finally determines conclusions about what the real facts are. A better system of measuring global temperatures in needed to determine the real facts and how much global temperature is increasing if it is at all.

Add your comments here!

murphyj4@m... - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/15/04; 12:51:47 AM (reads: 40700, responses: 0)

What was "Done" (methods. true source of data)

Three large organizations all release data on global climate change, more specifically all three announce their findings over a small period of time. According to this specific article this is in order to ensure that the message REALLY sinks in. The data shows a global tempretures increase and one that is rising at a increased rate.

What was learned (results)

The author of this article used these two graphs to disprove the assertion that global surface temperature increasing. The graphs that the author uses show different scales. One an increased number of recorded temperatures the other does not. It appears to me that the author uses the small changes between recorded tempretures to show that the data released by the three organizations is not represented accurately.

What it means (what did I get out of it.)

It made me aware of how easy it is to make the data show what what somebody wants. Without being able to study all sides and conclusions it would be very simple to get a specific message across. A prime example of the spin we discussed in class.

How did/will this article change my thinking.

I realize that being able to read and interpret data is a powerful tool. Simply relying on the media or "large scientific organizations" to tell you what is going on is simply asking to be fed what ever happens to be the spin of the moment.

Add your comments here!

carveykn@m... - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/15/04; 12:27:43 PM (reads: 40675, responses: 0)

What Was Done

NASA, the World Meteorology Orgainzation, and the National Climatic Data Center all produced data for the public discussing the changes in global temperature since 1977. The two graphs displayed in the article however do not support the hypothesis that there is an accelerated increase in temperature over the last several decades, according to the author.

Results

If in fact the rate global temperature is increasing every year, the first graph would be display a curve, for acceleration involves an upward curve; however, the line in figure one is simply a straight line. This proves that the rate is not infact changing every year. Figure two would produce a positive slope if average annual temperatures were increasing, yet fails to do so; the graph's line is in the same general y-axis, demonstrating no significant increase.

What it means

Just like almost all other research, the issue needs to be attacked from different angles and by new methods of gathering data. While there may not be a direct correlation with the given hypothesis, this does not mean that there is no connection with the way El Nino or human destruction impacts the temperature.

At the same time, while these organizations produced such data and came to one conclusion, the author uses the data to come to another one; yet another contradiction in the field of science. Nothing new there.

How did this article change my thinking

Much like Dr. Boardman's example during class about the events in Iraq, statistical articles such as this one can be very misleading, even if the stats are backed up with the title of a well-known organization attached.

I found it almost humorous that the people who produced these graphs figured that with an accompanying stories would assume that nobody in the general public would notice that these graphs do not read what is being claimed.

Add your comments here!

Rob - Re: Reflection 1a: another lame attempt

1/12/05; 12:59:52 PM (reads: 41263, responses: 0)

What was done:

Global warming results were announced slightly before the end of the 2002 year by three major sources on climate monitoring (NASA, NCDC, and WMO) to hype the idea of an accelerated global warming trend. The data was then analyzed in two X Y coordinated graphs that showed a more linear than curvilinear trend in contradiction to the claim of „second-warmest year on record‰.

What was learned (results):

It seemed that the graphs displayed a different approach on recent warming trends than suggested in the hype on accelerated warming. While one graph depicts without question a steadily increasing trend in warming with 1998 as the warmest year on record, the second figure clearly shows that while the trend may be increasing, it certainly seems to be steadying out as a linear progression since 1977. This contradicts the claim that the 2002‚s second-warmest status following the 1998 „warmest‰ status is a sign that warming trends are curvilinear.

What I got out of it:

It seems that with global warming there is no clear evidence of any accelerated warming patterns. The data does suggests that an accelerated pattern of warming quickly followed the coldest years in 1977 and coincided with a rise of warm waters out of the Pacific subsurface, however, recent volcanic activity may have altered these rates to a linear progression in the late 80s and 90s. Even though our atmosphere is clearly warmer now than it has ever been, there needs to be some discretion over such „unprecedented claims‰ with such implications as a human-caused global trend.

How it changed my way of thinking:

While I still strongly believe in the idea of a human-caused warming trend in the burning of natural resources for greedy energy consumption, this article proves that there is still evidence to suggest otherwise. Once again the conservative science community has put forth a contradictory scenario to the imminent disaster of global warming in hopes of giving fossil fuels another chance. Maybe? Yes there do exist cycles of heating and cooling on a global scale such as the Milankovitch/glacial cycles and I guess this cycle of warm and cool waters rising in the Pacific is yet another excuse as well as volcanic activity responsible for its depression, but the trend still exists and little is being done to subvert it let alone recognize our obvious influence. Wake up scientists and smell the CO2

Add your comments here!

Doug - Re: Hot Cross Buns

1/12/05; 3:17:15 PM (reads: 39642, responses: 0)

What was done:

The author addressed the concern that global temperature was not only increasing, but it was doing so at a faster rate. For this article, the author used three different data sets (NASA, NCDC, WMO) and graphed the data over a period of time (rather than just showing the relative increase per year).

What was learned:

The first graph does indeed show that there has been an increase in global temperature over the past few decades. But, as the author states, an increasing growth rate would have a curvelinear trend line as opposed to the linear trend line that the data contains. Then finally, the second graph show that there is no increasing trend in the speed of the rising temperature. This is evident because the slope remains relatively constant throughout the past decade.

What I got out of it:

This article clearly shows that average global temperature is not increasing exponentially. It also served to reaffirm that our climate is getting measurably warmer, even on a very recent scale. Finally, it explained why the second graph shifts so abruptly in the earlier data points (i.e. 1977). This was due to the fact that 1977 was one of the coolest years on record so therefore any early rebound would be very noticeable.

How it changed my way of thinking:

I can certainly say that I always thought (and was taught) that we were causing world temperatures to increase at a logarithmic rate, but this study shows otherwise. Assuming the collection methods remained constant throughout the decades this data was collected, this is a very important study. This could change the ways acts such as the Montreal Protocol or the Kyoto Accord are looked upon. Before we pass any laws that can severely alter the economic well-being of the world, we should certainly know as much as we can about the natural systems and the data collected. If we pass guidelines simply on shaky statistics, the results could be dire. If you left your office when you started reading this, you would be home by now.

Add your comments here!

Justin - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/12/05; 4:24:44 PM (reads: 39671, responses: 0)

What was done:

NASA, NCDC, and WMO all presented data on the temperature throughout the years from 1977. This data was put into two graphs to view the trends and to see if global warming is occuring at an increasing rate.

What was learned:

Neither of the two graphs support the claim that global warming is increasing in a manner that was predicted. The first graph shows a linear increase which does not show a curved line which would be the case if human impact were greatly affecting temperature. The second graph shows no increase in the temperature change in recent years which would be expected from human impact.

What I got out of it:

This arcticle shows how graphs can be used to portray data in different ways to show different trends for the same data. In order for someone to accurately portray there data they must understand how to make a clear non-confusing graph. I'm not sure I learned anything from this arcticle in terms of global climate change.

How it changed my way of thinking:

It brings to the forefront the idea of misleading portrail of data to prove a point. It makes me more aware of how I am going to put my data into a graph, being careful that it states what I want it to state in a clear manner. By no means should the graph contradict or in any way go against what I state in the written part of my paper.

Add your comments here!

Emily Barcelona - Re: why's it called global warming

1/12/05; 5:15:03 PM (reads: 39718, responses: 0)

-What was "Done" (methods. true source of data)

In this article, the author talks about the competition between the NCDC, NASA-GISS and WHO-CRU to be the first to report the trend for global warming that year. Each organization rushes to put out a statement and then waits for the final data to support their claims.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

-What was learned (results)

In Figure 1 it is clearly visible that the global temperature average has gone up over the past three decades. However, Figure 2 does not jive with Figure 1 and shows no trend of increasing global temperature.

-What it means (what did I get out of it.)

I took the following from this article: after initially claiming that it was human use of fossil fuel that causes global warming, major organizations are able to each year use the data gathered to perpetuate this idea without any serious proof of their claim.

-How did/will this article change my thinking.

This article supports my own perception that global warming was given that name and attached to a cause before enough was known about geological and meteorological history of warming and cooling events. I think that now that the general public has an idea of what global warming is supposed to be, the scientific community is afraid to say that there might be other causes because then they will be seen as having lied in the past, and untrustworthy. The public at large does not understand the process of science well enough to know that sometimes guesses are made before there are enough facts to make them theories or laws. Where scientists know that mistakes are made from data and cause and effect take a long time to Œprove‚, the vast majority of the American public wants answers now, and when scientists give answers before cause and effect are determined, sometimes the truth is lost.

Add your comments here!

Zach Moning - Re: A Contradiction of Data and the Lack Thereof

1/12/05; 5:19:48 PM (reads: 39671, responses: 0)

-What was "Done"

The average temperature of 2002 was collected and announced by three organizations: NASA, the National Climatic Data Center and the World Meteorological Organization. The author of this article suggests that the announcement is overhyped.

-What was learned

While some scientists have claimed that the new data suggests a faster warming trend in the Earth's overall temperature, the actual data, when graphed, shows no such trend. While global temperature is warming, the trend has not accelarated over time.

-What it means (what did I get out of it.)

What the actual data mean is that the world is indeed warming, but it is warming at the same rate as scientists have been suspecting before this year. Those who spoke out and said the warming rate was increasing were being misleading.

-How did/will this article change my thinking.

It is obvious that some scientists go too far in lying so that more attention will be given to what could be a great crisis to all life on Earth. However, the article suggests that "These annual pronouncements are revealed to be what they are: efforts to resuscitate a dimming paradigm, that humans' use of fossil fuels results in carbon dioxide emissions that are disrupting earth's climate." The lack of data supporting the claim that warming is accelerating cannot be used to refute the very notion that humans are affecting global climate. In fact, attempting to do so makes the article irresponsible in the same way as the scientists it criticizes.

Add your comments here!

Caitlin - Re. What is the Data really trying to tell us?

1/12/05; 7:08:16 PM (reads: 39730, responses: 0)

What was done?

NASA, National Climate Data Center, and the World Meteorological Organization have all come to the conclusion that the Earth≠s climate is increasing at an alarming rate by the data that they have collected from the past 25 years. Unfortunately, the author points out that these organizations have really failed to analyze the data and graphs correctly that supposedly support global warming. The graphs when interpreted correctly show no increase in temperature over the past 25 years.

What was learned?

The author states that looking at the first graph, the data moves linearly across the x axis. If it were to show an increase in climate the data would have to move curvilinear which it does not. The second graph shows no dramatic acceleration, as the 3 organizations put it, but rather a similar pattern to previous years. There is no evidence of global warming from these graphs as the author stated.

What does this mean?

Data can be very tricky when trying to analyze what really happened in a situation. Even large organizations like NASA can make mistakes when they want to see something that really isn≠t there in facts. Data is up for interpretation as the author makes evident in his appeal against these organizations≠ statement on global warming.

How did this article change my thinking?

This article only makes it more evident to me that well known and respectable organizations like NASA can make mistakes when they are expecting the data to turn out one way rather than just observing what the data is really proving. What is stated in print is not always the truth, and its good to question even some of the most intelligent people on this Earth. And is it possible that the author may not have own facts straight?

Add your comments here!

Adam Brule - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/12/05; 8:19:36 PM (reads: 39597, responses: 0)

What was learned?
    The author however discovered and interpretated the results to find that there is no trend over the past 25 years that indicates global warming. Although there is a linear relationship with a slight slope, the derivative of the results indicates a steady temperature and with a steady temperature there is no acceleration, thus disproving the global warming theory.

What does this mean?
    Obviously, these organizations were a bit pre-mature in the release of results. This error or mistake is probably attributed to the annual race between these organizations to "be the first". Instead of analyzing and drawing specific conclusions before releasing, these organizations scrabble to "jump" to a conclusion.

How did/will this article change my thinking?
    This makes me appreciate the fact of not being an ignorant individual. I like to analyze and examine results firsthand to draw individual interpretations of the results before anything is mentioned from a third party. It also makes me realize the importance of getting the facts straight. If time allows, we should spend time and effort to make correct assumptions and conclusions that coincide with the results.

Add your comments here!

Jacob Schober - Re: Climate Alert -Manipulation not acceleration

1/12/05; 9:37:42 PM (reads: 39530, responses: 0)

-What was "Done"

Three different groups gave there annual assessment that the global temperature is getting higher every year in order to assert that heavy use of fossil fuels is destroying our environment. These three groups are National Climatic Data Center, NASA, and the World Meteorilogical Organization. The data is looked at in two different ways. One in which that plotted temp. and time that appears to show a warming trend, and another that plots the temperature trend against time. This graph shows the truth in that the rate of temperature is in fact not increasing.

-What was learned (results)

It was learned that these temperature trends can in fact be scewed in order to serve different purposes. The fact that this data was also plotted directly after a long cooling trend in the world shows another manipulation of the data. Naturally after a long period of cooling there should be a period of warming. Just like in a political election different facts and data can be left out to serve ones purpose. This particular purpose being to show that fossil fuels are raising the worlds temperature.

-What it means (what did I get out of it.)

All of this means that the global climate is changing at a fairly normal rate and not increasing as the scientists had proclaimed. They had no legitimate statements in order to back up the bold statements they were making in regards to the exageratted temperature acceleration they had proposed.

-How did/will this article change my thinking.

This changed my thinking by showing me that scientists can be as manipulative as politicians in playing with facts in order to illustrate a point. I was unaware of the current global temperate situation in 2001 before this article and I know have a better idea of how the climate is changing. I also discovered that the worlds temperature has its ups and downs and right now it is on the rise, but necessarily because of fossil fuel consumption.

Add your comments here!

Kate Echement - Re: ummmm.....ok? (shrug)

1/12/05; 10:05:48 PM (reads: 39611, responses: 0)

What was Done:

Three organizations NASA, the National Climatic Data Center, and the World Meteorological Organization complied data from the previous years in regards to temperature. Two scatter plot graphs were used to show temperature trends from 1977-2002. Figure 1 plots the increasing temperature trend seen since 1977, which was a considerably cold year. Figure 2 looks at the difference between 1977 and the following years, individually.

What was learned:

The authors of the article state that these graphs do not support the concept of global warming. Figure 1, in their opinion, should have a curve upwards if global warming was occurring, not a linear line (how does that make any sense?). Since figure 2 does not have an upward curve/no increase the authors claim this further supports their theory that global warming is not occurring. Yet, what is puzzling about this graph is that the year 1977 has a very high temperature trend, yet it was the coldest year. This graph is not very clear, or I just do not understand it. From my understanding the two graphs contradict one another. Figure 1 shows a clear increase in temperature over the years, yet figure 2 shows 1977, again, at a very high temperature, higher than the following years. It is all very contradictory.

What it means:

This only further proves that people use numbers and statistics for their own manipulations. As we learned in class, any person can take a stack of numbers and manipulate it to support their own theories. Thus it is increasingly more important to have a well-balanced look at issues.

How did/will this article change my thinking:

This has made me realize to not take everything at face value. I try not to be biased in my studies and readings, but this crossed the line. The claims they were making were not well supported and contradictory. This only tells me that more research needs to be done on this subject matter, MUCH MORE!

Add your comments here!

Laura Jones - Re: Everybody's got an angle

1/12/05; 10:24:47 PM (reads: 39560, responses: 0)

-What was "Done"

The „Big Three‰ of weather organizations, NASA, The National Climatic Data Center and the World Meteorological Organization have all been keeping track of temperature data since 1977. The authors of the article graphed the data from 1977-2002 from all three organizations to compare temperature trends in the data.

-What was learned

The first figure shows that temperatures did in fact increase on the whole over the 25 years. However, the figure shows a steady increase over time, rather than a more rapid increase as time goes on, which wouldn‚t be so linear. The second figure shows a minimal change in the trends over the years, which also indicates that temperature rise has been at a steady, rather than increasing rate.

-What it means

The article is pretty adamant about proving that the rate of temperature change isn‚t rising, and it uses its data well to prove that. From the information given, they present a solid case against an increasing rate. However, the article stops short there and doesn‚t really seem to say anything about what that means, other than that their opponents appear to be wrong.

-How did/will this article change my thinking.

I don‚t think that the article will change my thinking much, but it does show the importance of establishing meaning with statistics. The second figure is frustrating because its difficult to comprehend, and you have to take the author‚s word that it proves their point. I think it highlights the point that stats can often be found to prove a point- I‚m sure the people on the other side of this argument also have stats to back themselves up.

Add your comments here!

David Emerman - Re: Skeptical and Cynical

1/12/05; 10:52:33 PM (reads: 39489, responses: 1)

What was done?<o:p></o:p>

This article examined the claim that the earth‚s average surface temperature is increasing at an accelerated rate. The author compiled data, average annual surface temperatures, given out by three organizations, the National Climatic Data, NASA, and the World Meteorological Organization. The data ranged from 1977 to 2002. The author made two graphs one plotting time, in years, against the average temperature. Another graph plotted the year vs. the average of all previous average temperature.

What was learned? <o:p></o:p>

The author concludes that because the first graph had a linear trend and because the second graph did not appear to be increasing that the claim that the earth‚s average surface temperature is increasing at an accelerated rate is false.<o:p></o:p>

What I got out of it. <o:p></o:p>

I saw another perspective relating to global warming. This view shows evidence that the earth‚s surface temperatures are not increasing at an accelerated rate. This article also taught me about how people can manipulate data to show what they want it to show, the author included. Even though I agree with the author, I question his graphs as well. When looking at an exponential graph in a small range the graph will appear to be linear this could be the case with his first graph. His second graph, even if the data was truly increasing exponentially, would also take a very wide range to show the increase. The author is taking an average of all his data and re-averaging it every year. Even if a trend is present it could be difficult to see with this graph. The companies making the claim to an accelerated increase in temperate more then likely have found a way to manipulate the data to support their claim. I would like to see a comparison of studies between researchers supporting and rejecting the claim.

How it changed my way of thinking.<o:p></o:p>

I agree with the author‚s point of view, however, I am skeptical about the way he has reached it. I am also skeptical of the organizations reporting the data and claiming the opposing point of view. I guess there is no one I can trust. I have again seen the importance of unbiased research, if that is even possible.

Add your comments here!

Sophia Turczynewycz - Re: media attention

1/12/05; 10:53:49 PM (reads: 39483, responses: 0)

What was done? It was declared prematurely that 2002 was the "second warmest on record" before the year was done and all the data was collected. There are 3 organizations that put all the temperature records together - NASA, National Climatic Data Center and World Meteorological Organization. Once one organization makes an announcement, the rest follow up with their announcements pretty quickly to „assure global press saturation.‰ The press made a big deal about the 2002 claim, saying it represents a "quarter century pattern of accelerated warming‰, a big deal, since the world came out of a long cooling trend suddenly in 1977 and has been warming ever since. Two graphs were shown to represent the trends in temperature history since that year.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

What was learned? Both graphs represent temperature increase is steady, not rapid. If the reports of accelerated warming were correct, then the graphs should show a curvilinear increase, rather than the linear increase they depict.

<o:p></o:p>

What it means? (What I got out of it) The article shows that the data represented in the graphs does not support the claim that there is an accelerated pattern of warming. Instead, there is a steady increase in temperatures.

<o:p></o:p>

How did the article change my thinking? My thinking wasn‚t change too much. I have always been cautious of the media. I think that a lot of times claims are made just to make a good headline and to attract attention. These claims that the „planet is heating more rapidly than expected‰ suggest to me that the media is just trying to scare people into changing the way their actions affect the environment. So often we hear of how burning of fossil fuels contributes to global warming and all the other causes, but are people actually taking action in attempts to remedy the situation in any way they can. The data in the article does not support the claims, so its obvious the press just wanted to make headlines. The article also reminded me of how I rarely have used graphs and statistics, because it was hard for me to understand the second graph.

Add your comments here!

David Emerman - Technical Problems

1/12/05; 11:03:27 PM (reads: 41031, responses: 0)

For some reason I had trouble viewing the document from my home computer. I had to use a computer on the school's network, one at King, to view the article. The website gave me an error about the password not being correct when I tried it at home. Please let me know if there is anyway I can get around this.

Add your comments here!

Leo - Re: Ooh! Rhetoric! Let's be interdisciplinary!

1/12/05; 11:42:18 PM (reads: 39520, responses: 0)

What was "done" -

A little figuring, and a lot of slippery rhetorical arguing.

The data used were annual temperature records made by three large organizations (NASA, NCDC, and WMO), from 1977 to 2002. The data were graphed two different ways, in order to show the trend of annual temperatures over that time period. This was done in reaction to a claim made in one news story by Reuters that there was a "quarter-century pattern of accelerated warming."

Rhetorical arguments were used to attempt to discredit the temperature-monitoring groups, news agencies that reported the findings, and the global warming theory in general. The author slanders the three science groups as selfish publicity-seekers, based on the fact that they released their yearly conclusions at roughly the same time, before the last of the data for the year was taken. The author does not consider, however, that at some point in the year enough information may have been gathered to accurately predict the final outcome (the last few days out of the whole year, for example, can hardly make any significant changes to the yearly average unless they are vastly abnormal). He also does not bother to mention whether or not the final tallies supported the predicted conclusions.

Also, I would note that the author's objection to the conclusions stems from the term "accelerated warming," which he quotes from only one news story (out of a "flurry" of announcements), and not directly from any of the science agencies that produced the results. The only other quote given, from a different news source, suggests that the planet is heating rapidly, but does not speak of acceleration, as the author implies. Whether NASA or the other groups found evidence of "accelerated warming" in their measurements or if the conclusion was simply misreported by the media is unclear, but the implication made is that the scientific community is making unsupported pronouncements.

Lastly, of course, the author suggests that a linear increase, rather than an obvious acceleration in the warming trends, means that global warming is not caused by human production of greenhouse gasses. If there is a solid scientific explanation for this interpretation, the author does not give it.

What was learned -

The author successfully showed that, when the quarter-century interval alluded to by that one news story is graphed, the apparent trends are indeed linear and not curvilinear (ie, "accelerated"). Whoopie for him.

What I got out of it -

So...The world is steadily warming, noticeably so even within a measly 25 year span (alarming enough, in my view), but it's just not warming at an ever-increasing rate, as far as that statistically small sample of years can show. That may not be unavoidable proof of human influence... the climate could go through such a linear warming trend on its own... but I think it hardly rules out human influence, either. Inconclusive.

How this changes my thinking -

Ummm... I'm more wary of "scientific" articles with political axes to grind now. Seriously. This article does little for my way of thinking but offend me. I do realize that I also have my own bias here, though, so I should remember to think critically about all such questionable articles in the future, even if they support my beliefs.

Add your comments here!

willis okech - Climate Politics

1/13/05; 1:03:50 AM (reads: 39512, responses: 0)

-What was "Done" (methods. true source of data)

In this article, the author contradicts the climate data results stated by National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA-GISS), National Climate Data Center (NCDC), and the World Meteorological Organization-Climate Research Unit (WHO-CRU) which indicates a steady/linear increase in global surface temperatures between 1977 to 2005 (Figure 1). The author does this by graphing the slope of the change from the data from individual years (Figure 2), as opposed to the graphs from NASA, NCDC, and WMO, who are the true source of the data (Figure 1).

-What was learned (results)

Results from the second graph (Figure 2) shows that there is no increase of global surface temperatures between the years 1977 to 2005. This contradicts the results from data collected by NASA-GISS, WHO-CRU, and NCDC which indeed show a linear or steady increase in the surface global temperatures over the same period.

-What it means (what did I get out of it.)

What this means is that the same data plotted in different ways can end up giving opposing results. It also shows that one can choose any statistical data that supports any side of an argument of their liking.

-How did/will this article change my thinking.

The article reinforces my opinion that the politics and competition between scientists is one of the greatest impediments to solutions to the problems affecting the environment, of which global warming is top on the list.

I find the author full of baloney to try and convince people that surface global temperatures are not increasingin this age of fossil fuel overuse. He is disputing the fact that anthropogenic causes (combustion of fossil fuels) over the last 100 years has been linked to increased global temperatures especially since the begining of the Industrial Revolution in Europe to the present. His arguments are in line with those of the US Envrionmental Protection Agency (EPA) which to this day for nothing other than economic reasons refuses to acknowledge the increased anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions as an air pollutant. I maintain that anthropogenic causes are a major reason for the increase in the rise of subsurface temperatures.

I am of the opinion that scientists who the public should be relying on for solid scientific evidence, should not be swayed by the politics of the day especially with matters of global concern.

Add your comments here!

Bryan Glosik - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/13/05; 1:32:37 AM (reads: 39578, responses: 0)

-What was "Done"

The three major orgaznizations that record surface temperatures released their annual conclusions on the years climate. The three organizations are NASA, the National Climatic Data Center, and World Meteorlogical Center. The announcement claimed that 2002 was the second warmest on record since the 1800's. The article compares two different graphs displaying their data in different ways.

-What was learned

The climate is undoubtly getting warmer but the organizations such that the climate is increasing at an unnatural rate. However though before 1977 the climate was cooling and when the data is put into a graph such as figure one it shows the temperature increasing but in a linear fashion rather than an exponetial which would be more linked to human activity. Figure two shows the combined temperatures from 1977 to the year indicated. This also showed that there is no acceleration of rising temperatures.

-What it means

The main purpose of this article is that is shows that even soild accurate scientifc data can be interpreted and modified to fit a conclusion that may very well be inaccurate. In this case the graphs do not show a rapid acceleration in increased climate. Their claim however was that there was.

-How did this article change my thinking?

This article gave me a whole new perspective on what it means to read a scientific graph. I will be much more critical as well as analytical when i read graphs from now on. This does not however disprove any kind of human induced climate change. The bottom line is is that more CO2 means more green house gases to insulate the earth. 1977 to the present is also a very small span of time even in the recorded history in monitoring of the climate.

Add your comments here!

George-Paul Richmann - Re: Reflection 1a:Virtual Climate Alert 2004

1/13/05; 1:48:47 AM (reads: 39532, responses: 0)

How did/Will this article change my thinking?<o:p></o:p>

Given that it is 1:17 in the morning I believe that the â•˘what was doneâ•˙ section has been sufficiently covered. The same is true as to what it means and to what was learned (or at least what the authors of the article were aiming to show the audience). That being said the question that must be addressed is how it affected ME?

<o:p> </o:p>

I think this article really is a moot point!

<o:p> </o:p>

While the authors make a half hearted attempt to disprove; or loosen the â•˘anthropomorphicâ•˙ link with the â•˘Great Pacific Climatic Shiftâ•˙, they really didnâ•˙t provide much more then allegorical evidence as to how it would influence current figures (they should have included temperatures before 1977!!).

<o:p> </o:p>

The main thrust of the argument was that warming was linear in nature and not logarithmic. That being said, the real question isâ•œ. What is causing the warming? If it is anthropomorphic then it doesnâ•˙t matter what form it takes whether linear or logarithmicâ•œ. The earth is still being affected in a fairly profound way. Now if they were able to show a linear association with data before 1977 or able to show a similar relationship with earlier warming spells before this point their argument would have more credibility.

<o:p> </o:p>

The end result is that while the mainstream media is may abuse or misuse acceleration versus constant temperature riseâ•œ the real question is causalityâ•œ..it is a matter of degree (no pun intended). Linear versus Logarithmic shows us to what extent the basic problem will manifest itself and not what is causing it (natural systems or the human race).

Add your comments here!

jason - Re: Reflection 1a: Lack of convincing data

1/13/05; 9:41:10 AM (reads: 39495, responses: 0)

Virtual Climate Change Alert

What was "done"(methods):

The author compiled data from three sources on average annual global climate increases/decreases: NASA, the World Meteorological Organization, and the National Climatic Data Center. The article contained two charts that viewed data in separate ways.

What was learned(results):

From the data given in the two data sets the global annual increase in temperature is rising in a linear, instead of exponential manner. This gives reason to conclude that these increases are not significant enough to prove the existence of a problem with rising global temperatures. Figure 1 shows the average increase yearly since the "Great Pacific Climate Shift" in 1977 from the three sources. Figure 2 shows the temperature trend from the given year (1977) coupled with the year indicated on the horizontal axis.

What it means:

The author seems to present his/her argument with only a fraction of the history of climate change. Ice core records show a more in depth look at the history of global climate change. When looking at only a fraction of the data it is difficult to make assumptions or even observations on whether or not the weather is changing. Most scientists agree that global climate change is occuring; it's just the magnitude that changes with each individual.

How did/will this article change my way of thinking:

These kinds of articles force me to critically evaluate my basis for why the earth is warming at an acclerated pace. Evaluating work like has been done in this article only strengthens my arguments for why global climate change does exist by being able to understand why articles like this are bogus. Understanding the flaws of opposing arguments therefore supplies me with food for thought to respond with.

Add your comments here!

Doug - Re: Reflection 1a: 30 Years is not enough

1/13/05; 11:06:17 AM (reads: 39476, responses: 0)

1. What was done?

Global surface temperatures were compiled from three organizations √ NASA, <st1:place><st1:PlaceName>National</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceName>Climatic</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceName>Data</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType>Center</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>, and the World Meteorological Organization. These temperatures were then charted in two separate graphs, both trying to prove that global warming is not occurring.

2. What was learned?
Throughout the article the author continually tried to disprove global warming. It was often stated that global warming was something that the press ran away with, making it into something that it is not. The press and others were just looking for headlines and not the actual facts. The author uses facts (or global temperatures) to make graphs. The data points in these graphs do not support global warming.

3. What it means?
The article means very little when it comes to global warming. The data presented in this article only goes as far back as 1975. While there may not have been a significant increase in temperature in the past thirty years, this does not mean that there hasn't been a significant increase in the past one hundred or two hundred or more years. In order to look at global warming, one most look at the earth's temperature from centuries ago.

4. How did/will change my way of thinking?
This article did not have much of an impact on how I view global warming. I do not feel that the author had a compelling argument and that the data supported what it was meant to. However, this article did make me think about the rate of global warming. While the temperature is steadily increasing, it is not accelerating. This article will has made more aware of the importnace of critically evaluating published work. Just because something is published, it does not mean that the data and arguements presented are not skewed or false.

Add your comments here!

Drew Ruther - If the shoe fits, someone will buy it!

1/13/05; 12:29:10 PM (reads: 39450, responses: 0)

Methods:

Basically, three organizations announced the year's average global surface temperature. The data is most likely true and accurate. However, it is sometimes manipulated and/or analyzed to grab the attention of the ever-accelerating gullible public.

Results:

I wasn't aware that their was a difference between increasing global temperatures and the acceleration of such increasing global temperatures. In the past, I was merely focused on the fact that the temperatures were increasing linearly, as it seems is the case.

Discussion:

It is nice to read an article about global warming which puts some perspective on the issue. It's easy to get causght up in all the hype. The media does a great job as inducing public conern. Not that this issue doesn't warrant any conern. But really, we have about two hundred years of data. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. I'm sure there have been some changes in that time. There is a principle that states that the same processes occuring on earth now have been occuring all along. Should we be concerned with the current rise in temperatures? Sure, let us keep an eye on it. But also let us not go overboard.

Add your comments here!

Shira Moskowitz - Re: It's warm out... oh wait, it dropped

1/13/05; 2:42:16 PM (reads: 39493, responses: 0)

What was Done? Data was collected from three of the main organizations that track the global surface temperatures: NCDC, NASA, WMO. The data was compared according to the annual temperature over the course of history starting from 1977 to the 2002, and the temperature trends found in over that same time period. The data was then analyzed by graphing of the data plots.

What was learned? From the data given in the charts, depending on how each was graphed they either tell us that the planet is gradually warming up and there could be cause for alarm if we don't do anything about it, or it tell us that because the trends of the surface temperatures are