2009.10.26
Blame your dog for global warming
Two interesting stories today on the climate change front.
The first delivers a deserved smack down to the the deniers who have lately insisted that the world is cooling, not warming. The Associated Press had several statisticians study the data. They didn't tell them what the numbers were, just gave them the raw numbers. And guess what? The only way to find a cooling trend is to gimmick the numbers. All of the statisticians agreed the data reveal an increase in global temperature over time.
The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.
Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.
Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."
I doubt this will change many hard-core deniers' views. For them, it is easier to pretend the world conforms to their beliefs than to actually confront the science and make the tough choices.
For those of us with a reality-based view of reality, what to do? Well that brings us to story No. 2. (Hat tip to Slashdot on this one.)
Two researchers in New Zealand studied the effects of household pets on the environment. Based on how much energy and land it takes to feed them and other factors, they conclude a large dog is responsible for as much carbon emissions as an SUV each year. Cats are less, around as much as a Volkswagen Golf. Two hamsters come in around a plasma TV and a goldfish contributes to global warming about as much as two cell phones.
The researchers conclusion: Get rid of your dogs and cats in favor of edible animals like chickens and pigs. Their forthcoming book no doubt has more details. It's called Time to "Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living."
I don't see that one happening.
RSS feed 
Bologna!
Feed your animals what they are meant to eat and this wouldn't be an issue. Kibble = hard to digest = GAS. And the process of making kibble and wet food produces lots of carbon at pet food plants. But I simply feed my pets meat scraps and organ, left over from the human food. No extra carbon in the making of it, and they rarely even expel the noxiuos gasses that other dogs do.
Comment by Maria — October 26, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Maria, are you saying that dogs really don't crave bacon?
Comment by waynep — October 26, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
The wife and I am planning a trip to Yosemite next year. The books we have gotten so far claim it as formed by melting glaciers carving their way through it long, long, ago.
CT, I do not place in you, the authority to define "reality" (For those of us with a reality-based view of reality, what to do? for me.
For liberals, there is their reality which denies certain facts to be self evident as well and also permeates the spread of the beliefs "for the cause of Liberalism" which is why so many are attracted to positions of teaching and the media where the influence can be greater.
Follow the money. Those who promote its "existence" want your tax money through endowments and grants to study and solve a "crisis" that doesn't exist or if it does exist was not man made (and therefore is not man fixable).
Comment by Bob H — October 26, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
"For those of us in reality-based reality, what to do".
Ummm. Gee, all these world-renowned scientists coming down against man made global warming, including those who were formerly proponents. They're saying it's all poppycock. And they have no financial stake in it, unlike the "government scientists".
Comment by Suzie — October 26, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
I'd like to encourage everyone to visit the following link:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
It is from the American Institute of Physics and talks about the history of global warming. Because it comes from physicists it can be difficult to follow but is well worth the effort.
The main point to take from this site is that global warming is COMPLICATED. There are mutually supporting lines of evidence to show global warming is real and man made. To just look at something like a 10 yr. average is insufficient.
Also when people talk about scientists being in it for the money, I'd like to point out two things. First is, no scientist is getting rich at this except for the one's doing the denying. Second, global warming was discovered primarily while looking for ways to explain global cooling (the ice ages). I'm more likely to believe the word of someone who is looking for one explanation (global cooling) but honestly comes to the conclusion they were wrong or headed in the wrong direction (which is what happened).
Comment by Scott M. — October 27, 2009 @ 9:43 am
Suzie, the Associated Press had no financial stake in this, unless you think they are onthe take from the Scientists. The Government does not stand to make money from global warming any more than global cooling, any more than global stagnation. Any changes promoted by this will go to the industry making the changes. You act like "government scientists" whomever they may be are making fortunes off of this. Get real, researchers on federal grants have many things they can research. Most are paid by industry or at the very least paid by the gov't after industry has lobbied for the research. The evil scientist you try to expose just does not exist. They have no dog in the fight.
Gov't spending through research grants is hard to come by. There are minimal exceptions to this as always, but minimal.
Any money in this fight is held and made by industry and the competition is between the current energy businessmen that want to protect their industry and the new industry people. Unfortunately the established energy companies hold all the money and the cards. They lobby, advertise, and lie about what they have doen to the environment and what they want to do. They control the Republican party and have raped us for the last eight years as a consequence.
Comment by Richard — October 27, 2009 @ 9:49 am
#6 Well said and why would anyone living in the present modern time want to argue with the scientific data out there? What is their agenda? Just look at the North Pole and see for your own eyes.
Comment by Bill Hudson — October 27, 2009 @ 12:40 pm