Could you break it to me why people are so uncritical of data that supports their preconceived ideas that they would miss data which on its face is so far off the charts (Warmest October ever) as to be silly.
Even the corrected data are still close to being the warmest October ever. Globally speaking, it wasn't actually that far off the charts. However, some individual stations were far above what is normal for those particular stations. It seems nobody noticed what was going on at those specific locations, and when they got averaged in with the other normal stations, the regional temperature wasn't too out of line. I'm not surprised that nobody at GISS immediately noticed something weird going on at those particular stations, since there are many thousands of stations and so they don't routinely inspect all their data every single month. I am surprised that their automated data-error flagging algorithm apparently doesn't work at the individual station level. It does look for step discontinuities in individual station data, but evidently not for duplication.
... How much of this tunnel vision is taking place in the "scientific community" and force feeding the media "gigo" that is skewered toward supporting, not so much global warming, but its cause and the solution that plays into the control freaks need to "lead" the rest of us.
... and this is where skepticism runs off the rails into insane paranoia.
Right, you're just looking at things on a small scale (i.e. I could bike to work with an empty stomach) while ignoring that on a large scale (both in time and in people) there's a necessary impact.
And by the way, I didn't claim that there weren't any downsides to biking to work. In fact, I said the opposite, that there are drawbacks; as you say, time is one example. I just said that consuming more food leading to increased CO2 emissions is not really one of them.
Right, you're just looking at things on a small scale (i.e. I could bike to work with an empty stomach) while ignoring that on a large scale (both in time and in people) there's a necessary impact.
I didn't say you could bike to work on an empty stomach, you twit. I said that most people already eat enough for breakfast that they could bike to work without eating significantly more.
I'm talking about spending body energy.
I still have no idea what you're talking about. What does buying more stuff have to do with anything? Are you talking about buying more food? If you said the opposite, that people will buy more food if they eat more, you might make some small amount of sense. But what's the point of saying that people will eat more if they buy more?
"if you want to get a research grant to study squirrels, you won't get funds, but if the request were to study the impact of global warming on squirrels, then there is plenty of money available."
That may be true, to an extent. Of course, people do get grants to study squirrels independent of climate change. And of course, you have more options for funding to study squirrels if you can apply in two different areas (biology and climate). But it's not clear that there's anything wrong with this. If something has the potential to, say, decimate squirrel populations, that's obviously something of interest to the squirrel research community and perhaps deserves some extra funding.
Where the cynics cross the line is where they claim that the evidence for global warming itself has been fabricated by climate scientists in order to get funding. (Not that squirrel researchers have anything to do with that anyway. Scientists aren't one big homogeneous group.) The evidence is very real.
The article says another scientist tried (non-radioactive) tracer dyes and didn't see anything. I suppose you eventually would if you used a huge amount.
They could verify that the duck was found without asking for any personal info if they mark the ducks with some unique ID. If you report a valid ID, you've found a duck. Of course, they still have to trust that you found it where you said you found it. But that's a problem regardless of whether you give out your home address.
Clerical error does not include "hastily revising" the figures using another set of false data unsupported by satellite images.
Your conspiracy theories get lamer and lamer.
First, if they were faking data to make October come out warm, you'd think they'd fake enough of a temperature change to make October still be a record year, but they didn't. What's the point of faking data in a way that doesn't actually matter?
Second, they didn't use any second set of false data. They used existing Canadian temperature stations which hadn't reported in by the last data dump. In the previous anomaly map, they just left that area blank, because there was no data. Now there is data is in, and there is warming there. They didn't change cooling to warming or anything like that, they just included data that didn't make it into the last release.
Third, the northern Canada warming visible in the revised NASA anomaly maps is also visible in both the Hadley Centre surface maps and in the RSS/MSU satellite data, contrary to your claim. It's not fake and it doesn't contradict other data sources.
I know global warming skeptics like to wet themselves fantasizing about how global warming is all a big fabrication, but it's not gonna happen. Just give it up, man. There are legitimate areas of controversy in climate science (such as the magnitude of the climate feedback factors which amplify the climate sensitivity to CO2). Whether the planet is warming is not one of them.
It will make people eat more, you could expect it to make them eat just enough to make up for the energy spent.
Give me a break. I could bike to work on the breakfast I eat now, as could I suspect most people; at best, I'd have to eat a small amount more. You'd have to increase your food consumption for that to matter at all, and the resulting marginal increase in food-related emissions still isn't going to match the total amount of emissions from driving. There are legitimate reasons for people not to bike to work, but "I'm not eating enough to do it" isn't really one of them.
The point being, that food is everything but green.
True, but as I said, irrelevant.
Unless they're all trying to become skinny, people are going to eat more if they spend more.
What the hell are you talking about? Buying more stuff doesn't cause me to eat more, unless I'm buying more food, for which I need to have a reason.
i'm just knocking on the myth of green/free human energy,
You're wrong. You're so obsessed with "hippies" that you can't rationally admit that biking to work produces fewer CO2 emissions than driving. There are plenty of myths out there about green energy (such that eating locally cuts down on CO2 emissions), but this isn't one of them.
A vast % of water flowing from glaciers etc flows under the gravels and underground. If people could not follow the tracers (dyes etc) then how will they follow ducks?
They're more visible and they can count on more people looking for them.
That they could not follow tracers indicates that the water travels via some non-obvious (ie. non-surface) path.
I don't see how that implies anything. Tracers can travel below the surface too.
Sure, the ducks might provide a bit of curiosity, but it would be misleading to take them as being representative of water flow as a whole.
If they do make it out, there's probably some fairly big channel outlet.
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by human error.
especially if there was some pressure to publish quickly or the cleverly nefarious scheme of announcing "warmest October ever"
They didn't publish it; it was just a routine data update. And, contrary to the article's implication, they didn't "announce" the warmest October ever, either. The anomalous data showed up in the data base, but they didn't issue a press release or publish a paper or contact the media about it. It looks like they didn't even notice it until someone else pointed it out.
If one wanted, every year could be the warmest on record, in a big announcement
But it isn't, which casts doubt both on global conspiracy and "convenient" clerical errors.
Instead, it seems like this researcher just assumed that it was more support for a theory he liked.
I don't see any evidence that Hansen even knew there was anything anomalous either way. The article rather exaggerated that NASA "announced that last month was the hottest October on record". It appeared in their database update, but they didn't announce any press releases about it or anything — they only publish analysis of records at the end of the year.
Little things like this can add up across various studies, leading to a theory being unduly strong (self perpetuating).
That's true; I mentioned two other cases where mistakes did add up. However, considering the other temperature records out there (both surface and satellite), it's simply not plausible that all of them have major errors which all add up in the same way. Global warming is not a data artifact.
What the hell do you think? Muscle energy isn't free energy, it comes from food, and food is anything but green energy.
Unless you're proposing that riding a bike to work will cause people to consume vastly more food than they otherwise would, that's a moot point: switching from driving to cycling will eliminate greenhouse gases from vehicles, but won't substantially increase greenhouse gases from agriculture.
So your idea of saving the world is downscaling the economy and living like Cubans?
The melt waters flowing under the glacier and through small streams will flow through gravels and other obstructions that the rubber duckies can't flow through. Thus, any data coming back will have a huge caveat hanging over it and will be rather useless from a scientific point of view.
Huh? If data comes back, it's because the ducks made it through the obstructions, which is scientifically interesting; people may see where the ducks emerge into the ocean, which is scientifically interesting; and if anyone finds the ducks later, they will indicate where the ocean currents from the glacier goes, which is scientifically interesting.
Radioactive tracers etc can give far better information.
I don't know about radioactive tracers, but the article says that another scientist tried dye and it didn't work — they couldn't find any trace of it. I don't know if tracers will be detected unless you know roughly where to look, but I could be wrong. The idea of the ducks is that you don't have to know where they go, you wait for people to find them and tell you. And by the time it reaches shore, which is where people are supposed to find these ducks, I suspect even a radioactive tracer will be too dilute to measure.
Nobody's talking about tracking anything under the ice. You can't track rubber ducks under the ice either. It's when they're on the open sea that people want to track them. (Well, they'd like to be able to track things under the glacier, but they can't. They have to wait for whatever it is to emerge in the ocean.)
Let's publish the rubber duckies for Global Warming Research and ignore Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA headed by James Hansen which published falsified data.
I hate to break it to you, but making a clerical mistake is not the same as "falsifying data".
This is simply another proof that the mainstream media is no longer interested in facts or reporting unbiased news
Uh, no, it's a sign that quickly-fixed data reporting errors which have no impact on any major climate studies are not front page news.
I also hate to break it to you, but minor errors are found and fixed in scientific data sets all the time. It's only news when the data error is the basis for some important scientific conclusion. (That has been the case, for instance, with the XBT ocean thermometers and the UAH satellite data.)
Your post is a prime example of how ridiculously polarized the global warming debate has become. You're grasping at straws, man. A mistake in two month's data reporting, which has nothing to do with James Hansen personally, is not a global scientific conspiracy nor a disproof of global warming.
just like during the election of the Anointed One
Anointed One? Yeah, you really sound like an impartial arbiter of scientific accuracy. You might want to tone down the hypocrisy while whinging about "bias".
The article says he already tried a GPS tracker, and it failed to report in. I suppose he figured that rather than continuing to toss in expensive devices, he'd try a larger number of cheaper objects. If nobody finds them, at least it wasn't a big waste of money.
By the way, there are already robot floats in the ocean which can be tracked to show ocean currents (ARGO). Most of them don't use GPS, though, but Doppler radio tracking (here).
creating better algorithms? Or at least educating a little bit all non-CS scientists about performance and optimization?
The guys who work on the the dynamic cores for the biggest climate models (NCAR, GFDL, NASA, etc.) do world class numerical hydrodynamics. Maybe not quite on par with the nuke guys at, say, Sandia, but pretty good. And they do hire programmers and numerical methods people to do algorithm design, optimization, and parallelization. They're cutting edge in terms of grid solver algorithms for these sorts of problems. There are lots of complications from irregular topography, coupling between atmosphere, ocean, biosphere, and cryosphere, etc.
If you go over the climate-prediction loop many many times, you should consider some caching..
Caching does little good, because none of the grid cells have the same value after each time step. Some things just require a supercomputer. There's a reason why people use supercomputers for big 3D fluid dynamics simulations (nuclear explosions, virtual wind tunnels for aerospace, climate/weather models, etc.)
The worst IPCC scenario (A1FI) gives a worst case of 6.4 C (11.5 F) global warming in less than 100 years. I don't know if it's the worst thing that is likely to happen, but that's not that tame (especially when you consider that land warms faster than the global average, and northern latitudes even faster than that). As for the economics, Nordhaus's book A Question of Balance is a good place to start. Nordhaus isn't ideological. It's economically worth mitigating some CO2 emissions to insure against the more severe outcomes. Not cutting them to zero instantly, but reducing them. Even the so-called Copenhagen Consensus, which concluded that a marginal investment in other disasters is more cost effective than pure CO2 abatement for global warming, ended up recommending CO2 abatement (in combination with adaptation and tech R&D).
And frankly, I don't particularly care whether certain parties find global warming ideologically convenient. The problem still exists.
Climate change is gradual, but the emissions we put into the atmosphere today will last for centuries. Even if we switched over to all fusion power tomorrow, we'd still see more climate change, and the longer we wait to replace fossil fuels, the more we will see. Realistically, it takes a long time to widely deploy a new energy technology. Fusion isn't even feasible in the lab, let alone ready for deployment, let alone widely deployed.
Also, even if fusion were widely deployed, that doesn't mean we'd necessarily have less fossil fuel emissions. Coal plants are cheap because they're already built, so we might just keep running them instead of shutting them down and having to build a new fusion plant, even a cheap one. They typically have operating lifetimes of over 50 years.
Who says the climate modeling they are doing is related to global warming?
Oak Ridge does: "Climate scientists are calculating the potential consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and the potential benefits of limiting these emissions."
I have to admit I am sceptical about blindly believing in global warming. I used to in the past however I've become a little smarter since then I can not see any hard observations for it, especially when volcanoes pump out 26 times more CO2 per year then all of humanity on the planet
That's not even remotely true. Volcanic CO2 emissions are about 1% of human CO2 emissions (see here). Where did you get the rather specific, and wrong, factor of 26?
Maybe you'd see the hard evidence if you spend a little more time reading about it, since you appear to have some peculiar misconceptions. I recommend Kerry Emanuel's essay "Phaeton's Reins", David Archer's undergrad textbook, and the IPCC AR4 report for technical details.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you break it to me why people are so uncritical of data that supports their preconceived ideas that they would miss data which on its face is so far off the charts (Warmest October ever) as to be silly.
Even the corrected data are still close to being the warmest October ever. Globally speaking, it wasn't actually that far off the charts. However, some individual stations were far above what is normal for those particular stations. It seems nobody noticed what was going on at those specific locations, and when they got averaged in with the other normal stations, the regional temperature wasn't too out of line. I'm not surprised that nobody at GISS immediately noticed something weird going on at those particular stations, since there are many thousands of stations and so they don't routinely inspect all their data every single month. I am surprised that their automated data-error flagging algorithm apparently doesn't work at the individual station level. It does look for step discontinuities in individual station data, but evidently not for duplication.
... How much of this tunnel vision is taking place in the "scientific community" and force feeding the media "gigo" that is skewered toward supporting, not so much global warming, but its cause and the solution that plays into the control freaks need to "lead" the rest of us.
... and this is where skepticism runs off the rails into insane paranoia.
Right, you're just looking at things on a small scale (i.e. I could bike to work with an empty stomach) while ignoring that on a large scale (both in time and in people) there's a necessary impact.
And by the way, I didn't claim that there weren't any downsides to biking to work. In fact, I said the opposite, that there are drawbacks; as you say, time is one example. I just said that consuming more food leading to increased CO2 emissions is not really one of them.
Right, you're just looking at things on a small scale (i.e. I could bike to work with an empty stomach) while ignoring that on a large scale (both in time and in people) there's a necessary impact.
I didn't say you could bike to work on an empty stomach, you twit. I said that most people already eat enough for breakfast that they could bike to work without eating significantly more.
I'm talking about spending body energy.
I still have no idea what you're talking about. What does buying more stuff have to do with anything? Are you talking about buying more food? If you said the opposite, that people will buy more food if they eat more, you might make some small amount of sense. But what's the point of saying that people will eat more if they buy more?
I think if your tracer is radioactive enough to melt through ice, you're going to have some trouble with Homeland Security ...
"if you want to get a research grant to study squirrels, you won't get funds, but if the request were to study the impact of global warming on squirrels, then there is plenty of money available."
That may be true, to an extent. Of course, people do get grants to study squirrels independent of climate change. And of course, you have more options for funding to study squirrels if you can apply in two different areas (biology and climate). But it's not clear that there's anything wrong with this. If something has the potential to, say, decimate squirrel populations, that's obviously something of interest to the squirrel research community and perhaps deserves some extra funding.
Where the cynics cross the line is where they claim that the evidence for global warming itself has been fabricated by climate scientists in order to get funding. (Not that squirrel researchers have anything to do with that anyway. Scientists aren't one big homogeneous group.) The evidence is very real.
It's only 90 ducks. Sheesh. Compared to this, that's nothing.
The article says another scientist tried (non-radioactive) tracer dyes and didn't see anything. I suppose you eventually would if you used a huge amount.
They could verify that the duck was found without asking for any personal info if they mark the ducks with some unique ID. If you report a valid ID, you've found a duck. Of course, they still have to trust that you found it where you said you found it. But that's a problem regardless of whether you give out your home address.
Yeah, it's all a big data cover up so they have to re-brand the theory.
Sheesh.
They call it climate change now because it's important to emphasize that temperature isn't the only thing which is changing.
Clerical error does not include "hastily revising" the figures using another set of false data unsupported by satellite images.
Your conspiracy theories get lamer and lamer.
First, if they were faking data to make October come out warm, you'd think they'd fake enough of a temperature change to make October still be a record year, but they didn't. What's the point of faking data in a way that doesn't actually matter?
Second, they didn't use any second set of false data. They used existing Canadian temperature stations which hadn't reported in by the last data dump. In the previous anomaly map, they just left that area blank, because there was no data. Now there is data is in, and there is warming there. They didn't change cooling to warming or anything like that, they just included data that didn't make it into the last release.
Third, the northern Canada warming visible in the revised NASA anomaly maps is also visible in both the Hadley Centre surface maps and in the RSS/MSU satellite data, contrary to your claim. It's not fake and it doesn't contradict other data sources.
I know global warming skeptics like to wet themselves fantasizing about how global warming is all a big fabrication, but it's not gonna happen. Just give it up, man. There are legitimate areas of controversy in climate science (such as the magnitude of the climate feedback factors which amplify the climate sensitivity to CO2). Whether the planet is warming is not one of them.
It will make people eat more, you could expect it to make them eat just enough to make up for the energy spent.
Give me a break. I could bike to work on the breakfast I eat now, as could I suspect most people; at best, I'd have to eat a small amount more. You'd have to increase your food consumption for that to matter at all, and the resulting marginal increase in food-related emissions still isn't going to match the total amount of emissions from driving. There are legitimate reasons for people not to bike to work, but "I'm not eating enough to do it" isn't really one of them.
The point being, that food is everything but green.
True, but as I said, irrelevant.
Unless they're all trying to become skinny, people are going to eat more if they spend more.
What the hell are you talking about? Buying more stuff doesn't cause me to eat more, unless I'm buying more food, for which I need to have a reason.
i'm just knocking on the myth of green/free human energy,
You're wrong. You're so obsessed with "hippies" that you can't rationally admit that biking to work produces fewer CO2 emissions than driving. There are plenty of myths out there about green energy (such that eating locally cuts down on CO2 emissions), but this isn't one of them.
A vast % of water flowing from glaciers etc flows under the gravels and underground. If people could not follow the tracers (dyes etc) then how will they follow ducks?
They're more visible and they can count on more people looking for them.
That they could not follow tracers indicates that the water travels via some non-obvious (ie. non-surface) path.
I don't see how that implies anything. Tracers can travel below the surface too.
Sure, the ducks might provide a bit of curiosity, but it would be misleading to take them as being representative of water flow as a whole.
If they do make it out, there's probably some fairly big channel outlet.
But.. it's an awfully convenient excuse,
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by human error.
especially if there was some pressure to publish quickly or the cleverly nefarious scheme of announcing "warmest October ever"
They didn't publish it; it was just a routine data update. And, contrary to the article's implication, they didn't "announce" the warmest October ever, either. The anomalous data showed up in the data base, but they didn't issue a press release or publish a paper or contact the media about it. It looks like they didn't even notice it until someone else pointed it out.
If one wanted, every year could be the warmest on record, in a big announcement
But it isn't, which casts doubt both on global conspiracy and "convenient" clerical errors.
Instead, it seems like this researcher just assumed that it was more support for a theory he liked.
I don't see any evidence that Hansen even knew there was anything anomalous either way. The article rather exaggerated that NASA "announced that last month was the hottest October on record". It appeared in their database update, but they didn't announce any press releases about it or anything — they only publish analysis of records at the end of the year.
Little things like this can add up across various studies, leading to a theory being unduly strong (self perpetuating).
That's true; I mentioned two other cases where mistakes did add up. However, considering the other temperature records out there (both surface and satellite), it's simply not plausible that all of them have major errors which all add up in the same way. Global warming is not a data artifact.
What the hell do you think? Muscle energy isn't free energy, it comes from food, and food is anything but green energy.
Unless you're proposing that riding a bike to work will cause people to consume vastly more food than they otherwise would, that's a moot point: switching from driving to cycling will eliminate greenhouse gases from vehicles, but won't substantially increase greenhouse gases from agriculture.
So your idea of saving the world is downscaling the economy and living like Cubans?
Hyperbole much?
In that case, they probably wouldn't learn much about glacier melt, but they could learn something about the ocean currents in the region.
The melt waters flowing under the glacier and through small streams will flow through gravels and other obstructions that the rubber duckies can't flow through. Thus, any data coming back will have a huge caveat hanging over it and will be rather useless from a scientific point of view.
Huh? If data comes back, it's because the ducks made it through the obstructions, which is scientifically interesting; people may see where the ducks emerge into the ocean, which is scientifically interesting; and if anyone finds the ducks later, they will indicate where the ocean currents from the glacier goes, which is scientifically interesting.
Radioactive tracers etc can give far better information.
I don't know about radioactive tracers, but the article says that another scientist tried dye and it didn't work — they couldn't find any trace of it. I don't know if tracers will be detected unless you know roughly where to look, but I could be wrong. The idea of the ducks is that you don't have to know where they go, you wait for people to find them and tell you. And by the time it reaches shore, which is where people are supposed to find these ducks, I suspect even a radioactive tracer will be too dilute to measure.
Nobody's talking about tracking anything under the ice. You can't track rubber ducks under the ice either. It's when they're on the open sea that people want to track them. (Well, they'd like to be able to track things under the glacier, but they can't. They have to wait for whatever it is to emerge in the ocean.)
Let's publish the rubber duckies for Global Warming Research and ignore Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA headed by James Hansen which published falsified data.
I hate to break it to you, but making a clerical mistake is not the same as "falsifying data".
This is simply another proof that the mainstream media is no longer interested in facts or reporting unbiased news
Uh, no, it's a sign that quickly-fixed data reporting errors which have no impact on any major climate studies are not front page news.
I also hate to break it to you, but minor errors are found and fixed in scientific data sets all the time. It's only news when the data error is the basis for some important scientific conclusion. (That has been the case, for instance, with the XBT ocean thermometers and the UAH satellite data.)
Your post is a prime example of how ridiculously polarized the global warming debate has become. You're grasping at straws, man. A mistake in two month's data reporting, which has nothing to do with James Hansen personally, is not a global scientific conspiracy nor a disproof of global warming.
just like during the election of the Anointed One
Anointed One? Yeah, you really sound like an impartial arbiter of scientific accuracy. You might want to tone down the hypocrisy while whinging about "bias".
The article says he already tried a GPS tracker, and it failed to report in. I suppose he figured that rather than continuing to toss in expensive devices, he'd try a larger number of cheaper objects. If nobody finds them, at least it wasn't a big waste of money.
By the way, there are already robot floats in the ocean which can be tracked to show ocean currents (ARGO). Most of them don't use GPS, though, but Doppler radio tracking (here).
creating better algorithms? Or at least educating a little bit all non-CS scientists about performance and optimization?
The guys who work on the the dynamic cores for the biggest climate models (NCAR, GFDL, NASA, etc.) do world class numerical hydrodynamics. Maybe not quite on par with the nuke guys at, say, Sandia, but pretty good. And they do hire programmers and numerical methods people to do algorithm design, optimization, and parallelization. They're cutting edge in terms of grid solver algorithms for these sorts of problems. There are lots of complications from irregular topography, coupling between atmosphere, ocean, biosphere, and cryosphere, etc.
If you go over the climate-prediction loop many many times, you should consider some caching..
Caching does little good, because none of the grid cells have the same value after each time step. Some things just require a supercomputer. There's a reason why people use supercomputers for big 3D fluid dynamics simulations (nuclear explosions, virtual wind tunnels for aerospace, climate/weather models, etc.)
The worst IPCC scenario (A1FI) gives a worst case of 6.4 C (11.5 F) global warming in less than 100 years. I don't know if it's the worst thing that is likely to happen, but that's not that tame (especially when you consider that land warms faster than the global average, and northern latitudes even faster than that). As for the economics, Nordhaus's book A Question of Balance is a good place to start. Nordhaus isn't ideological. It's economically worth mitigating some CO2 emissions to insure against the more severe outcomes. Not cutting them to zero instantly, but reducing them. Even the so-called Copenhagen Consensus, which concluded that a marginal investment in other disasters is more cost effective than pure CO2 abatement for global warming, ended up recommending CO2 abatement (in combination with adaptation and tech R&D).
And frankly, I don't particularly care whether certain parties find global warming ideologically convenient. The problem still exists.
Climate change is gradual, but the emissions we put into the atmosphere today will last for centuries. Even if we switched over to all fusion power tomorrow, we'd still see more climate change, and the longer we wait to replace fossil fuels, the more we will see. Realistically, it takes a long time to widely deploy a new energy technology. Fusion isn't even feasible in the lab, let alone ready for deployment, let alone widely deployed.
Also, even if fusion were widely deployed, that doesn't mean we'd necessarily have less fossil fuel emissions. Coal plants are cheap because they're already built, so we might just keep running them instead of shutting them down and having to build a new fusion plant, even a cheap one. They typically have operating lifetimes of over 50 years.
Who says the climate modeling they are doing is related to global warming?
Oak Ridge does: "Climate scientists are calculating the potential consequences of greenhouse gas emissions and the potential benefits of limiting these emissions."
I have to admit I am sceptical about blindly believing in global warming. I used to in the past however I've become a little smarter since then I can not see any hard observations for it, especially when volcanoes pump out 26 times more CO2 per year then all of humanity on the planet
That's not even remotely true. Volcanic CO2 emissions are about 1% of human CO2 emissions (see here). Where did you get the rather specific, and wrong, factor of 26?
Maybe you'd see the hard evidence if you spend a little more time reading about it, since you appear to have some peculiar misconceptions. I recommend Kerry Emanuel's essay "Phaeton's Reins", David Archer's undergrad textbook, and the IPCC AR4 report for technical details.