news-4: global warming - Peter Meyer

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Moore

unread,
Dec 15, 2009, 8:40:35 AM12/15/09
to new...@yahoogroups.com, new...@lists.riseup.net, new...@googlegroups.com

Bcc: Peter Meyer
_____

Begin forwarded message:

Date: 15 December 2009 03:50:35 GMT
Subject: re-5: global warming – The official NOAA ice   core data

Hi Richard,

Following your investigation, "I went to the official NOAA government site, and
downloaded the raw data from the ice cores into Excel. I used Excel's charting
feature, and compared it to" your graphs, and got the same results.  Many thanks
for this interesting presentation.

It certainly shows that the steep rise in temperature between about 1830 CE and
about 1905 CE (the latest data from the ice cores) is far less than the steep
rise which occurred 800-1000 CE at the start of the medieval warm period,
indicating that we have nothing to worry about.

My only reservation would be that the ice core data does not go beyond 1905, but
even if that trend continued to 2000 it would still not be larger than the
800-1000 warming.

However, the AGM proponents could argue that even though, in the medieval warm
period, the temperature peaked at around 1030 CE and then went into major
decline until 1257, there is no guarantee that the current warming phase will
peak any time soon, and might continue upward.  It might, but is there any
evidence that it will?  A case would have to be made that greenhouse gases
released into the atmosphere since 1830 are the cause of the current warming
phase and so (if they remain at current levels) will continue to push the
temperature upward with no end in sight.  This, I think, is the essential point
of dispute, namely, whether the current warming phase can be explained in this
way.  But since the warming phase 800-1000 was not due to the presence of
greenhouse cases, such an explanation is dubious.  Until climatologists can
explain the 800-1000 warming phase I suspect we can't predict global temperature
even in the near future.

Regards,
Peter Meyer
___

Date: 15 December 2009 11:01:50 GMT
Subject: Re: global warming

Further to my previous message, it could be objected that the data for the last
50K years prior to 1900AD are just for one spot in central Greenland, and
evidence is needed that this temperature record can be extrapolated worldwide.

However, my main point remains, that climatologists (correct me if I am
mistaken) cannot explain the much larger warming phase at the start of the
medieval warm period, so cannot claim that the current warming must be due to
the effects of greenhouse gases. They could, however, deny that there was such a
much larger warming phase, but AFAIK the occurrence of the MWP has been
established.
___

Hi Peter,

Thanks for reproducing my little study. It seems we have our own distributed research center, with no pollution from funding.

As for whether Greenland was special, the NOAA has other ice data sets as well:

I haven't had a chance to look at those yet, please let me know if you do anything with them.  However, note that the NOAA reassures us, below, that the Greenland set is typical.  This is included at the top of the Greenland data-set file:
ABSTRACT: Greenland ice-core records provide an exceptionally clear picture of many aspects of abrupt climate changes, and particularly of those associated with the Younger Dryas event, as reviewed here. Well-preserved annual layers can be counted confidently, with only 1% errors for the age of the end of the Younger Dryas 11,500 years before present. Ice-flow corrections allow reconstruction of snow accumulation rates over tens of thousands of years with little additional uncertainty. Glaciochemical and particulate data record atmospheric-loading changes with little uncertainty introduced by changes in snow accumulation. Confident paleothermometry is provided by site-specific calibrations using ice-isotopic ratios, borehole temperatures, and gas-isotopic ratios. Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local, regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with Greenland within thirty years or less. Post-Younger Dryas changes have not duplicated the size, extent and rapidity of these paleoclimatic changes. 
I agree with you that a case can still be made for global warming, if proof of Co2's alleged influence can be produced. But the biggest argument used so far by the global-warming crowd is that we are experiencing unprecedented and alarming temperatures, and that this correlates with Co2 levels. That argument seems to be just about demolished, although we still need to synchronize the ice-core data with thermometer records since about 1850, and then with the more recent satellite measurements. 

As regards Co2's effect on climate based on other than correlation, I've seen little evidence for it, and a lot of evidence against. The IPCC's climate modelers start with the assumption that temperatures are alarming and that Co2 is the cause. Then they keep fiddling their weightings, and omitting offending data, to try to get the model to match their assumptions. A lot of research has been done since the IPCC first announced their position, which challenges their assumptions, and most of this has been ignored and dismissed by the IPCC without any logical basis.

There is a real tipping point involved in all this. I refer to the tipping point of 'consensus opinion'. Once that tipping point is reached, every 'responsible' media person and 'respectable pundit' must support the consensus opinion or be dismissed as a nutter. We then get a positive feedback loop, where the 'consensus' is supported by more and more 'unanimity'. In this case the feedback loop is more intense, because environmentalists were already worrying about Co2 before Gore pushed us over the tipping point with his pseudo documentary. The worry was has now become paranoia, due to the IPCC media hype, and the marginalizing of contrary views. 

The evidence I've seen indicates that Co2 levels are well within the regulatory capacity of the Earth systems, and that the greenhouse effect of Co2 falls off logarithmically with the total amount of Co2. This would indicate that incremental Co2 added by humans has negligible effect, with or without regulation by other systems, such as precipitation. This is not intuitive. I was worried about Co2 as well, before I started investigating. I now give the danger about a 5% likelihood. 

And no, they can't explain the Medieval Warm Period, which is why they try to subtract it out of their model by giving undue weight to atypical selected data sets. Meanwhile, solar-based models track temperature changes rather closely. But silly me, imagining the sun could have anything to do with temperature.

Of course none of this means that burning more oil is a good thing, or that we don't need to achieve sustainability. That's the whole problem with this global warming hysteria: it's distracting from what needs to be done, and channeling our energy into making trillions for the cap-and-trade brokers, while the polluters will go right on polluting. People and corporations and industrial farming won't stop using oil, they'll just pay more for the privilege, and believe me the oil companies will get a big cut. Taxes have never stopped smoking or drinking and they won't reduce energy consumption. It's infrastructure changes we need, not ineffective sin taxes.

cheers,
rkm

___________________________
subscribe mailto:

websites: 

archives:

Moderator: r...@quaylargo.com  (comments welcome)



Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages