right...global warming
Mercellus Bohren
Thanks for biting the head off this lemmings crusade.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/3768141.html
regards,
Mercellus "Bad Bone" Bohren, III
Sport Pilot
It's all a farce. The other day doctors couldn't get several
themometers to agree withen one degree of my daughters temperature.
Should I worry about daughter warming?
Grumpy AuContraire
I dunno 'bout that as frigidity is usually the operating factor when it
comes to wimin'...
JT
Roger Coppock
> themometers to agree withen one degree of
> my daughters temperature.
If you, and not the doctors, knew your daughter's
temperature, why then did you ask the doctors to
determine her temperature? Also, what are
doctors doing with thermometers? (Please note
the correct spelling, "thermometers.") Nurses
usually do the temperature taking.
> Should I worry about daughter warming?
No, one can't conclude that from a single reading,
only if you take a time series of readings will
you know if she is warming or cooling. Before
those serial readings, you should seriously think
about finding a hospital that has useable
thermometers and a staff that knows how to use
them.
richard schumacher
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
> It's all a farce. The other day doctors couldn't get several
> themometers to agree withen one degree of my daughters temperature.
> Should I worry about daughter warming?
Stick your special "thermometer" in her again and let us know.
For discussion of the facts of global warming, written by scientists,
see http://www.realclimate.org/
Roger Coppock
That "Old Time Religion," it just cools them off. It's
a wonder that Republicans can breed at all!
Lefty's are hot!
Sport Pilot
Roger Coppock wrote:
> > The other day doctors couldn't get several
> > themometers to agree withen one degree of
> > my daughters temperature.
>
> If you, and not the doctors, knew your daughter's
> temperature, why then did you ask the doctors to
> determine her temperature? Also, what are
> doctors doing with thermometers? (Please note
> the correct spelling, "thermometers.") Nurses
> usually do the temperature taking.
>
Spelling NAZI! I know how to spell thermometer, but sometimes my
fingers take their own walk on the keyboard.
> > Should I worry about daughter warming?
>
> No, one can't conclude that from a single reading,
> only if you take a time series of readings will
> you know if she is warming or cooling. Before
> those serial readings, you should seriously think
> about finding a hospital that has useable
> thermometers and a staff that knows how to use
> them.
Yeah like all those time series readings and made up data, just to
prove that my mother earth has warmed up one degree. Funny but you can
get one degree error between two thermometerss ta the airport also!
Sport Pilot
richard schumacher wrote:
> In article <1144154778.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
>
> > It's all a farce. The other day doctors couldn't get several
> > themometers to agree withen one degree of my daughters temperature.
> > Should I worry about daughter warming?
>
> Stick your special "thermometer" in her again and let us know.
>
Another spelling NAZI ass. Can't give a good arguement so you find a
spelling error! LOL. Lose an arguement right from the begining.
Sport Pilot
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> Mercellus Bohren wrote:
>
> > Deer George Will,
> >
> > Thanks for
>
>
> Does that make you proud?
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
It's the Times that's scientifically illiterate! If not, then explain
how global warming can cause frogs in the tropics to go extinct? Maybe
Artic animals, but not in the tropics.
Unclaimed Mysteries
> (Please note
> the correct spelling, "thermometers.")
Did you, like, post this from, you know, the year 1988?
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Unclaimed Mysteries
PLEASE NOTE THE CORRECT SPELLING OF THE PLURAL "LEFTYS" WITHOUT THE
APOSTROPHE. THANKS OK BYE
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
"Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying." -Negativland
Global Warming @ARMY.com
WHY BOTHER? She'll be dead soon from unlivable climate changes anyway.
John Rogers
like... your opinion man.
>Deer George Will,
>
>Thanks for biting the head off this lemmings crusade.
>
>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/3768141.html
>
>http://tinyurl.com/qk3o3
So... if I'm understanding Will correctly... 30 years ago there was
Global Cooling... 30 years later there is Global Warming and the
average temperature of the Earth has increased by 1 degree
Fahrenheit... ERGO, the average temperature of the Earth has increased
by 1 degree Fahrenheit OR MORE (remember that Global Cooling thing?)
over the last 30 years?
FUCK THE SUVS!!! BRING BACK HORSES AND BUGGEES!!!!!
John Rogers
AU Class of 1985
The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
"I will choose a path thats clear.
I will choose free will."
Lloyd Parker
Lloyd Parker
Lloyd Parker
globe. Doofus.
Lloyd Parker
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
>> Mercellus Bohren wrote:
>>
>> > Deer George Will,
>> >
>> > Thanks for
>>
>> what, being a scientifically illiterate ignoramus?
>>
>> Does that make you proud?
>>
>> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>
>It's the Times that's scientifically illiterate! If not, then explain
>how global warming can cause frogs in the tropics to go extinct?
What, you can't read now? Must be from a red state.
Unclaimed Mysteries
That would hurt a lot no matter where you put them.
Scott Nudds
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote
> It's all a farce. The other day doctors couldn't get several
> themometers to agree withen one degree of my daughters temperature.
> Should I worry about daughter warming?
Somehow I don't think global temperatures are being taken with rectal
thermometers.
But you undoubtedly believe they are.
Stupid... Stupid... AmeriKKKan.
Scott Nudds
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote in message
> Yeah like all those time series readings and made up data, just to
> prove that my mother earth has warmed up one degree. Funny but you can
> get one degree error between two thermometerss ta the airport also!
No doubt. But not within the same measuring station at the same location.
They are after all designed to mitigate such problems.
Oh you didn't know that did you?
Silly... Silly... AmeriKKKan.
Fortunately averaging improves accuracy.
Scott Nudds
> > Stick your special "thermometer" in her again and let us know.
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote in message
> Can't give a good arguement so you find a spelling error!
Holy smoke this numnutt doesn't even realized that he's being "fingered" as
a child molester.
Stupid... Stupid... AmeriKKKan.
Jim McGinn
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
news:NAFYf.28637$Hk1....@read1.cgocable.net...
>
>
> "Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote
>> It's all a farce. The other day doctors couldn't get several
>> themometers to agree withen one degree of my daughters temperature.
>> Should I worry about daughter warming?
>
> Somehow I don't think global temperatures are being taken with rectal
> thermometers.
I have a model that indicates rectal thermometer warming may outpace the
effects of global warming. But before you go out to rake the shelves for
preparation H let me just say that the confidence level of this model is no
better than that for global warming.
Scott Nudds
> how global warming can cause frogs in the tropics to go extinct?
Since we have no reason to believe anything you say, there is no reason
for us to believe your claim that the "times" whatever that is, has made
such a statement.
Global_Warming @Peacemail.com
Jim McGinn wrote:
> I have a model that indicates rectal thermometer warming may outpace the
> effects of global warming. But before you go out to rake the shelves for
> preparation H let me just say that the confidence level of this model is no
> better than that for global warming.
I have confidence that the more things you try sticking up there the
better you will get at it.
Your future husband in cellblock number nine has a meat thermometer
that will rise your temperature. CRIME DOESN'T PAY!
Scott Nudds
"John Rogers" <tige...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> So... if I'm understanding Will correctly... 30 years ago there was
> Global Cooling... 30 years later there is Global Warming and the
> average temperature of the Earth has increased by 1 degree
> Fahrenheit... ERGO, the average temperature of the Earth has increased
> by 1 degree Fahrenheit OR MORE (remember that Global Cooling thing?)
> over the last 30 years?
Cooling with respect to what? Some global averge. Warming with respect
to what? The same global average. So the warming has been from some common
point, not a warming from minimum to maximum.
From minimum to maxiumum the warming has been about 1.75'F, From average
about 1.5'F, and the warming is continuing.
Sport Pilot
Actually you are wrong. It is taken at one point at most airports.
And thermometers on the other side may be a degree off from it. And it
is usually hotter over the runway.
Fact is one degree is almost meaningless.
Roger Coppock
Your "fact" is wrong, Sport Pilot.
One degree from the average of a couple of thousand
thermometers, the number of stations used in climate
time series, has a quite real meaning. What you need
to understand is a statistical concept, "standard error
of the mean." Please see:
http://samplingplans.com/forum/_disc1sam/000003ef.htm
Lloyd Parker
warming?
Sport Pilot
even more unreliable.
Mercellus Bohren
MORE JET ENGINES
Sport Pilot
LOL! Yes I think you nailed it. The whold global warming hoax is
because of the hot jet engine exhaust warming up the air at airports.
Most weather stations are at airports. Even the business jet has made
temps hotter at small airports. That is why there is a bigger
differance in cold climates, hot exhaust heats cold air quicker. Same
reason night temps are warmer than day temps. And judging from many of
these GW scientiests their own hot air skews their temperature readings.
Lloyd Parker
And of course, this explains why stations in rural areas show warming.
Stations at sea. Satellites. Yeah, sure.
Coby Beck
> LOL! Yes I think you nailed it. The whold global warming hoax is
> because of the hot jet engine exhaust warming up the air at airports.
> Most weather stations are at airports. Even the business jet has made
> temps hotter at small airports. That is why there is a bigger
> differance in cold climates, hot exhaust heats cold air quicker. Same
> reason night temps are warmer than day temps. And judging from many of
> these GW scientiests their own hot air skews their temperature readings.
If you truly have a problem with the surface temperature record, there are
many other completely independent lines of evidence that tell us the earth
is indeed warming. And all of these various indicators unanimously agree.
Putting aside the direct surface temperature measurements, Global Warming is
also indicated by:
Satellite and Radiosondes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
Borehole analysis:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Glacial melt observations:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129
Sea ice melt:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
Sea level rise:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Proxy Reconstructions:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
All of these completely independent analyses of widely varied aspects of the
climate system lead to the same conclusion: the Earth is undergoing a rapid
and large warming trend.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Ken
education of the ignorant on this important issue. When the US National
Academy of Science was asked to give an evaluation on the validity of
Climate Science, they concluded it was essentially sound. Highly
respected scientific institutions oversee Research in this, as with
other less controversial sciences yet the same old unsupportable
arguments keep being repeated ad nauseum by people who want to believe
it's all some kind of conspiracy and who seem to think that repeating
these simplistic but ultimately unconvincing arguments a substantial
body of science will be overturned.
Sorry but if several body temperature readings didn't get the same
result it doesn't mean the Global mean temperature can't be determined
with accuracy. Because one degree doesn't seem like much doesn't mean
it's insignificant.
Most of the people like "Sport Pilot" will not bother to find accurate
information on this issue and most of the effort put into providing it
for them will be wasted, but it's important that someone make that
effort because in the absence of clear arguments showing that those
opinions are unsupported by current best available knowledge they will
feel satisfied that they have it right. Given they provide no links and
references to sound science they should not be left to walk away from a
science discussion group believing they know better than the scientist
working in this field.
Ken
Mercellus Bohren
So, like, where is the link to your credentials?
tom spillman
I feel that Global Warming may, indeed, be happening.
My problem is the anthropomorphism. I have seen little evidence that
convinces me that it is caused by human activity. There are major
problems with many of the computer models which are the heart of the
controversy.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I
plan on NOT supporting major changes in our economy until I see much
more convincing evidence -- not that warming is happening but that man
is responsible. Since this seems to be more of a political campaign
than a scientific one, I fully expect to be flamed for my views.
Flame away!
Regards...
Tom
Sport Pilot
LOL! It's all of those tractors and bootlegging hot rods. You do not
know how to take a joke.
Lloyd Parker
The models are not for knowing GW is caused by humans; they are for predicting
future effects. Humans burn fossil fuels, which puts CO2 in the atmosphere,
which traps heat. There is NO other cause of the current warming.
>
>Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I am entitled to mine.
Do you have one on the Copenhagen vs Many Worlds approach to quantum
mechanics? Would it be equally valid as a physicist's?
>I
>plan on NOT supporting major changes in our economy until I see much
>more convincing evidence -- not that warming is happening but that man
>is responsible. Since this seems to be more of a political campaign
>than a scientific one, I fully expect to be flamed for my views.
Since it seems that you're parroting right-wing tripe...
>
>Flame away!
>
>Regards...
>
>Tom
tom spillman
>
> The models are not for knowing GW is caused by humans; they are for predicting
> future effects. Humans burn fossil fuels, which puts CO2 in the atmosphere,
> which traps heat. There is NO other cause of the current warming.
>
You might be interested in this site:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp
FWIW, this is review is from MIT which points out some of the problems
with the math.
>
> Do you have one on the Copenhagen vs Many Worlds approach to quantum
> mechanics? Would it be equally valid as a physicist's?
>
Not at all. However, we are not talking quantum mechanics. We are
discussing a chaotic system which is little understood, at present. I
use the term "chaotic" in the mathematical sense, rather than the
popular meaning.
>
> Since it seems that you're parroting right-wing tripe...
>
You are entitled to your opinion.
Here are a few other sites you might consider, as well:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
I assume that since this points to the Cato institute, you will dismiss
it as "right-wing tripe". However, the article is written by a
professor of meteorology at MIT, hardly a "right-wing" institution.
Here's another:
http://www.fragilecologies.com/dec18_98.html
Likewise, I am sure you will consider George Will a dispenser of
"right-wing tripe". However, you might read it and point out his errors
to the group. Here's a link to his column:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will040306.asp
As I mentioned earlier, this has turned into more of a "political"
debate than a "scientific" debate.
You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine, which can
be summarized as "more study is needed before we commit billions".
Regards...
Tom
Grumpy AuContraire
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
>
> tom spillman wrote:
> > Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The models are not for knowing GW is caused by humans; they are for
> >> predicting future effects. Humans burn fossil fuels, which puts CO2
> >> in the atmosphere, which traps heat. There is NO other cause of the
> >> current warming.
> >>
> >
> > You might be interested in this site:
> >
> > http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp
>
> Don't make us laugh again.
> >
> > FWIW, this is review is from MIT which points out some of the problems
> > with the math.
>
> >>
> >> Do you have one on the Copenhagen vs Many Worlds approach to quantum
> >> mechanics? Would it be equally valid as a physicist's?
> >>
> >
> > Not at all. However, we are not talking quantum mechanics.
>
> Sure we are.
>
> We are
> > discussing a chaotic system which is little understood, at present. I
> > use the term "chaotic" in the mathematical sense, rather than the
> > popular meaning.
>
> Are you telling us quantum mechanical systems are not chaotic,
> in the indeterminate, stochastic and brownian motion sense?
>
> >> Since it seems that you're parroting right-wing tripe...
> >>
> >
> > You are entitled to your opinion.
>
> Which is, you're an idiot.
> >
> > Here are a few other sites you might consider, as well:
>
> No thanks, you've already demonstated to us your true nature.
>
> I guess that just makes you another random crackpot.
>
> A single position with uncertain momentum.
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Looking at this discourse can only lead a rational individual to
conclude that the idiot here is you! Maybe "random crackpot" might also
apply but I suspect that the condition has been present since birth...
JT
(Judicious Observer)
tom spillman
<snip>
Good bye, Mr. Elifritz. You have proven that you neither read what I
posted and you certainly didn't understand it.
I will not waste my time further...
PLONK
Regards...
Tom
Ted
happening. If it isn't happening and we address it anyway, what
happens? We spend extra time and money and resources on something for
now reason. If it is happening and we ignore it? I think you get the
picture.
We owe it to future humanity to not be a bunch of complete assholes.
Sport Pilot
How bout the collapse of the economy and our entire way of life. It's
all a hoax to stop the oil using industry.
Coby Beck
news:1144310352.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks Coby for your patient and persistent corrections and free
> education of the ignorant on this important issue. When the US National
No worries! I save time by simply repeating the basics, often verbatim, but
as you note, the objections are repetitious and persistent.
> Most of the people like "Sport Pilot" will not bother to find accurate
> information on this issue and most of the effort put into providing it
> for them will be wasted, but it's important that someone make that
> effort because in the absence of clear arguments showing that those
> opinions are unsupported by current best available knowledge they will
> feel satisfied that they have it right. Given they provide no links and
> references to sound science they should not be left to walk away from a
> science discussion group believing they know better than the scientist
> working in this field.
Even more important that Sport, likely never to bother thinking critically,
are the lurkers who may be susceptible to all the FUD.
Coby Beck
BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world
has this opinion:
"One of the great challenges facing mankind is the increasing temperature
of the planet. This increase is believed to be associated with the
production and consumption of carbon based fuels -coal, oil and gas–
which all increase levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere
(The above comes from
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9002327&contentId=3072035 )
Shell Oil (yes, oil the fossil fuel) says:
"Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases
from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate."
(Read that here
http://www.shell.com/home/royal-en/html/iwgen/environment_and_society/key_issues_and_topics/issues/climate_change/dir_climate_change_05072005.html )
Here is what 18 CEO's of Canada's largest corporations had to say in an open
letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
"Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the
strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC
consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for
human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is
particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change."
That can be read here http://www.climateforchange.ca/statement/index_e.asp.
Have the Enviro-Nazis finally seized the industrial reigns of power?
Somehow,
I doubt it.
Coby Beck
> news:1144344255.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> How bout the collapse of the economy and our entire way of life. It's
Very alarmist, BTW. Chicken Little! The economy will collapse! I must
burn more oil!!
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
> the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.
". . . the actual rise in surface temperatures over
the decade was only 0.2 degrees, . . ."
Source:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak03.html
Coby Beck
news:DkaZf.4577$yy4....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> Not at all. However, we are not talking quantum mechanics. We are
> discussing a chaotic system which is little understood, at present. I use
> the term "chaotic" in the mathematical sense, rather than the popular
> meaning.
Now, I know that quite a few people believe that climate is a chaotic
system, and maybe on some large scale levels, it is. But it is not, in my
opinion, chaotic on anything approaching the kinds of time scales humans
need to be mindful of. Frankly, I have never heard any objective argument
supporting that notion, only arguments that take that as a given. Certainly
the march of the seasons is nice and regular, and determined directly by the
orbital inclination of the earth. If a large volcanic eruption occurs, the
global temperature drops for a few years quite predictably. Diurnal cycles
show the very direct influence of insolation. Clearly, if you turn down the
sun, the temperature drops. Clearly, if you throw a bunch of SO2 into the
stratosphere, the temperature drops. Clearly, if you turn the surface
completely white, the temperature drops. And clearly, if you double the
amount of an important GHG in the atmosphere, the temperature rises.
What about longer timeframes? One can also look at the glacial/interglacial
cycles, not perfectly regular but far from random, and also determined by
orbital variations. I will grant you that the data is quite chaotic on the
multi-century time scale even as it clearly follows a 120Kyr cycle, but who
is to say that had we enough data and understanding, these spikes and dips
could not be thoroughly explained by solar infuences, volcanic eruptions,
greenhouse gas changes, ice sheet dynamics etc?
The ocean-atmosphere climate system is indeed a complex system and is
capable of some surprising behaviours, but I don't see it as chaotic and I
see no problem with speaking in a meaningful way about future expectations.
Model outputs do in fact produce specific year to year flucuations,
flucuations that are not hindcasted well (that is the weather after all),
but I don't think anyone is that interested in knowing the exact temperature
of any particular year, it is the decadal and century trends that we want to
anticipate.
It is the broadly deterministic response to forcings that are of interest,
and a chaotic system would not exhibit such determinism.
> Likewise, I am sure you will consider George Will a dispenser of
> "right-wing tripe". However, you might read it and point out his errors
> to the group. Here's a link to his column:
>
> http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will040306.asp
This article is all about the Hockey Stick. The study of the past can be
very informative, but it is not explanatory of the present or predictive of
the future.
The infamous "Hockey Stick" graph was featured prominently in the IPCC TAR
Summary for Policymakers. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm
It was important in that it overturned the concept of a global Medieval Warm
Period warmer than the 20th century and a pronounced Little Ice Age, both
long time (cautiously) accepted features of the last 1000 years of climate
history.
This caused quite an uproar in the sceptic community, not least because of
its visual efficacy. Two Canadians, an economist and a petroleum geologist,
took it apon themselves to verify this proxy reconstruction by getting the
data and examining the methodology used for themselves. They found that
there were errors in the description of data used as published in Nature.
Mann et al., the Hockey Stick's creators, published a correction in Nature,
noting where the description of the study did not match what was actually
done. The Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick, then proceeded to publish a
paper that purported to uncover serious methodological flaws and problems
with data sets used.
Everything from this point on is hotly disputed and highly technical.
All the claims made by M&M have been rebutted in detail by many other
climatologists and they insist that these folks are completely in error.
This of course fits nicely with the expectations of both sides of the Global
Warming issue, the conspiracy theorists as well as the champions of peer
review. All the rebuttals have been objected to and the objections denied
and the denials rejected. The issues are highly technical and require
considerable time and energy to truly investigate. Steve McIntyre has a
website ( http://www.climateaudit.org/ )devoted to his continued probe of
this study and Michael Mann is a contributor to Real Climate (
www.realclimate.org ) which devotes considerable web space to refuting the
attacks. In short, M&M raise many specific and technical objections and the
climate scientists seem pretty unified in denying the charges. To my
knowledge, the worst indictment from the climate science community came from
a study led by Hans Von Storch that concluded M&M was right about a
particular criticism of methodology but correcting it did not change the
study results.
If you want to try to evaluate this issue fairly you must read the copious
material at the sites mentioned above. You must also be prepared to get into
dendrochonolgy and statistical analysis.
Where does that leave the rest of us?
For myself, I will confess immediately that the technical issues are over my
head, I don't know PCA from R^2 from a hole in the ground. But I think the
most critical point to remember, if you are researching this in the context
of determining the validity of AGW theory, is that this row is about a
single study that was published 8 years ago. This is starting to be ancient
history. If you feel it is tainted (as I prefer to just assume, because as I
said I do not want to put the required effort into unraveling it all for
myself) then simply discard it.
The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other
reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98, ie the
handle of the hockey stick is not as straight, but they *all* support the
general conclusions that the IPCC TAR came to in 2001: the late 20th century
warming is anamolous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's
are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand
years.
Here is a nice superimposition of numerous global, hemispheric and regional
reconstructions for the last 2000 years and the last 12000 years together
with an average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
References are all presented at the bottom of the pages. Regional variations
are of course greater than global, so don't be surprised by how wavy some of
the lines in there are. Does the 20th century stand out?
(Disclosure: one of the reconstructions used in those pages is by the same
team that did the infamous hockey stick, but it is not the same study. To
the best of my knowledge, M&M have claimed no problems with that one, though
they have expressed some concerns that span the entire field of
dendrochronology).
I have read as much about this controversy as I ever will, and I have come
to the firm conviction that I do not have the technical background and/or
time required to make a scientific judgment on this issue one way or
another. That is the best objective opinion I can offer you. I suspect 95%
of the people you will come across arguing about this have chosen their
position ideologically.
And while MBH, in my mind, are in no way guilty of fraud or incompetence
until solidly proven to be so (many of the accusations do go this far), the
judgement of their research must be approached in reverse: given a reason to
doubt, I will not accept it until it is proven to me that the criticisms are
invalid. Neither case can I decided for myself until I devote the required
time to both the statistical background and the technical details of M&M vs
MBH98.
So where does that leave me? With the dozens of other proxy reconstructions,
some by the same team or involving members, some by completely different
people, some using tree rings, some using corals, some using stalagtites,
some using borehole measurements, all of which support the general
conclusions. And it is that general conclusion which is important to me, not
whether or not one Bristlecone pine was or was not included correctly in a
single 8 year old study.
The general conclusion is:
"Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to
differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar
patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most
striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the
warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after
1920."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
I also urge anyone worried about this study and what its conclusion means
for the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to remember this: the study
of the past can be very informative, but it is not explanatory of the
present or predictive of the future.
The scientific basis for the dangers we face and their cause is about much
more than a few tree-rings and the temperature during the Medieval Warm
Period.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
> As I mentioned earlier, this has turned into more of a "political" debate
> than a "scientific" debate.
This is the choice of every individual. When you chose to read political
columnists and articles sponsored by vested interests like Cato, you chose
the political approach to a scientific issue.
> You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine, which can be
> summarized as "more study is needed before we commit billions".
I really don't understand why people consider climate science a matter of
opinion. And if you chose to think of it this way, why on earth would you
value your own opinion over that of:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, and/or
atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause
is human CO2 emissions.
Why do you think what you think? Why do you think it is worth more than the
above collective opinion?
tom spillman
<snip>
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. There were some parts I had no
problem with and others that I disagreed with.
To get such a well stated reply is quite unusual on Usenet, but a
welcome change.
It is also quite long. It will take me some time to come up with an
appropriate answer, which I think it deserves. Writing such a reply
will also force me to analyze my own thoughts for possible errors,
something I seldom try and do since it can be painful! <G>
I will add a partial reply to one of your questions. You asked how I
could disregard the weight of all of the links that you provided.
First, consider the weight of those that supported the ether during the
nineteenth century. They were convinced they were right, also. Second,
I was much more respectful of professors until I became one for a few
years (now retired!). Professors are like the rest of the population.
A very small number are brilliant, a great number are average and a very
small number aren't too bright (consider the famous "bell shaped" curve
-- also called the Normal or Gaussian distribution). I particularly
like a quotation from Niels Bohr: "An expert is a person who has made
all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field".
I have saved your post to a file on my hard drive where I can consider
it carefully over the next few days.
Regards...
Tom
Coby Beck
news:pheZf.65073$Jd....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>
>> the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.
>
> ". . . the actual rise in surface temperatures over
> the decade was only 0.2 degrees, . . ."
as predicted in scenario B which matched closely what happened 1988 to 2000
both in terms of forcings and temperatures.
> Source:
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak03.html
This article is based on a demonstrable falsehood.
In 1988, James Hansen testified before the US Senate on the danger of
Anthropogenic Global Warming. As part of that testimony he presented a graph
that was a part of a paper (
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1988/HansenFung.html )published soon
after. This graph ( http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ ) had three lines
on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future
emissions and volcanism. Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on
rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event and was a steep climb
through year 2000 and beyond. Line B was based on modest emissions growth
and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990's. Line C represented
reductions in the growth of CO2 emission, the result of hypothetical
government controls, and the same volcanic eruption as scenario B.
As it happens, Mt Pinatubo did erupt in the 1990's, though early, not mid,
and emissions have grown at a modest rate in the decades since Hansen made
this testimony. In other words, the forcings scenario of Line B in this
graph was remarkable similar to what actually came to pass. It also just so
happens that the observed temperature trend has matched very closely (
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ ) with the prediction of Line B.
James Hansen was right on the money and the models he used proved
successful.
Unfortunately, when Patrick Michaels made his testimony before the senate in
1998, ten years later, he saw fit to erase the two lower lines, B and C, and
show the Senators only Line C. He did so so that his testimony that Hansen's
predictions had been off by 300% would be believable. He lied by omission.
This lie was picked up by Micheal Crichton in his novel "State of Fear". (As
one of many omissions, confusions and falsehood presented in that book, see
this Real Climate article - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74 ).
To my knowledge Patrick Michaels has never owned up to this, either with an
apology and retraction or with an explanation, and consequently this urban
myth continues to this day (
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/the-heat-is-rising-at-the-washington-post/ )
.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/hansen-has-been-wrong-before.html
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>>> the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.
>>
>> ". . . the actual rise in surface temperatures over
>> the decade was only 0.2 degrees, . . ."
>
> as predicted in scenario B
Yes, and it's also consistent with C.
which matched closely what happened 1988 to 2000
> both in terms of forcings and temperatures.
I don't see how you can make that claim. Look at the black line
(observations) and compare it with any of scenarios between 1940 and 1990.
Do you see a high degree of coorelation? I don't.
Jim
bill
Coby Beck
news:1144363752.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Bravo. Class 1 post.
Thanks! I'm still going to call you names in that other thread ;)
Coby Beck
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Thank you for a thoughtful reply. There were some parts I had no problem
> with and others that I disagreed with.
>
> To get such a well stated reply is quite unusual on Usenet, but a welcome
> change.
I like to take people off guard ;-)
> It is also quite long. It will take me some time to come up with an
> appropriate answer, which I think it deserves. Writing such a reply will
> also force me to analyze my own thoughts for possible errors, something I
> seldom try and do since it can be painful! <G>
Take your time!
Coby Beck
You have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>> Look at the black line (observations) and compare it with any of
>> scenarios between 1940 and 1990. Do you see a high degree of coorelation?
>> I don't.
>
> You have no clue as to what you are talking about.
It's right there in black and white. The black line strays considerably
from A, B, andC. You'd have to be blind to miss it.
bill
And vice versa. Usegroup vitriol is nothing personal.
Coby Beck
A is the black line. Observations are in red.
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:6LkZf.8599$4S.4352@edtnps82...
We must be looking at different graphs. And I lost the link to the one I
was looking at. Can you post a link.
Jim
Coby Beck
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
Lloyd Parker
tom spillman <nos...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> The models are not for knowing GW is caused by humans; they are for
predicting
>> future effects. Humans burn fossil fuels, which puts CO2 in the
atmosphere,
>> which traps heat. There is NO other cause of the current warming.
>>
>
>You might be interested in this site:
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp
>
>FWIW, this is review is from MIT which points out some of the problems
>with the math.
>
What math? The earth is warming, CO2 traps heat, CO2 is up, and burning
fossil fuels produces CO2. A child could make the connection.
>>
>> Do you have one on the Copenhagen vs Many Worlds approach to quantum
>> mechanics? Would it be equally valid as a physicist's?
>>
>
>Not at all. However, we are not talking quantum mechanics. We are
>discussing a chaotic system which is little understood, at present. I
>use the term "chaotic" in the mathematical sense, rather than the
>popular meaning.
>
>>
>> Since it seems that you're parroting right-wing tripe...
>>
>
>You are entitled to your opinion.
>
>Here are a few other sites you might consider, as well:
>
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
>
>I assume that since this points to the Cato institute, you will dismiss
>it as "right-wing tripe". However, the article is written by a
>professor of meteorology at MIT, hardly a "right-wing" institution.
Yes, I dismiss anything Cato says. They are anti-government, so they are anti
any science that might require a gov't action.
We've cited IPCC, NASA, NAS, EPA, and NOAA, scientific groups. Why do you
ignore them and cite right-wing think tanks?
>
>Here's another:
>
> http://www.fragilecologies.com/dec18_98.html
Another nonscientific source.
>
>Likewise, I am sure you will consider George Will a dispenser of
>"right-wing tripe". However, you might read it and point out his errors
>to the group. Here's a link to his column:
>
> http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will040306.asp
Yeah, he's sure a scientist!
>
>As I mentioned earlier, this has turned into more of a "political"
>debate than a "scientific" debate.
Only because you right-wingers have turned it into one by denying the science
and reposting political tripe.
>
>You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine, which can
>be summarized as "more study is needed before we commit billions".
>
You're entitled to your opinion that the earth is flat too. Fortunately,
science doesn't depend on the opinions of fools.
>Regards...
>
>Tom
>
>
>
tom spillman
Goodbye, Mr. Parker. It is apparent that you did not read anything I
cited. Is MIT a right wing, non scientific source? Not in my opinion.
Your only response appears to be ad hominem attacks on me.
I have no time for this at my age (75), so Goodbye.
I'll not waste any more of my time on you or your posts...
PLONK
Tom
Sport Pilot
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
> tom spillman wrote:
> >
> >
> > Goodbye, Mr. Parker. It is apparent that you did not read anything I
> > cited. Is MIT a right wing, non scientific source? Not in my opinion.
>
>
> > Your only response appears to be ad hominem attacks on me.
>
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
It was never discredited. Lefties just cried foul and claimed it was
discredited. They don't use science, they simply jumble up the math
till it fits their needs.
Jim McGinn
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote
>> We must be looking at different graphs. And I lost the link to the one I
>> was looking at. Can you post a link.
>
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
See my post entitled: Analyzing Hansen's Graph: a challenge to computer
model validity
z
Roger Coppock wrote:
> > The other day doctors couldn't get several
> > themometers to agree withen one degree of
> > my daughters temperature.
>
> If you, and not the doctors, knew your daughter's
> temperature, why then did you ask the doctors to
> determine her temperature? Also, what are
> doctors doing with thermometers? (Please note
> the correct spelling, "thermometers.") Nurses
> usually do the temperature taking.
Word to the wise; when the intercom announces: Paging Dr. Howard, Dr.
Fine, Dr. Howard, it's time to leave.
z
I do. Of course, I'm looking at the red line as observations. That
would be because of the label "OBSERVED" next to the red line in the
legend. nevertheless, all the scenarios kind of collapse to meet the
observed points prior to 1980. Are you sure you're looking at the right
graph?
z
Jim McGinn wrote:
> We must be looking at different graphs. And I lost the link to the one I
> was looking at. Can you post a link.
Boy, if you're this certain when you don't know what you're talking
about, you must be really a debating whiz when you do.
z
And for those who want to see the graph with the further real
observations to date filled in:
<http://timlambert.org/img/hansenupdated.gif>
Still need more data to be convinced, though, I bet.
z
Yes, you've proved quite nicely that Hansen can't predict the precise
average global temperature for a single year, but only for a 4-5 years
or so interval. Too bad, I was counting on blowing up his graph to see
what the temp at 5:00 pm this afternoon was going to be when I get off
work.
leinbacker
Coby Beck wrote:
> "Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1144344255.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Ted wrote:
> >> So, assume theres an equal chance that its happening and it isn't
> >> happening. If it isn't happening and we address it anyway, what
> >> happens? We spend extra time and money and resources on something for
> >> now reason. If it is happening and we ignore it? I think you get the
> >> picture.
> >>
> >> We owe it to future humanity to not be a bunch of complete assholes.
> >
> > How bout the collapse of the economy and our entire way of life. It's
> > all a hoax to stop the oil using industry.
>
> BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world
> has this opinion:
>
> "One of the great challenges facing mankind is the increasing temperature
> of the planet. This increase is believed to be associated with the
> production and consumption of carbon based fuels -coal, oil and gas-
> which all increase levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere
>
> (The above comes from
> http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9002327&contentId=3072035 )
>
> Shell Oil (yes, oil the fossil fuel) says:
>
> "Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases
> from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate."
> (Read that here
> http://www.shell.com/home/royal-en/html/iwgen/environment_and_society/key_issues_and_topics/issues/climate_change/dir_climate_change_05072005.html )
>
> Here is what 18 CEO's of Canada's largest corporations had to say in an open
> letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
>
> "Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the
> strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC
> consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for
> human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is
> particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change."
>
> That can be read here http://www.climateforchange.ca/statement/index_e.asp.
>
> Have the Enviro-Nazis finally seized the industrial reigns of power?
> Somehow,
> I doubt it.
Savy marketing, much like calling customer support and hearing
variations of "we care about you".
bill
this one is even better, there is a HUGE amount of money to be had
from government grants and stupid consumers of "green" products (which
of course aren't).