Al Gore's Private Jet

This paper is related because it gives convincing data that the current
warming is not a natural event, as opposed to the MWP, which *had* to be
natural:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8370?ck=nck

"The probability of the observed [modern] changes occurring through natural,
as opposed to anthropogenic, causes appears to be exceedingly small. First,
although a major ice age causes a larger temperature change than has happened
so far in response to CO2, the temperature increase that occurred between 1920
and 1990 would have taken more than 2,000 years even at the historically rapid
rate of the last deglaciation. During deglaciation, transient warming in the
North Atlantic after a Heinrich event was faster (35), but there is no
evidence for a Heinrich event during the last few centuries. Second, internal
climate oscillations, shifts in storm tracks, and the like obviously can
change local and regional climate by much larger amounts than observed in the
hemispheric averages. These regional fluctuations appear to be superimposed on
the general global trend. Additionally, such internal oscillations produce
warm and cool regions that interchange over decade to century time scales (32,
36), but whose effects largely cancel in hemispheric averages. Third, while
there is reasonable evidence for greater climate variability during the
Holocene than has been observed during the period where instrumental data are
available (37, 38), there is no evidence in the statistics that a major
unidentified source of natural variation is present during the instrumental
record. Such a source would have to mimic, perversely, either solar irradiance
changes or the changes in atmospheric CO2 to cause the observed temperature
changes and to be mistaken for them. Similarly, while mindful of the many
caveats on data quality, spatial coverage, etc. given in ref. 1, the
appearance of possible leap-year artifacts at a level below 10 mK in the
residuals suggests that the data cannot be as untrustworthy as is occasionally
implied. The residual temperature variation remaining once the known effects
of precession, solar irradiance changes, and atmospheric CO2 concentration are
removed bound unknown effects to about 200 mK peak-to peak in the hemispheric
average series during the last century.



Consider the null hypothesis that the observed temperature fluctuations and
atmospheric CO2 levels are independent: The probability that the hemispheric
temperatures would fluctuate purely by chance in such a way to produce the
observed coherences with CO2 is exceedingly low. Given that the records
encompass more than a century, the probability is so low that one would not
expect to see such an event by chance during the age of the earth. The
probability of the observed coherence between atmospheric CO2 and changes in
the timing of the seasons shown in figure 13 of ref. 2 without a causal
connection is similarly low. Consequently one must strongly reject the
hypothesis of independence between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. The
alternative hypothesis, that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 plus a
slight change in solar irradiance are causally responsible for the observed
changes in temperature, in contrast, results in test statistics that are
ordinary in every way. Because major changes in climate as a response to human
use of fossil fuels have been predicted for more than a century (39, 40),
their detection can hardly be considered surprising. "

"Don Tabor" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:20:13 -0000, Jim Logajan
wrote:

Don Tabor wrote:
I have seen NO refutations of the MWP that don't rely on asking for
proof of a negative.

"There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even
hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high
degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no
multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the
same
or warmer than in the 20th century.
...

So, because there were no instruments, the MWP did not happen?

Norsemen raised cattle and grains in coastal Greenland. Grapes were
grown in Scotland and higher in the Alps than is now possible. China
enjoyed longer growing seasons and higher food production. None of
those things is possible unless there was a prolonged period of much
warmer weather.

/except
When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s,
it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for
fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000
people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures
had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward
across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.

Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in
history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to
A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of
the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to
1850, the Little Ice Age.

During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit.
But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied
with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed;
from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been
warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it
was in 2001.

/end

In summary, it appears that the 20th century, and in particular the late
20th century, is likely the warmest the Earth has seen in at least 1200
years."

Compare 1F with 2.7F

Matt - "Why did 60 % of global warming since 1850 occur before 1940, when
80 % of the human-emitted carbon dioxide occurred after 1940?

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ups.com...
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Tony Cox" wrote:

A good model makes predictions that can be tested.
One that I know of -- predicting increasing temperatures
in the stratosphere -- it has apparently failed. The others involve
climate variation which can't be measured until after
the proponents have conveniently retired. This
doesn't give one much confidence.

Um, Dr. James Hansen is not yet retired.

There's obvious controversy about Hansen discussed below
this post. It seems from his work (which you quote) that he
believes that the "emphasis on extreme scenarios may have
been appropriate". Right there, thinking people ought to start
wondering why a scientist -- supposedly objective -- thinks it
right to overstate his case. Clearly, he *believes* in GW as a
cause that needs to be presented even if the science doesn't
support it.

Further, he apparently decided (20 years ago) to extrapolate
the data along several possible future paths and now pulls
the least inaccurate one out from his metaphorical hat in a
presentation before Congress as proof that somehow he was
right all along. Ought I to be impressed?

Perhaps he should retire. It seems that he has missed
his calling as a stage magician.

How do you account for the
correlation between observations and the temperature changes his model
predicted some 20 years ago?

You mean how do I account for the correlation between CO2
and temperature changes in _one_ of the several possible future
extrapolations developed by Hansen?

Well, the first thing I'd say is that "correlation" doesn't imply
"causation", as I"m sure you're aware. That they are linked is
interesting. That they were counter-correlated between 1940
and 1975 is also interesting. That temperature also correlates
with solar wind activity I also find fascinating. This indicates to
me that the mechanisms for global warming are not yet well
understood, despite the harangues of various self-aggrandizing
Scientainers claiming otherwise.

What's more, there is no correlation between Hansen's model and the
subsequent 20 years, anymore than Jean Dixon predicted JFK getting shot.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

I think that there is a lot of "hot air" about "global warming" from many
people on both sides of the issue. I had no interest in stating my opinion
on the subject on this newsgroup and appealed for to people to drop the
subject. Instead some people actually used my post as a starting point to
continue the debate! Okay - so I decided since neither side had the mental
discipline to take their arguments to relevant newsgroups (like
alt.global-warming, sci.environment, sci.geo.meteorology,
sci.math.num-analysis, and sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics) that
I
couldn't make the situation any worse.

What a pompous, presumtious chump...and a fraud to boot.



Geez...right down the path with Mike Hulme.

"Don Tabor" wrote:

Since at worst that will be a sea level rise of no more than a foot
and a half (more likely, less than 6 inches), longer growing seasons
and a longer bikini season, I don't see the point.

At worst? What research can you cite to support this?

IPCC Working Group 1 Technical Summary, section on sea level rise. The
23 inch rise reported in the Summary for Policymakers is the A1F1
scenario, which the scientists rejected as unrealistic, but the
bureaucrats put back in. The TS gives a worst case 100 year rise as 17
inches.

Further, the forever rise, the maximum without melting the Central
Greenland and Antarctic Ice sheets, is only a meter. Since those ice
sheets are above the snow line for any plausible temperature rise, it
ain't gonna happen.

Melting those would take a 68 degree F rise in temps, and the worst
case temp prediction is only 11 degrees. Even at the 68 degree rise,
it would take thousands of years to melt them.

Cite? Graphs I've seen show it could take as little as a thousand years at an
8 deg. C rise, even if poorly understood melting acceleration processes are
not included.

"Models for continental ice melting are not yet capable of capturing the
complex features that NASA satellites are now discovering in these ice fields.
Important processes may be missing from models."

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/20...ppenheimer.pdf

"Instead of melting slowly, like a giant ice cube, ice in Greenland and
elsewhere seems capable of melting much more rapidly. Reports back from the
field are noticing disturbing trends in this regard."

http://cires.colorado.edu/science/gr...land/melt2005/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...hp3?img_id=173

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

...and a fraud to boot.

Says the guy who posted a bogus cut-and-paste, and then wouldn't respond when
called on it.

Say, Matt, didn't you just claim that you'd KF'd Logajan a lonnngggg time ago?

Fraud, indeed.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
"Don Tabor" wrote in message

And if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it,
there is no sound.

Correct, but irrelevant.

No, that isn't correct. A tree falling in the forest makes sounds
irrespective of whether anyone is able to hear the sound.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dan Luke wrote:
"Don Tabor" wrote in message

And if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it,
there is no sound.

Correct, but irrelevant.

No, that isn't correct. A tree falling in the forest makes sounds
irrespective of whether anyone is able to hear the sound.

I've always read that "sound" is the result of the brain processing vibrations
transmitted by the aural organs, and that vibrations are nothing more than
that: waves in the medium.

There are plenty of these vibrations around us all the time that we don't
perceive. When do they become sound?

It's mostly a semantic argument, I suppose.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Dan Luke wrote:
"Don Tabor" wrote in message
And if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it,
there is no sound.
Correct, but irrelevant.
No, that isn't correct. A tree falling in the forest makes sounds
irrespective of whether anyone is able to hear the sound.

I've always read that "sound" is the result of the brain processing vibrations
transmitted by the aural organs, and that vibrations are nothing more than
that: waves in the medium.

There are plenty of these vibrations around us all the time that we don't
perceive. When do they become sound?

It's mostly a semantic argument, I suppose.


Sound has many definitions, but most include something like this which
speaks of vibrations in some medium. Detecting the vibrations isn't
required in order for them to exist.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound

If you close your eyes so that you can't see the sun, does that make the
sun disappear from existence?

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

Sound has many definitions, but most include something like this which
speaks of vibrations in some medium. Detecting the vibrations isn't
required in order for them to exist.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sound

If you close your eyes so that you can't see the sun, does that make the sun
disappear from existence?

No, but light is a physical thing entire of itself. It has photons.

Anyway, you win. I can't think of a defensible exclusion of sound existing in
the absence of a listener.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM