Global Warming The debbil made me do it

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 10:16 am, "Dan Luke" wrote:

It's a sickness...

Oh well, here we go (for the Cause)....


It's only a couple of months. Let's wait and see the 5-year trend.
Weather
is fast; climate is slow.

Perhaps you can see why not everybody's accepting the premise when
data like this appears to refute the very claim that there is a
consistent, observable increase in Global temperatures due to man's
activities?

A few other factors come to mind that make me a bit wary of this
"crisis":

Quite - just the latest in a series of crises that goes back to bronze
shortages in ancient Rome and Greece.

More recently, http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xjt5n (Amazon.com)

{many "dead on" examples snipped}

Yes, the same players, the same methods.

"Dan" wrote:


But what's the overall trend since 1900?

If we're using 1900 as the benchmark, we have to conclude that Climate
change cannot possibly be the result of only man's activities -- the
level of industrialization, proliferation of the IC engine, and other
claimed generators of Co2 et al were minuscule in 1900, 1910, 1920,
1930 -- even 1940 -- compared to today's numbers. Shouldn't we see a
steep curve since, say, 1950 with the mass marketing and mass
industrialization?

We do. Note the graph of atmospheric CO2 ppmv:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...d_Flux_Rev_png

Compare it again to the instrumental temperature record:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com:80/i...ure_Record.png


-- Inconsistency between predictions and observations (see
referenced
report)

I see nothing inconsistent, since predictions have never said there
wouldn't
be cold snaps. I invite you to find anything in the IPCC assessment
reports
that predicts uniform, consistent warming. Did you ever hear about the
man
who drowned trying to walk across a river that averaged three feet deep?
Warming is not uniform over the whole planet.

What would cause "cold snaps" (over several years, BTW) if the general
trend is towards warming due to "increased greenhouse emissions"?

Again, what climate scientists are predicting is a global *average*
temperature increase, not nice, balmy weather everywhere. Furthermore, this
global temperature increase is very unevenly distributed:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...arming_Map_jpg

Snowstorms and frigid Januarys are not going to cease because the global
average temperature is up 1 deg. C in the last hundred years.

[snip]

I have agreed with you before that political axe grinders will spin any
issue for advantage. That is certainly the case both ways in this matter
but it is irrelevant to the empirical evidence.

Well, in our system, empirical evidence needs to be sifted, weighed
and then proferred to reach consensus. Only after consensus provides
political will do laws change and bureaucracies move.

The consensus is there; nations and bureaucracies are dragging their feet.
My confidence is small that the world's governments can achieve effective
agreements and policies to abate emissions. A lot of arm waving and pocket
lining is more likely, alas.


-- Constant "adjustment" of statements by the very panel claiming to
be able to predict cause and effect (see initial IPCC document and
subsequent documents)

Of course adjustments are made. That is what happens in science as new
research refines understanding.

A lot has been learned since then. Science never stands still.

Thus inconclusive, thus hardly a mandate.

I fear it could never be as conclusive as you demand. What, in detail,
would you regard as convincing?



[snip]

I don't expect you to. But at least look past the hoopla to what the
science is really saying.

"Consensus science" is an oxymoron.

The consensus didn't make the science. It was the other way around.

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 12:08 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:

I see nothing inconsistent, since predictions have never said there
wouldn't
be cold snaps. I invite you to find anything in the IPCC assessment
reports
that predicts uniform, consistent warming. Did you ever hear about the
man
who drowned trying to walk across a river that averaged three feet deep?
Warming is not uniform over the whole planet.

No, not uniform, but the trend is supposed to be global.

That, too, falls apart.

See the Medieval Warm Period Project at
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.jsp which refutes the scientific
consensus about the past (ie, beyond the cherry picked data for the last 150
years to 1000 years, that the warming was local)

What would cause "cold snaps" (over several years, BTW) if the general
trend is towards warming due to "increased greenhouse emissions"?

And are cold snaps natural, but temperature spikes man-made?

On Mar 20, 5:57 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

See the Medieval Warm Period Project athttp://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.jspwhich refutes the scientific
consensus about the past (ie, beyond the cherry picked data for the last 150
years to 1000 years, that the warming was local)


Those guys need some serious web help... yikes!

Interesting position -- the historical record supports the notion that
a resurgent Europe was the direct result of a (at the very least
continental) warming after a cooling episode...


Dan Mc

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 5:57 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

See the Medieval Warm Period Project
athttp://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.jspwhich refutes the scientific
consensus about the past (ie, beyond the cherry picked data for the last
150
years to 1000 years, that the warming was local)


Those guys need some serious web help... yikes!

Interesting position -- the historical record supports the notion that
a resurgent Europe was the direct result of a (at the very least
continental) warming after a cooling episode...


Yes, but look at the other data from sites around the globe; kinda trashes
the notion that the warming was local, rather than a global trend.

Remember that a tenant of the alarmists (that makes quite a bit of hay with
the MSM) is that the MWP didn't exist, or that it was local. This is the
empirical data and it's analysis, that Dan Luke speaks so fondly of.

In that CO2 site (if you can bear to sift through it :~) , is that CO2
reading throughout time, have been much higher at the same time it was MUCH
colder, and that CO2 levels FOLLOW, rather than LEAD, temperature increases.

Right now were at about 380ppm CO2, but at 140-160ppm, plants don't grow
(they suffocate). Just how low do the alarmists want to go, and how much do
they think they can tweak a gas that is 0.01% of the atmosphere?

Look, too, at motivations when the data gets deliberately garbled, and the
conclusions don't fit the "empirical data". As you mentioned, "consensus
science" is an oxymoron. Science, too, (a method, not a body of knowledge)
is deliberately skeptical.

On Mar 20, 8:09 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

Yes, but look at the other data from sites around the globe; kinda trashes
the notion that the warming was local, rather than a global trend.

That's worth some investigating... would definitely poke a big hole in
the current "CO2 is greenhouse gas thus leads to warming" thesis.


In that CO2 site (if you can bear to sift through it :~) , is that CO2
reading throughout time, have been much higher at the same time it was MUCH
colder, and that CO2 levels FOLLOW, rather than LEAD, temperature increases.


I'm in agreement on that one. I've seen contrary data and Gore's
"hockey stick" was trashed a long time ago, but the alarmists cling to
it.


Dan Mc

"Dan" wrote

"hockey stick" was trashed a long time ago,

No, it wasn't.

but the alarmists cling to
it.

The denialists cling to that fiction.

On Mar 20, 10:31 pm, "Dan Luke" wrote:
"Dan" wrote

"hockey stick" was trashed a long time ago,

No, it wasn't.

but the alarmists cling to
it.

The denialists cling to that fiction.

Here's some easy reading to consider: http://www.climatechangeissues.com/f...5mckitrick.pdf

Dan Mc

"Dan" wrote:

Here's some easy reading to consider:
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/f...5mckitrick.pdf



And here's some with a very familiar ring to it:

http://www.aras.ab.ca/aidsquotes.htm

"Dan" wrote"


Here's some easy reading to consider:
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/f...5mckitrick.pdf


And here's some mo

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml


In response to Congressional inquiries sparked by McIntyre's and McKitrick's
criticisms of Mann, et al. '98 & '99, the NRC conducted an investigation into
the statistical methods that produced the "hockey stick" shape of the proxy
reconstruction. The NRC said:

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th
century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least
the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an
array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface
temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy
indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the
world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last
2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth
is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites
experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any
other extended period from A.D. 900 onward."

Bottom line? The "hockey stick" controversy is a dead horse, but deniers are
still beating the hell out of it, trying to ride it one more mile.