Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming.

From: Dan Bloomquist (EXTRApublic21_at_lakeweb.com)
Date: 01/20/05 

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:32:00 GMT

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:35:55 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
> <EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:11:43 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
>>><EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>>>>Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, full of factual data showing that, while "global
>>>>>warming" is a very popular theory, and scary enough to scare
>>>>>the bejeebers out of a lot of people, the one thing lacking
>>>>>is - actual global warming.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ipcc20.gif
>>>
>>>It's easy to find data to support the theory of global
>>>warming. It's also easy to find data refuting it.
>>
>>Please provide your study.
>
> We could both provide 40 or 50 URLs supporting our opinions.
> The classic Battle of the URLs. No thanks.

I am not interested in opinions. If I am being objective, I don't know
that there is a real threat. Studies are not in the same class as URLs
with opinions.

>>> (Why
>>>isn't Alice Springs, Australia getting hotter??? Why isn't
>>>Los Banos, California getting hotter???)
>>
>>Don't know, do you? Lokel weather has little to do with global climate.
>
> Then the global climate must have no effect on local
> weather, either - in which case, I won't worry about it.

You know it doesn't work like that. If I were to choose the data points
that support some theory, I would not be doing good science. It is that
'one cat is black therefor all cats are black' thing.

>>> But even in this
>>>graph, the temperature has only increased by about 1 degree
>>>C, depending on how you want to read the data.
>>
>>So? (I don't expect an answer.)
>
> So 1 degree C is very little change - certainly not enough
> to change economic policy over. And given the difficulty of
> accurately measuring and ascertaining a 1 degree change, not
> reliable enough to consider.

I don't know that 1 degree is very little. If the data is unreliable,
why use it below?

Are the observations of the permafrost just another red herring?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4120755.stm

How much CO2 is sequestered in these regions? How much methane will be
released? Quite a lot from what I've read. It may be one thing to have a
major methane release end an ice age, it may be quite another to do it
at the peak of a warming.

>>> The temperature in northern Europe and
>>>Greenland was much warmer in 1000 AD than it is now. And
>>>those places saw their temperatures go way down.
>>
>>Gads, just one link please.
>
> http://www.geotimes.org/aug04/feature_wineclime.html
>
> "... For example during the medieval Little Optimum period
> (roughly A.D. 900 to 1300), temperatures were up to 1 degree
> Celsius warmer, allowing the planting of vineyards as far
> north as the coastal zones of the Baltic Sea and southern
> England. Conversely, temperature declines during the 14th
> century were dramatic, leading to the Little Ice Age
> (extending into the late 19th century), and resulted in
> northern vineyards dying out and growing seasons so short
> that harvesting grapes in southern Europe was difficult."

Here is a better page:
http://www.co2andclimate.org/climate/previous_issues/vol6/v6n2/cutting1.htm

And:
http://www.americanoutlook.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article_detail&id=1146

So, we don't have to be concerned? Catch is, this time around, we are in
uncharted territory. That we are pushing on the CO2 and methane levels
in the system is hardly disputable. There is no good reason to stop
asking the question, 'Are we doing damage to our ecosystem that could
run away and cause civilization great harm?'

>
> http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html
>
> "In fact, the evidence supporting the claim that the earth
> has grown warmer is shaky; the theory is weak; and the
> models on which the conclusions are based cannot even
> replicate the current climate. It is asserted, for example,
> that over the last hundred years the average temperature at
> the earth's surface has gone up by 0.5deg. Centigrade or
> about 1deg. Fahrenheit. Given the paucity of data in the
> Southern Hemisphere, the evidence that in the United States,
> with the best records, temperatures have failed to rise;

Here is a page with the chart that everyone likes to use:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

Look at there conclusion. It looks like a better representation
considering the trend in the Northern Hemispheres.
>
> I could go on with this. A Google search of "global warming
> europe wine england" returns 103,000 URLs. I have better
> things to do. Don't you?

Yep.

>>> How could
>>>that be? Was there some secret burning of fossil fuels then
>>>that we don't know about?
>>
>>Strawman.
>
> Can you show that the previous warm period was caused by
> burning fossil fuels? Or was there another cause? If so,
> you'll have to prove that the current warming (if it's even
> happening, which many doubt) is not caused by something
> other than burning fossil fuels. Correlation does not prove
> cause and effect.

I don't know what causes warnings. The best candidate I can come up with
is release of methane from the ocean. But see my previous point about
uncharted territory.

>>>Even if temperatures are
>>>increasing (which I don't believe), I'm unwilling to undergo
>>>an economic catastrophe based on a theory that burning
>>>fossil fuels is causing something now which happened before
>>>when there was no significant burning of fossil fuels.
>>
>>Did I say that?! I don't think global warming is the biggy. I think
>>mankind will go to war when it is time to fight over what's left of the
>>oil in the world.
>
> And I don't think global warming is even occurring.
>
> http://www.his.com/~sepp/scirsrch/amsglwarm.html
>
> "Why Are We Not Seeing Global Warming?
> Accepted for presentation at the Ninth Symposium on Global
> Change Studies
> January 11-16, 1998, Phoenix, Arizona
>
> S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
>
> Conventional General Circulation Models, quoted by the IPCC,
> predict a current "best" warming rate of 0.3°C per decade.
> Satellite and balloon observations, however, show a slight
> cooling rate since 1979. Surface observations show no
> warming trend in the last decade.
>
> The explanation for this discrepancy, put forth by the IPCC,
> has been an assumed cooling from sulfate aerosols. That this
> is insufficient can readily be seen from graphs published
> recently by Hasselman (Science, 1997). The calculated
> warming rate is only slightly reduced--to about 0.25°C per
> decade. In addition, publications by Tett et al. (Science,
> 1996) and Hansen et al. (JGR, 1997) show that the negative
> forcing from aerosols is quite insufficient.
>
> Perhaps the strongest argument against the aerosol model
> comes from satellite observations; they show a cooling trend
> everywhere except at northern mid-latitudes. They show a
> warming trend there--just where the aerosol cooling effect
> should be most important.
>
> The discrepancy between models and observations must
> therefore be ascribed to other exogenous factors (solar
> variations) or to endogenous factors that are poorly treated
> in climate models, such as details of clouds and the
> vertical distribution of water vapor. Clearly, climate
> science is neither "settled" not "compelling"--as often
> claimed by politicians--but remains a challenging field for
> research. "

It isn't about what you or I think, it is about the data. In spite of
the above, we are in a period of warming. See Qiang Fu recent work as
the the upper atmosphere.

>>> It
>>>is more likely that if the temperatures are increasing, it
>>>is a natural occurrence instead of "Global Warming" because
>>>of burning fossil fuels.
>>
>>Show your study. I don't know. I only know that most scientist find the
>>warming threat credible. Why should I buy into your rhetoric?
>
>
> You shouldn't. There's plenty more from better sources.
> Here's one source to mull over for a while, if you're able
> to consider other possibilities:
>
> http://www.john-daly.com/#1905

I've seen that one. This one is better, IMO:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

And in both cases they move to justify the current warming as natural
within a very short period of unusual warmth.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html

Sure, we could just be putting off the next ice age and there is no
threat of run away warming no matter how much CO2 and methane we put
into the system. But that is a maybe. There is no definitive on this
subject.

>>> But there would be less money to
>>>study that, and no power given to activists to counter it.
>>
>>Back to the SiFi. I love sifi, but manage to keep it in its place.
>
>
> Global Warming has become the official doctrine. It
> commands money and power. It is similar to the Lysinkoism
> which did so much harm in the USSR. It is so popular that
> anyone who contests it is labeled some kind of kook.
>
> If a person is biased to finding a given result, he will
> find it. In the temperature studies, data that doesn't
> "fit" is ignored or changed. The Global Warming "community"
> is already convinced of the reality of global warming and
> cannot even SEE evidence to the contrary.
>
> I have spent considerable time lately looking up information
> on global warming and it is VERY easy to find evidence
> supporting it. It is also VERY easy to find evidence
> refuting it. It is NOT universally accepted, even among
> climatologists. There is plenty of real-world evidence to
> the effect that it isn't happening at all, and even more
> that to the extent it is happening, its causes cannot be
> laid to burning fossil fuels.
>
> There is no sci-fi involved in all this. There is, however,
> a great deal of politically-motivated rhetoric and dubious
> science all around. I refuse to be duped by any of it.
>
> I'll repeat a telling quote I have found so far: "In fact,
> the evidence supporting the claim that the earth has grown
> warmer is shaky; the theory is weak; and the models on which
> the conclusions are based cannot even replicate the current
> climate." Sorry - no sale.

I'm not here to make a sale. But I'm not going to discount the potential
for trouble when we are doing something that has never been tried
before. There is no precedence to say it is or isn't real. The data says
that temperature, CO2, and methane are rising. To say it is meaningless
is unsubstantiated.

> Robert Sturgeon

Best, Dan. 

-- 
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
What can you see if you can't see it all...

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Portrait of the average American voter...
    ... What is your evidence of that statement? ... And our "current best knowledge" is that global warming is a reality, ... shifting climate ... In reality, the factors that total up and effect climate change globally are more complex than any scientist, or computer, can remotely hope to model or predict. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: OT: Global Warming
    ... background to correctly interpret the scientific evidence, ... simplistic terms like "global warming," and decide it's still pretty ... popular disregard of climate expertise; but it also has something to ... There are some very well educated scientists, ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: {BS} 1700 Scientists cant be wrong...can they?
    ... And in This Corner, Climate Contrarians ... who have flocked to Copenhagen to push for action on global warming. ... The scientific evidence for human-driven climate change may be widely ... sea levels were rising. ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: OT: Global Warming
    ... background to correctly interpret the scientific evidence, ... simplistic terms like "global warming," and decide it's still pretty ... popular disregard of climate expertise; but it also has something to ... There are some very well educated scientists, ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Global Warming , leave it to the men
    ... totally positive global warming is all caused by man? ... as "evidence" that evolution is bunk. ... will rain tomorrow and they've never, not once, 'predicted' a climate ... up to the war, it started to become clearer that he didn't. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
Quantcast