Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming.

From: G. R. L. Cowan (gcowan_at_eagle.ca)
Date: 01/21/05 

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:26:02 -0500

Michael Davis wrote:
>
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> >
> >
> > Michael Davis wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Read the caption on the chart, dummy...
> >
> >
> > You win. I'm not interested in your derogatory style.
> >
> > http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/990514FO.html
> >
> > Best, Dan.
>
> Guess you didn't learn from your first mistake. Here you are providing
> another link to an alleged 1000 year climate history that doesn't have
> any more real data backing it than the last one. They do have better
> disclaimers on that page though. I particularly liked this part:
>
> "it would be difficult to argue that the 1990s were as anomalous when
> viewed in the context of the temperature history of the entire
> millennium, were it not for the record warmth of 1998. The year 1998 was
> observed to have been significantly warmer (by about 0.2 degrees C) than
> any other year in the instrumental record. In the context of the last
> 1,000 years, one can say with a high degree of confidence that 1998 was
> the warmest year for the Northern Hemisphere."
>
> So the myth of global warming seems to be based on one only hot year,
> and hot by only 0.2 degrees at that. Keep in mind that they aren't
> talking about the hottest year in the last millennia here, ...

They say they are talking about the last 1,000 years.
That's one millennium, so as you say,
they aren't talking about millennia.

> ... but only the
> hottest year during the *instrumental* record ...

You think they can't validly go beyond the instrumental record,
cannot say 1998 was the hottest year in the northern hemisphere
in the last 1,000, but they don't agree, and do say that,
"with a high degree of confidence".

> ... which means only the last
> century or so. Realistically though, only the last thirty or fourty
> years of instrumental data is really useful.
>
> Sheesh! This isn't science.

What do you think *would* be science?

Since Arrhenius, or was it Tyndall, we've had a sensible-looking
theory of CO2-driven global warming. Do you think it never can
be tested, or just that the methods tried so far are flawed?

-- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet

Relevant Pages

  • Re: But There Aint No Global Warming.
    ... > talking about the hottest year in the last millennia here, ... You think they can't validly go beyond the instrumental record, ... What do you think *would* be science? ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: But There Aint No Global Warming.
    ... > Michael Davis wrote: ... >>any other year in the instrumental record. ... >>talking about the hottest year in the last millennia here, ... "population bomb" disaster back in the 70s, ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: But There Aint No Global Warming.
    ... > Michael Davis wrote: ... >>any other year in the instrumental record. ... >>talking about the hottest year in the last millennia here, ... "population bomb" disaster back in the 70s, ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Cosmological Models and the Big Bang
    ... because science learns as it goes along... ... understanding of the nature of mathematics. ... But who knows what our concept might encompass a millennia from now? ... understanding of the universe. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: My OPE & the Euclicidean TSP
    ... Science started with human civilisation, millennia "ante Christum". ... Italian Renaissance -- with the recovering, ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
Loading