Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming.

From: Robert Sturgeon (rsturge_at_inreach.com)
Date: 01/20/05 

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:18:14 -0800

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.

>> (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.

>> 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.

>> Previous
>> temperature changes, before the global warming scare, were
>> even greater.
>
>Where is your data?

>> 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."

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; the
British naval records that find no significant change in
temperatures at sea since the mid-1800s; and that the
reported increases occurred mainly prior to 1940 -- before
the rapid rise in CO2 -- the public is entitled to be wary.
Moreover, even the National Academy of Sciences is skeptical
of the validity of the computer models and warns that the
modeling of clouds -- a key factor -- is inadequate and
poorly understood."

"History provides the best evidence for the effect of
climate change on humans, plants and animals, but a few
researchers have challenged its relevance. David Rind, a
climate modeler and NASA scientist, has questioned the
applicability of past warming episodes to the modern issue
of climatic alteration caused by increased CO2
concentrations.[17] He attributes the origin of past periods
of warmth and cold to shifts over time in the orbital
position of the earth which impose more or less energy on
the poles, as contrasted to a general world-wide warming
that might result from the addition of man-made greenhouse
gases. [See Appendix A on factors determining climate]. He
also argues that the swiftness in warming that would occur
following increased levels of CO2 is unprecedented in
history. On the latter point, he ignores other research,
such as that by a German academic, Burkhard Frenzel, who
writes, "During the Holocene, very rapid changes of climate
occurred. According to dendroclimatology [tree ring analysis
applied to climatology], they often lasted about 20 to 30
years, or [were] even as brief as 2 to 3 years."[18] Other
climate historians have found that a rapid cooling in the
late glacial period -- about 11,000 years ago --took about
100 to 150 years to complete and realized about 5deg.F
variation in temperature within 100 years, more than is
being forecast for the next century.[19]"

"Studies of climate history show as was mentioned above that
sharp changes in temperatures over brief periods of time
have occurred frequently without setting into motion any
disastrous feedback systems that would lead either to a
runaway heating that would cook the earth or a freezing that
would eliminate all life. In addition, carbon dioxide levels
have varied greatly. Ice core data exhibit fluctuating
levels of CO2 that do not correspond to temperature
changes.[22] Most past periods display a positive
relationship between CO2 and temperature, however, with a
relationship roughly corresponding to that of the Global
Climate Models.[23] During interglacial periods high
latitudes enjoyed temperatures that were about 5deg. to
11deg.F warmer than today.[24] Middle latitudes experienced
temperatures only about 4deg. to 5deg.F warmer. These warmer
periods brought more moisture to the Northern Hemisphere
with the exception during the Holocene of central North
America. At the time of the medieval warm period,
temperatures in Europe, except for the area around the
Caspian Sea basin, were 1deg. to 3deg.F higher and rainfall
more plentiful than today.[25]"

"Around 9,000 to 5,000 years ago the earth was much warmer
than today; perhaps 4deg.F hotter, about the average of the
various predictions for global warming after a doubling of
CO2.[59] Although the climate cooled a bit after 3000 B.C.,
it stayed relatively warmer than the modern world until
sometime after 1000 B.C., when chilly temperatures became
more common. During this Climatic Optimum epoch, Europe
enjoyed mild winters and warm summers with a storm belt far
to the north. Not only was the country less subject to
severe storms, but the skies were less cloudy and the days
sunnier."

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?

>> 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.

>> 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
>> 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

>> 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. 

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: But There Aint No Global Warming.
    ... Lokel weather has little to do with global climate. ... >> temperature changes, before the global warming scare, were ... >> those places saw their temperatures go way down. ... Celsius warmer, allowing the planting of vineyards as far ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • A CLIMATE-DESTABILIZATION COMPENDIUM
    ... Global Warming: In Depth: Index ... A summary of recent findings on the changing global climate. ... scientists have added considerably to the large ... temperatures have increased by 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the last ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A CLIMATE-DESTABILIZATION COMPENDIUM
    ... > New Science on Global Warming ... > A summary of recent findings on the changing global climate. ... scientists have added considerably to the large ... > temperatures have increased by 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the last ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A CLIMATE-DESTABILIZATION COMPENDIUM
    ... > New Science on Global Warming ... > A summary of recent findings on the changing global climate. ... scientists have added considerably to the large ... > temperatures have increased by 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the last ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: OT: Cap and Trade and The Cooling Earth
    ... If this dramatic climate change were to ... humans and animals would migrate and adapt. ... warmer temps won't make such places bread baskets. ... global warming would greatly increase Greenland's ability to ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)