[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NFC: No NFC content...was Re: carlin?
You seem well educated and informed on this subject. What are you sources?
How do you know these things? Just please, PLEASE don't give me a
"scientists say", "experts have shown" or "studies prove." I will be try to
be open minded enough to engage your argument, but here are a couple counter
The average surface temperature of the earth has risen only 1 degree
Fahrenheit in the past 100 years. This is from an article in the Weekly
(1) There was a strong surface warming between the 1890s and the 1940s,
followed by a pronounced cooling (and warnings of a catastrophic ice age by
some of the same calamitologists who now claim disastrous warming) from the
1940s to the 1970s, then rising temperatures again from the 1970s to today.
What's important is that carbon dioxide emissions were insignificant in the
early 20th century, yet substantial warming occurred anyway. That warming
must owe something to natural causes of climate change.
I take this with a grain of salt...but there is definitely some known truth
here. What boggles my mind is the atmosphere CO2 content is measured in
parts per millions. No biggy...but do you really believe that measurements
taken 80 years ago could have been even mildly accurate?
I know how the grant system works, and when you don't provide results, you
don't get money. Throwing this aside though, it is SO easy to skew results
by discounting unexpected exceptions, publishing the extreme measurement
values as opposed to the calculated average means with respect to time.
Many studies never include the details, the EXACT details about how they
figured their numbers. They'll tell you how they took samples, but usually
not how they deduced their published results. I'd love to see ALL data
available for every report that makes these types of claims. Math is the
universal language right? I bet Republican funded and Democratic funded
statisticians could come up with completely different results in many cases
using the same data set. Results would be of course in their own
favor...not objective in any way.
Take dating techniques. I've got some ocean front property in Arizona for
anyone that thinks carbon or uranium dating is a reliable dating technique.
Come up with a theory, and force the numbers to support it. This isn't a
partisan argument, it's just how things have been done.
I can't first hand prove much of anything as it pertains to global warming,
but how someone determines climate trends from the past X centuries from a
stick of mud needs explanation for me to believe it.
As far as the glaciers go BTW, have you ever entertained the idea that the
earth was hit by a comet or anything along those lines? I'm not telling you
that's what happened...but you seemed to be pretty informed in this area as
well as other listers, so I love to hear you take on it.
Here's to being open minded...right? :)
> Yes, Luke, you have very cleverly observed a trend. We
> are in an interglacial period which has been slowly
> moving in one direction. But this trend has been
> happening even with relatively low CO2 levels over the
> past several thousand years. With a (geologically)
> sudden increase in these levels, trapping even
> seemingly trivial amounts of additional heat in the
> atmosphere (fractions of a watt per square meter) you
> assume (know?) there is no change in the magnitude of
> this trend? In your cleverness you ignore changes
> evident in atmospheric temperature monitoring, sea
> surface temperature monitoring and, more importantly,
> in glacial ice core and sea sediment records.
> It is with relief that I realize you have no real
> power, only the ability to voice ignorance in a small
> public forum.
> Boo Radley, Saraland, Alabama