Posted on 04/24/2015 7:50:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Global warming hasn't happened as fast as expected, according to a new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records.
The research claims that natural variability in surface temperatures over the course of a decade can account for increases and dips in warming rates.
But it adds that these so-called 'climate wiggles' could also, in the future, cause our planet to warm up much faster than anticipated....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
In those areas where there is no such market.....things are REALLY tough
they refuse to look at the REAL PICTURE!!
SILENT SPRING?? same same...fat chance
It snowed here in Rome, NY a couple of times yesterday. It's 30 degrees, and supposed to go down to 27 overnight. We had snow on Mother's Day about 14 years ago. It was that wet, heavy crap.
...They said don't come back here yankee
but if I ever do
I'll bring more money
'cause all she wants to do is...
http://www.avclub.com/article/lou-barlow-on-why-he-hates-all-she-wants-to-do-is--102959
Headline: “Climate models WRONG: Global-warming has slowed, recent changes are down to ‘natural variability’”
IF we are to believe the headline, emphasis the headline then that headline alone could establish Globull-Warming as a reality.
If we accept without question “Globull-Warming has slowed”, and “recent changes are down to natural variability”, then it means Globull-Warming was, it existed.
We all know how the left can back down, wait patiently, and then come back with their BS full throttle another day.
Looks like a setup to me.
I wonder how they examined 1,000 years of temperature records when 1) accurate thermometers are a fairly recent invention, and 2) there are not 1,000 years of temperatures recorded worldwide.
It's good that whoever did that study came to the conclusion that the earth's temperature does naturally vary. Maybe soon, those nitwits will stop talking schemes to remove an essential gas from the air upon which all live depends.
> This study will be debunked and suppressed faster than anything short of the speed of light.
No need if their vehicle’s smash into traffic poles or they drop dead from a heart attack...
Normally I get the point of responses to my posts, being fairly intelligent and decently educated ... however ... I’m missing your point. Please elucidate.
All caused by climate change.
Please don’t confuse the Left with the facts.
> “Snow on the ground in the morning where I live, the last two days. One week from May 1. I’ve never seen that before.”
Its the reason they flipflopped and went to using “climate change” instead. They get to bank either way. Reducing smoking and vehicle emissions did seem to reduce the smog pretty significantly in some cities. You can see it with your own eyes. But the levels they want to take it are just crazy and about lining their pockets now. Has nothing to do with the environment at all; its just about the Benjamins.
They look at tree rings. Tree rings are created as trees grow each season, and depending on the temperature they can be thicker or thinner. You can look at a slide of tree and work backwards from now to the birth of the tree years ago and measure the relative difference in temperature. To go back further, you find old wood from a tree whos life overlapped that of the first tree and you line up the growth rings of similar thickness so you can extend the pattern back. Keep doing that with older and older samples and you have a timeline going back for really long periods.
There are only two problems. First, tree ring thickness is not affected by temperature alone. Other atmospheric factors affect it too and there is no way to know which ones were really driving a particular pattern. Second, rather than using a large sample size of many trees to construct the timeline, the scientists cherry picked a small handful of trees that supported their data. In fact the famed "hockey stick" is all based on just ONE tree from Siberia.
So basically the use of tree rings has inherent limitations and can be manipulated by using small sample sizes and carefully choosing which samples to include (which was how the post 1950 temp surge was created). Other than that, it's a great idea.
Given all of the variables that can affect tree growth, I seriously doubt that any estimate of temperature made on the basis of tree ring measurements would have an error of less than a few degrees.
It certainly does not have the accuracy of a digital thermometer that can measure 1/100 degrees, or even an alcohol (or mercury) thermometer than can measure to 1/10 of a degree.
Where the HELL did The London Daily Mail get a thousand years worth of TEMPERATURE RECORDS.
Thermometers have only been around for a couple HUNDRED years.
More records pulled out of their climate changing ass I suppose.
On the other hand tree rings can be selected from trees in really remote areas where this unnatural excess heat isn't present. Same conditions for centuries if you go into deep old growth forest like Siberian forrests. But as noted previously, the growth rates of trees isn't solely due to temperature. So there is some inherent ambiguity in the results. And if you find one oddball tree that doesn't match any others and let that totally skew all the data by intentionally keeping sample size really small so the outlier tree dominates, well, you can create a scary looking hockey stick graph from it and it sounds really scientific ("based on 1,000 years of tree ring data from old growth forest ..." ooh, sounds really complex!)
The LA Basin was called the Valley of Smokes by the Indians who lived there before white people even arrived in the New World.
1. Make Volcanoes Illegal.
2. Make Liberals Illegal.
That should do it.
I have been growing trees in my orchard for quit a few years now, the only thing that seems to effect the size of the rings is availability of water.
More water, wider ring; less water, narrower ring.
Really cold summer (less than 85 all summer) but plenty of water, wide ring.
Really hot summer (110 to 115 all summer) but plenty of water, wide ring.
Should have said; Spring, Summer and Fall, winter doesn’t count, because all my trees are deciduous and dormant in the winter.
I think dendrochronology is an interesting branch of science but I don’t believe it is particularly dead on accurate.
> Normally I get the point of responses to my posts, being fairly intelligent and decently educated ... however ... I’m missing your point. Please elucidate.
The only real point I guess was making the distinction between environmental protection measures that had a real impact that I could see as opposed to the highly politicized EPA actions which seem to be designed to soak the taxpayers, fine insane fine amounts for infractions, and line the pockets of politicians...
Don’t ya just love it? Failure to warm according to predictions means it might warm even more!
I wonder if it matters if we try and clean some of the Earth. I mean it would be good in the long run.
I feel the same way about Atheists. What if they are wrong? I always tell them that.
What if we just do some stuff to clean up the environment and if there isn’t Global Warming so what. I think one thing that has improved is our air we breath. I remember going to LA a couple decades ago and you couldn’t breath. Today you can at least walk around and not be dying in two seconds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.