you mean we're not all going to hell in a handcart?
Posted on 08/12/2005 8:20:24 AM PDT by cogitator
I want them to giv eme an accurate forcast for next week. How about doing that first and I will then listen.
This summer has been pretty cool compared to the hell that was 1980. Look, I will admit that winters are not as harsh as they used to be....one of the biggest snowstorms in Kansas dropped around 30 inches of snow with drifts to the roofs of houses...in the 1950s.
Though rare then to get a storm like that here, now 12-inch snows are big news. At least then, we could count on 15 inches or so once a decade. Now 12 inches is about the best we can do.
But, what I am saying is that for people to take global warming seriously, there needs to be evidence it is happening to where everybody notices it.
I'm ambivalent about Spencer. He and John Christy pioneered the concept of using the MSU to measure atmospheric temperatures, and they did it pretty well (it was NOT easy to do). The problem is that he's clearly a good scientist and an vocal skeptic, and it seems that he changes his viewpoint (and his data analyses) only under some pressure. It's important to do science well, and when necessary, that means realizing when you have to do it better.
Uh huh, and wild birds do not fly at night.
Sorry. Until you barcode all the CO2 molecules that come out of my car and my mouth, you can't prove I'm doing it. Just because two sets of thermometers agree doesn't put the cause on my doorstep.
Mankind has far too high an opinion of itself, so it makes the leap that WE are causing this "problem", if it is one. I think it's just a natural phenomenon. Global warming proponents make me think of the time when we thought all the planets and the sun orbited the earth.
50 or even 100 years worth of data do not establish a trend, when we are talking about thousands of years.
I understand, and I also understand about the winters: I grew up in Wisconsin in the 1960s and 1970s, and it was much colder then than now. Ice skating season started in November and ended in March, with very few breaks.
One of the things that changes average weather is heat waves. The Southeast was scorching earlier this summer, and the heat wave in Europe in 2003 was awful. That's the kind of thing that people notice.
No, the real questions are, is global warming a problem and, if so, can we stop it.
Quit the revisionism. Warming has been disputed based on the satellite data.
Believe it or not, there is something called the "Suess effect" that uses the change in the atmospheric ratio of stable carbon isotopes, Carbon-13 and Carbon-12, that basically does what you asked. I.e., it fingers fossil fuel burning as the main cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the mid-1800s. The next step is determining the contribution of increasing CO2 to global warming, which is what is being done now. Better data means better results.
Funny, I thought everyone was screaming because it was our fault. Silly me.
Cool. Thanks.
It is impossible to understand what kind of "error correction analyses" was done here.
What they say is "We took the data and changed it for an error and poof, the numbers look exactly like we want them to."
This is exactly the same thing that resulted in the "hockey stick fiasco."
Let's see--MSNBC does a story about people criticizing the Spencer studies, yet does not even try to interview Spencer (or other like-minded party) for a response? MSM--fair and balanced as usual...
Good news for agriculture and people in northern latitudes.
Do you consider that that post responsive to mine?
So, what was the ratio of Carbon-13 to Carbon-12 molecules in the atmosphere, in say, the 1300's? Like I said, a couple hundred years of data, compared to who knows how many years before, does not impress me.
Let's just say I know something about science and the scientific method, for the record. And, let's just say I'm also an interested student of human nature...
In my opinion, we've got a LOT of inaccurate conclusions out there, resulting from the improper use of data, due to selfish interests of either individuals or groups, WHETHER THEY REALIZE IT OR NOT.
I have respect for the scientific community, but we/they are not flawless, and no matter how hard they try, they are NOT 100% objective. And even if they were, they do make mistakes.
you mean we're not all going to hell in a handcart?
Thanks. Please see post 38.
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.