Posted on 08/16/2005 11:14:50 AM PDT by cogitator
Excellent points, Dr. Spencer.
If there is global warming, it is probably responsible for delaying the Ice Age that has been overdue for a couple thousand years.
Good post Cog, and good analysis. There are several factors to this global warming debate, I'd like to see them all discussed and considered.
Most of these questions have a simple answer. The Sun. The Sun has more of an effect on our surface temperature than anything that we could possibly do to this planet.
We had that Ice Age 30 years ago, remember? At least, that's what these same "scientists" were telling us.
There is no global warming, at least in the sense that the ecofreaks mean it. They intend to suggest that temperatures are in a permanent warming trend. The historical data says that these things are cyclical. It seems that we're in a warm part of the cycle right now, but whterh in 30 years or 100 or 1000, the tempreatures will turn the other way -- and the liberals/leftists of that time will try to scare us into believing that we're allgoing to freeze in the middle of a personalized iceberg. Unfortunately, they'll have some "scientists" supporting them (in search of research grants.)
There is no global warming, at least in the sense that the ecofreaks mean it. They intend to suggest that temperatures are in a permanent warming trend. The historical data says that these things are cyclical. It seems that we're in a warm part of the cycle right now, but whterh in 30 years or 100 or 1000, the tempreatures will turn the other way -- and the liberals/leftists of that time will try to scare us into believing that we're allgoing to freeze in the middle of a personalized iceberg. Unfortunately, they'll have some "scientists" supporting them (in search of research grants.)
Doesn't matter, doesn't matter and little to none.
RE: Surface measurements: How much of the apparent measurement of slight warming is due to the expansion of high IR reflection surface modifications (due to urbanization expansion and development in rural areas) and the increase in energy dissipation induced by electrical and electromagnetic human created signals and currents? To what extent does the fact the most measurement stations are in urban areas that were far less urban 100 years ago or if not, near roads that went from dirt to paved, have an impact? To what extent does the overconcentration of measurement stations in Eastern North America and Western Europe play a role? Do we understand all sources of variation in our measurement systems? Do we understand what the expected "natural" level of variation is? Have we made extensive use of Monte Carlo Modelling of the measurement systems? Do we truly have an ability to extract a meaningful signal from noise in our measurement system? Do we understand all sources of measurement bias and other extenuating circumstances to the level required for proper correction factors to be employed? Etc ....
Actually, it's about as complete and total a climb-down and retraction as I've ever seen. That's what you do, you 'readjust' your calculations, and show that what you were really saying is what everyone else was saying too. I'm afraid what remains of the scientific controversy about the reality of global warming just about vanished. But I agree the real questions should be 'is it a overall a bad thing?' and 'what practical things can we do to ameliorate the local bad effects?'
That's true. However, to the best that can be determined from the data, the Sun's output has remained relatively constant over the past 30 years, while the Earth's surface and atmosphere have warmed. There's more about this here:
While Spencer has been a skeptical voice, he's been a "refined" voice (despite some peevishness about the peer-review process). When your results finally end up within the error bars of the predictions, it's perfectly good practice to say so. Unfortunately, earlier results of the UAH-NASA group (Christy at UAH, Spencer at NASA) have persisted in the skeptical mind and discussion long after they've been updated (partly promulgated by such voices as Freds Singer and Seitz).
With Spencer finally saying it's time to move on, it's definitely time to move on -- just in time for the next IPCC preparation rounds, fortunately. Maybe by the end of that process the tree-ring, hockey-stick dilemma will be tending toward convergence, too.
I am sceptical, but neither am I silly enough to stick my head in the sand. I am sceptical of our scepticism, sometimes I am cynical about it.
Most of us learn after a few years, or a few dozen years, that the cheap shots always come back to bite you. A good scientist is always wrong on occasion; the only way you can avoid the risk of being wrong is to avoid saying anything substantial at all. It's hard enough to admit one was wrong; it a lot harder when you have to apologize for the insults as well.
By the way, do you know if there's any truth to the allegation that TCS is funded by Exxon-Mobil?
The urban heat island is only one part of what I meant by surface modifications. It belies the true extent of it. Everything from replacing thatch roofs with more permanent ones, to paving of roads and areas around farm houses, to channelization and so many other things, are the set of things that are in question in my statement. See if you can think of all the things that have essentially been introduced for the first time, over the past 100 or 150 years. Even things people often don't think of, such as how we plow fields - the depth, the size of the furrows, etc. It's all changed. Etc ...
And this is only with regards to surface modifications. Then there are all those other things to look at. Who, if anyone, could ever account for them all let alone understand the true impacts of them all?
This is an enormously complex thing to model accurately, let alone measure accurately.
That's what I was thinking of. I hope that he and others who bad-mouthed Fu might consider appropriate actions. It's not for me to say what they should actually do.
By the way, do you know if there's any truth to the allegation that TCS is funded by Exxon-Mobil?
Hmmm... Global Warming Skeptics: A Primer
Check out the entries under Baliunas and Glassman. (Ebell and McKitrick warrant a glance, too.) This is indicative, but requires further corroboration to be definitive.
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.