Posted on 03/22/2006 5:14:34 AM PST by Born Conservative
Please read post 136. Factors that change the climate on time-scales of 10-100,000 years are negligible when the time-scale of change is 50-100 years.
"Scientific Assessment of Climate Change"
Exactly. That's why there are Viking mooring rocks found along the eastern US coast in maine, remains found in the Hudsons bay, nelson river system, and Lake winnipeg. It was warmer then.
The furor was mainly a media creation. For more info:
Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No
There are too many factors involved in the temperature of the planet to blame it solely on CO2 levels.
Very briefly: because we are in a very stable climate regime (alluded to in post 136), factors that affect the climate are fairly well-known. The primary factor that is currently changing rapidly and which will -- undoubtedly -- change Earth's radiative balance is atmospheric CO2 concentration. Because the climate system is complex, the actual temperature increase caused by increasing CO2 is not exactly defined. However, all of the current data (ocean warming, surface warming, lower tropospheric warming,) is in accord with the predicted effect of increasing atmospheric C02 concentrations.
So, to modify your final summary sentence: A lot of people have a pretty good understanding of what is probably causing global warming -- and it is really happening.
Like heck it was. It was Maurice Strong and his UN pals, and the same David Zuzuki idiots that are behind this global warming crap now.
There are now three IPCC "Scientific Assessments" (fourth due in 2008). The third was much more definitive in attributing climate change to anthropogenic causes. I suspect Singer was quoting from the first one.
For a preview of the fourth one:
Can you support that statement with an actual reference or article? Have you read the Web link?
Sure can. Google Maurice Strong. Power Corp. Half the NGO's in the UN, Etc.
He's a dangerous man who blows into Koffee anans ear.
I don't know about any Russian analysis but here is a Polish one.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zj21c97.pdf
If I were serious, yes.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/culture/kyoto_connection.htm
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2002/ark.html
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3
I'm most interested in Maurice Strong's contribution to discussions of global cooling in the 1970s. The rest of what he does or doesn't do is of little interest to me.
Knowing who is the elete of the elite is will help you know what Koyoto and "global warming" really is all about.
It sure isn't "global warming.
They might be negligible if you're in the middle of a cycle (mid-ice age or mid-temperate time). But if you're in a change of the cycles, which given that as of 1000 years ago this was the longest temperate time recorded in the ice cores is probable, then the data from long ago becomes important. If we're in a change time or approaching a change time then the data that's most important is the data from other changes from temperate to ice. And of course there's only two ways to know we're in a change time: wait and see, compare current data to everything we can gather from any part in the cycle preferably multiple cycles.
No difinitive science data doesn't make this a certainty. Because we know that the CO2 levels on the planet have varied dramatically before there were humans so any attempt to say that humans are soley responsible for the current change is silly. Do we bear some responsibility? Yes. But we don't know if we bear most of the responsibility and we know we don't bear all of it.
It is a fact.. The earth has been warming for more than 10,000 years now.. else the great lakes would be frozen to the bottom.. The only thing the teachers are NOT SAYING is that its totally NORMAL for the earth to be warming... and that its a GOOD THING..
I agree- the warmer the better. It's only 20f today and it's supposed to be SPRING for gosh sakes! Brrr!
@50 here and I live in Alaska..
Now, I took a look at the paper. Based on first impressions, one "argument" is that the scientists are throwing out good data, even if it's way outside the error bars. I think that a more definitive reading of the actual research would indicate that there are a host of reasons for discarding data, both by QC and statistical criteria.
Two, there is significant discussion of corrections. Climate data requires a variety of corrections and adjustments, most of which are supportable on the basis of cross-correlation with other climate data variables. While the author seems to prefer uncorrected data, I think that the research papers will provide sound arguments for why the data was corrected in a certain manner.
I'll remember the paper, but I will stay dubious.
Maybe I should move more north, LoL! ND here.
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.