Posted on 05/25/2006 9:02:16 AM PDT by cogitator
Thanks, another good point.
There are *so* many other variables that their models don't take into account, it's rather laughable to consider their models anywhere near complete.
Heck, it's been warming since the end of the last ice age.
And, it's all our fault!
Where I live used to be orange groves (in the 19th century). People, including myself, keep citrus trees for a few years at a time, but we have a killer freeze about every ten years. I've been here 60 years, and the coldest days have been since 1989. In 1989 we had five inches of snow.
I realize this doesn't measure climate change, but I have my doubts about actual changes in agricultural zones.
The reason you don't get it is that the majority of climate fluctuations throughout paleohistory are linked to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. That's why I said you were wrong. Yes, there are certainly other influences on global climate, and not all climate variability is caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. But one of the primary factors is and was CO2 in the atmosphere. No matter how hard you want to believe it's not, the scientific understanding is well-established.
And the reason it's important now is because CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are rapidly increasing.
Have a nice holiday.
Nice chart in #278. I'll take todays garden over the icebox 18,000 years ago any ole day.
There's a reason that Gore called his movie "An Inconvenient Truth". For a certain subset of people it could also have been titled "Facts That I'm Forced to Ignore".
I invite you to learn a lot more. But you don't have to, of course.
Climate is a major function of Earths rotation and orbit along with the yellow orb. CO2 contributes as a greenhouse effect but nowhere comparable to the two major functions. Man's contribution to the Greenhouse effect is rounding error. As sure as the sun comes up tomorrow the next little ice age will show up right on time. Now that will be a problem to contend with as growing seasons shorten, glaciers reclaim fertile land and lots of people compete for limited resources.
Any scientific theory/movement that has Al Gore as one of its leading spokesman is has a major credibility issue before the first data set can be examined. More significantly, any scientific theory whose advocates predicate their presentations with claims that the expert consensus in favor of their position is so great that there no longer is any need for debate/examination/justification of its premises, is further implicating its credibility and acquiring classic hallmarks of a con game, which of course is all that GLOBAL WARMING really is.
The central issue in Al Gore's life (Son of rich and powerful U.S Senator, raised in hotel by male "nanny") has been his quest for the accoutrements of accomplishment, without demonstration of any real effort or talent on his part. e.g. Serving in Vietnam via a six week stint as a "journalist"; e.g., going to HARVARD, while suppressing forever his record there of stagering acedemic failure, especially as to his one science course for liberal arts majors, e.g claiming to have invented the internet. Adopting and promoting the psuedo scientific pretensions of the "environmentalists" is only one more in a long chain of manifestations of Gore's innate need to look/"feel" important with no further effort than memorizing the uncross-examined, unrebutted, arguments of global warming theology.
Also, you still havent told us what the temperature in downtown Milwaukee will be on noon a week from next Tuesday.
No we aren't. We are left with the planets energy source as well. What percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is contributed by humans burning petrochemicals?
LOL!! FWIW, I think you and I may be on the same page, on this one: predominant causes of warming aren't anthropogenic. IF we are, in fact contributors, we are only negligibly so, and any effort on our part to stop the overall warming trend will be economically exhausting and, in the final analysis, entirely futile; although it may make some politicians, lobbyists and envirotech firms wealthy over the next 100 years. Ultimately, that last point is why this will continue to be pushed as a top drawer issue.
Right! In fact we should abandon technology almost entirely. After all, when we have to retreat from the coast, mud huts are soooo much easier to reconstruct than frame houses!
25 years ago, climatologists were warning of the coming Ice Age. Well, maybe 30, but close enough.
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Obviously, I haven’t got that memo yet. /s
”The tilts that cause glacial ages occured in immensly long periods of time. so the warming cannot be attributed to the Milankovitch effect, of course, or to solar output. We are left with Greenhouse emmissions.”
You are omitting hundreds if not thousands of other possibilities in your ‘process of elimination.’
”Google it”
We have an unofficial ban of Google at Freerepublic.
What the global alarmist fail to point out there are other factors involved by the earth where it could produce a great deal more one year vs the next.
Yeah, I know. But human contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 1/10 of 3%, rounding error. If we stopped burning fuel tomorrow, there would be no effect on the climate cycle.
Yet climate has varied greatly over those thousands of years. Take a look at the temperature proxies in these data sets: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/contributions_by_author/ like this one: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/contributions_by_author/bard2002/bard2002.txt This is a simple one, but don't let me bias your research by cherry picking. The theme in all the data is that temperature variations are normal although a lot of the proxy measurements are localized and will therefore show more variation than a world-wide average. But it is difficult to get an worldwide average using proxies without averaging out apples with oranges and appending biased measurements to produce hockey sticks.
("Once I believed the other way, now I've changed") is a rhetorical device designed to appeal to a specific audience. Some members of that audience appear to be right here on FR responding to your post
That's the whole idea. The true-believers are not content to post articles with facts, they would rather suck in gullible folks with rhetoric and argue talking points with them then face the scientific challenges.
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.