Posted on 10/09/2005 6:41:34 PM PDT by neverdem
Global warming is nothing more than pork for scientists.
**1600-10: Advances by Chamonix (France) glaciers cause massive floods which destroyed three villages and severely damaged a fourth. One village had stood since the 1200's.
**1670-80's: Maximum historical advances by glaciers in eastern Alps. Noticeable decline of human population by this time in areas close to glaciers, whereas population elsewhere in Europe had risen.
**1695-1709: Iceland glaciers advance dramatically, destroying farms.
(This info from http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html.)
As you can see, significant changes were taking place rapidly. Tell me why a similar shift in the other direction can't take place equally rapidly.
The time to worry about global warming will be when Greenland is a green land again. Not before.
Might have a bit of a disaster, then, eh?
;^)
Make that chart read "Number of Jihadists".....THEN maybe it would make more sense....LOL.
Here's where the article lost me. It's good that a responsible scientist is able to change his mind; it's not good that he overshot his target.
Although there is very little doubt that the earth is warming, and there's general agreement about that, there is no agreement about the cause or causes. The problem is too complex to know.
But there is plenaty of evidence to demonstrate beyond doubt that the earth has experienced many many warming cycles before, none of which can be attributed conclusively, or even remotely with man's activities.
The Great Consensus here is that totalitarian control is the answer to everything.And these folks do believe that they will have privileged postìons in this new order.
I know people like this, A couple are practicing scientists at a university. No conceivable phenomenon could be an indication of anything but Global Warming. Every possible event and its opposite would be Proof Positive for Global Warming.
In the early 1990s Lindzen was asked to contribute to the IPCC's 1995 report. At the time, he held (and still does) that untangling human influences from the natural variation of the global climate is next to impossible. When the report's summary came out, he was dismayed to read its conclusion: "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." "That struck me as bizarre," he says. "Because without saying how much the effect was, the statement had no meaning. If it was discernible and very small, for instance, it would be no problem." Environmentalist Bill McKibbon referred to this phrase in an article in The Atlantic in May 1998: "The panel's 2,000 scientists, from every corner of the globe, summed up their findings in this dry but historic bit of understatement." In an angry letter, Lindzen wrote that the full report "takes great pains to point out that the statement has no implications for the magnitude of the effect, is dependent on the [dubious] assumption that natural variability obtained from [computer] models is the same as that in nature, and, even with these caveats, is largely a subjective matter."
The early reports reflected the squishy state of the science, but by 2001, the conclusion was unequivocal: "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."...
said Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at
Nothing personal, but a science historian, like many others in the soft sciences, are usually ignorant of statistical sampling, I doubt that much changed between 1995 and 2001 to eliminate the doubts that Lindzen had in 1995.
Actually, this is just the tip of the iceberg (so to speak).
A while back I posted an article on simulation and its drawbacks. I am an electrical engineer, and I have see the pitfalls. I have also seen people tweak simulations to get what they want.
Now, if only that worked in the lab when you actually build the circuit.
http://pulse.typepad.com/countercolumn/2005/01/index.html Scroll down a little as the screen is not displaying properly.
This is the most stupid statement about science one can possibly make. There is no way to evaluate the state of science at any given moment.
When in late 1800s Pauli came to Zommerfeld, then greatest living theoretical physicist, and said he wanted to do theory, Zommerfeld replied, "What a shame: theoretical physics is done." A few years later we had Pauli himself, Einstein, Bohr, etc.
Even the greatest physicist cannot evaluate well the state of science: only in retrospect significance of developments becomes clear.
This "historian" of science failed to learn the most essential point of history of science.
the odds that this consensus is wrong are slim, he added.
Surely we have a problem. The question is whether we can and therefore should do anything about it. Climate has oscillated significantly before, and cold centuries were succeeded by warm ones. What is not clear is whether mankind has anything to do with the latest change, and the article has failed to address that.
I thought the light reaching the earth was getting dimmer.
Amniotic fluid used successfully instead of stem cells
Prevention: Statin Drugs Appear to Reduce Risk to Bones
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list. Anyone can post any unrelated link as they see fit.
The problem with the computer models are that in 1987 they said 2-3 degrees by 2000, then in 1990 it was 2-4 by 2010 now its 3-11 by 2100. Everytime the date passes and the temp hasn't risen enough they reset the clock.
Here is a plot used by liberals, err , scientists that show that historical global temperature changes correlate to CO2 changes. It looks good on first glance. A further second look shows that the drastic shifts in temperature often PRECEDE the change in CO2 levels - this kind of complicates the theory. Also, global temperatures are drastically low on a historical scale. The jump in temps due to recent causes are like a single day blip on a Dow Jones five year trend. Problem is we only have the one blip of data (~100 yrs) to analyze - the rest of history is painted with a broad stroke (core samples, theory, etc).
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xVostokCO2.htm
Not necessarily. Remember Sheila Jackson Lee said we put a flag on Mars. Then remember that Bush suggested to NASA we should go to Mars. That's more than enough for the DUmmies to connect the dots and figure out Bush has been drilling for oil on Mars and causing global warming there too.
I've read recently that any set of initial conditions that are fed into the climate models yield global warming. Back to the drawing board one would think.
I think the computer models have "cried wolf" once too often for anyone to take them seriously anymore.
Here's a website that points out that many of the world's glaciers are advancing. The author links to all of his sources.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm
As the author of the above points out, not only are many glaciers advancing rapidly, but the Antarctic snowpack is growing by 5 feet in thickness per year.
The real fear in my opinion would be global cooling. One source I read said that the Earth's mean temperature may have dropped by 10 degrees in as little as 30 years.
I've got a few large oaks in my back yard that make the wind blow by flapping their leaves in unison.
Funny as the ice melts in my soda, it gets warmer. Perhaps as the Ice melts at the poles the earth will get warmer.
Ya think?
Ice melts, liberals panic...
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.