Global warming?

I made 3 three-point shots while playing basketball today out of the 4 I attempted. With a three point shot percentage of 75% I am therefore the greatest basketball player who ever lived.

One should use care in making global conclusions using only local data points.

One should also be careful of making predictions on climate based on data such as tree rings.

The life span of a tree is hardly equivalent to an eye blink when compared to the time the earth has existed. Yet they are using this to determine so called climate patterns. As far as geological data its hardly precise usually its plus or minus a couple thousand years.

Given the amount of time they have started taken accurate measurements sub 100 years I fail to see how any credible scientist can come to any conclusion on climate. How do they know what is normal?

Some events that could skew there data just off the top of my head the eruption of Mt St.Helens, EL Nina, EL Nino etc?

The climate will change whether we are here or not as it always has.

All this paranoid s*it does is make some people rich by taking advantage of all the gullible idiots out there.

For the record its regularly minus 30C here over night so I hope it does get warmer or at least another el nino would be nice.

Yikes!!! - Not much better here though. Our high today is only 61 (42 out now).

Just ignore all those other guys. Afterall, they're not used to tee-shirts, cut-offs and flip-flops in the middle of a Florida "winter"!

Were you in Florida for the 1989 ice storm. What a mess!! At least it's 21 and no ice in Ocala.

I heard on the news we have at least another week of this unusual weather....

- mpm

he

Since the interesting perturbation to the climate is the 100pmm rise in atmospheric CO2 level over the past century (from around 280ppm to around 385ppm), tree ring data does have about the right time scale to allow us to compare curent climate changes to the climate changes that were taking place immediately before the Industrial Revolution.

That is why they have been looking at the tree ring data, data from Artic lake sediments, and - most informative so far - the ice core data from the Greenland and Antarctic (Vostok) ice caps.

Mere short term perturbations.

To some extent, but injecting 37.5% more of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere adds a new and apparently significant perturbation.

It isn't actually paranoid s*it, though Exxon-Mobil and like-minded organisations who make money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel do see a financial advantage in persuading gullible idiots like you that the scientific case is less than robust.

Wait until summer.

Until then, it might be worth your while to learn a little bit more about the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming.

The American Institute of Physics has a useful web-site which lays out the history of the development of the idea.

You'd be better off spending you spare time reading that than adverising that you haven't got a clue about the subject.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Well, the alarmists weren't shy about blaming every storm, beach erosion, hot spell, change in butterfly population, or the weigh of a herd of sheep on Global Warming.

John

he

That wasn't the serous proponenets of anthropogenic global warming, but merely idle journalists, looking for a hook on which to hang their latest weather story. Only the the feather-brained would take them seriously.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The one, right before that huge sale of hail damaged cars? ;-)

Yeah, and now I have to dig a 45 foot trench for a new water line, thanks to 'Global Warming'.

Joe Bastardi says this is a repeat of 1977 weather patterns.

You mean peer-reviewed journals?

Cold kills:

I've seen serious estimates that suggest that in the US and Europe, cool snaps kill about four times as many people as heat waves.

Plants like warmth and CO2, too.

John

are

he

No. Journalists write newspaper articles, articles in peer-reviewd journals are witten by scientists. If you want your opinions about anthropogenic global warming to be taken seriously, this is one of the bits of information that you will need to master. There are others.

But you can't actually cite any such estimate.

Up to a point. Few plants have to good fortune to be exposed to enough of every other nutient to allow them to take advantage of higher CO2 levels - the geological record tells us that plants mainly take advantage of higher CO2 levels by reducing the number of stoma on the underside of their leaves so that they can collect the same amount of CO2 while losing less water.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

he

Not to worry, we're still doomed:

-- Cheers, James Arthur

It's been 16F the last two days when I went to work. My heat pumps are barely keeping up (-2F from setting). We're supposed to get freezing rain and snow tonight. It'll be fun watching the idiots driving tomorrow. Staying out of their way won't be so much, though. :-(

If you want your opinions about electronic design to be taken seriously, you should actually do some once in a while. Master that!

AGW is not the topic here.

That's the way multivariate optimization works.

John

Another Ice Age would be "just a blip in the long-term heating trend."

Just keep extending the definition of "weather" and "climate" as suits your political needs.

John

re

A frined of mine is a research scientist on the ESA's SMOS mission. Link:

It's a pretty cool instrument; an L-band interferrometer with 69 polarizations (66 discrete antennas). 2.4 GHz. It launched in November and can measure global soil moisture and sea surface temps & salinity. - The first instrument to do so on a global scale.

Last I heard, there was some glitch in the A-Arm local oscillator, so I haven't seen any recent data. This is a very complex instrument - I hope they get it working. Then we might confirm for sure (or not) that GW/AGW is something to worry about.

which is still a drop in the timescale bucket compared to the ice-age period.

How can so-called credible scientists put forward their AGW arguments with 100-odd years of data in a cycle of - what - 25,000 years? That's like looking at about 1.44 degrees of a signal cycle and saying what the rest of the cycle is.

and below the ice-cap they have found remnants of temperate climate forests. That terra firma under the ice has previously seen the light of day for an extended period.

and you think/believe that ramping over say 100 years ISN'T short term?

We - and certainly you - don't know what it was like at the same point of the previous ice-age cycle. Again, short-term samples don't tell the story, any more than two or three brush strokes let you describe what the finished canvas will look like.

There are a LOT of intellignet thinking peiople who disagree with that view. You may have made up your mind, but the jury really is still out when it comes to the doom and destruction bit.

You need to go back to Statistics 101 and look at what constitutes sufficent data to validate forecasts.

are

e,

Oops. Clearly I meant 1.4 GHz. (Hydrogen line). Reconstruction at 2.4 would be problematic given PCS phones.

are

e the

The 100-odd years isn't the period that the scientists have been studying, it is the period over which engineering has been introducing a significant perturbation into the greenhouse effect that has kept the earth warm enough to suit us over the past fifty thousand years for which we've been around.

So what?

We do have a pretty good idea. The ice core data does give us a reasonable handle on temeprature and CO2 levels, and the arctic lake sediments are also informative.

There are a lot of people who claim to be intelligent who still haven't got the wit to recognise denialist propaganda for what it is. You would seem to be one of them.

You'd like to think so. Since my Ph.D. thesis involved wrestling with that kind of question, I'd probably find that exposure to Statistics

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

hey are

ld

he 4 I

e the

data

Been there, done that, despite your equally ill-informed opinion on that subject.

Or so you claim, whenever someone points out that your opinions about AGW are ill-informed.

That the way multivariate optimisation works when most plants don't suffer from any shortage of CO2 - it is their most easily available nutrient, after all. Other plants can steal their sunlight (by growing taller) but CO2 is always available.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen