Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 4 27

[jmw]

Anyone who hasn't seen graphs some where or other showing the long term temperature record with its ups and downs, even those charts doctored to take out the medieval warm period, the little ice age etc, but still show some ups and downs, needs to go do so before asking for them, denying their existence or pretending they show something they don't.

So, given some ups and downs of varying intensity and varying excursions, if your last high point was 1998, and its been getting cooler since, we are in a down.
Is it significant? we won't know till we bottom out.

You might want to say, yeah, but it will turn around again in a year or two and rocket back up so it doesn't mean a thing.

Warmists don't want to acknowledge that the temperature is dropping, not even to say "it may be a minor swings that will reverse shortly", or "it is too short term to mean anything" or "it's noise in the data", is because whatever else it is, it wasn't what the computer models with the top secret codes predicted. So better to never actually admit the temperatures are dropping.

That's why they never answer or acknowledge this, they will state instead, "the last 12 years contained the 10 hottest..." since records began or words to that effect.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[rb1957]

Greenland is called that for a reason ... 1,000 years ago it was green ! and i believe that the vikings were also growing vine in Newfoundland. so, yes, there are clear examples for temperature fluctuations in the past.

 

[owg]

Here is a link to lighten the discussion. Maybe been posted before but worth a second look.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b5hcKABPlGI/R-h3GoF3OLI/AAAAAAAAIUQ/6dNeTfWFb8I/s400/03-06e.gif

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[jgailla]

rb1957,
The story I heard, not that I have any idea if it is true or not, is that naming the place Greenland was a bit of Viking marketing.
Granted everything I've read says that it was warmer back then.
I've read some interesting articles blaming the French Revolution on the cold climate.
Again, a bit of hyperbole, but the Seine did reportedly freeze in 1788 and there were wolves roaming the streets of Paris.

 

[rb1957]

owq, what's frank burns got to do with CC ?





ohhh, you meant the pengiun and "how to survive the coming ice age" ... i guess that's all covered under CC these days, and we're either making the climate baking hot or blindingly cold and it's all our own fault and we're doomed (unless you send $1000 to my mailbox).

thank you !

 

[cranky108]

Maybe the climate change thing is like the Coolie walls that were built during the construction of the rail roads. They serve no purpose but to keep the construction workers from fighting each other.

So in a simular vain like the movie "wag the dog" we should invent a foe, and fight them (global warming), as a way to distract outselves from the real goal.

 

[FeX32]

Whats the real goal?


Fe

 

[CajunCenturion]

The real goal is to make money, and quite simply, FUD sells.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[rb1957]

i'm sure that many "entrepreneurs" (CC profiteers) are looking to get their hands on government hand-outs. i'm just as sure that some (a minority) are genuinely convinced they're actions are right.

i'm certain that at the end of the day, we'll be out our tax money, some people will have gotten rich and famous with it, and the climate situation won't be affected one iota (it'll do exactly whatever it wants to do).

 

[CajunCenturion]

I'm certain that given the length of this thread and the three that preceded it, in conjunction with the cyclical nature of climate change, that everyone who has contributed to these threads will be right at one time or another.


Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[jmw]

Like a stopped clock.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Cajun Centurion,
no sooner had you made your post than I discovered it as oh so true.

It appears that Britain's former deputy prime minister, John Prescott, has been made Professor of Climate Change at Xiamen University.

http://www.totalpolitics.com/blogs/index.php/2009/08/26/prescott-saves-the-earth

(this doesn't appear to have hit the broadsheets yet)

So when someone says we're going to hell in a hand basket, believe them.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

Hello rapt,

Here is an explanation from National Geographic that answers your question:

Q: "Why is the 19th century uptrend man made and all of the others are not?"

A: "Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less."

 

[cranky108]

"Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less"
And the changes measured are a fraction of a degree?
Did we have that accurate of instruments a hundred years ago?

 

[oneintheeye]

ice cores

 

[josephv]

and trees and corals, here is a link:

http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/environme...tists_measure_and_predict_climate_change.html

 

[jmw]

Ice cores, radio carbon dating, tree rings, coral; they are all under attack or rather, the sensitivity of the data.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

attacks? by political groups? I ask because generally in the scientific community there are disputes, not attacks.

Here is an article on ice cores by National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1110_041110_antarctic_ice.html

 

[rapt]

josephv

"Over the past 400,000 years, the warm periods have lasted about 10,000 years. The current warm period has already lasted 10,000 years, but the EPICA team says Earth is not headed for an imminent ice age.

Today Earth's orbit is similar to that of 400,000 years ago. The warm period at that time lasted about 28,000 years. Miller, the EPICA geophysicist, said that, based on this comparison, we can expect the current warm period to last at least another 15,000 years."

These are the last 2 paragraphs from the NG article you posted above.

So much for the current warming cycle being less than a century! If you looked at the stock market over the last 3 months, you could predict it will be at 100000 in 10 years, but you cannot base projections like this on a selected piece of the data, you have to look at it long term, not 10 years or 100 years, you have to look at millenia and longer for natural temperature and climate variation. There are many periods when temperature has changed significantly (if you call .4C significant) over a 100 year period.

And they are predicting it is going to keep rising for another 15,000 years (with ups and downs on the way as is normal) but it will trend higher.

And we did not cause the warm period 400,000 years ago or the ones in between, or the cold periods between those!

 

[josephv]

rapt,

I think you are talking about two different things.

1) The current warm period has already lasted 10,000 years (not caused by us)

2) Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less (caused by us)

Note that the article begins with:

"Few scientists dispute that human fossil fuel consumption is altering Earth's climate. The scope of that change, however, remains a subject of debate."