For all you rabid environmentalists

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by straffo
....,it's not statistic it's metrology.

What's the average temperature for your town this time of year?

Answer without using statistics.

[Angus]

Icecores, tree rings, fossils, soil & seeds, and in later history human accounts is the core of what we have about the climate in ancient times.
Oddly enough, some folks from the warming-denialist camp have been mocking the scientific effort to gather information.

As for the average temp in various places, where I live it is uppedy-up. So are the plants that we can suddenly grow outside. We're even growing plants that didn't thrive in the warm medival period.
By the way, to analyse what was actually being grown in medieval times up here, a team of scientists has been looking into soil from canals etc, - ash layers from volcanic eruptions give us a very good and "striped" calendar down into the earth. So, they look for seeds from certain depth. Accounts of Barley and Rhye being grown are now backed up, but today we are doing wheat. In ICELAND!

[lazs2]

I did read the report..  are you saying that no new data on the sun has come out since 2001?   that they knew that at the very least 25% of the global warming was caused by a small amount of the suns effect that they studied but they haven't felt it worth looking into more since then?

they dismiss volcanoes as... as what?  don't even put a number on that one... other forces of nature? no numbers..

Man made co2... no number there either so far as amount it is making the globe hotter... just "significant"   that is real scientific isn't it?   significant can be parts per billion if you have none and then add a couple parts per billion...  that does not mean it is a danger.

If the temp has gone up 1 degree in the last century... if it is going to go up one degree (taking for granted the suns activity will continue to contibute as will all the other natural contributors)  by that logic... if we all slit our throats today....

The very most we could do would be to drop temps about half to 3/4 of a degree.

If solar activity goes down as it always has...  in the next century we will see a global cooling... far worse for man than warming... we may help slow the cooling by half a degree of so..

This is all if nature plays along and..... if "significant" means more than a few percent of the global warming we are seeing.  It means that "if" we don't find out that the sun really is causing more than the 7 year old study says... it means if.. if we don't spend all our resources on worrying about the red herring of man made co2 and really start studying natural effects.  

The reason the left is so desperate is because they know the sun will go into a natural cooling cycle soon... their whole sky is falling scenario will implode... they will be laughing stocks like they allways are when it comes to doomsday scenarios they come up with..   like the last ice age of the 1990's.

And.. to be cynical... winter will come.   talking about the planet heating up doesn't scare people who pay $500 a month to heat their home in february.

lazs

[storch]

the solution to potential global warming from man made causes has become evident to me.  all you people living outside of the United States should immediate discontinue utilizing our resources.  quit driving your little beep beep beep cars, quit utilizing our inventions such as electricity and most importantly quit breathing our air.  I'm fairly confident that if you others will follow these simple instructions the problem will immediately go away.

[john9001]

Originally posted by LambChop
LOL! I bet Angus spends more on heat in Iceland than you do in California.

 

angus heats his igloo with govt provided geothermal heat, don't you know anything about iceland?

[storch]

it is the sun and now all of you outlanders.  you guys need to do the right thing.  c'mon step up to the plate and do your bit for Amer...er the world, ya the world, the planet, ya the planet that's it.  c'mon do what those clever rodents up your way do.

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
I did read the report..  are you saying that no new data on the sun has come out since 2001?   that they knew that at the very least 25% of the global warming was caused by a small amount of the suns effect that they studied but they haven't felt it worth looking into more since then?

You may have read it, but it appears that you had some difficulty understanding the material, or you would not take the phrase "direct effect of variations in solar forcing over the 20th century was about 20 to 25% of the change in forcing due to increases in the well-mixed greenhouse gases" to mean "at the very least 25%."
 
Are you saying that new data changes everything?  If so, please provide your source(s).

they dismiss volcanoes as... as what?  don't even put a number on that one... other forces of nature? no numbers..

Man made co2... no number there either so far as amount it is making the globe hotter... just "significant"   that is real scientific isn't it?   significant can be parts per billion if you have none and then add a couple parts per billion...  that does not mean it is a danger.

The numbers are there, if you care to look for them.  Volcanic emissions are approximately 0.15Gt/year compared to anthopogenic sources being approximately 7Gt/year.

This is all if nature plays along and..... if "significant" means more than a few percent of the global warming we are seeing.  It means that "if" we don't find out that the sun really is causing more than the 7 year old study says... it means if.. if we don't spend all our resources on worrying about the red herring of man made co2 and really start studying natural effects.

What natural effects are being ignored?  

The reason the left is so desperate is because they know the sun will go into a natural cooling cycle soon... their whole sky is falling scenario will implode... they will be laughing stocks like they allways are when it comes to doomsday scenarios they come up with..   like the last ice age of the 1990's.

It's amusing that you feel the need to put a political spin on the subject.  I wonder if you do so in order to feel more confident burying your head in the sand and ignoring the leftist, metrosexual climate scientists?

What ice age are you rambling about?

Nice to see that you have dropped the sun worship mantra though, even if only temporarily.

[AKH]

LambChop
The Acid Ocean – the Other Problem with CO2 Emission

[Dadano]

Found a great documentary site with a good one on the theory of global dimming. Check it out here.

[Angus]

Regarding the sun, and as pointed out many times before, one needs a certain amount of greenhouse effect for this planet to be comfortable.
You know how the temp drops once you are above the earths atmosphere, - even on a sunny day.
As for the global dimming, that is a known factor. Is that the one Lazs is referring to as the iceage prediction?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Angus
As for the global dimming, that is a known factor. Is that the one Lazs is referring to as the iceage prediction?

I think Lazs' refererence to the ice age prediction is with regard to the 1970's predictions based on the 1940 to 1970 drop in global average temperatures.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The data before 1800 comes fom tree rings, ice cores, etc.

That we do not have direct data from eons ago adds to the uncertainty of the problem.  How can one be sure that current condtions are abnormal when we are uncertain of the norm?

I noticed you didn't really understood my previous post, I was trying to point that  you cannot/shouldn't compare data acquired by different mean.

That's all.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by straffo
I noticed you didn't really understood my previous post, I was trying to point that  you cannot/shouldn't compare data acquired by different mean.

That's all.

Okay...

So you must disagree with the crux of the Global Warming argument, as all data prior to Mr. Fahrenheits invention was gathered by different means than is common today.

[straffo]

I neither agree nor disagree ,I don't know if global warming is a hoax or not,from human origin or not.

All I know is "principe de précaution" (Precautionary principle) : in doubt I try to not influence in the bad direction.

[Holden McGroin]

"principe de précaution"  I agree with.

What I disagree with is the move afoot to label all GW skeptics as kooks:  and by some strange parallel, many of those who label GW skeptics as kooks take umbrage with GW Bush supporters saying if you disagree with the President, you are tantamount to being treasonous.