Sure, there’s a warming trend right now, but it barely breaks us even, much less matching the Medieval Warm period or the Roman Warm period.
And it comes with a nice graph:
ADDENDUM:
Paper with more and higher resolution graphs is here.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Let’s Hear It From The Global Cooling Denialists…
Tree rings from semi-fossilized trees in Lapland show a cooling trend extending from 138 BC until now. German scientists claim more accuracy for millennial temperature trends using these new sources.
Sure, there’s a warming trend right now, but it barely breaks us even, much less matching the Medieval Warm period or the Roman Warm period.
And it comes with a nice graph:
ADDENDUM:
Paper with more and higher resolution graphs is here.
Sure, there’s a warming trend right now, but it barely breaks us even, much less matching the Medieval Warm period or the Roman Warm period.
And it comes with a nice graph:
ADDENDUM:
Paper with more and higher resolution graphs is here.
Global?
ReplyDeleteThis paper only deals with one proxy data set among many and gives highly localized data for northern Scandinavia.
And none of this affects anything. The problem with global warming is that the cause is in place right now, even if the effect hasn't shown up yet.
ReplyDeleteIt's all really kind of funny. In the past week they reported finding a sunken civilization off the coast of England; they say that there used to be a land bridge over to the mainland of europe, but the bridge was swamped by a tsunami (!) The submerged civilization is still submerged: no, it was not a tsunami, it was either rising sea levels way back in time, or it was sinking land. But apparently the idea of a tsunami fit the AGW narrative better than considering the more obvious.
ReplyDeleteAnd I watched a documentary on PBS about two weeks ago in which two guys drive across Alaska from south to the north shore. Much of the time they couldn't see the scenery because they were driving in smoke. It turns out that lightning strikes keep a lot of the forest burning in Alaska, and when the nearest settlement is 150 miles away, no one even tries to contain them, so they burn continuously and put out dense smoke.
Undoubtedly this has been going on a longe time and will continue. There are so many variables, including the variability of solar distance etc. that I still have my doubts that programmers have them all installed per actual natural conditions. For a long time they denied any need to consider solar output variablity. And they predicted increased hurricanes.
Well, we'll all find out in time, I guess.
There are a lot of variables, sure. But the major climate drivers are few:
ReplyDelete- Sun
- Milankovitch cycles
- Greenhouse gases
- Pacific Decadal Oscillation
- ENSO
From multiple different pieces of evidence, we know that CO2 is running high and contributing to the trapping of heat. A good chunk of this is from us digging it out of the ground where it has been for millions of years and putting back into the atmosphere.
So the question is what other variables might offset this.
The sun has been quite for 50 years, and is even quieter now. The Milankovitch cycles will not come into play any time soon. PDO and ENSO are cyclical, and may cause fluctuations but not any kind of extreme long term temperature trend.
So with the dominant factor being greenhouse gases, and very likely for some time to come, we can expect warming.
Whether it was/was not warmer in the past is irrelevant to that reality.
Martin,
ReplyDeleteIt's good to get you going here again...
From my perspective the heat cycle is a standard model physical system containing source, capacitance, inductance and parasitic losses, or if you prefer, source, sink, damping and tension/extension and parasitic losses.
Either way, there is only one source, the sun. The PDO and ENSO are ringing factors surrounding the capacitance of the oceans for example; not sources. Without the sun, PDO and ENSO die along with everything else.
The problem involves a large number of parasitic factors, such as reflectivity of particulates (which are increasing in this area due to the drought), type of particulates (in the southwest red is common, and droughts bring along haboob dust storms) cloud type and unpredictability, along with increased reflectivity during various saturations in the atmosphere, etc. These are all passive (but variable) elements in the heat cycle, and when they refer to them as drivers, it seriously makes me wonder if they know what they are doing.
There are system input energy, manipulation of input energy by system components resulting in modulated retention in capacitances, rejections, including initial reflection and black body radiation which enters into the reflection/ absorption/reradiation lossy damped ringing cycle. That depends on earth reflectivity vs earth color for radiation.
The complexity is approximated on the things they think they know. But do they take into account power reduction of more efficient computer monitors around the world? Surely that is as significant as banning inhalers. Maybe they do. I have serious doubts.
More to the point, the Romans survived hotter temperatures and I suspect that we will, too. As you know, I don't consider warming to be much of an issue at all, except for the massive opportunity that it gives to the hysteria mongers and wealth transfer types. For that reason alone it seems necessary to make sure that the science is pristine. I suspect that it is not really possible for it to actually be pristine, no matter how many satellites they put up. (on second thought, with enough satellites up there, less sun would get through...)
I was under the impression that this blog was about Atheism. Apparently the author also takes the opportunity to expose his wisdom on climate change, which according to him is not an issue at all, except for the massive opportunity that it gives to the hysteria mongers and wealth transfer types. For someone who hast logic and truth in the blog title, it’s quite fascinating to see such an irrational interpretation of the situation alongside completely irrelevant facts... Here are the examples before one accuses me of not supporting my statements.
ReplyDeleteParagraph 1:
...But apparently the idea of a tsunami fit the AGW narrative better than considering the more obvious.
What was the point of this entire paragraph? The only purpose that can be identified is attacking ‘them’, whoever they are, for their wrong interpretation of a sunken civilization. Whether ‘they’ are right or wrong regarding the tsunami is completely irrelevant to whether ‘them’, or others, are right about the influence of humans on the climate.
Paragraph 2:
And I watched a documentary on PBS [...]a lot of the forest burning in Alaska, and when the nearest settlement is 150 miles away, no one even tries to contain them, so they burn continuously and put out dense smoke.
1) ‘and’indicate a link with the previous paragraph when there is none.
2) The point raised in this paragraph is that there are constant fires in Alaska.
Next paragraph should bring the point?
Paragraph 3:
Undoubtedly this has been going on a longe time and will continue. There are so many variables, including the variability of solar distance etc. that I still have my doubts that programmers have them all installed per actual natural conditions.
One point was thus to show an example of some random variable that may affect climate models. The author does not seem to care enough about the issue to actually research the actual data. It could have been easy to find information like this or this that explain the real scientific interpretation. Hint: yes fire from forest causes a lot of CO2 to be realeases, but since temperatures have been going up, we can expect less precipitations and thus even more fire, adding to the other positive feedback effect that might increase global warming.
The other point is to raise skepticism regarding climate models. That’s a valid approach in any scientific endeavor. Unfortunately, the author rejects the conclusions of the same scientists who have been working for decades on these models.
For a long time they denied any need to consider solar output variablity.
... so the implication is that now they do, correct? So you are saying that they corrected their model but they are still wrong? Instead of concluding that the models must thus me more accurate now, you prefer to conclude that they are dishonest and/or stupid and cannot be trusted?
And they predicted increased hurricanes.
Stronger hurricanes you mean. It’s just a matter of simple heat exchange principles: more heat moves more energy; more energy creates bigger storms.
...The complexity is approximated on the things they think they know. But do they take into account power reduction of more efficient computer monitors around the world? Surely that is as significant as banning inhalers. Maybe they do. I have serious doubts.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be the conclusion of this entire subject: those climate experts cannot be trusted.
People who have dedicated their entire life to various science fields, from studies of the ocean to the air, land and even space, and have all come up to similar conclusions, must be stupid and/or dishonest. They cannot be trusted.
More to the point, the Romans survived hotter temperatures and I suspect that we will, too.
Hotter temperatures will not kill anybody of course. Why not research about what the actual reasons to be worried are?
...I don't consider warming to be much of an issue at all
After stating ‘Romans survived hotter temperature’ as a standard, no one can blame the author for not seeing a few degrees of warming as critical.
For that reason alone it seems necessary to make sure that the science is pristine. I suspect that it is not really possible for it to actually be pristine, no matter how many satellites they put up. (on second thought, with enough satellites up there, less sun would get through...)
Should we understand that the author thus consider the scientific research directed at the Earth’s climate to be futile as accurate predictions will never be good enough to worry about the potential consequences?
Unfortunately I'm gonna have to agree with PM on this one. This is EXACTLY why I can't stand politics, and especially American politics.
ReplyDeletePolitics is the mind killer.
Stan is clearly a lover of logic and reason, and is very precise in his analysis of physicalism (what he calls "philosophical materialism"). His writings on this subject are always about examining the arguments. The logical validity of them and the truth of their premises.
But when a political issue comes up, it devolves into Blue Team vs Green Team (to borrow terminology from Byzantine chariot racing). Global warming is an issue championed by Green Team. Therefore, all arguments from Green Team must be opposed, no matter what they are. If Green Team says "we must oppose the eating of babies", then by golly, that viewpoint must be opposed. Blue Team has to win, and Green Team has to lose.
I see Bill Valicella on maverickphilosopher.typepad.com do the same thing. Rational examination of arguments, and then a post that links to a blog about a piece of global warming research that COMPLETELY misconstrues the whole thing: the concern, how it's concluded, the evidence for it, etc. And Valicella eats it up uncritically, because it supports Blue Team. It's very weird to see such rational people suddenly chuck reason out the window when politics is in play.
This is not to excuse Green Team, though. Not at all. There is no less than the same effect on the other side. Just look at all the ridiculous reports of the current heat wave being evidence for global warming.
Politics turns people into chest-beating apes.
Count me out.
This article from Scientific American demonstrates the fallacy of expecting accuracy from current models: the actual data is not yet in concerning the self-limiting effects of the feedback loops, even the major ones, such as CO2 sink in oceans due to glacier melt and resultant increase in plant life.
ReplyDeleteAtheo-leftists like to claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", yet they line up behind science which remains hypothetical, with only temporally unfalsifiable hypotheses (computer programs) available, which cannot be confirmed or denied until time allows their actual empirical observation.
Belief in hypotheses which cannot be currently empirically verified or falsified is religious thinking. Basing world policy and wealth redistribution on that thinking is irrational. I stick by that.
It is not possible to separate the science from the politics in the case of AGW.
I'll add this:
ReplyDeletePolitics involves defending one's worldview and desired way of life. If politics is ignored, then you lose your chance to influence that future.
There are two very clear cut and oppositional political forces in play today. I fail to see how anyone could not at least choose one to be against, even if not choosing one to be for.
As for me, I choose personal freedom of thought and action tempered by positive character-driven constraints, as opposed to nanny government top-down driven legislated ethical constraints based on the whims of corrupt political hacks and special interests.
To me this is too important to ignore.