For the Global Warming Naysayers . . .

When it was this warm 400 years ago there were no man made greenhouse emissions. So this is just natural cycles the earth goes through. Good job!:thumbs: Thanks for the update.

 

Then you might find this interesting
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2005/03/growing_glacier.html

 

Those links are spot-on donnA, all the evidence points to Earth heading for another ice age.

I was taught that at school 20 years ago.

 

According to the chart the average temperature has risen about 1/2 a degree in the last 1000 years?

Do we know, without any doubt, the temperatures from 200, 400, 800, or 1000 years ago? What caused the tremendous rise in temperature around the year 1150? What about the great drop in temperature around the year 1450?

I have not taken one side or the other on this issue. But, after reading this story and seeing this chart, I am again moved away from the "global warming is a fact" crowd.

 

"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

 

This graph is not fact. The word "potentially" is used. The graph was made to communicate theory. However, "“The numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years" means that it has been at least four hundred years since it last happened. Hence, it has happened prior to 400 years ago. Again, earths natural cycles.

 

Thirty years ago we were being warned that the earth going into another ice age.

Authoritarian types just use cooler temperatures, warmer temperatures, less rain, more rain, etc. to try to gin up support for more government interference in the the lives of individuals.

Weather happens. Get used to it. :smilewinkgrin:

By the way, on another board someone stated that an ice age is the long term result of global warming. Well, an ice age wasn't being warned about in the context of global warming back in the 1970s.

I don't doubt that the earth is getting warmer. But I do think it's a bunch of hooey that mankind can do anything substantive about it.

 

Libs cry out about lost liberties, and then use global warming to take our liberties from us.

Restricting our water use, our fuel use, our vehicle choices, etc.

 

We're not heading into an ice age, we are in one, but also within an interglaciation period. Ice ages last a reeeeallly long time and there are flucuations within them.

I don't see why you'd find this reassuring.

 

I agree. I support conservationism, not environmentalism.

 

Yeah, darn libs took away the right to dump raw sewage and ketones into the rivers. The took our freedom to use leaded gas and lead paint in our own homes. They made the car manufaturers put safety devices in the cars, dagblastit! They took our freedom to use asbestos as insulation in our homes! They forced us to clean up the air and the water, dang libs! Why can't they mind their own bizniz!

 

"...there have been two fundamental truths about national environmental policy. first, and most important, is that our Federal environmental laws, without exception, have been the product of a bipartisan and geographically diverse initiative -- in many cases, like the Clean Air Act and The Clean Water Act, unanimously or near unanimously approved in each House of Congress."

http://www.muskiefoundation.org/leon.missouri.html

 

I just couldn't pass up this opportunity. :laugh:

I agree 100% with KenH. raise:


It's the first time I've been able to do that, and it feels good. :applause:

 

Heard someone present a rebuttal to this stuff based on the flaws in the sampling techniques. One half of a degree might be a real difference or it may just be "noise" in the accuracy of the data.

 

My Mom's adage was "you mess it up, you clean it up."

Personal responsibility isn't exactly the byword in the WH these days. "You can't prove anything" seems to be the motto now.

 

Part of my job is to gather, confirm and analyze scientific data. After an indepth study of global warming, another issue needs to be considered. Only in the past 50 to 100 years has the data been gathered properly and we cannot even be certain of the type of measurements taken 100 years ago and back.

When you do data analysis and your comparing apples to oranges, your first rule is to throw out the data that is questionable. That means that I would have to throw out everything pre-1900 (for sure) and possibly more.

This is only ONE of the problems we have with these so called scientific global warming charts.

Now, let me be CLEAR. I am NOT saying that the world climate is not changing, but we have cycles in the past that we have no conclusive data that we can study.

The bottom line is, all we can do is speculate, right now and understand there are two factors: one is cyclical climate changes, the second is variation of accuracy of previous data. The best we can do today is make certain that our data is maintained as accurately as possible and that baselines are passed along so that future scientists will understand specifically how we gathered our data.

The problem is: there is just no good historical data. I often find out that when I'm running a test that short term data fluctuations usually lead us down a wrong path. You can never come to conclusions on ratty data.:thumbs:

 

I'm not a scientist, but I agree that it is very iffy to say that we know what the temperature was hundreds of years ago.