Jun 22 2006
Global Warming Hypocrisy
You only need to notice one thing in this news about a record high Earth temperature in 400 years : The human condition 400 years ago. Somehow the billions more people on the planet since 1606 have just now created the necessary greenhouse conditions to replicate the weather from that very hot year. Which means the conditions that led to this years temperatures may be the same ones that led to the heat wave 400 years ago. Which eliminates all the usual suspects from modern human activities (like cars). Global warming is happening, the problem is there is no proof or evidence this is about human activities versus something much larger like a global, solar system or even larger still cyclic phenomena. Global conditions have been cycling through their natural phases for billions of years on this planet, and we have only begun to grasp the very surface of these forces in the last 100-150 years. In 1900 there was no concept of crustal plates, or the age of the earth, or the size of the universe, etc. What makes people so arrogant they think in a mere 100 years we can understand billions of years of natural forces? Liberal arrogance it seems.
Lief Erikson, 1000 AD, Greenland
This is one of my favorite subjects! I posted an article with a lot of links here in a thread at Red State when the “poison ivy” thing came out last month.
Truth is nobody disputes that climate is warming. In fact, we have ALMOST fully recovered from “The Little Ice Age” to what temperatures were before that event. One interesting fact is that the thermometer and both temperature scales currently in use were invented at about the end of the LIA and so naturally, all recorded temperatures show a rise as the climate “recovers”.
There have been at least two and possibly three periods in THIS interglacial (interglacial is a period between ice ages) when the climate has been warmer and sea levels higher than today. When the Roman empire spread across the Alps and into Europe, the Alps were practically glacier-free.
The interglacial before this one (the warm period before the last ice age) was MUCH warmer than this interglacial has been with forests reaching hundreds of miles further north into what is currently tundra and permafrost.
The truth is the climate varies. It is almost always warming or cooling. It does not stay stable. The temperatures being experianced today are not unusual nor unprecidented. Studies showing a massive increase in rate of temperature rise have been shown to be flawed. Every single forecasting model has also proved to fail as they tend to run the climate into either runaway ice age or runaway warming and stay there forever.
If you follow that link to climateaudit.org note that it is a scientific site NOT a political site. Unless you have a rather extensive math background, particularly in statistics, you are probably better off reading and learning than commenting.
I’m still waiting for the coming ice age my teachers told me about in the 50s! Don’t confuse me with ‘new’ truths.
Apparently the global warming alarmists are terrified that the National Academy of Sciences has just ripped one of their most precious jewels away from them: the Mann et al “hockey stick” graph.
As I show, the liberals and the media are covering up the fact that the NAS report concluded that the graph could not be relied upon, while pretending that this doesn’t matter in the overall conclusion on climate change.
Riiiight. The 2001 IPCC report virtually revolved around the Mann et al graph, and Al Gore features the graph in his movie. Big wonder why they don’t want anyone to find out that the NAS has just raked it over the coals. The best they can hope to do is the same as NAS: pretend that it doesn’t matter.
Actually, if you look at a graph of this entire interglacial, we are in a general cooling trend. The Holocene Optimum was the warmest period in this interglacial. Then the next warmest was the Medieval Warm Period but it never warmed to the extent of the Holocene Optimum. It will be interesting to see if we ever reach the level of the MWP in this warming.
There is another thing to consider too. As we went into the Little Ice Age there was a period of about 50 years when there were nearly NO sunspots. This is known as the “maunder minimum”. This coming sunspot cycle is expected to be one of the most active maximums we have ever seen. We can get an indication of this because there is a solar “conveyor belt” or convection mechanism that seems to be a pre-indicator of solar sunspot cycles. But an interesting thing has just happened … the conveyor belt has practically stopped. It is at its lowest activity rate ever recorded. In other words, after this next very active sunspot cycle, indications are that the NEXT one will be one of the weakest we have ever seen. So while Cycle 24 that reaches maximum around 2010/2011 will be quite active, the following one that reaches maximum in 2022/2023 appears that it might be extremely weak. There is some evidence to suggest that there might be a corresponding cooling with the weaker cycle.
Have a glance at this article and notice the solar activity while keeping in mind the global warming issue. In the late 1800’s when we were just starting to recover from the LIA, the activity was low. There was a strong ramp up through the 1920’s, 30’s, and 40’s (which is, interestingly, the time when global warming was at it’s maximum rate or increase).
Crosspatch,
I remember reading on Jerry Pournelle’s blog that an MIT doctoral candidate in the mathematics field took the Mann, Bradley and Hughes data apart and found they fudged some data and flat out fabricated some. When they were confronted with the allegations they confessed. The whole thing was reported in a scientific journal and quickly swept under the rug in late 2002 early 2003. Were you aware of that event and do you know which publication reported on it? I’ve lost all my links to it.
C’mon guys, you’re going back too far. For libs, history began this morning. That includes climate. It was hot here in AZ today, must be man made global warming. And don’t even try to bring in the receding polar ice caps on Mars. Bush caused that too.
The month of Jan, this year, was the hottest Jan since——-When?
One hundred 5 years ago, that would be 1901 wouldn’t it? Must have been all that fossil fuel we were using back then? yea, right.
Actually, the spin the press has been giving this isn’t even correct. What was put out was that all the data in the studies before 400 years ago pretty much needs to be tossed out because of flaws in data sources, cherry picking, improper analysis, etc. They stated that it was “plausable” that we could be at the warmest point in 2000 years, only the last 400 years’ data was good enough to use and even that data is disputed by all but those firmly in the “Church of Global Warming”.
A link to some scientific discussion surrounding the report is here. I would again remind people that climateaudit is a scientific forum, not a political forum and some of the conversations can be hard to follow with out a strong academic background in math (statistics in particular) and/or science. Political comments and general blather aren’t generally received well but if you have an honest question about something, folks there are willing to get you pointed in the right direction.
Using a 400 year time frame, they can conveniently ignore the Medieval Optimum, a time when the earth was signifcantly warmer than now.
Therein lies the rub; their version of science is, as others pointed out above, cherrypick their data.
So how much credence do you give to blatently dishonest liars and frauds, or the generally insane, ala Algore?