Posted on 02/21/2007 8:41:11 AM PST by TBP
The question about warming is neither interesting nor important. The ice core data shows that the "global climate" is constantly in flux, either warming or cooling.
"Global warmers" appear to take as their point of departure that warming (or cooling) is unnatural - and that therefore an extrinsic explanation, preferably mankind's failure to adopt socialism, must be the answer.
I have no doubt that the northern hemisphere is warmer, on average, than it was in 1800. I also have no doubt that the localized effects of warming (Sahara changing from savanna to desert) or cooling (NYC under 2 miles of ice) can be catastrophic and can decimate human populations. All this has happened in the past, many times, and no doubt will happen in the future.
But what accounts for the foolish obsession about humans causing this latest natural fluctuation?
Humans didn't cause the warmings on Pluto and Mars. Neither did the Sun -- particularly recent solar variability. So what is happening on Earth is exclusive to Earth. And what is happening on Earth is anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming. Simple, eh?
No, that is not what she said, at any time. I supplied the exact quote in post 33. What you said was from a different source. A nice illustration about the usefulness of consulting the original sources instead of secondhand.
Objection overruled. The evidence clearly indicates that Heidi Cullen is a significant distributor of junk political controversy. Kidd has provided documented evidence of two cases. It is not Kidd's opinion that Ms. Cullen made reference to a non-peer reviewed website as a n authoratative source of information. Nor is it Kidd's opinion that Ms. Cullen produces a nightly show designed to produce fear.
Could you please tell the court, Mr Cogitator, why the Weather Channel is in a position to present a show that features earthquakes and civilization-ending meteors?
Actually, she did, as you know.
Only you, Algore, and Heil Heidi believ that. The climate has always warmed and cooled, warmend and cooled. Just in the 20th century, it cooled until about 1910, warmed until roughly 1940, cooled until the 1970s, warmed until the end of the century. The temperature has not gone up in several years. Your data simply doesn't hold up.
Right now, we appear to be in a warm cycle. But it's been warmer than today. There was a major warming in the Middle Ages, followed by a major cooling during the Renaissance. Were those anthropogenic? The medieval warm period was, according to most reports, at least as warm as the current era. We know that the Vikings farmed Greenland and wine was made in Nova Scotia. Try that today.
The temperature has gone up less than a degree in a century. Futhermore, most of that happened prior to 1940 and apparently none in the past few years, as the temperature is what it was about 7 years ago.
Anthropogenic theory is largely based on the hockey-stick model, which has been proven false and on computer projections that have been proven to be wrong. That's why people like Algore and Heil Heidi have to work overtime to suppress any discussion of the data on the issue and to ge critics of their opinions defunded. That's the only way they can establish their case.
Now consider this: CO2 is considered a greenhouse gas. Trees and other plants take in CO2, so planting more trees should reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There are more threes than ever before (thanks in large part to the paper companies), yet the Earth appears to be in a warming cycle.
Your sources:
the socialist former Vice President
some chick on TV who wants to decertify anyone who dares to disagree with her opinion
the left-wing, America-hating UN
Grist Magazine
several left-wing political orgnizations.
The article's sources:
Jonah Goldberg
the February 8 issue of the Los Angeles Times
Dr. Timothy Ball, a doctor of climatology and Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Canada Free Press
the Max Planck Institute
Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette
physician-scientist-author Michael Crichton
Bjorn Lonborg, a former member of Greenpeace
Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, authors of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
Professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University
Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences
So which list do you think has a higher degree of reliability?
Well...
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611052.shtml
"Dr. Heidi Cullen, a 'Climate Expert' for cable TV's 'The Weather Channel' believes that the cause of global warming is man-made. If you are a meteorologist, you too should agree. So sayeth Dr. Cullen.
An item from EPW points to a Cullen blog entry from December, (she hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code") and she is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
It appears that she is serious. Does she really wish to try to silence critics and stifle dissent?"
The article goes on to quote Heil Heidi as saying, "maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."
So it looks like Heil Heidi did say it. But this kind of intolerance of discussion is what I hvae come to expect from the pro-anthropogenicist side. I've sadly come to expect them to try to stifle any speech that disagrees with tehir opinion, and sadly, they keep living up to that expectation.
Well...
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272611052.shtml
"Dr. Heidi Cullen, a 'Climate Expert' for cable TV's 'The Weather Channel' believes that the cause of global warming is man-made. If you are a meteorologist, you too should agree. So sayeth Dr. Cullen.
An item from EPW points to a Cullen blog entry from December, (she hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code") and she is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.
It appears that she is serious. Does she really wish to try to silence critics and stifle dissent?"
The article goes on to quote Heil Heidi as saying, "maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."
So it looks like Heil Heidi did say it. But this kind of intolerance of discussion is what I hvae come to expect from the pro-anthropogenicist side. I've sadly come to expect them to try to stifle any speech that disagrees with tehir opinion, and sadly, they keep living up to that expectation.
One of the initial points is the warming on Mars and Pluto, which has nothing at all to do with variability of solar activity.
I wish more people on both sides would recognize that fact. It would avoid some really tedious and annoying comments from Algore and his worshippers as well as skeptics.
read later
After reading some of what cogitator posted I though I should inform you that post # 50 was meant as satire.
The burden of free speech is that you must deal with the religious fanatics.
Good one, Grizzled Bear.
Micheal Creighton's "State of Fear" is also fully referenced. And "State of Fear" also make reference to the non-science of the IPCC. Ms. Cullen chose to direct her readers to the work of fiction that would be preferred by the alarmists.
Why does the climate response to increased radiative forcing have to be linear? 1998 was the year of a monstrous El Nino -- and El Nino years are always warmer-than-normal years. 2005 was ranked ahead of 1998 by one group (GISS) and just less than 1998 by NOAA. And there was no El Nino in 2005, so it was a "normal" year. That means that the underlying trend is upward.
But it's been warmer than today.
Nothing quantitative/comparative can be said regarding global temperatures more than 400 years ago.
There was a major warming in the Middle Ages, followed by a major cooling during the Renaissance. Were those anthropogenic?
The actual sense of this was that the "Medieval Warm Period" was about as warm as now, and the Little Ice Age was colder. The LIA appears to have been colder due to lower solar activity.
Anthropogenic theory is largely based on the hockey-stick model, which has been proven false and on computer projections that have been proven to be wrong.
That's not accurate. The "hockey stick" is a paleoclimate temperature analysis. Anthropogenic GHG warming is based on the fact that atmospheric CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, and increasing concentrations absorb more infrared radiation, altering Earth's radiative balance.
Trees and other plants take in CO2, so planting more trees should reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There are more threes than ever before (thanks in large part to the paper companies), yet the Earth appears to be in a warming cycle.
The Mauna Loa (Keeling) CO2 curve shows the uptake of CO2 seasonally by northern forests. The curve shows a continuing upward trend, indicating that CO2 sinks are insufficient to fully absorb the CO2 added to the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion.
If you would still like enlightenment on the science errors in the article, ask a a question about the science in the article.
Isn't that curve linear?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.