Senate Report: Gore Lies, Media Biased, Advocates Misrepresent

[Ned]

It is interesting how doing something, such as reducing aerosol polution, can have an unexpected negative collateral effects such as adding to global warming. I am thinking now that the cooling we experiences from the 30s until the mid '70s had something to do with aerosol polution. When that was brought under control in the 70s, the world began to warm (again).

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If you're not completely sold on Global Warming (I'm not), why not do something to lower our dependence on oil just for national security reasons? The reduced reason to give a crap about the ME alone would go along way to make the effort worthwhile IMO.

Absolutely agreed

-Arrian

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned "hockey stick," which is patently false

BS



The only argument's I've heard attacking that graph is circular reasoning that goes something like "Everybody know the Medievval Warm Period was this huge climatic event so the chart is wrong a priori".

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Odin


BS



The only argument's I've heard attacking that graph is circular reasoning that goes something like "Everybody know the Medievval Warm Period was this huge climatic event so the chart is wrong a priori".

Pardon my ingnorance, but wtf were you attempting to prove by placing a graph that relies on hockey stick analysis (MBH based).

As for the only arguement heard..., I suggest you simply click on any of seemingly thousand links provided to climateaudit.org to educate yourself.

I would specifically search on Wegman reports to show how the hockey stick was analyzed (in a peer reviewed paper) showing the extremely suspect MBH studies. The Wegman report came after the latest NAS proclomation wherein they backed off of the contention that the latest decade was the warmest on record over a 2000 year period and revised it to the latest 400 years (which just so happens to conincides with the ending of the MWP).

Yes the hockey stick while not completely dead has suffered mightily by this refutation.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Likewise this from a blogger at the AGU (American Geophysical Union) as of yesterday.

No Longer a Hockey Stick
At the American Geophysical Union meeting this morning I attended a session featuring some heavyweights in the climate-change debate (see the abstracts). Leading researcher Michael Mann spoke, as did his longtime gadfly Steve McIntyre and several other researchers. If I may speak as only a moderately informed spectator, McIntyre focused on weaknesses in the climate-related data supporting the hegemony of the global-warming consensus, and on flaws in the application of that data. Mann focused on his newest analytical methods, which are impressive. I believe both have standing and both have valid things to say. Neither was especially respectful of the other, but McIntyre's critics were more cutting, and one person, who I'm informed was Malcolm Hughes, was quite rude. The stakes are high and so are tempers. (For better informed perspectives, see realclimate.org for the consensus and climateaudit.org for the gadflies.)
Anyway, what I meant to say is that the classic "hockey stick" curve of global average temperature, jerking upward in the 20th century after 2000 years of muddling around a straight line, is looking less dramatic as the record improves. Doubts about the tree-ring records were admitted and explored, and a lot of effort has gone into finding other sources of proxy temperature data. But the tropics are still poorly represented, and the complexities of climate, beyond a mere global average temperature, are now getting more detailed consideration. While we have much to learn and many mistakes to discover and correct, I do not think that the basic conclusion, that humans are seriously disturbing the global climate, will collapse.

Link

[Ned]

Odin, what are your explainations for the temperature "decline" between 1940 and 1980, and since 1998?

[chequita guevara]

Ned, have you ever gone up a hill, and there's been a dip in the road on the way up? Climate is a chaotic system, and even in trends there can be minor reversals.

[Solly]

Cheg,

The problem is you don't know the road, you've only been travelling on it for 200 yards, and you can't see ahead for thick fog.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Likewise this from a blogger at the AGU (American Geophysical Union) as of yesterday.



Link

Nothing Mann has done has been impressive.

Still at least we have a newer generation of climate scientists coming through, who this time aren't the ecotheologician dregs of the 1970s but instead the bright would-be lawyers and engineers who are going where the money is.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Man made global warming finally explained

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ned, have you ever gone up a hill, and there's been a dip in the road on the way up? Climate is a chaotic system, and even in trends there can be minor reversals.

Agreed.

So the massive rise in temperatures since the end of the mini-ice age (1850) had largely nothing to do with man, even though it is the most significant global warming we have experience in the lass x-thousand years. The only portion of the so-called hockey stick that could be related to human activites is that since 1980. But even this rise was shortlived. Since '98, temperatures have remained "flat."

As I said before, the correlation between termperatures and CO2 is not good as the greatest increases occurred before significant CO2 increases and when CO2 was climbing strongly, the temperatures, at times, went down or went flat.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


I'm pretty sure Barbara Boxer has that title completely sown up.

And you base this on? She's been a damn fine senator as far as the people of this state are concerned.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned


Agreed.

So the massive rise in temperatures since the end of the mini-ice age (1850) had largely nothing to do with man, even though it is the most significant global warming we have experience in the lass x-thousand years. The only portion of the so-called hockey stick that could be related to human activites is that since 1980. But even this rise was shortlived. Since '98, temperatures have remained "flat."

The fact that that period corresponds to the massive increase in industrialization means nothing to you, Ned?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The fact that that period corresponds to the massive increase in industrialization means nothing to you, Ned?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

"Figure 11 compares the trend in atmospheric temperatures predicted by computer models adopted by the IPCC with that actually observed during the past 19 years those years in which the highest atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs have occurred.

In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, atmospheric GHGs have risen substantially. Yet atmospheric temperatures have not risen. In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other GHGs, temperatures have fallen."

[Aeson]

I'm not sure what affect we are having on global climate, but regardless... air pollution sucks. The cleaner our air the better. If a GW scare can help in that regard... I'm not complaining. Besides, if we're really worried about human life, pollution is already claiming it's share. If terrorists were killing the number of US citizens each year that air pollution was... we'd be bombing (more) countries left and right... and worldwide the number is in the millions of premature deaths each year according to the WHO.

Pollution is already a big enough problem regardless of what GW turns out to really do.

I don't necessarily buy that reducing emissions has to have a negative impact on our economy either. It would be a stimulus for industry providing upgraded, cleaner methods of production and energy. Using home-grown alternative energy sources could also reduce our dependancy on foreign oil, keeping dollars and jobs here in the US, and get us further removed from the vast moneypit that is ME politics/war. Not to mention cutting the lost man-hours due to air pollution related illnesses, medical costs, and simple quality of life that comes with having air that doesn't stink, and a sky you can see through. Try buying that upgrade for your house in LA... not even movie-stars can afford that. You gotta leave town to find it.

Sure, the oil barons (and their puppets) aren't going to like it, and energy costs would be higher, which is why it won't happen... but it could work if we actually wanted to work it, and could be a tremendous boon to the quality of life here in the US.