Return of the Gore
The American Thinker discusses a possible return of the Gore. I can only ADD:
GO, AL, GO!
What a pleasure it would be to do business on, er, with Mr. Ozone again!
GO, AL, GO!
What a pleasure it would be to do business on, er, with Mr. Ozone again!
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:16 AM
12 Comments:
According to that website, the fact that the Arctic had a tropical climate 55,000,000 years ago is somehow proof that there isn't global warming today. Or something.
Gore has little to fear. He tied last time, BEFORE America saw what George W. Bush and three-branch Republican leadership would do to our country. The majority voted for him last time, and a majority likely wants a do-over now.
ever heard of the Midieval Warming Period, anonymous? (Temps were a couple of degrees warmer than now) How about the Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age?
Our climate is rebounding along a normal curve-it`s risen a whole degree since the end of the 19th Century!
GO, AL, GO!
Yes, I am aware of the false claim that the Medieval Warm Period somehow stands in opposition to the current scientific understanding of global warming.
Not surprisingly, I also understand why those false claims are false and why the MWP doesn't actually matter.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today/
As for the Little Ice Age, there is substantial disagreement over whether it was actually a global event or was instead localized to Europe, where it just so happened that most of the record-keepers happened to live.
What is not in dispute is that current greenhouse gas levels are higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, totally swamping out any alleged effect of either MWP or LIA.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/
Birdy, the days when reasonable people could deny the reality of this problem are over. It's just the "tobacco doctors" who still play pretend now.
You want to hate on Gore, fine, enjoy. But if you want to do it credibly, you'll have to focus on another issue, because any fair examination of the documented and peer-reviewed evidence shows that when it comes to global warming, he is right.
Anonymous, you can claim (and believe) whatever you want; the facts are inconventient to you, so you just dismiss them with a waive of your hand. I suppose those those olive trees in Germany were transported there by Exxon-Mobile!
Oh, and I suppose these scientists who disagree (along with Fred Singer) are merely corporate shills.
If you knew anything about solar activity, you would understand that we have been in a steadily accelerating solar period. That explains why the data shows no rise in atmospheric temperatures, while a slight rise in Ocean temps-just what you would expect if increased solar activity were at fault.
But, I suppose, that too is some kind of trick by Big Oil.
And I repeat; I am not going to get worked up about a 1* rise in worldwide temperatures.
GO AL GO!
TB, YOU are the person who is "dismissing" what is inconvenient for you. I posted specific scientific refutations of the alleged importance of the Medieval Warming Period, and your response is to mock and psychoanalyze me. It's enough to make me think that you have no grasp of this topic whatsoever and are just idly bluffing your way through this discussion.
As for "all these scientists who disagree:"
First, I won't speak for "all" of them, but I will say that Scientific American was able to find out that at least SOME of them were either misled by the terms of the petition and later regretted it, or came to disagree with it later. Others had no idea the petition with their names on it existed, and some more who were proud of having signed it turned out to be speaking so far outside their fields of expertise that their signatures frankly were meaningless.
http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21
Moving right along to what the actual text says... frankly, even if all the scientists were legit, the document--like the Medieval Warm Period--is not nearly as important as you are pretending it is.
http://timlambert.org/2004/05/oregonpetition/
They don't dispute the existence of anthropogenic global warming: they disagree that it will cause a catastrophe. In other words, they are already on the evil commie hippie satanic Al Gore brigade in terms of believing in the science--they just don't want to spend as much money to solve the problem. So they're everybody you already hate, they're just CHEAP. Way to pick your friends, Birdy.
The origins of that petition are very sketchy, by the way, with its commissioner stretching so far to act like it had the seal of approval of the National Academy of the Sciences that NAS had to issue a formal statement denouncing the wording he used, totally disassociating themselves from his little homework project, and adding that all of his presuppositions and conclusions were far, far outside the mainstream of the scientific community.
As for Fred Singer, I think he is one scientist out of the global scientific community, and his voice needs to be considered in proportion to the number of voices raised against him.
Since we're swapping informed opinion of scientists, TB, why don't you tell me your thoughts about Naomi Oreskes?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Heck, don't be bashful--why don't you tell me what you think of the entire mainstream climate-science community? Probably the same as what you think of the entire mainstream bio-science community, I anticipate. So, is global warming a gigantic conspiracy of evil lies, meant to destroy the U.S. economy on purpose? Or are all these experts actually idiots, and you, with your common sense from your gut, know their own field better than they do? Please, tell me. Colbert Report is still in reruns and I could use an ironic chuckle or two.
Anonymous, once again, I admire the courage of your conviction, and the boldness behind your screenname.
First, let me start by saying that I don`t have the time to spend hours looking up references to make you happy. I assume you`re the same anonymous who keeps pestering me about this, and I`ve dealt with this ad-nauseum with you before. Your link about the MWP to a pro-GW site doesn`t overly impress me. Furthermore, this was not even the point of the original post, and you are tying up my time fruitlessly, as you and I will not agree. I don`t see any reason to spend a large amount of time arguing. Still, I`ll give you a couple of minutes.
David Deming at the University of Oaklahoma`s College of Geosciences published an article in the journal Science in which he noted a 1* rise in temperatures in over a century. As he has stated:
With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
Mann has been most uncooperative with people investigating his methodology, also.
THAT, Anonymous, is why I take your arguments about the MWP with a grain of salt.
I notice you didn`t answer me about the olives in Germany, or the winegrapes in England. We KNOW they were there. Since you`re so gung-ho on links, go here to read a piece which disagrees with several of the articles you`ve sited.
Go here for a refutation of Mann`s hokey stick (pdf-sorry.) I also direct you to this summary of historical temperatures.
I really don`t care about Scientific American`s supposed ``random`` sampling of signiators. Nor do I care about the efforts to discredit the petition itself.
There is enormous pressure in Academia to acquiese to the current intellectual fashion, and how many ``closet`` anti-warming scientists are forced to shut up or face grave consequences? How much governmental and foundational money is riding on this? You don`t get grants by claiming the sky isn`t falling.
How many advocates of socialism still reside on college campuses? I`ve seen way too many lies from academia over the years.
I couldn`t read the teenie-tiny print on your last link, but is the online petition itself, and a long discussion of the problems with Gw by Singer. Please note that the signiatories had to actually send in a card, making the claim they didn`t know about it dubious.
The ``consensus`` of scientists isn`t all you seem to think it is, either. Even an environmentalist wacko like bjorn Lomborg expresses doubts about the hysterical reactions to unknown phonomena.
As to Naomi Oreskes, you, of course, want me to submit Bennie Peiser-whom you will, of course try to shoot down. You seem awfully willing to accept the word of a minor historian at UC San Diego in THIS instance, anonymous. You generally worship experts.
But then, there`s this:
Only 9.4% of 530 leading climatologists -- fewer than one in 10 -- recently surveyed by Prof. Dennis Bray, of the German coastal research station in Geesthacht, "strongly agreed" with the statement that "climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes."
Intriguingly, 9.7% strongly disagreed. Marginally more scientists strongly oppose the current warming theory than strongly support it.
On a scale from 1 to 7, with 1 being "strongly agree" and 7 "strongly disagree," the average score among Dr. Bray's subjects was 3.62 -- smack dab in the middle. While this is up from 4.17 in 1996, the last time Bray took the pulse, it is hardly an overwhelming endorsement. At best, it's neutral.
Considering you have the same people engaged in this kind of work who use the same models, and site the same sources, and publish through the same outlets, it`s unlikely that you would find much dissent on so politicized an issue. You know that, or you should, if you have any experience with academia.
There are numerous scientists who disagree with your consensus; Dr.Roy Spencer, University of Alabama and Senior Scientist for Nasa`s Marshall Spaceflight Center, Dr. Robert Balling Jr.Professor of Climatology at Arizona State U., Gary Sharps, scientific director center for ocean and resource studies and scientific advisor to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Research Advisory Panel, Patrick Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, CATO Institute Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, and visiting scientist with the Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C. past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society.S.
Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Fred Singer Now President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit policy research group he founded in 1990, Singer is also Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. His previous government and academic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).
avid G. Aubrey, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
Nathaniel B. Guttman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, National Climatic Data Center
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D., Meteorologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Center for Meteorology and Physical Meteorology, M.l.T.
Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Roger Pielke, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
Michael Garstang, Ph.D., Professor of Meteorology, University of Virginia
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory
Lev S. Gandin, Ph.D., UCAR Scientist, National Meteorological Center
John A. McGinley, Chief, Forecast Research Group, Forecast Systems Laboratory, NOAA
H. Jean Thiebaux, Ph.D., Research Scientist, National Meteorological Center, National Weather Service, NOM
Kenneth V. Beard, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Illinois
Paul W. Mielke, Jr., Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Statistics, Colorado State University
Thomas Lockhart, Meteorologist, Meteorological Standards Institute
Peter F. Giddings, Meteorologist, Weather Service Director
Hazen A. Bedke, Meteorologist, Former Regional Director, National Weather Service
Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D., Eminent Professor, Old Dominion University
Roy Leep, Executive Weather Director, Gillett Weather Data Services
Terrance J. Clark, Meteorologist, U.S. Air Force
Neil L Frank, Ph.D., Meteorologist
Michael S. Uhart, Ph.D., Meteorologist, National Weather Service
Bruce A. Boe, Ph.D., Director, North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board
Andrew Detwiler, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, S. Dakota School of Mines & Technology
Robert M. Cunningham, Consulting Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Steven R. Hanna, Ph.D., Sigma Research Corporation
Elliot Abrams, Meteorologist, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather, Inc.
William E. Reifenyder, Ph.D., Consulting Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus, Forest Meteorology, Yale University
David W. Reynolds, Research Meteorologist
Jerry A. Williams, Meteorologist, President, Oceanroutes, IncLee W. Eddington, Meteorologist, Geophysics Division, Pacific Missile Test Center
Werner A. Baum, Ph.D., former Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, Florida State University
David P. Rogers, Ph.D., Assoc. Professor of Research Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Brian Fiedler, Ph.D., Asst. Professor of Meteorology, School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma
Edward A. Brandes, Meteorologist
Melvyn Shapiro, Chief of Meteorological Research, Wave Propagation Laboratory, NOM
Joseph Zabransky, Jr., Associate Professor of Meteorology, Plymouth State College
James A. Moore, Project Manager, Research Applications Program, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Daniel J. McNaughton, ENSR Consulting and Engineering
Brian Sussman, Meteorologist
Robert D. Elliott, Meteorologist, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
H. Read McGrath, Ph.D., Meteorologist
Earl G. Droessler, Ph.D., North Carolina State University
Robert E. Zabrecky, Meteorologist
William M. Porch, Ph.D., Atmospheric Physicist, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Earle R. Williams, Ph.D, Assoc. Prof. of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
But, I guess these guys don`t count, as Naomi Oreskes has stated.
Your claim that this is settled science is disingenuous, at best. By the way, you really should at least make up a name, so I can tell you anonymouses apart; perhaps tlaloc?
Aussiegirl said:
Tim -- I bow to your superior knowledge on this topic. Let me just add that NOAA and the experts at the Hurricane Center, along with most meteorologists will tell you that the increasing storms are not due to global warming but are a repetition of a pattern of storm severity. We are leaving a long quiet period of few storms and entering another era similar to the 40's and 50's when the frequency and severity of storms was much greater. And the anonymouses never tell us what they want us to do and how they expect to reduce these greenhouse gases since even Algore refuses to give us his corporate jet and his frequent travel miles. Of course, he makes the ludicrous claim that he is somehow "carbon neutral" -- the new way that greenies try to make themselves feel better for riding around in evil cars and for heating their homes with natural gas and lighting them with electricity. But gee -- they probably hang out their clothes to dry on a line like Babs Streisand does (or at least recommends to us peons to do), or some similar nonsense. And let's look at "greenhouse gases" -- it's true that there are correlations between such gases and periods of global warming in the record -- but the awkward fact is that these gases FOLLOW periods of warming -- not precede them. Well, we could talk all day - but anonymouses should give themselves a number of an identifier so we could tell them all apart.
First of all, TB, I am not a prior poster to this website. I have posted to this thread and one other, both in just the last few days, end of story. It never occurred to me to try to personalize myself because your site has such low traffic it seemed unnecessary. I would just be The Other Person Here Besides Birdnow.
Peiser actually raises good and fair points, and troubling too. Unfortunately Oreskes' paper is peer-reviewed and published, and Peiser's response is not. Since peer-review is one of the best ways to separate actual science from commonsense quackery (hence why the contrarians have so little science on their side), anything that has not yet passed peer-review really just doesn't count for much. If Peiser is acting in good faith and if he has the details he claims to, he can simply submit to another journal of equal credibility.
Speaking of scientific practices, you say "you don't get grants by claiming the sky isn't falling"? Funny, that, because it's actually the other way around. Science is so ferociously competitive that the best way to get fame and fortune is to be able to prove that all of your colleagues are wrong. If any two scientists appear to say the same thing, far more likely than fruitless bandwagonning is that one of them stole results from the other and rushed to publication first. So the groupthink that you hold responsible for why this discussion is so one-sided really cannot exist--it would represent a net loss of both money and prestige for any of the conspirators. You know that, or you should, if you have any experience with academia. But by all means, continue to mutter so: conspiracies are what the Internet is for!
Oh, and first OISM and now Bjorn Lomborg? As you even admit, Lomborg is enough of a "wacko" that he believes global warming is real, that humans have contributed to it, and that it will have bad effects we'll want to stop. As before, he's just much cheaper than Al Gore. Your continued citing of sources that undercut your own position looks pretty desperate from here. But I understand. They can't ALL be Fred Singer.
And in the midst of your rather creative excuses not to look at sources from beyond your preapproved ideological bubble ("I don't CARE how SciAm was able to show that some of the petitioners don't actually exist"), you've still managed to completely breeze past the teensy little detail of the 650,000 year record of greenhouse gas concentrations. Instead you come back yet again to olives and grapes. Well, I'll have you know that global warming is actually proven by kiwis and kumquats, my good man! Hee hee, sorry, but it was just too good an opening to pass up. Seriously, the next time I need a winning slice at Trivial Pursuit I will earnestly hope for that little hobbyist-point of yours to be the subject of the question. It would certainly be in that league.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
First off, I suspect you are being untruthful anonymous; you started an argument over global warming, assuming I knew something about it. That fact strongly suggests that you were familiar with my prior posts. The post you responded to was about politics-not about the science of climate change. Be ashamed.
Also, if you really had the courage of your convictions you would post your name; why are you fighting with me if no-one is reading? You should feel more comfortable.
You state;
Peiser actually raises good and fair points, and troubling too. Unfortunately Oreskes' paper is peer-reviewed and published, and Peiser's response is not. Since peer-review is one of the best ways to separate actual science from commonsense quackery (hence why the contrarians have so little science on their side), anything that has not yet passed peer-review really just doesn't count for much. If Peiser is acting in good faith and if he has the details he claims to, he can simply submit to another journal of equal credibility.
You fail to mention which peers reviewed this; Oreskes is an historian, not a climate scientist, a statistician, nor a geologist. In fact, the claim that 100% of the liturature available is in agreement is absolutely incredible, and should give any serious analyst pause. Also, the blatant call to political action in an otherwise serious publication does nothing to aid Oreskes credibility in the slightest.
Here is another piece which discredits the Oreskes study.
You state;
Speaking of scientific practices, you say "you don't get grants by claiming the sky isn't falling"? Funny, that, because it's actually the other way around.
That`s why we had the Ozone scares of the `70`s through `90`s, I suppose; academics who said we weren`t going to die of cancer because any ozone depletion was a natural phonomenon were given lots of money! Isn`t it odd that those who panicked over ozone depletion are the same people who tout global warming, and who touted global cooling in the `70`s?
How about the ``nuclear winter`` people who wanted a nuclear freeze in the `80`s?
The money goes to the squeeky wheel-and in the last thirty years or so to those who advance the cause of the Left.
Your continued citing of sources that undercut your own position looks pretty desperate from here. But I understand. They can't ALL be Fred Singer.
You are a dishonest anonymous; I`ve given you repeated examples of scientists who disagree, yet you plug your ears and sing ``la, la, la`` because it doesn`t fit your worldview. You didn`t bother to read the Baliunis and Soon piece, nor did you look over the list of abstracts I linked up. You further ignore Bray. (You do a good job of braying yourself, I might add!) You simply pretend they don`t exist. You need to stop being such an ignoranonymous.
I don`t care about the Scientific American piece; why should I put any faith in a survey of 30 out of (what is now) 20,000 signiators? THIRTY? Doesn`t that strike you as an odd number for a survey? What SA did was throw out the samples who didn`t fit the results they wanted. Even if this is true, and only 10% of the signiatures are valid, you still have 2,000 valid signiatures. Of course, the number is undoubtedly higher. Oh, and has the SA survey been peer-reviewed? (That seems to be on your mind these days.) I`ve already linked to the review which these scientists received before signing.
Aussiegirl is correct; Venus was about 200* F until the Sun warmed up, boiling away all of the water and increasing co2. Dr Theodor Landscheidt of the
Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
Waldmuenchen, Germany makes the case that global co2 does indeed track heavy solar activity.
Of course, the temperature rise we see (a whopping 1* in over a century, According to Michel Jarraud of the World Meteorological Organization-another S. Fred Singer, I suppose) is mostly observed by ocean measurements, while atmospheric tests actually show a slight cooling. This is exactly what we would expect from increased solar radiation as opposed to greenhouse gases. Please note that the authors are not named Singer.
Dr. Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute first proposed that the sun could be the cause of Global Warming. He studied layers of Beryllium in ice cores taken from Greenland to learn about the sunspot cycles. Beryllium is formed when ionized particles from the sun strike the Earth’s atmosphere; this gives us an historical record of solar activity over the last fifteen thousand years. Every warm period, and every cooler period, coincided with periods of heavy sunspot activity. According to the Institute of Astronomy in Zurich sunspot activity is reaching the highest level it has been in the last thousand years. It reached its nadir during the Maunder Minimum, which happened to coincide with the Little Ice Age. Go here to read more.
Since 8700 BC there have been at least ten cold periods, and all have coincided with quiet solar activity. In short, any minor increase in temperature we see today is caused by a more active sun. This explains why atmospheric temperatures aren’t rising while ocean temperatures are. If CO2 emissions were causing global warming we would see a rise in the temperature of the atmosphere first (where energy is being trapped) followed by a rise in ocean temperatures. That our situation is the reverse strongly suggests that this phenomenon is being caused by the sun; we are seeing a rise in ocean temperatures because the oceans act as thermal mass, catching the stronger solar energy and holding it while the atmosphere is allowing heat to leave at a normal rate.
Solanki thinks the solar wind may be forming extra clouds, giving increased insulation thus making the polar regions even warmer. Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Meteorological Institute in Copenhagen says plainly that sunspot cycles alone account for global warming. Conservationist David Bellamy agrees, ``Global warming at least the modern nightmare version is a myth.`` In fact, according to Dr. Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics we may be entering another cool period. These warming trends tend to last between 200 and 300 years, and so where does that leave us?
I`ll make a deal with you; you explain to me how man-made co2 emissions have caused global warming on Mars, and I`ll change my position.
Instead you come back yet again to olives and grapes. Well, I'll have you know that global warming is actually proven by kiwis and kumquats, my good man! Hee hee, sorry, but it was just too good an opening to pass up. Seriously, the next time I need a winning slice at Trivial Pursuit I will earnestly hope for that little hobbyist-point of yours to be the subject of the question. It would certainly be in that league.
Here are a couple of more trivial pursuit items which seems lost on you; the Russians began expanding northward during the 10th century and exploded outward by the end of the MWP, the Vikings settled Greenland (and subsequently had to abandon it when the climate changed), the Mongols, who had been dirt-poor desert dwellers in the Gobi, came together to form a mighty army in 1206, and the Mississippian culture flourished in North America thanks to improved agriculture from 700 to the late 1600`s. Coincidence? These peoples all started to thrive during the MWP, and some of them failed with the Little Ice Age. In 1347 the Black Death appears in Europe, spread by invading breeds of rats (because the climate changed). Of course, none of that matters, does it? There was no Medieval Warming Period, since you say there wasn`t.
Tree ring studies confirm this, but your liberal friends won`t admit that, will they?
Your own evidence is against you, sir; a reading of yields this:
Before 430,000 yr B.P., partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 lies within the range of 260 and 180 parts per million by volume. This range is almost 30% smaller than that of the last four glacial cycles
Note-the last four cycles. These are cyclical increases in greenhouse gases accompanying increases in temperature. Hardly our fault.
If you would care to look at this graph from your realclimate link, you see us at a peak smaller than peaks in other interglacials.
Please note what had to say:
The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica Dome C ice core enables us to extend existing records of atmospheric methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) back to 650,000 years before the present. A combined record of CH4 measured along the Dome C and the Vostok ice cores demonstrates, within the resolution of our measurements, that preindustrial concentrations over Antarctica have not exceeded 773 ± 15 ppbv (parts per billion by volume) during the past 650,000 years. Before 420,000 years ago, when interglacials were cooler, maximum CH4 concentrations were only about 600 ppbv, similar to lower Holocene values. In contrast, the N2O record shows maximum concentrations of 278 ± 7 ppbv, slightly higher than early Holocene values.
Note that he stated clearly that, while we have a somewhat higher N2O and CH4 concentration since 420,000 BP than in previous interglacials, the previous IG`s were not as warm.
What this says is that the later interglacials have been warmer. This has nothing, not one thing, to do with human activity-it is a natural phonomenon.
Here is a paper which debunks the Vostok Ice Core arguments for anthropogenic warming. It`s interesting to note that Segalstad also points out the mechanisms whereby co2 is re-absorbed by natural processes.
Here is a criticism by Zbigniew Jaworowki, Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland of ice core studies such as Vostok.
You seem to believe that the atmosphere is a static thing. It`s not; it expands and contracts based on any number of variables. Note that there was much more co2, in fact, the Triassic and Jurassic cusp featured ten times as much co2 as is currently in the atmosphere.
It should also be pointed out that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. Melting glaciers would tend to reinforce a warming cycle. An increase in solar activity means an increase in the solar wind, which strikes the poles.
We don`t know WHY temperatures (and co2) spiked during this period, but it had little to do with anthropogenic causes.
By the way, here is a paper which disputes the link between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures.
Anonymous, Dr. Singer seems to be in many places at once, and to hold many high level jobs simultaneously; the man is a wonder!
Tim, I've been scrolling through your site and came across this post and it's accompanying comments in which you do battle with Anonymous. The majority of the "true believers" in the GW controversy absolutely have to pin GW on anthropomorphic inputs because that is "controlable" by government and bigger government controling all of our lives is the ultimate goal. Of course they won't admit it, but if you look at some of the comments on my various global warming posts, you can see that theme repeated again and again. Good post, great arguments.
Post a Comment
<< Home