It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by edsinger
And none of your data or 'themes' explains how Germans were able to grow olives in GERMANY in the 1300's, long before the Industrial Revolution!
You just can not accept the fact that not everyone is on board with this human GW agenda......
There are good smart people on BOTH sides of this debate....which is something you fail to even acknowledge.
Originally posted by melatonin
Again, it doesn't matter how smart people are, what matters is the evidence.
Originally posted by edsinger
What does olives have to do with it? You dismiss it and yet we know that during that time the earth was even warmer than now, by a significant margin. Enough to allow the vikings to colonize parts of North America, but when the cooling came, the colonies died out.
Originally posted by edsinger
Only if the evidence supports the theory of man caused global warming though right?
What does olives have to do with it? You dismiss it and yet we know that during that time the earth was even warmer than now, by a significant margin. Enough to allow the vikings to colonize parts of North America, but when the cooling came, the colonies died out.
What caused that round of warming? Could it not be the case that the whole warming issue is cyclic?
Originally posted by melatonin
But that still doesn't mean that human activity can be ignored. The evidence suggests we are having an impact in numerous ways, however, you'd rather ignore this in the hope that the current changes are due to some unknown event that appears to coincide with evidence showing significant human influence. A high risk and very myopic option, I believe.
Originally posted by Uphill
Dr. Marburger states that "it is more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame" for (global) climate change. He further comments that "the Earth may become 'unliveable' without cuts in CO2 output".
Never in my lifetime did I expect to see such comments from any White House science advisor.
Originally posted by Johnmike
The conclusion I draw from all the statistics is that the earth is changing, but that it is neither an alarming change or one caused by humans. I'm glad to see that someone actually uses logic when evaluating all the different theories of climate change - a healthy debate is great. .
Originally posted by Johnmike
What we don't need is the alarmism and those who want us to do a good deal of damage to our economy (Kyoto Protocol) for something that's far from certain or, in my opinion, even likely
Originally posted by Valhall
You are doing it in this manner. I am sharing with you what happened. The White House commissioned an analysis and report on that analysis from a group of scientists on the global warming impact to the environment.
Originally posted by Valhall
The White House received that report and then CHANGED THE WORDING in OPPOSITION to the report they commissioned.
........... That is an intentional mixing of two subjects for the sake of muddying what happened. They are not connected, Muaddib. And I believe you know they aren't.
Education
Ph.D., University of Texas, Dept. of Zoology (1995)
Post-doc, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), University of California at Santa Barbara (1996-1999)
Assist. Prof, University of Texas, Section of Integrative Biology (2000- Sept. 2006)
Research Interests
Parmesan's early research focused on multiple aspects of population biology, including the ecology, evolution and behaviors of insect/plant interactions. For the past several years, the focus of her work has been on current impacts of climate change in the 20th century on wildlife. Her work on butterfly range shifts has been highlighted in many scientific and popular press reports, such as in Science, Science News, New York Times, London Times, National Public Radio, and the recent BBC film series "State of the Planet" with David Attenborough.
................
Originally posted by Valhall
As for your attempt at a personal attack on me that is yet further evidence of your unscrupulous means by which you will bolster your own precarious position. While you know full well I could name the same type of private information on you - and it would cause you to be in the EXACT same position - I would NOT EVER go so far as to lie about the nature of your employment or your employer.
That was simply detestable.
Science 19 March 2004:
Vol. 303. no. 5665, pp. 1855 - 1859
On the Cause of the 1930s Dust Bowl
Siegfried D. Schubert,1* Max J. Suarez,1 Philip J. Pegion,1,2 Randal D. Koster,1 Julio T. Bacmeister1,3
In this study, we present model results that indicate that the drought was caused by anomalous tropical sea surface temperatures during that decade and that interactions between the atmosphere and the land surface increased its severity. We also contrast the 1930s drought with other North American droughts of the 20th century.
Here's a better illustration of the link between solar activity and global climate during the last 150yrs or so.
Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So did they explain what caused the sea surface to temp to be "anomalous"? Or did they just rig some data because it managed to allow them to specify it as that? Did they use any actual measurements, or was this cause their preconcieved theory?
Also, which sea(s)? I'm interested in hearing how they had such an effect on America's heartland. But really, wouldn't a higher sea surface temp cause more evaporation and thus more moisture?
Are you / that study suggesting that the "Dust Bowl" 'drove' 'itself'? Or rather humans land use did? Over a trend even?
That citation is rather vague.
How do we know that the US was the only place to take this heat trend? I imagine you're aware that even the US direct temp record is flawed, which casts even further doubt on other direct temp records from other places?
Interesting graph, almost surprised to see you use it. It shows a clear sun driven temp cycle. But the problem is where is it getting its data sets from? It would be nice to be able to analyze its methods.
Facinating how it jumps "off the scale" (.4ish'c) right about the time NASA's weather satellites first went operational. That's important because that's the genesis of humans gaining a realistic ability to accurately judge temp changes in the full scale. Also too bad that was coming right out of a cooling trend, which was 'driven' by the sun according to your graph, but meanwhile CO2 was still marching it's way up just the same yet didn't manage 'force' much of anything, according to your graph.
But going by that graph above that I'd guess you'd accept, how on earth were the temps higher before similar to today while the CO2 apparently wasn't up there whatsoever?
I can't wait to see your response, it would be interesting if we humans do know everythng afterall. But human arrogence is always on full display when it comes to true environmentalists: Humans know everything (including about vastly complex systems that we still don't fully understand(we don't even fully understand clouds, cmon!)), the world revolves around humans (not the sun), humans are the supreme destroyers of the universe (well we havent done much in space yet but in the future 'Universalists' will be saying that, and so on.
Oh, I forgot that they also want to tell everyone how to live including impoverished people in far away third world countires whose environments are desytroyed primarily due to their lack of modernization and povery. They're actually living out their own real life "feedback loops". I'm sure you know what those are.
Cheers.
Originally posted by Yadhel
My attempt at a personal attack?... It was you who made the accusation, and made the personal attack at me implying i must have some ulterior motive for my responses....
Originally posted by Essan
As we all know, the US covers 95% of the Earth's surface, and the only evidence for global warming comes from a handful of US weather stations
Originally posted by melatonin
Well, I think they were looking to explain what was causing the dry period during the 1930 in the US, and parts of Canada and Mexico. They found that changes in Pacific and Atlantic SSTs could account for the drought.
What caused these oceanic changes? That wasn't actually a question they aimed to answer, but it would likely be some other variable, possibly solar activity, maybe some circulatory effect (i.e. oceanic changes elsewhere).
I'm sure all measurements are flawed to a degree. I quite like the current findings of the McIntyre's fraudit crew, they seem to have validated the US temp record.
bigcitylib.blogspot.com...
Finally, the plot below shows the 20yr trailing trend in degC/decade for CRN12, CRN5, and GISS.
I think these plots speak for themselves, but here are my conclusions:
- There is good agreement between GISS and CRN12 (the good stations)
- There is good agreement between GISS and CRN5 (the bad stations)
- On the 20yr trend, CRN12 shows a larger warming trend CRN5 in recent years
I see a lot of the frauditor BS in the rest of the post, I know you like a bit of cherrypicking, so I guess applying it to temp stations is OK.
Good work. We now now that the worst stations are actually weighting the US temps downwards, heh.
Essentially, the correlation between solar activity and climate broke down in the 70s.
There are good explanations as to why CO2 was failing to push temps up in the earlier part of the 20th century, even now, it is likely we have some potential GHG warming held back by cooling aerosols.
There are many variables acting at the same time. A simplistic 'it's the sun', or 'it's CO2' is not really sufficient to account for a complex system. So the part suggesting that CO2 must rise with temperature in the past is a canard. There are other variables that effect climate, such as the sun. But that doesn't negate other variables.
You need to go beyond binary thinking.
But going by that graph above that I'd guess you'd accept, how on earth were the temps higher before similar to today while the CO2 apparently wasn't up there whatsoever?
I'm having trouble parsing that into anything meaningful, sorry. Hopefully the bit about your canard covers it.
Errm, yeah, if you think so. Who said we know everything?
We still have a lot to learn, but if you think that we don't know that CO2 is a GHG, and that increasing it, increases temps, then I guess to you we know nada.
We can quibble over the exact extent of such an effect, but the effect itself is not really questionable, just basic physics.
And you think that is due to environmentalism? You 'avin a giraffe, no?