Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
"Could". So then they / we really don't know?
Not 100%, no. Unless we get a time machine and go back to the 1930s and make the appropriate measures, we'll have to reconstruct and model.
That's troubling, because I wasn't aware that the sun itself is / can be responisbile for variations in local conditions?
What it might do is to invoke changes around the globe. So, we might have changes initiated elsewhere leading to knock-on effects in a particular
region.
"Seem to have". Good language once again. If you dig thru to the discussions beyond your blogger link you'll see that they'r estill not
finished, and that, as you always say, there can be explanations -related to geography etc- in their initial incomplete assessment.
I may have missed it, but were those graphs plotted off the 33% checked-stations? It was only about 27% a couple weeks ago.
Heh, are you criticising the tentative scientific language? Do you prefer absolutism?
No, I'm sure the frauditor crew have more cherrypicking to do. But it tends to show where all the data is leading. The funny thing is that you think
we can show something useful for the temp data from looking at individual stations. All it shows is that standards are variable, some are good, some
are not so good. But the only way to know what that means for the data is to check it properly, and it seems to be quite negligible.
Anyways, can you explain this one to me, from the same plotter:
Finally, the plot below shows
the 20yr trailing trend in degC/decade for CRN12, CRN5, and GISS.
What is a "20 year trailing trend"? I've yet to see that terminology.
I'm not exactly sure what they mean, the only way I've seen it used before is as in a trend that trials another variable. Alternatively, they may be
referring to a running mean, which is a method of extracting a trend out of noisy data.
What?
Where is there really much of any "frauditor BS" in there? The only link was to them showing some
major flaws with some of
the Russian station data.
I was specifically referring to the cherrypicking of climate stations. Which is what Watt and crew have been doing, that is, they are selective on the
stations they make a point of, completely ignoring stations that don't fit their preconceived aims.
So, what they do is pick a station that looks bad and has a strong warming trend. Then also pick a good station with weak warming. Then show all the
pictures and make a canard.
As muaddib said - a picture speaks a thousand words. Well, I s'pose it does for those who like picture books, heh.
It's just too bad that the trend you speak of applies mostly to the pre-satellite days, eh?
None of your conjecture really damages the fact of the human population explosion and etc arguments I provided, I am afraid.
So, you are just trying to say that humans are causing warming, but it is a land-use issue? Or what?
I wouldn't be surprised that we could be underestimating land-use issues, but that doesn't negate other variables.
That wouldn't happen to be when humans finally got some temp satellites up there would it? Maybe they've been driving the heat? Relaity is
based on perception, after all.
You'd have to make some logical causal connection between satellites and warming on the earth. I also think we had been shooting satellites into
space for maybe a while before that.
We have sunspot data for a few hundred years, it shows the same effect.
I'd really like to hear them. It wouldn't seem like aerosols would have gone down too much since the 70's...
Most western countries introduced restrictions on emissions, sulphates were one of the targets for numerous reasons. They also have a pretty short
lifetime in the atmosphere. Whereas CO2 has a much longer lifetime. Thus, after a period of time, CO2 will accumulate much faster, eventually
overcoming the cooling effects of the sulphates.
So then, the CO2 THREAT arguments might not be all that absolute, afterall?
Science can rarely deal in absolutes. That's why even the IPCC only deal in 'very likely' and 'likely' etc. If you want 100% certainty then
science can rarely provide it. We might get to about 99.999999999999%, but never 100%.
You need to go beyond binary thinking.
I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. Now you're using my terminology, as if I'm the one consistently arguing in pro-AGW absolutes, when my only intention
is to show how flawed the arguments are, and how little we mighty-arrogent humans really know.
But you seem to be saying it is either one or t'other. It can be a complex mixture of variables. Which is what it is. We have solar causing a degree
of warming, we have CO2 doing the same, we have sulphates forcing cooling, we have land-use changes, black carbon etc etc.
All have an effect. An attempt is made to account for all.
Sorry,
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?
Well, CO2 isn't the only variable. The climate can warm or cool without large changes in CO2. This is where the binary thinking comes in. Just
because CO2 can result in warming, doesn't mean it is the only variable able to do so.
Thus, we would expect previous interglacial warming episodes to be most liekly a result of other variables.
That's the attitude. Listen to Al Gore for
Christ's sake.
To an extent I agree, I think I've said numerous times that I'd rather politicians kept out of the science part, it just muddies the waters. But at
least he has tried to get the science over.
That's good to hear, because the propaganda machine out there that has GWB's & the Neocons war drumbeat parrot army almost
envious.
Hey, this is science not religion. We will never have the Truth(TM). We have the ass-end of the elephant, but with hard work we can use the limited
knowledge we have.
"Environmentalism" is being unwittingly used as a pawn of the same imperialist Establishment that initially wrecked those regions and have
kept them so in the past 50+ years.
Maybe it is. I don't like the way green issues have become big business, but that's capitalism for you.
I think more sustainable growth is good for all, even the third world. Once they completely rape the environment they have, they will have nothing
left for western living rooms. Then they are truly f****d. There's only so many Nike sweatshops the world requires.
[edit on 18-9-2007 by melatonin]
