Greenhouse gases not culprit, study suggests

Tuesday » April 8 » 2003

Greenhouse gases not culprit, study suggests Global warmth variable

Joseph Brean National Post

The global warming trend of the 20th century is less extreme than the pre-industrial climate change of the Middle Ages, says a new analysis that challenges the common wisdom that greenhouse gases drive up temperatures.

A Harvard University-based team compared the results of 240 studies of climate history to show widespread and steady temperature variations happened even before the Industrial Revolution introduced carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

The team's reconstruction of 1,000 years worth of climate fluctuations

This is pretty much the same story on the same study that's been posted elsewhere on this board - repeatedly. Thanks for sharing, again.

What is the 'National Post,' by the way? I've never heard of the publication. This isn't to say it's illegitimate, but I've never heard of it. Is this another name for Rupert Murdoch's New York Post, maybe?

Or I guess it must be Canadian - but it's certainly not the Toronto Star, is it? Sorry to show my Yankee provincialism here.

'Medieval witch hunters' - my, my, my. **** ***** ******* ********* ******* ***

National Post was founded by Conrad Black as a mouthpiece to counter the Globe & Mail on the right. He split the country when he couldn't get into the UK house of lords in Canada and sold the paper to the Asper family. They have further degraded the paper by establishing rigid controls on editorial discretion

Gawd these know-nothings are virtually illiterate when it come to logic and science. The recent global warming trend hasn't even ended so how on earth can anyone tell if it ultimately will be less extreme than what occurred in the Middle Ages? No one disputes that the earth's climate passes through cycles. But with greenhouse gases, we are adding to any warming that might be naturally occurring. While a few degrees of warming doesn't sound like much, because the earth's climate is a highly non-linear system, we can probably expect pretty significant changes in climate as a result. These changes are apt to manifested as more violent and extreme weather patterns and major effects on a regional basis. While there appear to be some mitigating system factors, we really don't know their capacity to offset steadily increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases.

The stinking pile of shit using the fakename 'Consumer'

So, SALLIE BALIUNAS, the harlot of science calls 'environmentalists' medieval witch hunters while lifting her skirts of scientific credibility and dropping her drawers of integrity to let all and any billionaires by the name of SCAIFE to insert their pipeline of gushers of lucre up the old dame's tarnished institute.

Its bad enough we have to look at this disgusting spectacle of dishonor once, but the zombie-robot of pollution news reprints, who is obsessively-compulsively posting copies of the same discredited whore, is mindlessly seeking duplicates from every cheap publisher serving the POLLUTION MAFIA's industrial propaganda campaign to subvert

The 'recent' global warming trend extends back to the 1860s as a recovery from the Little Ice Age.

...as does fashions in science as well as everything else.

This is a special pleading to ignorance. The greenhouse gases that we're adding are a component of a general rise in CO2, known to happen some 800 years after the climate warms (in the Medieval Warm Period). The warming effect from CO2 is miniscule because the amount in the atmosphere is miniscule.

Or nothing at all. The characteristic of non-linear poorly damped systems like the Earth's climate, is that natural variation (cooling, warming) will happen over short timescales even if there is no variation in solar output or any other variable. Therefore its not surprising that when someone announces 'warming is accelerating' they're usually extrapolating from an extremely short timescale (the shorter the better). But over longer timescales, decades and centuries, such warming trends disappear to be replaced by climactic trends related strongly to solar variation.

...except that this prediction has clearly failed. The number of Atlantic hurricanes for example, has fallen since the 1940s. Other extreme weather which indicates a large amount of energy, have also shown no overall trend.

But if you compress the timescale, then anything can be proven, as David Ball and others, have repeatedly demonstrated on this NG.

A lie, Troll. Try again, this time explaining how you can significantly increase atmospheric GHG levels and NOT alter the radiation balance of the planet. Troll, these very simple concepts have been patiently explained to you over and over again. Why do you feel the need to knowingly lie?

Another lie, Troll, and one that has also been pointed out to you myriad times. Are you stupid? The amount of extra material being added to the atmosphere is the entire source of the anthropogenic component, Troll. Do try and pay attention. Once again, you don't seem able to comprehend very basic atmospheric phenomena, even when they are explained to you in extremely simple terms. I'd suggest finding a good FAQ and consulting it. All you're doing is making yourself look like an idiot.

Don't talk about non-linear systems, Troll, until you figure out what a mean value is. Climate baselines are 30 years long. 100+ years is more than sufficient to establish a reasonable trend against any baseline you choose. Of course, being the hypocrite you are, I notice you haven't had any problem trotting out the MSU records of Spenser & Christy, all 25 years of them, completely screwing the results up, yet still announcing that there is no tropospheric warming. I guess you only prattle on about the length of the record when it suits you.

Another bit of stupidity brought to you by that Troll of Trolls, Titan. Perhaps you'd care to explain, Troll, why you would expect to find an upward trend in Atlantic hurricanes when the warming is occurring in areas other than where it is needed to produce such an effect. I'd be interested in hearing your detailed analysis of how increasing overnight lows at high northern latitudes impacts the development of Atlantic hurricanes. LOL.

LOL. You do it repeatedly, Troll. Over and over and over again, we have to correct you as you grossly mis-represent the simplest aspects of climate change. Make a mistake once, and it's a mistake. Do it repeatedly and you're doing it on purpose.

ROTFL. Show me, Troll, where I've ever said that. Go to the archives and find me an example. I've said that the best available evidence suggests that the LIA was not a global effect. I've said nothing else. Lie #1 in this post for you.

Lie #2. I don't recall ever calling it a hockey stick. That is your perjorative phrasing and it is wrong. Lie #3. Mann's reconstruction for the past 1000 years is one for the NORTHERN hemisphere. His previous efforts were global but they only extended back to 1400. Lie # 4. Mann's reconstructions are not based solely on tree ring data. From Mann et al 1999:

Lie #5. Levels in the atmosphere are higher are higher than at any time in the past 400,000 years and likely the past 20 million. Catastrophically is your word.

First truthful thing you've said.

Lie #6. Climate models are based on the laws of physics. They are not based on Mann's reconstructions. Lie #7. Climate models provide us with an ensemble of outputs within which the eventual cliamate will likely fall. There is no single prediction of future climate. GCM output is not the same as output from a weather prediction model.

Lie #8. Sea-level is rising now, today. One of the possible outcomes of climate change is significant rising of sea-level but the amount will depend on conditions in places like Antartica and Greenland. Catastrophic is your perjorative word. Not mine.

Lie #9. Hurricanes and some types of severe weather WILL increase as GW proceeds. Some types of severe weather will decrease and indeed there is anecdotal evidence that it is happening. For example, tornadic storms and large hail events should decrease. Significant wind events may increase. Studies have not shown an increase in severe weather NOW, nor should this be expected, since the majority of the warming is taking place in areas where it will not impact the development of these storms. I've been very clear about that, Troll.

Lie #10. No global cooling scare existed among the scientific community aside from a few speculative pieces. There was some media attention and a few authors wrote books, but apparently the scare was so severe that none of the scientific community decided it needed further investigation.

Lie #11. I've never said jack about this. Mann's reconstructions, along with those of Crowley, Briffa, Overpeck, Pollack, etc. all use multi-proxy data to arrive at results that are consistent with what we know. Their studies therefore are what is known about climate of the past 1000+ years. Whatever was replaced, Troll, was done with good solid science. That is the way it works.

Lie #12. Kyoto is a reasonable first step. I've told you this repeatedly. I've also told you that it is somewhat ad-hoc. Nothing more, Troll.

Let's see. Troll, by my count, that's 12 bold-faced lies on your part, and not a single rebuttal to a single thing you've been told. That's got to be a record, even for a liar like you. How about you address the points I raised, little man? I'll post them here again:

1. Try again, this time explaining how you can significantly increase atmospheric GHG levels and NOT alter the radiation balance of the planet 2. Perhaps you'd care to explain, Troll, why you would expect to find an upward trend in Atlantic hurricanes when the warming is occurring in areas other than where it is needed to produce such an effect. I'd be interested in hearing your detailed analysis of how increasing overnight lows at high northern latitudes impacts the development of Atlantic hurricanes. LOL.

Not only does the study not suggest such a thing, chemistry and physics completely rule out greenhouse gases not causing some warming.

Sure, and creationists challenge the common wisdom of evolution.

Sorry, that's just false. Looking at the GISS data, fully half the current warming (dating from 1880 or so) has occurred AFTER 1960.

Then the good doctor is behind in his scientific journals.

And we've been cooling off since the Big Bang.

Totally false. We've increased CO2 by 30% since 1880.

Not good enough. That's not an apology.

Say hello to my killfile.