Global warming? Do the math

Examining the use of 'environmentalism' as a means to power.

Re: Global warming? Do the math

Postby Faith Hope and Love » 04/ 13/ 07 9:40 am

styky wrote:Global warming? Do the math


Original National Post article's (by Lorne Gunter) contents snipped by FH&L for this FD posting's expediency ;)

Just in case any FD'er's hadn't noticed as yet ...
Lorne has this and several other most enjoyable global-warming related postings to his personal blog, at its new online url location: <b><a href="http://communities.canada.com/nationalpost/blogs/gunter/default.aspx" target="_blank">As I Please - Lorne Gunter</a></b>!
Lorne's former blog online url location is now reserved for his: <b><a href="http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/comment/blog/gunter.html" target="_blank">As I Please - Blog posting Archives</a></b>

I just changed the linkage from one of my own websites to reflect these online alterations by the National Post yesterday... wouldn't want my longtime volunteer "pet" website visitors to miss any of Lorne's good stuff! Most, like me, probably don't have a National Post online "subscription".
:smoke: :brows:
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or anything else...If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."--Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
Faith Hope and Love
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: 09/ 08/ 04 7:24 am
Location: Canada

Postby styky » 04/ 21/ 07 8:55 pm

First let me remind you of these facts that Lorne Gunter so aptly described for us then read the headline below. :roll:

Think of the atmosphere as 100 cases of 24 one-litre bottles of water -- 2,400 litres in all.

According to the global warming theory, rising levels of human-produced carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's reflected heat in the atmosphere and dangerously warming the planet.

But 99 of our cases would be nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), neither of which are greenhouse gases. Only one case -- just 24 bottles out of 2,400 -- would contain greenhouse gases.

Of the bottles in the greenhouse gas case, 23 would be water vapour.

Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, yet scientists will admit they understand very little about its impact on global warming. (It may actually help cool the planet: As the earth heats up, water vapour may form into more clouds and reflect solar radiation before it reaches the surface. Maybe. We don't know.)

The very last bottle in that very last case would be carbon dioxide, one bottle out of 2,400.

Carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere, and most of that -- at least 95% -- is naturally occurring (decaying plants, forest fires, volcanoes, releases from the oceans).

At most, 5% of the carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.

So in our single bottle of carbon dioxide, just 50 ml is man-made carbon dioxide. Out of our model atmosphere of 2,400 litres of water, just about a shot glassful is carbon dioxide put their by humans. And of that miniscule amount, Canada's contribution is just 2% --about 1 ml.

If, as Mr. Dion demands, we honoured our Kyoto commitments and reduced our current CO2 emissions by one-third -- which would involve shutting down all the coal-fired power generating plants in Canada (and living with constant brownouts and blackouts); or taking all the cars or all the commercial vehicles off the roads; or shutting down the oilsands; or some combination of all these -- we would be saving one-third of 1 ml-- the tip of an eyedropper.

And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.


Unchecked global warming would spawn unparalleled depression, Suzuki warns :shock: :rotfl:


DENNIS BUECKERT


OTTAWA (CP) - David Suzuki says Canadians are ready to pay for fighting climate change so long as it's fair.

After a cross-country tour in which he heard from thousands of people in more than 40 cities, the veteran broadcaster and author says Canadians are ready for a carbon tax that would penalize wasteful use of energy and reward efficiency.

"I think they're willing to suck it in and accept that they're going to have to pay more but they want it to be fair.

"The thing I hear over and over again is: 'Some sectors in Canada are getting a softer ride, and why should we as consumers have to pay when, say, the tar sands or the auto sector are not being asked to meet their obligations as well?"'

Asked about government claims that meeting Kyoto targets would cause a recession, Suzuki said unchecked global warming will cost the economy more than the two world wars put together and bring about a global depression, "the likes of which we have never ever seen."

A Conservative government study released Thursday says the Kyoto emissions-cutting targets for Canada could be met only by introducing a massive $195-per-tonne carbon tax that would wipe out thousands of jobs and undercut Canadians' quality of life.

Critics say the study is flawed because it excludes the benefits of cutting emissions, such as reduced energy costs and a more stable climate, and because it limits access by businesses to international emissions credits.

Suzuki said Canadians are confused about how Kyoto works, but they understand it is an international law that Canada has signed, and they want its targets to be met.

"They don't understand the details of it, but whenever I would say in my speeches at 41 different communities,'Canada has an obligation and we want to meet the target,' people would burst into applause, every single time."

He believes the current national preoccupation with the environment, and climate in particular, is a long-term phenomenon.

"It's absolutely clear that public opinion has undergone a fundamental shift. Canadians are no longer saying, 'Is global warming happening, are humans a part of it?' The major question I'm asked all the time is, what are we going to do about it?"

He said his consultations revealed five clear priorities:

-Build a sustainable, affordable public transportation system.

-Introduce a carbon tax to help Canada meet its Kyoto commitments.

-Entrench the right to clean water, breathable air and safe food in the Constitution.

-Protect vital habitat for endangered species.

-Institute a national program to penalize polluters and reward green initiatives.

Suzuki was to meet Friday with Environment Minister John Baird, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton. He says Prime Minister Stephen Harper refused to meet with him in person.

<a href=http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/070420/n042065A.html>source</a>
Click here for FREEDOMINION FORUM RULES
All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom; justice; honor; duty; mercy; hope ~ Sir Winston Churchill
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money." Margaret Thatcher They say it takes a minute to find a special person, an hour to appreciate them, a day to love them, but then an entire life to forget them.
User avatar
styky
Member
 
Posts: 120244
Joined: 03/ 10/ 03 9:21 pm

Postby rwebb » 04/ 21/ 07 11:45 pm

I ignored this article the first time around because it just seened too silly to waste my time on it; but since styky saw fit to revive it, I guess I need to point out a couple of obvious facts.

First of all, since (as Gunter himself points out) 99% of the atmosphere is NOT greenhouse gases, why on earth is he including them at all?? Comparing greenhouse gas volume to the total atmosphere in this context is about as relevant as expressing it as a fraction of the total mass of the planet. Yeah, it's a tiny number, but it's also a meaningless number. (Even better: by my rough calculations, atmospheric CO2 represents about 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% of the mass of the Universe. Maybe Gunter should have used that!)

Gunter makes the comparison even more meaningless by considering only Canada's contribution to the global atmosphere. The most he can hope to prove by this comparison is that Canada cannot solve the GHG problem alone, which surely everyone realizes anyway. If that's Gunter's only point, he's attacking a straw man.

I could take issue with other aspects of Gunter's totally unscientific analysis (e.g., we have increased atmospheric CO2 by at least 20%, not just 5%), but that's as much time as I'm going to waste.
rwebb
 
Posts: 3392
Joined: 03/ 05/ 01 2:01 am
Location: Winnipeg MB Canada

Postby BlawBlaw » 04/ 22/ 07 12:04 am

I suppose it is the same reason that when I point out that the murder rate in the USA is 3 times that of what it is in Canada, the usual comeback is that your odds of being murdered in the USA are still only about one in 16,000 in any given year.

There are other examples, such as X, Y or Z increasing the risk of cancer by 50% or something, but the reality remains that your chance of actually getting cancer is rather small in any event.

I guess a better example would be drunk driving laws where .05 is a traffic offence but .08 is downright criminal! These are miniscule proportions but they have very real and substantial effects. ( A difference between .05% and .08% alcohol in your blood, or about 3/4 of one of Gunters analagous bottles).

What is a legitimate argument is that only 5% of CO2 is manmade and then only 2% of that is Canadian.

The question become then, what level of economic sacrifice should Canadians make to address only 0.1% of the problem?
User avatar
BlawBlaw
 
Posts: 9905
Joined: 01/ 30/ 06 3:15 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Postby Peter O'Donnell » 04/ 22/ 07 1:36 am

I'm just offering the following as background for your interest, not to prove or disprove anything.

The main centre of belief in "global warming" has shifted from North America to Europe in recent years. The reason for this is that noteworthy warming in North America came and went around 1987 to 1991. Now it has showed up in western Europe.

For example, in weather-conscious England, it is widely known that several months in the past year have broken very long-term records. For example, last September edged out a record set in 1729. Now this April is threatening to break a record set in 1865.

From last July to the present time, the weather has been near record warm much of the time and if May 2006 to April 2007 was a calendar year, it would be a full degree warmer than any previous year.

So these facts are making easy work for the AGW lobby which has also been very actively suppressing both scientific and media debate on their pet theory.

Of course, such variations could just as easily be natural in origin. There is no guarantee that the current warm trend will continue any more than there was for North America when month after month was warm in that period I mentioned.

So this is what we are facing at present, a very charged political atmosphere surrounding this theory and its main centre of credibility shifting to the continent that is most prone to socialist rhetoric of any kind.

Let's hope it cools off there in more ways than one.
User avatar
Peter O'Donnell
 
Posts: 12990
Joined: 03/ 10/ 05 10:12 pm
Location: LOCATION: BC ... AVATAR photo ... Jacob's Chair, southeast Utah

Postby OfficialPro » 04/ 22/ 07 2:22 am

rwebb wrote:I ignored this article the first time around because it just seened too silly to waste my time on it; but since styky saw fit to revive it, I guess I need to point out a couple of obvious facts.

First of all, since (as Gunter himself points out) 99% of the atmosphere is NOT greenhouse gases, why on earth is he including them at all?? Comparing greenhouse gas volume to the total atmosphere in this context is about as relevant as expressing it as a fraction of the total mass of the planet. Yeah, it's a tiny number, but it's also a meaningless number. (Even better: by my rough calculations, atmospheric CO2 represents about 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% of the mass of the Universe. Maybe Gunter should have used that!)

Gunter makes the comparison even more meaningless by considering only Canada's contribution to the global atmosphere. The most he can hope to prove by this comparison is that Canada cannot solve the GHG problem alone, which surely everyone realizes anyway. If that's Gunter's only point, he's attacking a straw man.

I could take issue with other aspects of Gunter's totally unscientific analysis (e.g., we have increased atmospheric CO2 by at least 20%, not just 5%), but that's as much time as I'm going to waste.


Given that manmade CO2 is only 5% of total CO2, how can 5% increase the atmospheric concentration by 20%? :roll:
"It's Ancient History, just like the Democratic Party"-Lt. Frank Drebin, The Naked Gun 2&1/2

"I can't see anybody going to see Morrisey. His fans have all killed themselves" -Tom Leykis

"The purpose of Margaret Atwood is to lower provincial test scores" - someusw3stnoob
User avatar
OfficialPro
 
Posts: 3113
Joined: 10/ 24/ 05 3:00 am
Location: Live At The Necropolis

Postby DA_Champion » 04/ 22/ 07 2:23 am

Where did you come up with that 5%? The national post?
User avatar
DA_Champion
 
Posts: 18132
Joined: 01/ 07/ 01 2:01 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Postby B. Max » 05/ 12/ 07 4:31 pm

DA_Champion wrote:Where did you come up with that 5%? The national post?


Back to basics.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossi ... _data.html
The sins of this country are so great that they can only be purged by secession.
B. Max
 
Posts: 4132
Joined: 05/ 12/ 03 6:39 pm
Location: Alberta Canada

Postby RedDog » 05/ 12/ 07 4:34 pm

Any "math" being undertaken concerning "global warming" or "climate change" in Canada concerns how much more money can be extorted from Alberta in a fuzzy warm "feel good" national lie.
MORE ALBERTA. Image Less Ottawa.
Opinions expressed by RedDog on Free Dominion are those of RedDog alone and are in no way intended to represent the views of Free Dominion, its principals or moderators.
User avatar
RedDog
 
Posts: 36556
Joined: 04/ 07/ 04 8:54 pm
Location: High Plains

Postby DA_Champion » 05/ 12/ 07 4:34 pm

Cute website.

Now let's use real sources.

Image
User avatar
DA_Champion
 
Posts: 18132
Joined: 01/ 07/ 01 2:01 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Postby B. Max » 05/ 12/ 07 5:02 pm

DA_Champion wrote:Cute website.

Now let's use real sources.

Image


What does that prove. That CO2 is going up. So what, temperature is not.
The sins of this country are so great that they can only be purged by secession.
B. Max
 
Posts: 4132
Joined: 05/ 12/ 03 6:39 pm
Location: Alberta Canada

Postby DA_Champion » 05/ 12/ 07 5:04 pm

1) The temperature is going up.
2) The sudden increase in CO2 which is without historical precedent belies the claim made above that only 5% of CO2 is due to manmade sources. The increase is around 25%, and sicne such increases are incredibly rare, and it would be an incredible coincidence for a natural increase to occur concurrently and with the same concavity as industrialization, it's common-sense to assume that most of it is manmade.
User avatar
DA_Champion
 
Posts: 18132
Joined: 01/ 07/ 01 2:01 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Postby B. Max » 05/ 12/ 07 5:23 pm

DA_Champion wrote:1) The temperature is going up.


The average temperature has not gone up since 1998. I guess that rules out CO2.
The sins of this country are so great that they can only be purged by secession.
B. Max
 
Posts: 4132
Joined: 05/ 12/ 03 6:39 pm
Location: Alberta Canada

Postby Droid1963 » 05/ 12/ 07 6:46 pm

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossi ... imate.html

Climate and the Carboniferous Period



West Virginia today is mostly an erosional plateau carved up into steep ridges and narrow valleys, but 300 million years ago, during the Carboniferous Period, it was part of a vast equatorial coastal swamp extending many hundreds of miles and barely rising above sea level. This steamy, tropical quagmire served as the nursery for Earth's first primitive forests, comprised of giant lycopods, ferns, and seed ferns.

North America was located along Earth's equator then, courtesy of the forces of continental drift. The hot and humid climate of the Middle Carboniferous Period was accompanied by an explosion of terrestrial plant life. However by the Late Carboniferous Period Earth's climate had become increasingly cooler and drier. By the beginning of the Permian Period average global temperatures declined by about 10° C.

Interestingly, the last half of the Carboniferous Period witnessed periods of significant ice cap formation over polar landmasses-- particularly in the southern hemisphere. Alternating cool and warm periods during the ensuing Carboniferous Ice Age coincided with cycles of glacier expansion and retreat. Coastlines fluctuated, caused by a combination of both local basin subsidence and worldwide sea level changes. In West Virginia a complex system of meandering river deltas supported vast coal swamps that left repeating stratigraphic levels of peat bogs that later became coal, separated by layers of fluvial rocks like sandstone and shale when the deltas were building, and marine rocks like black shales and limestones when rising seas drowned coastlands. Accumulations of several thousand feet of these sediments over millions of years produced sufficient heat and pressure to transform the soft sediments into rock and the peat layers into the 100 or so coal seams which today comprise the Great Bituminous Coalfields of the Eastern U.S. and Western Europe.

Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.

With this in mind the road to understanding global warming and our present climate begins with an historical journey through a chapter in Earth's history, some 30 million years before dinosaurs appeared, known as the Carboniferous Period-- a time when terrestrial Earth was ruled by giant plants and insects, and glaciers waxed and waned over a huge southern continent.
Image

An intriguing story of climate change is recorded in the rocks which comprise the geological formations laid down during the Carboniferous Period. Coal deposits play an important role in this record.

Coal is mostly carbon accumulations from fossil plant material deposited in swamps so devoid of oxygen that bacteria and other critters couldn't survive to feed on their remains. The explosion of luxuriant plant growth and coal bed formation that occurred 286 - 360 million years ago is the reason for the name, "Carboniferous Period."

North American geologists have found it convenient to divide the Carboniferous Period into two parts:

The first half is called the "Mississippian Period" and is characterized by deposition of mostly thick marine limestones in shallow, tropical seas.

The last half of the Carboniferous is called the " Pennsylvanian Period," and contains mostly sediments and coal seams created by meandering river deltas periodically interrupted by marine inundations. Many places around the world contain important coal beds deposited during this time period.

In West Virginia the various coal seams have each been given their own unique names: like Pocahontas, Sewell, Eagle, or Coalburg. There are subtle but noticeable changes in the character and properties of the coal beds throughout the Pennsylvanian Period, most likely due to Earth's cooling climate and quite possibly also due to declining atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

Early Pennsylvanian coal seams like those found in the Pocahontas and New River Formations were characteristically friable, shiny, and "vitreous," indicating deposition in a continuously wet, humid environment.

In contrast, coals of the Allegheny Formation that followed (Middle Pennsylvanian) are predominantly hard, dull, and "splinty," indicating that by then the climate had already become drier, most likely cooler, and generally a more stressful place for terrestrial plant life. The Coalburg and Stockton seams, deposited around 307-305 million years ago, mark the geologic boundary at which a shift from tropical to temperate climate appears to have occurred.

The Kanawha Formation, represents deposition in a transitional climate, with coal seams containing alternating layers of vitreous and splinty layers, called "banded coals."




Similarities with our Present World

Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.



Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Image

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.


The Carboniferous Ice Age

Two special conditions of terrestrial landmass distribution, when they exist concurrently, appear as a sort of common denominator for the occurrence of very long-term simultaneous declines in both global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2):

1) the existence of a continuous continental landmass stretching from pole to pole, restricting free circulation of polar and tropical waters, and

2) the existence of a large (south) polar landmass capable of supporting thick glacial ice accumulations.



These special conditions existed during the Carboniferous Period, as they do today in our present Quaternary Period.
Image

Climate change during the Carboniferous Period was dominated by the great Carboniferous Ice Age. As the Earth alternately cooled then warmed, great sheets of glacial ice thousands of feet thick accumulated, then melted, then reaccumulated in synchronous cycles.

Vast glaciers up to 8,000 feet thick existed at the south pole then, moving from higher elevations to lower, driven by gravity and their tremendous weight. These colossal slow-motion tidal waves of ice destroyed and pulverized everything in their path, scraping the landscape to bare bedrock-- altering mountains, valleys, and river courses. Ancient bedrock in Africa, Australia, India and South America show scratches and gouges from this glaciation.

Image credit:

Department of Environmental and Geophysical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Manchester, UK

Earth's continents during the Carboniferous Period were arranged differently than they are today. South America, Africa, India, Australia, Antarctica, and a few minor pieces were joined together near the south pole to comprise the supercontinent known as Gondwanaland.

Gondwanaland was a formidable polar landmass. While ice caps and glaciers can't grow large over open oceans, they can and do attain great thickness over polar continents-- like Gondwanaland.

Although cycles of glaciation are believed to occur in response to solar input variations like the Milankovich Cycle and Precession of the Equinoxes, another important factor is the rearrangement of continental landmasses over geologic time by the processes of continental drift.

Throughout the Carboniferous Period, continental drift was rearranging most (but not all) of the Earth's landmasses into a single supercontinent stretching from the south polar region to the north polar region. Although the precise mechanisms involved are still a matter of debate this appears to cause regional humidity changes and redistribution of ocean currents which in turn promote ice accumulation and glacier formation over the earth's polar continents. These glacial ice caps grow larger during periods of reduced solar input, and because ice caps are very good solar reflectors this tended to accelerate and perpetuate cyclical relapses to global cooling.

Basically, Earth undergoes alternating periods of ice ages and warming whenever a continuous continental landmass extends from one polar region to the other while at the same time there exists a large polar continent capable of supporting thick ice accumulations. These conditions existed 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period as they do for the Earth today. However for most of geologic history the distribution of the continents across the globe did not satisfy this criteria. Continental drift continually rearranges the continents, moving at rates of only a few centimeters per year.

We are actually in an ice age climate today. However for the last 10,000 years or so we have enjoyed a warm but temporary interglacial vacation. We know from geological records like ocean sediments and ice cores from permanent glaciers that for at least the last 750,000 years interglacial periods happen at 100,000 year intervals, lasting about 15,000 to 20,000 years before returning to an icehouse climate. We are currently about 18,000 years into Earth's present interglacial cycle. These cycles have been occurring for at least the last 2-4 million years, although the Earth has been cooling gradually for the last 30 million years.

Image

Today the Earth warms up and cools down in 100,000- year cycles. Geologic history reveals similar cycles were operative during the Carboniferous Period. Warming episodes caused by the periodic favorable coincidence of solar maximums and the cyclic variations of Earth's orbit around the sun are responsible for our warm but temporary interglacial vacation from the Pleistocene Ice Age, a cold period in Earth's recent past which began about 2 million years ago and ended (at least temporarily) about 10,000 years ago. And just as our current world has warmed, and our atmosphere has increased in moisture and CO2 since the glaciers began retreating 18,000 years ago, so the Carboniferous Ice Age witnessed brief periods of warming and CO2-enrichment.

Following the Carboniferous Period, the Permian Period and Triassic Period witnessed predominantly desert-like conditions, accompanied by one or more major periods of species extinctions. CO2 levels began to rise during this time because there was less erosion of the land and therefore reduced opportunity for chemical reaction of CO2 with freshly exposed minerals. Also, there was significantly less plant life growing in the proper swamplands to sequester CO2 through photosynthesis and rapid burial.

It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but have since declined. Today, at 380 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.

What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to right now. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.

Understanding Earth's geologic and climate past is important for understanding why our present Earth is the way it is, and what Earth may look like in the future. The geologic information locked up in the rocks and coal seams of the Carboniferous Period are like a history book waiting to be opened. What we know so far, is merely an introduction. It falls on the next generation of geologists, climatologists, biologists, and curious others to continue the exploration and discovery of Earth's dynamic history-- a fascinating and surprising tale, written in stone.
The above is MY OPINION, and DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE OPINIONS OF THE OWNERSHIP OF FREE DOMINION.
Proud
If the Canadian flag offends you, or if you don't like being a part of Canada, then you should consider another Canadian freedom: the right to leave"
Droid1963
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: 11/ 25/ 02 3:49 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Postby styky » 10/ 04/ 07 10:58 am

Questioning 20th Century Warmth
Filed under: Temperature History, Paleo/Proxy —
In 2006, an article appeared in Science magazine reconstructing the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere back to 800 AD based on 14 smoothed and normalized temperature proxies (e.g., tree ring records). Osborn and Briffa proclaimed at the time that “the 20th century is the most anomalous interval in the entire analysis period, with highly significant occurrences of positive anomalies and positive extremes in the proxy records.” Obviously, concluding that the Northern Hemisphere has entered a period of unprecedented warmth is sure to make the news, and indeed, Osborn and Briffa’s work was carried in papers throughout the world and was loudly trumpeted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that publishes the journal Science.

A recent issue of Science contains an article not likely to receive any press coverage at all. Gerd Bürger of Berlin’s Institut für Meteorologie decided to revisit the work of Osborn and Briffa, and his results raise serious questions about the claim that the 20th century has been unusually warm. Bürger argues that Osborn and Briffa did not apply the appropriate statistical tests that link the proxy records to observational data, and as such, Osborn and Briffa did not properly quantify the statistical uncertainties in their analyses. Bürger repeated all analyses with the appropriate adjustments and concluded “As a result, the ‘highly significant’ occurrences of positive anomalies during the 20th century disappear.” Further, he reports that “The 95th percentile is exceeded mostly in the early 20th century, but also about the year 1000.” Needless to say, Gerd Bürger is not going to win any awards from the champions of global warming – nothing is more sacred than 20th century warming!
The reconstruction of past temperatures is a.....<a href=http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/25/questioning-20th-century-warmth/>continued</a>
Click here for FREEDOMINION FORUM RULES
All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom; justice; honor; duty; mercy; hope ~ Sir Winston Churchill
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money." Margaret Thatcher They say it takes a minute to find a special person, an hour to appreciate them, a day to love them, but then an entire life to forget them.
User avatar
styky
Member
 
Posts: 120244
Joined: 03/ 10/ 03 9:21 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Global Warming and Other Junk Sciences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest