Its snowing in NYC. Therefore, Global Warming is a myth.

[parky76]

I love how some pseudo-scientists are arguing that because there are some instances of cooling around the globe, that global warming, or more correctly, Global Climate Change, is a myth.

Clearly, they dont understand that the Earth's various climates are an extremaly complex system, that we don't fully understand. It is indeed very possible and likely that an average increase in the Earth's temperature will lead to increased precipitation and cooling in some places, while record heat and drought in others.

But don't tell that to the nuts. If there is snow anywhere in the USA, it must mean: Global Warming is a myth!!!

:D

[Ordover]

I do agree it is getting slightly warmer world-wide, but I think the horror-stories of what might happen are getting out of hand. For example, if sea-level goes up 1 meter in the next 20 years, it's not exactly going to flood the land. Plus, whoever said the weather patterns would be stable over centuries in the first place? All the evidence points to weather being inconsistent at every time-scale.

One thing is fact: there is nothing we can do to stop the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere from going up. The only thing we could hope to accomplish is slowing the rate at which the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere increases, and that is in question as well.

[mhaze]

.... if sea-level goes up 1 meter in the next 20 years....Not possible.

[CapelDodger]

I love how some pseudo-scientists are arguing that because there are some instances of cooling around the globe, that global warming, or more correctly, Global Climate Change, is a myth.

Clearly, they dont understand that the Earth's various climates are an extremaly complex system, that we don't fully understand. It is indeed very possible and likely that an average increase in the Earth's temperature will lead to increased precipitation and cooling in some places, while record heat and drought in others.

But don't tell that to the nuts. If there is snow anywhere in the USA, it must mean: Global Warming is a myth!!!

:D

I expect 2008 as the coolest year this decade (this millennium, even) to get a lot of play next year. 2009 and onword are going to prove a sore disappointment to the usual suspects.

[parky76]

maybe sooo.....maybe not.

[CapelDodger]

I do agree it is getting slightly warmer world-wide, but I think the horror-stories of what might happen are getting out of hand. For example, if sea-level goes up 1 meter in the next 20 years, it's not exactly going to flood the land.

It would seriously discommode a lot of people, but is not a horror-story I've ever come across.

Plus, whoever said the weather patterns would be stable over centuries in the first place? All the evidence points to weather being inconsistent at every time-scale.

This particular inconsistency (AGW) was predicted before it happened, which actually makes it consistent. We've all lived with weather for a long time, and there's a reason why climate has suddenly become a big subject of the day. What's happening to climate is outside the normal.

[CapelDodger]

maybe sooo.....maybe not.

Time will soon tell.

[mhaze]

This particular inconsistency (AGW) was predicted before it happened, which actually makes it consistent. We've all lived with weather for a long time, and there's a reason why climate has suddenly become a big subject of the day. What's happening to climate is outside the normal.So we can define normal, then?

Please reply in degrees C, K, R or F.

(If replying is related to effect of CO2 on climate, it is permissible to use millidegrees or picodegrees, depending on your beliefs).:)

[GreyICE]

Not possible.

Well it's nice to see your chopping of quotes is not limited to just me.

No, seriously, is your quote button broken? It's down in the bottom right. It lets you quote posts.

[BenBurch]

Not possible.

On this I agree. 100mm more likely.

[mhaze]

Indeed. And (based on forecasting principles) 40-60mm is likelier still!

(2-3 mm/year * 20 years, eg, a continuation of the prior trend)

[GreyICE]

Indeed. And (based on forecasting principles) 40-60mm is likelier still!

(2-3 mm/year * 20 years, eg, a continuation of the prior trend)

Because linear is never a bad assumption :rolleyes:

[mhaze]

Because linear is never a bad assumption :rolleyes:


http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/forecasting_canon1.html
...Complex models are often misled by noise in the data, especially in uncertain situations. Thus, using simple methods is important when there is much uncertainty about the situation. Simple models are easier to understand, less prone to mistakes, and more accurate than complex models...
(http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/forecasting_canon1.html#top)
8. Be conservative when uncertain. The many sources of uncertainty make forecasting difficult. When you encounter uncertainty, make conservative forecasts. In time series, this means staying close to an historical average...

[Ordover]

It would seriously discommode a lot of people, but is not a horror-story I've ever come across.



This particular inconsistency (AGW) was predicted before it happened, which actually makes it consistent. We've all lived with weather for a long time, and there's a reason why climate has suddenly become a big subject of the day. What's happening to climate is outside the normal.
Really? All data on climate from historical records and paleological investigation shows the climate of the earth as variable throughout time. Data for the last 10,000 years does not show a constant climate - in face, the normal state is variation. My point is that general climate and local weather staying static over decades, centuries or milennia would be the annomaly - not that climate and weather is changing.

[CapelDodger]

Really? All data on climate from historical records and paleological investigation shows the climate of the earth as variable throughout time. Data for the last 10,000 years does not show a constant climate - in face, the normal state is variation. My point is that general climate and local weather staying static over decades, centuries or milennia would be the annomaly - not that climate and weather is changing.

You won't find examples of global warming at the current rate anywhere in the Holocene (the last ten thousand years or so). This warming is anomalous.

My point is that it was predicted as a direct result of known physical principles, and it has come to pass. Coincidence? I think not.

Climate varies for reasons, it doesn't just happen. The reason it's getting warmer now is AGW. Solar variation isn't causing it, ocean currents aren't causing it, and vulcanism has been minimal for over a century. AGW is causing it, just as predicted, and will continue to cause it.

[GreyICE]

http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/forecasting_canon1.html
...Complex models are often misled by noise in the data, especially in uncertain situations. Thus, using simple methods is important when there is much uncertainty about the situation. Simple models are easier to understand, less prone to mistakes, and more accurate than complex models...
(http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/forecasting_canon1.html#top)
8. Be conservative when uncertain. The many sources of uncertainty make forecasting difficult. When you encounter uncertainty, make conservative forecasts. In time series, this means staying close to an historical average...


First forcasting principle - see if you can make a model.

Since no model on earth would ever predict linear ever, I'm going to say that your links to basics is about as applicable as Rodale's application of Henry's Law.

Of course you defended that.

Hey, these basics wouldn't happen to be things you don't understand and are frantically googling, would they?

[Safe-Keeper]

I love how some pseudo-scientists are arguing that because there are some instances of cooling around the globe, that global warming, or more correctly, Global Climate Change, is a myth.Speaks novels about how much thought and logic people are putting into the issue, and how good we are of getting the facts out, doesn't it?

I do agree it is getting slightly warmer world-wide, but I think the horror-stories of what might happen are getting out of hand. You do realize, of course, that weather patterns and climates are changing and that this is already having pretty significant effects around the world. Speaking of the consequences of AGW as a possible future effect is like sitting at your desk in 2008 wondering if Usama bin Laden could be dangerous.

For example, if sea-level goes up 1 meter in the next 20 years, it's not exactly going to flood the land.We Bergensians are currently considering several extremely costly solutions to the rising sea level. Even today we have high tides regularly flooding our resident UNESCO heritage site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen#Climate_change), and if sea levels continue to rise, which they will, we will have to do something pretty drastic to keep the waters out.

You've already got governments around the world spending significant sums of money on the effects of AGW. It's ridiculous to speak of it as some possible future scenario.

Plus, whoever said the weather patterns would be stable over centuries in the first place? All the evidence points to weather being inconsistent at every time-scale.And?

[CapelDodger]

Speaks novels about how much thought and logic people are putting into the issue, and how good we are of getting the facts out, doesn't it?

Who do you mean "people" and "we", Kimo Sabe?

I (thank Providence) am not of the people. They're such a dreadful rabble; giving them facts is like spreading pearls before swine, frankly. A hopeless and thankless task.

[mhaze]

Speaks novels about how much thought and logic people are putting into the issue, and how good we are of getting the facts out, doesn't it?

You do realize, of course, that weather patterns and climates are changing and that this is already having pretty significant effects around the world. Speaking of the consequences of AGW as a possible future effect is like sitting at your desk in 2008 wondering if Usama bin Laden could be dangerous.

We Bergensians are currently considering several extremely costly solutions to the rising sea level. Even today we have high tides regularly flooding our resident UNESCO heritage site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen#Climate_change), and if sea levels continue to rise, which they will, we will have to do something pretty drastic to keep the waters out.

You've already got governments around the world spending significant sums of money on the effects of AGW. It's ridiculous to speak of it as some possible future scenario.

And?Looks like a standard package of Alarmist lies, saying that storms, floods, tides are all due to AGW. Can you support these claims? I seriously doubt it....but I'm eagerly awaiting to hear how AGW has caused flooding tides at your UNESCO site....

[lomiller]

Really? All data on climate from historical records and paleological investigation shows the climate of the earth as variable throughout time. Data for the last 10,000 years does not show a constant climate - in face, the normal state is variation.

The you should have no problem providing some papers that show periods of warming or cooling that occurred as rapidly as it warmed in the 20th century. You won’t be able to, of course, since there are no such incidents since the Younger Dryas. Climate changing is not synonymous with climate changing as rapidly as it has in the last 100 years.

[casebro]

But re: the OP: How about it snowing in Las Vegas ?

But I guess the Vegas advertising is wrong: When it snows on Vegas, it don't stay on Vegas.

[casebro]

The you should have no problem providing some papers that show periods of warming or cooling that occurred as rapidly as it warmed in the 20th century. You won’t be able to, of course, since there are no such incidents since the Younger Dryas. Climate changing is not synonymous with climate changing as rapidly as it has in the last 100 years.


Any climate charts will easily show the variations. As for the speed, none of the proxies have the acuity to show a mere 100 years for an average climate. In fact, my read is that no proxy can even be interpreted to a +/- two degree spread.


Lets look at tree rings. We can count rings, and get a good date. But the rings shows growth, not temp. Growth is a factor of nutrients, water and sun much more than temp. So, no, not a good proxy of the world wide rate of temp change.

Sediment layers are a measure of erosion, which is related to rainfall. It takes some finagling to come up with a guesstimate of temps, certainly not within the two degree max that this peak involves. And they are not nearly as accurate as a scale of time. Once they get beyond a couple thousand years, probably measurable to +/- several hundred years?

Compare to the more recent spike that is based on thermometer records. Seems that once thermometers became common, we show a steady increase. My guess is that the 'digitalness' of the thermometer is showing anomalies that just don't show up in the proxies due to their simple lack of acuity.

So I say lets give it a couple more decades before we can begin to expect the improvements to the world that could be brought about by a warmer climate.

[lomiller]

Any climate charts will easily show the variations. As for the speed, none of the proxies have the acuity to show a mere 100 years for an average climate. In fact, my read is that no proxy can even be interpreted to a +/- two degree spread.





There is considerable variation in individual proxies, but this decreases when you look at larger numbers of proxies. Here are some of the reconstructions, and their collective average covering the last 12000 years. Note that recent change is so rapid it appears as a near vertical line on this scale.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/b/bb/Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev.png

While it’s certainly difficult to say with certainty it’s warmer today then 8000 years ago due to the variability in these older proxies, it’s certainly plausible.



Lets look at tree rings. We can count rings, and get a good date. But the rings shows growth, not temp. Growth is a factor of nutrients, water and sun much more than temp. So, no, not a good proxy of the world wide rate of temp change.




Yes tree rings are correlated to other things as well, but this does not mean they are not strongly correlated to temperature. As long as the signal is present it can be extracted using established signal processing techniques. When this is done tree ring proxies show a very strong correlation to know temperature variations over the last 150 years.

[Ordover]

There is considerable variation in individual proxies, but this decreases when you look at larger numbers of proxies. Here are some of the reconstructions, and their collective average covering the last 12000 years. Note that recent change is so rapid it appears as a near vertical line on this scale.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/b/bb/Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev.png

While it’s certainly difficult to say with certainty it’s warmer today then 8000 years ago due to the variability in these older proxies, it’s certainly plausible.





Yes tree rings are correlated to other things as well, but this does not mean they are not strongly correlated to temperature. As long as the signal is present it can be extracted using established signal processing techniques. When this is done tree ring proxies show a very strong correlation to know temperature variations over the last 150 years.
What's more plausible is that we are messuring smaller timescales with ever-more-precise instruments.

Oh - and is it fair to point out that it just snowed in LA and NV for the first time in quite a while?:)

[mhaze]

Yes tree rings are correlated to other things as well, but this does not mean they are not strongly correlated to temperature. As long as the signal is present it can be extracted using established signal processing techniques. When this is done tree ring proxies show a very strong correlation to know temperature variations over the last 150 years.

Oh? So are they well correlated to temperatures in the last 20 years?

[casebro]

"There is considerable variation in individual proxies, but this decreases when you look at larger numbers of proxies."

Anybody care to comment on that logic? I'm not much of a statistician, but I know averaging together a bunch of estimates does NOT give estimate of higher acuity then any individual. No wait, let me say that averaging eight proxies has such an extreme 'P' factor that it can't be trusted. Thousands of proxies might work,maybe. But if there are thousands of proxies available, the total still has an error range that negates the 'model'.

So Lomiller, can you tell me what the average temperature of the earth was for every year in the last 10,000 years? Please state the error range.

And for comparison, just exactly what was the average temperature in 2004? Likewise, please give me an error range. (eta, I don;t think ANY scientist have given a contemporary World Wide Average. And without being able to state what the current WWA is, how can they claim it is now 3° higher than before?

And if they can't give a contemporary WWA, how can they give a WWA for 10,000 years ago?

[lomiller]

I'm not much of a statistician, but I know averaging together a bunch of estimates does NOT give estimate of higher acuity then any individual.

You are correct, you are not much of a statistician. If the error is random, increasing the number of samples decreases the error. This is the most fundamental and important property in statistics.


So Lomiller, can you tell me what the average temperature of the earth was for every year in the last 10,000 years? Please state the error range.


You first. You are the one who thinks it’s important to know the temperature of every single year after all.



And for comparison, just exactly what was the average temperature in 2004?

I’m not here to do your school assignments for you.

. And without being able to state what the current WWA is, how can they claim it is now 3° higher than before?

They typically track anomaly but relating that back to an absolute temperature is fairly straightforward, and the error is >0.1 deg

[lomiller]

What's more plausible is that we are messuring smaller timescales with ever-more-precise instruments.

What makes you think that is more plausible?

In fact it’s not even possible because agreement with know measured temperatures is an essential step in identifying and weighting the temperature signal in the proxies. If the proxy can’t “keep up” with rapid temperature changes it can’t make it’s way into the final result. Furthermore all these reconstructions are also validated against a different part of the known temperature range.

[Geckko]

You are correct, you are not much of a statistician. If the error is random, increasing the number of samples decreases the error. This is the most fundamental and important property in statistics.

Just for the record. This statement is false.

You might be thinking of the law of large numbers, but that relates to some specific statistical behaviour of samples of random variables.

Here we are not talking about random variables but proxies of an unknown quantity (i.e. the global average temp in year XXXX).

[kallsop]

This poor guy will be feeling the heat from his bosses today:

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant' (http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx)

Read the last 4 paragraphs. Chad Myers will be getting the memo today about how the debate is over regarding AGW. Fall in line, or else.

[TrueSceptic]

This poor guy will be feeling the heat from his bosses today:

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant' (http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx)

Read the last 4 paragraphs. Chad Myers will be getting the memo today about how the debate is over regarding AGW. Fall in line, or else.
Good job he wasn't really silenced or we would never have heard about it.

Let is know when this brave heretic is threatened with the Stake.

[GreyICE]

This poor guy will be feeling the heat from his bosses today:

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant' (http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx)

Read the last 4 paragraphs. Chad Myers will be getting the memo today about how the debate is over regarding AGW. Fall in line, or else.

Yes kallsop, it's all some grand global conspiracy by the New World Order, who are silencing the noble opposition :rolleyes:

[mhaze]

Just for the record. This statement is false.

You might be thinking of the law of large numbers, but that relates to some specific statistical behaviour of samples of random variables.

Here we are not talking about random variables but proxies of an unknown quantity (i.e. the global average temp in year XXXX).Beat me to it and of course said it better.

Isn't the issue here that the proxy measurements are not drawn from the same pool and thus a larger more diverse group of them cannot result in more precise knowledge of the temperature?

Thus "averaging" this group of 18:


isotope studies from 6 diverse locations
tree ring studies from 6 locations
lake sediments from 6 locations

would not give more accuracy.

[casebro]

As succinctly as I can:

Both the rise and the rate of rise are well within the noise range of all of our data.

If you're skeptical of that statement, prove me wrong.

[GreyICE]

As succinctly as I can:

Both the rise and the rate of rise are well within the noise range of all of our data.

If you're skeptical of that statement, prove me wrong.

I think someone desperately needs a refresher course in how skepticism works.

"Undugaru Hinterland Root cures most forms of cancer when combined with our revolutionary deoxygenation therapy. If you're skeptical of that statement, prove me wrong."

Yeah. To quote anonymous, "You're doing it wrong."

[Geckko]

Beat me to it and of course said it better.

Isn't the issue here that the proxy measurements are not drawn from the same pool and thus a larger more diverse group of them cannot result in more precise knowledge of the temperature?

Thus "averaging" this group of 18:


isotope studies from 6 diverse locations
tree ring studies from 6 locations
lake sediments from 6 locations

would not give more accuracy.

Before even considering that there is the fundamental approach that needs to be considered. These proxy reconstructions work from a thesis that X causes Y, hence observing Y we can infer X.

From a statistical point of view this is a complete minefield from the outset. Consider an example:

Drinking alcohol causes car accidents.
Infer the preponderence of drink driving from the number of car accidents from year to year.

Impossible to do of course because you are dealing with a partial distribution - drinking in part causes car accidents, as does a number of other known and unkown things. So in this case, if you didn't know, or could not properly account for, the fact that in 1976 the national speed limit was reduced, or in 1982 a more rigorous driver testing system was introduced you will get spurious result.

And that is just the start. Next you have to deal with the time series properties (when the characteristics in one year might bear some form of dependent relationship with previos years) that can lead to bias in statistical estimators (can be addressed through law of large numbers), or worse inconsistency (can not be addressed through law of large numbers).

And then there are data error issues that distort estimators (and hence estimates of mean and variance and consequently inference testing) in ways which aren't necessarily intuitive and other ods and bods.

Anyway, quite a digression. But the short answer would be that in the example of tree rings increasing the size of a random sample of tree rings in any particular year in any particular area would provide an estimator for the mean population tree ring width with an increasingly lower variance.

That is it. Whether that increasingly low variance, which might be expected to be assymptotic to zero. In other words the estimator should assymptotically converge on the actual mean tree width for that population in that year.

Note what is missing? Nowhere does this increase the likelihood that we are doing anything to reduce any error between a fundmental divergence between actual temperature and our proxy measure.

[Geckko]

I think someone desperately needs a refresher course in how skepticism works.

"Undugaru Hinterland Root cures most forms of cancer when combined with our revolutionary deoxygenation therapy. If you're skeptical of that statement, prove me wrong."

Yeah. To quote anonymous, "You're doing it wrong."

I start my skepticism by identifying the hypothesis.

Which is the hypothesis?


Human emission of carbon dioxide are creating measurable and dangerous change in global climate?
Human emmissions of carbon dioxide are not creating measurable and dangerous change in global climate?


I lean towards 1.

[lomiller]

Here we are not talking about random variables but proxies of an unknown quantity (i.e. the global average temp in year XXXX).

As long as the variation is random there is no difference, each proxy can be treated as a sample representing the average.

[Geckko]

As long as the variation is random there is no difference, each proxy can be treated as a sample representing the average.

Average (let's say arithmetic mean) of what?

[lomiller]

Average (let's say arithmetic mean) of what?

Global temperature during a given year, obviously.

edit:

(or to be more precise average temperature anomaly relative to some reference period)

[Geckko]

Global temperature during a given year, obviously.

No, you have described an estimate of a certain characteristic of a particular proxy, or some weighted composite thereof.

[lomiller]

No, you have described an estimate of a certain characteristic of a particular proxy, or some weighted composite thereof.

We are not discussing a particular proxy we are discussing what you get when you take an average of multiple proxies for the same time period. If these proxies are randomly distributed around the actual mean temperature then the more proxies you have the more accurately you can estimate the mean.

[Geckko]

We are not discussing a particular proxy we are discussing what you get when you take an average of multiple proxies for the same time period. If these proxies are randomly distributed around the actual mean temperature then the more proxies you have the more accurately you can estimate the mean.

No. You are taking a concept in statisitcs and applying it incorrectly.

If, instead, you had said that for any particular year you take a sample mean of temperature readings as an estimator of the actual global mean temperature and as you increase the sample size the sample mean will approach the actual, thne I would agree with you. That is the correct application of the law of large numbers.

What you describe is not. Go read my longer post.

After reading that read the following:

What you are doing as you increase the number of proxies in the way you describe is reducing the degrees of freedom in the inverse partial regression you are performing on the proxy and temperature data.

In this case, more and more proxies can lead to "overfitting" and spurious inference.

Take my drinking example and extend it. Not only does drinking cause car accidents, but it also causes liver damage, domestic violence and maybe 50 other things. So now I have 50 proxies I can use to estimate the preponderence of drinking over time. If I use 10 of these proxies over 50 years of data, I will get some sort of fit relative to my measure of drinking preponderence. If I increase the number of proxies I will be able to improve the fit. If I use all 50 over the 50 years I will get a perfect fit. I will have a model that perfectly matches my proxy derived estimate of drinking preponderence to my direct measure of drinking preponderence. But all I have done is overfit - each of my 50 proxies will pick out one of the 50 data points I am trying to match, whether it is related or not. I could have taken any 50 random variables and got the same result.

I see this occuring in these proxy temperature papers. And the statistical output of those same studies all point to this.

[lomiller]

Take my drinking example and extend it. Not only does drinking cause car accidents, but it also causes liver damage, domestic violence and maybe 50 other things. So now I have 50 proxies I can use to estimate the preponderence of drinking over time. If I use 10 of these proxies over 50 years of data, I will get some sort of fit relative to my measure of drinking preponderence. If I increase the number of proxies I will be able to improve the fit. If I use all 50 over the 50 years I will get a perfect fit. I will have a model that perfectly matches my proxy derived estimate of drinking preponderence to my direct measure of drinking preponderence. But all I have done is overfit - each of my 50 proxies will pick out one of the 50 data points I am trying to match, whether it is related or not. I could have taken any 50 random variables and got the same result.

In your example you do not seem to be treating these values as proxies. A proxy isn’t just a value related to something else, it has the further attribute that it has specific meaning independently assigned to it.

In the case of large scale climate reconstructions the individual proxies are weighted according to their agreement with the known instrumented record before they are averaged. What is being averaged is in fact a true stand in for a temperature reading for a given year, and as such the uncertainty of the individual proxies drops away as you include more of them.

[mhaze]

In your example you do not seem to be treating these values as proxies. A proxy isn’t just a value related to something else, it has the further attribute that it has specific meaning independently assigned to it.

In the case of large scale climate reconstructions the individual proxies are weighted according to their agreement with the known instrumented record before they are averaged. What is being averaged is in fact a true stand in for a temperature reading for a given year, and as such the uncertainty of the individual proxies drops away as you include more of them.

Out of the set of all proxies:


There is a subset that shows agreement with one or more of the last century temperature readings
There is a subset of that subset which spreads over the historical period of interest
There is a subset of that subset's subset which shows historical temperatures to be lower than current day temperatures

In the alternative I suggest that (subset((subset(subset)))


3A (nothing conclusive) and
3B (historical warmer than current day)

exist.

3, 3A, and 3B are all subject to the limitations Gekko mentioned.

[lomiller]

Out of the set of all proxies:


There is a subset that shows agreement with one or more of the last century temperature readings
There is a subset of that subset which spreads over the historical period of interest
There is a subset of that subset's subset which shows historical temperatures to be lower than current day temperatures

In the alternative I suggest that (subset((subset(subset)))


3A (nothing conclusive) and
3B (historical warmer than current day)

exist.

3, 3A, and 3B are all subject to the limitations Gekko mentioned.

Because they are first weighted based on their agreement with the know record, only proxies that belong to the first category make significant impact on the reconstruction. Since these proxies also show the past significantly cooler then today, clearly your categories are not mutually exclusive as you seem to want to imply.

What on earth do you mean by “one or more of the 20th century temperature readings”? While there is more then one group looking at the weather station data their results are in fairly good agreement, so it doesn’t make a lot of difference which you use for your reference unless you are touching an area they handle differently like the Artic.

[Geckko]

In your example you do not seem to be treating these values as proxies. A proxy isn’t just a value related to something else, it has the further attribute that it has specific meaning independently assigned to it.

In the case of large scale climate reconstructions the individual proxies are weighted according to their agreement with the known instrumented record before they are averaged. What is being averaged is in fact a true stand in for a temperature reading for a given year, and as such the uncertainty of the individual proxies drops away as you include more of them.

Which means the law of large numbers is not applicable here. That was my point and it stands
The law of large numbers is very specific in what it says and what the implications are. It is confined to the sampling of data from a population. It must be clear that either:


collecting different statistical reconstructions of historical temperatures based on proxies, or
collating more proxies in order to formulate a global temperautre reconstruction


are not sampling from a population.

[casebro]

And also, lets look at the chart in post # 23.

I assume the hevy line i the average of the eight proxies shown as lighter lines.

Just look at what happened to the temp change in about 11k BP. Extreme gain, and extreme rate of gain. In fact, the AGW proponent who made the chart chose to truncate at a point that won't even show how far it actually changed. (It's Called data mining).

AND MAN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT CHANGE. Why would anybody think man is the cause of the little blip of the last century?

[varwoche]

Why would anybody think man is the cause of the little blip of the last century? Here are some of the reasons:

NASA / Stanford (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/453296a.html), 2008
formally links observed global changes in physical and biological systems to human-induced climate change, predominantly from increasing greenhouse gases

University of Bern (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html), 2008
atmospheric carbon dioxide is strongly correlated with Antarctic temperature throughout eight glacial cycles

Scripps (http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=108465), 2008
The material [black carbon] not only affects climate in Asia, it also carries consequences for the Pacific Ocean region that drives much of the climate around the world.

Cal Tech (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071016090525.htm), 2007
new way to study Earth's past climate by analyzing the chemical composition of ancient marine fossils ... further support the view that atmospheric CO2 has contributed to dramatic climate variations in the past, and strengthen projections that human CO2 emissions could cause global warming.

Livermore Labs (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070918090803.htm), 2007
The atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that it's due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases.

Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070712-sun-climate.html), 2007
Cyclical changes in the sun's energy output are not responsible for Earth's recent global warming ... Instead the findings put the blame for climate change squarely on human-created carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases

US National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1912202.htm?enviro), 2007
The Arctic icecap is melting much faster than expected ... no doubt that this is caused in large part by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

Potsdam Institute (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20060825-0942-environment-climate.html), 2007
Ice Age evidence confirms that a doubling of greenhouse gases could drive up world temperatures by about 3 Celsius

Heliophysics, Max Planck Institute (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html), 2007
Sunspots alter the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, but not enough to impact global climate change

NOAA (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-07-05-ocean-acidity_x.htm), 2006:
Human activities, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, have upset a natural balance in ocean acidity ... We have very clear evidence, and there is no doubt this is occurring

Wageningen University, Potsdam Institute (http://www.wi.wur.nl/uk/newsagenda/archive/news/2006/Greenhouse_gastemperature_feedback_mechanism_may_r aise_warming_beyond_previous_estimates.htm), 2006
warming due to human fossil fuel emissions may be 15-to-78 percent higher than warming estimates that do not take into account the feedback mechanism involving carbon dioxide

U.S. Climate Change Science Program (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/pressreleases/pressrelease2may2006.htm), 2006
The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases.

NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/troposphere_ozone.html), 2006
a major form of global air pollution involved in summertime "smog" has also played a significant role in warming the Arctic.

UCSC (http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/02-20/warming.asp), 2006
Human activities are releasing greenhouse gases more than 30 times faster than the rate of emissions that triggered a period of extreme global warming in the Earth's past.

Scripps, Brookhaven (http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=712), 2006
The Arctic is showing the first unmistakable signs of climate warming caused by human activities

Hadley Centre (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2005/pr20051221.html), 2005
New observations show that man-made aerosols may be having a greater direct effect on our climate than previously thought

Scripps, Livermore, Hadley, NCAR (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1112418), 2005
A warming signal has penetrated into the world's oceans over the past 40 years ... cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences.

Meteorological Institute, Oslo (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml), 2005
no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming

Scripps, Livermore Labs (http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=666), 2005
results clearly indicate that the warming is produced anthropogenically ... The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming.
______________________

Let me know if/when you want more.

[lomiller]

Which means the law of large numbers is not applicable here. That was my point and it stands
The law of large numbers is very specific in what it says and what the implications are. It is confined to the sampling of data from a population. It must be clear that either:


collecting different statistical reconstructions of historical temperatures based on proxies, or
collating more proxies in order to formulate a global temperautre reconstruction


are not sampling from a population.

If you role a dice once you get an approximation of it’s average role. If you role it twice and take the average you get a better approximation. If you role it 10 times you get a still better approximation. The more often you role the better you expect to approximation to become. If you were correct, and the principle only applies to samples form a finite population this would not be the case.

If you are so certain you are correct, however I suggest you attempt to publish a paper on the subject as there is currently nothing in the peer reviewed literature to support your position. Your argument, though, is starting to sound a lot like the well debunked “there is no such thing as global temperature”

[mhaze]

.....Your argument, though, is starting to sound a lot like the well debunked “there is no such thing as global temperature”
the well debunked ...

Agreeing with the scientific basis that "there is no such thing as global temperature" and then proceeding to discuss it's handy utility as a metric and common usage is not "debunking":

It is quite the opposite.

[Ordover]

I'm perfectly willing to accept that the world is getting warmer, although as I said before not nearly so quickly and catastrophically as some not-on-this-thread seem to be saying.

If the primary cause is human beings putting greenhouse gasses in the air, since human beings are not going to stop doing that to any notcable degree, we had better figure on adjusting to the new, warmer normal.

That said, having grown up in the 60s and 70s admist dire warnngs we were at the start of a new ice age, I'm a bit, well, skeptical about any long-range catastrophic forecasting.

[TrueSceptic]

I'm perfectly willing to accept that the world is getting warmer, although as I said before not nearly so quickly and catastrophically as some not-on-this-thread seem to be saying.

If the primary cause is human beings putting greenhouse gasses in the air, since human beings are not going to stop doing that to any notcable degree, we had better figure on adjusting to the new, warmer normal.

That said, having grown up in the 60s and 70s admist dire warnngs we were at the start of a new ice age, I'm a bit, well, skeptical about any long-range catastrophic forecasting.
Which dire warnings? Who was making them?

[mhaze]

Which means the law of large numbers is not applicable here. That was my point and it stands
The law of large numbers is very specific in what it says and what the implications are. It is confined to the sampling of data from a population. It must be clear that either:


collecting different statistical reconstructions of historical temperatures based on proxies, or
collating more proxies in order to formulate a global temperautre reconstruction

are not sampling from a population.

Let's take a hypothetical case of a proxy measurement of temperature for the years 1000-2009. Said proxy correlates to instrumental temperatures for the years 1900-1999. A scientist asserts that we know the temperatures from 1000-1099 to basically the same accuracy as the last century. By increasing the number of measurements for the period 1000-1099, he opines that we can know more precisely the temperature of that period.

In your opinion-

Are error bounds cumulative? Actual error =
+(Error in 20th century thermometer measurements)
+(error in 20th century proxy correlation)
+(error in alignment of 1000-1099 temperatures to proxy)
Or are the error bounds unknowable?

Caveat: These abstract and generalized concepts may clarify some of the issues in multiproxy studies (or single proxy studies) but each study still merits its own criticism:

Calibration in the Mann et al 2007 Network Revisited (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3326)

by Steve McIntyre on July 20th, 2008

...if you lower your t-standards, then you can typically "get" confidence intervals for the individual calibrations that at least are intelligible. The larger question is whether a multivariate calibration can overcome the deficiencies of the individual calibrations....

[Geckko]

If you role a dice once you get an approximation of it’s average role. If you role it twice and take the average you get a better approximation. If you role it 10 times you get a still better approximation. The more often you role the better you expect to approximation to become. If you were correct, and the principle only applies to samples form a finite population this would not be the case.

If you are so certain you are correct, however I suggest you attempt to publish a paper on the subject as there is currently nothing in the peer reviewed literature to support your position. Your argument, though, is starting to sound a lot like the well debunked “there is no such thing as global temperature”

Hang on.

I don't have to publish anything on the law of large numbers. I am just pointing out that you don't seem to know where to apply it. You dice analogy isn't an anaolgy at all. We are not rolling dice to find the mean outcome of rolling a dice. By using proxies to model temperature you are rolling dice to find the mean outcome of dealing a deck of cards - i.e. some other process entirely on the basis that you believe the two are related.

Turning it around, to make the actual like your analogy we would need to be sampling more and more direct temperature measurements from around the world to estimate global average temperature. Then you would be correct about more data "reducing the error" under the law of large numbers.

But we are not talking about that. Instead, adding additional predictive variables (temperature proxies) to a model of a target variable (actual global temperature) does not "reduce the error".

You can improve the apparent statistical fit - but this is not the error in a real sense (meaning you can actually predict actual temperature accurately outside the period in which you make the estimation - sometimes called the callibration or maybe estimation interval).

I am trying to keep this in the realm of the statistics involved, please keep the ad hom at bay.

The simple fact is (and I am the one talking accepted, well founded statistics) that you made an incorrect statement and ridiculed someone else for their lack of knowledge and I pointed out that fact.

You should have accepted that you were mistaken at the outset. You need to stop digging on this.

[Belz...]

What's more plausible is that we are messuring smaller timescales with ever-more-precise instruments.

Hell, you should hurry and tell all those other scientists!!!

[varwoche]

If the primary cause is human beings putting greenhouse gasses in the air, since human beings are not going to stop doing that to any notcable degree, we had better figure on adjusting to the new, warmer normal. You may be right but then again a technology breakthrough could change things.

That said, having grown up in the 60s and 70s admist dire warnngs we were at the start of a new ice age, I'm a bit, well, skeptical about any long-range catastrophic forecasting. The dire warnings of the 60s amounted to a non-event based almost entirely on press hype. Comparing this to what we know today about GW is like comparing a one-hit wonder to the Beatles.

[Cainkane1]

I love how some pseudo-scientists are arguing that because there are some instances of cooling around the globe, that global warming, or more correctly, Global Climate Change, is a myth.

Clearly, they dont understand that the Earth's various climates are an extremaly complex system, that we don't fully understand. It is indeed very possible and likely that an average increase in the Earth's temperature will lead to increased precipitation and cooling in some places, while record heat and drought in others.

But don't tell that to the nuts. If there is snow anywhere in the USA, it must mean: Global Warming is a myth!!!

:D
It is unseasonable warm in the southeast. Its cold right now but thursday and Friday it was above 70 degrees fahrenheit.

[mhaze]

You may be right but then again a technology breakthrough could change things.

The dire warnings of the 60s amounted to a non-event ....

Yes, there are a great many dire warnings by radical environmentalists and luddite Gaia lovers. Haven't they all fizzled out? Aren't they all pretty funny in retrospect?

Then there are the current AGW claims.... dire warnings of 20 and 80 foot floods, radical super hurricanes, giant bug invasions, massive fires and droughts, pandemics, snake invasions of North America, massive death and starvation due to changing climate...

Similar to the last bunch of bunko nonsense from the same crowd...

Is it time to post the list again? (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm)

No...I guess not....we'll just post the link to the video. (http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/11/must-see-video-all-things-caused-by.html)

[GreyICE]

Yes, there are a great many dire warnings by radical environmentalists and luddite Gaia lovers. Haven't they all fizzled out? Aren't they all pretty funny in retrospect?

Then there are the current AGW claims.... dire warnings of 20 and 80 foot floods, radical super hurricanes, giant bug invasions, massive fires and droughts, huge pandemics due to nice conditions for bugs to grow, snake invasions of North America, massive death and starvation due to changing climate...

Similar to the last bunch of bunko nonsense from the same crowd...

Is it time to post the list again? (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm)

No...I guess not....we'll just post the link to the video. (http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/11/must-see-video-all-things-caused-by.html)
What, the one where you claim penguins are a critical influence on global temperature?

[mhaze]

What, the one where you claim penguins are a critical influence on global temperature?Fascinating. Is the best you can do to make your case lame lying?

An examination of the thread will show that I invited you and other Warmers to show an equilibrium value for any of a number of empirical and measurable items in the real world, such that "alarming deviations from equilibrium" could be attributed.

Penquins were in the list.

[TrueSceptic]

Yes, there are a great many dire warnings by radical environmentalists and luddite Gaia lovers. Haven't they all fizzled out? Aren't they all pretty funny in retrospect?

You failed to support this claim last time. I don't expect any different now.

[Ordover]

I start my skepticism by identifying the hypothesis.

Which is the hypothesis?


Human emission of carbon dioxide are creating measurable and dangerous change in global climate?
Human emmissions of carbon dioxide are not creating measurable and dangerous change in global climate?


I lean towards 1.

Since we can't stop it either way, what difference does it make?

[TrueSceptic]

Since we can't stop it either way, what difference does it make?
So, why not admit that it is happening?

It's not all-or-nothing. Some effects are unavoidable but that doesn't mean we can't do something to prevent things getting worse than they need to.

[Geckko]

Since we can't stop it either way, what difference does it make?

I feel that question must follow and represents the transition from science to policy (the two of which I believe need to be clearly separate.

[Ordover]

So, why not admit that it is happening?

It's not all-or-nothing. Some effects are unavoidable but that doesn't mean we can't do something to prevent things getting worse than they need to.

By a meaninglessly small percentage. We might be able to slow the increase a vanishingly small amount, but there is no feasible way to reduce G.W. in any noticable.

We are not going to stop pumping out greenhouse gasses. We might be able to cut the amount slightly, but it's not politically, economically or socially possible to cut very deeply into the volume produced. And even so, we'd only be slowing down the increase, not causing a decrease.

We're just going to have to adjust to the new climate. That's okay, adjusting to new climates is what being homo sapiens is all about.

[varwoche]

Since we can't stop it either way, what difference does it make? If you're going to state your defeatist stance over and over, at least don't rely on propaganda (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4289162#post4289162) to support it.

[mhaze]

By a meaninglessly small percentage. We might be able to slow the increase a vanishingly small amount, but there is no feasible way to reduce G.W. in any noticable.

We are not going to stop pumping out greenhouse gasses. We might be able to cut the amount slightly, but it's not politically, economically or socially possible to cut very deeply into the volume produced. And even so, we'd only be slowing down the increase, not causing a decrease....

Liberal, green efforts to clamp down on GHG production and other perceived bad things cause industry to move offshore, to locations where nobody cares at all about the current AGW scare. Where they don't even care much about pollution. The net end result is more pollution and more GHG production.

It should be obvious that differential taxation with the intent to penalize industry will cause industry to move to regions favorable to it - places that welcome it instead of placing countless obstacles in its path.

This is what happens when you listen to or fall for the arguments that such private sector businesses as coal power plants, refineries, oil rigs, nuclear power, steel mills, mining, or chemical process are fundamentally bad.

[Ordover]

If you're going to state your defeatist stance over and over, at least don't rely on propaganda (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4289162#post4289162) to support it.
I'm not relying in propoganda. We, as a species, will not turn away from greenhouse-gas-genereating profitable and convenient sources of energy to more expensive, less convenient methods to any great extent. Further, even if 50 percent of our power generation switched to carbon-neutral forms (which is a huge, likely impossible number), the other 50 percent would still be there - we would have accomplished only slowing the rate at which we put greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

Unless there is a convenent, profitable way to "bank" greenhouse gasses back into the soil, we won't do it. It's just not sustainable unless it at least pays for itself. We just won't do it.

As a species we are only able to think in the short term. Plus realize that each generation, as it comes up, will take whatever the current climate is in stride and deal with it as they find it, not bankrupt themselves tryng to reverse it.

[varwoche]

I'm not relying in propoganda. We, as a species, will not turn away from greenhouse-gas-genereating profitable and convenient sources of energy... This may be true. But it has nothing to do with the comments I addressed to you. I was simply pointing out that your statements re the global cooling (non) scare of the 70's are off base.

[TrueSceptic]

This may be true. But it has nothing to do with the comments I addressed to you. I was simply pointing out that your statements re the global cooling (non) scare of the 70's are off base.
He ignored my request for support for that claim too.

[CapelDodger]

Liberal, green efforts to clamp down on GHG production and other perceived bad things cause industry to move offshore ...

... where they've already moved in pursuit of cheap labour.

[TrueSceptic]

... where they've already moved in pursuit of cheap labour.
Surely not! All those American-branded computers aren't being made in China, are they? :rolleyes:

[Ordover]

This may be true. But it has nothing to do with the comments I addressed to you. I was simply pointing out that your statements re the global cooling (non) scare of the 70's are off base.
Perhaps, but having lived through those years when all the experts were saying "ice age by year 2000" one tends to take current prediction of experts with a grain of salt, that's all.

[Pipirr]

Perhaps, but having lived through those years when all the experts were saying "ice age by year 2000" one tends to take current prediction of experts with a grain of salt, that's all.

Okay, but when was this mythical time of 100% on-message global cooling experts?

A recent review paper (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf) looked at the number of papers on global cooling versus papers on global warming. Turns out that the experts were not all saying ice age by year 2000, or anything like it. For the period 1965 to 1979, the review found 7 articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral.

I hear this idea a lot, that all the experts were predicting cooling. They weren't, not even close.

[a_unique_person]

By a meaninglessly small percentage. We might be able to slow the increase a vanishingly small amount, but there is no feasible way to reduce G.W. in any noticable.

We are not going to stop pumping out greenhouse gasses. We might be able to cut the amount slightly, but it's not politically, economically or socially possible to cut very deeply into the volume produced. And even so, we'd only be slowing down the increase, not causing a decrease.

We're just going to have to adjust to the new climate. That's okay, adjusting to new climates is what being homo sapiens is all about.

Kyoto was supposed to be a prototype developed for the whole world to use, a 'proof of concept'. Once that model was demonstrated to be working, the real work could start.

[TrueSceptic]

Perhaps, but having lived through those years when all the experts were saying "ice age by year 2000" one tends to take current prediction of experts with a grain of salt, that's all.
That is the whole point. "All the experts" never said any such thing. A couple did, and the MSM made a big thing of it. It was never anything more than a minority view among climate scientists.

[varwoche]

Perhaps, but having lived through those years when all the experts were saying "ice age by year 2000" one tends to take current prediction of experts with a grain of salt, that's all. False. The 70's non event was based on a hyperbolic story in a magazine.

One would think you'd bother to stop and fact-check, given how many times you've been told your statements are false.

On the other hand you could prove me wrong by citing several of the peer-reviewed studies that predicted a looming ice age. Surely the denial echo chamber would be bleating about them ad nauseum especially since "all the experts" were on board. It should be a walk in the park for you to locate some of these studies (except for the pesky little problem of their non-existence).

Well?

[mhaze]

False. The 70's non event was based on a hyperbolic story in a magazine.

One would think you'd bother to stop and fact-check, given how many times you've been told your statements are false.

On the other hand you could prove me wrong by citing several of the peer-reviewed studies that predicted a looming ice age. Surely the denial echo chamber would be bleating about them ad nauseum especially since "all the experts" were on board. It should be a walk in the park for you to locate some of these studies (except for the pesky little problem of their non-existence).

Well?I realize that you and other radical environmentalists feel obliged to make the "global cooling scare" of the 1970s go away, just like you and others feel obliged to make the Little Ice Age go away, and the Medieval Warm Period go away, and the current period of cooling or non warming or whatever it is, go away.

However, you've partially reframed the argument and in doing so, mis stated what really happened in the 1970s. Your reframing is to ask about numbers of scientific articles. This has no relation to what was being said in the media and the popular press in the 1970s, does it?

Here, for example. (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf)

And then we all know about Hansen writing the program for his associate to use which in turn predicted global cooling.

Here we go.... (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/)Cold yet?
NASA (http://www.washingtontimes.com/themes/?Theme=NASA) scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.
How often radical environmentalists have predicted dire consequences if people didn't listen to their latest fantasy of doom. How often they were proven wrong.....just like they will be proven wrong now, with reference to the AGW scare.

No...wait...It's unscientific. (Chuckle - Chuckle). Yes, the Warmer if questioned on the media alarmism, scurries back to talk "just about the science", but if questioned on the science, scurries off to talk about the alarmism - his beliefs.

It's radical environmentalists who now, just like in the past, are the unscientific ones. And who are typically quite ignorant of science. How often have environmentalists been proven wrong? Start with the goddess of your religion, Rachel Carlson (I'm sure she and Odin are on very good terms), and let's work forward to the present day.

By the way (courtesy of Popular Technology (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050)) here are some Global Cooling articles from the 1970s. Where are your Global Warming popular articles from the 1970s? I'm sure you have five times the count. Right? Noooo???
1969 - New Ice Age Threat Seen (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rwAOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=v3sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7232,3193198&dq=allintitle:+ice+age) (St. Petersburg Times, January 15, 1969)
1969 - Worrying About a New Ice Age (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00C11FD3A5B137A93C1AB1789D85F4D 8685F9) (The New York Times, February 23, 1969)
1969 - Ice Age Biggest Threat According to Archeologist (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant/access/934951852.html?dids=934951852:934951852&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Nov+21%2C+1969&author=Special&pub=The+Hartford+Courant&desc=Ice+Age+Biggest+Threat+According+to+Archeolog ist&pqatl=google) (The Hartford Courant, November 21, 1969)
1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/157892192.html?dids=157892192:157892192&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=JAN+11%2C+1970&author=Washington+Post+Staff+WriterBy+David+R.+Bol dt&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=Colder+Winters+Held+Dawn+of+New+Ice+Age&pqatl=google) (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/659824322.html?dids=659824322:659824322&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Jan+15%2C+1970&author=IRVING+S+BENGELSDORF&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Is+Mankind+Manufacturing+a+New+Ice+Age+for+It self%3F&pqatl=google) (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qvcNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_3sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5498,3270345&dq=allintitle:+ice+age) (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=h_0NAAAAIBAJ&sjid=I3wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3656,4469550&dq=allintitle:+ice+age) (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/144703752.html?dids=144703752:144703752&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&fmac=&date=Jul+9,+1971&author=By+Victor+CohnWashington+Post+Staff+Writer&desc=U.S.+Scientist+Sees+New+Ice+Age+Coming) (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 - New Ice Age Coming - It's Already Getting Colder (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/685244192.html?dids=685244192:685244192&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Oct+24%2C+1971&author=GEORGE+GETZE&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=New+Ice+Age+Coming---It%27s+Already+Getting+Colder&pqatl=google) (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1972 - British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/csmonitor_historic/access/264940572.html?dids=264940572:264940572&FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:AI&date=Sep+23%2C+1972&author=&pub=Christian+Science+Monitor&desc=British+climate+expert+predicts+new+Ice+Age&pqatl=google) (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 - Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/684637452.html?dids=684637452:684637452&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Sep+24%2C+1972&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Scientist+Sees+Chilling+Signs+of+New+Ice+Age&pqatl=google) (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 - Another Ice Age? (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910467,00.html) (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1973 - Weather-watchers think another ice age may be on the way (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/csmonitor_historic/access/265591482.html?dids=265591482:265591482&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Dec+11%2C+1973&author=By+David+F.+Salisbury+Staff+correspondent+o f+The+Christian+Science+Monitor&pub=Christian+Science+Monitor&desc=Weather-watchers+think+another+ice+age+may+be+on+the+way--sometime&pqatl=google) (The Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 1973)
1974 - Another Ice Age? (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html) (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
1974 - 2 Scientists Think 'Little' Ice Age Near (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant/access/964208132.html?dids=964208132:964208132&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Aug+11%2C+1974&author=&pub=The+Hartford+Courant&desc=2+Scientists+Think+%27Little%27+Ice+Age+Near&pqatl=google) (The Hartford Courant, August 11, 1974)
1974 - Ice Age, worse food crisis seen (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/611645872.html?dids=611645872:611645872&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Oct+30%2C+1974&author=Ronald+Yates&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Ice+Age%2C+worse+food+crisis+seen&pqatl=google) (The Chicago Tribune, October 30, 1974)
1975 - Climate Changes Called Ominous (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf) (PDF) (The New York Times, January 19, 1975)
1975 - Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News, March 1, 1975)
1975 - B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/611341812.html?dids=611341812:611341812&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Mar+02%2C+1975&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=B-r-r-r-r%3A+New+Ice+Age+on+way+soon%3F&pqatl=google) (The Chicago Tribune, March 2, 1975)
1975 - The Ice Age cometh: the system that controls our climate (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/611566792.html?dids=611566792:611566792&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Apr+13%2C+1975&author=Joel+Shurkin&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=The+Ice+Age+cometh%3A+the+system+that+control s+our+climate&pqatl=google) (The Chicago Tribune, April 13, 1975)
1975 - The Cooling World (http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm) (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-05-21.pdf) (PDF) (The New York Times, May 21, 1975)
1975 - In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife, July-August, 1975)
1976 - Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling TrendU.S. News & World Report, May 31, 1976)
1976 - The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (http://www.amazon.com/Cooling-Has-Next-Already-Begun/dp/013172312X) (Book, 1976)
1977 - The Big Freeze (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,918620,00.html) (Time Magazine, January 31, 1977)
1977 - The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=969402059&searchurl=isbn%3D0345272099%26nsa%3D1) (Book, 1977)
1978 - Believe new ice age is coming (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dEgLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WlIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2957,5904697&dq=allintitle:+ice+age) (The Bryan Times, March 31, 1978)
1978 - The Coming Ice Age (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZKtJSlhFsA) (In Search Of - TV Show, Season 2, Episode 23, May 1978)
1979 - New ice age almost upon us? (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/csmonitor_historic/access/187037982.html?dids=187037982:187037982&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&date=Nov+14%2C+1979&author=By+Robert+C.+Cowen&pub=Christian+Science+Monitor&desc=New+ice+age+almost+upon+us%3F&pqatl=google) (The Christian Science Monitor, November 14, 1979)Indeed, I invite you and others who are only echoing the "Standard Warmer Talking Point" about the 1970s global cooling scare never having happened, to post all the popular articles you have showing that there was concern over global warming - as you allege to be the case - in the 1970s.

Support your claim, if you can.

[varwoche]

Here, for example. (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf)
A link to a Newsweek article bolsters my point -- an article in which the only alarmist is the Newsweek doofus who wrote it.

Tally:
Links to popular news magazines: 1
Links to scientific studies: 0

[varwoche]

1969 - New Ice Age Threat Seen (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rwAOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=v3sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7232,3193198&dq=allintitle:+ice+age) (St. Petersburg Times, January 15, 1969) This doomsday prediction -- the first item on your impressively long list -- comes not from an expert scientist but from a "doctor and writer".

I don't have all day. Does your list contain anything of substance? That is, a cite to an actual study conducted by experts, as opposed to babbling and speculation.

Sure, there was all sorts of hyperbolic babbling and speculation, almost entirely from non expert sources. Whereas (http://gwstudies.blogspot.com/search/label/AGW).

Add: I have randomly clicked a few more of the links in your list. One word: laughable. I especially like the ones that are about extreme weather. Are you impervious to embarrassment?

[billydkid]

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

[varwoche]

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 Is there a particular reason you've posted this unadulterated drivel?

[mhaze]

....I don't have all day......
Neither do I so let me repeat my request.

Indeed, I invite you and others who are only echoing the "Standard Warmer Talking Point" about the 1970s global cooling scare never having happened, to post all the popular articles you have showing that there was concern over global warming - as you allege to be the case - in the 1970s.

Support your claim, if you can.
This doomsday prediction -- the first item on your impressively long list -- comes not from an expert scientist but from a "doctor and writer".....Does your list contain anything of substance? That is, a cite to an actual study conducted by experts, as opposed to babbling and speculation.....I realize that you and other radical environmentalists feel obliged to make the "global cooling scare" of the 1970s go away, just like you and others feel obliged to make the Little Ice Age go away, and the Medieval Warm Period go away, and the current period of cooling or non warming or whatever it is, go away.
.....Sure, there was all sorts of hyperbolic babbling and speculation, almost entirely from non expert sources. Whereas (http://gwstudies.blogspot.com/search/label/AGW).I take it that you are disinclined to enumerate the failures of radical environmentalists to make sound predictions, starting with Odin's consort Rachael Carlson and moving forward to today? A shame, really. Quite revealing to take an overall look at the earth puppies, and washed out hippies of the past.
....One word: laughable. I especially like the ones that are about extreme weather. Are you impervious to embarrassment?Like today? Extreme weather is routinely ascribed to AGW. Which is objected to by skeptics....never Warmers such as yourself....oh wait, you have now objected to it since the extreme weather references a past scare that you need to erase from history - the "Global Cooling Scare of the 1970s".

Now, let's have those popular articles from the 1970s warning us all about the upcoming Global Warming.

Support your claim.

[Memekiller]

This is a good piece on how the media constantly distorts scientific consensus on global warming.

[lomiller]

From this link pipirr posted we already know that in the peer reviewed literature “Warming” papers significantly outnumbered “cooling”. What point does linking random anecdotal mass media article discussing “cooling” serve at this point?

BTW, I think it’s worth noting there was little evidence of warming and even some evidence of a possible cooling trend to go along with misguided mass media frenzy about cooling the people publishing in peer review literature were predicting warming. Clearly they got something right, don’t you think.

[Pipirr]

Deniers want to say that the experts were all predicting global cooling in the past; now the experts are predicting global warming. Of course if they were wrong before, why should we believe them now?

This particular talking point is one straight out of the Luntz memo (http://www2.bc.edu/~plater/Newpublicsite06/suppmats/02.6.pdf), produced for the GOP in 2002. In his words,…

WORDS THAT WORK
“Scientists can extrapolate all kinds of things from today’s data, but that doesn’t tell us anything about tomorrow’s world. You can’t look back a million years and say that proves that we’re heating the globe now hotter than it’s ever been. After all, just 20 years ago scientists were worried about a new Ice Age.”

It’s just FUD. One should be willing to accept that scientific findings and consensus change over time. It’s a feature, not a bug, of the scientific method. However, in this instance we don’t have to accept that the consensus opinion on warming has changed over this time period, because it hasn’t; it’s been really quite consistent. In the scientific peer reviewed literature, predictions of global warming far exceeded predictions of global cooling. That was the case 40 years ago and it is still the case today, as this peer reviewed review article (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)shows.

The sensible thing to do, of course, is to rely on the scientific literature. If all one does is read magazine articles and airport bestsellers instead, you can get suckered. Inhofe was (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf):

When the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary discussion over climate change, it is most often in the form of citations not to the scientific literature, but to news media coverage. That is where U.S. Senator James Inhofe turned for much of the evidence to support his argument in a Senate floor speech in 2003 (Inhofe 2003). Chief among his evidence was a frequently cited Newsweek story: “The Cooling World” (Gwynne 1975).

The Newsweek article was not an accurate overview of the body of scientific opinion at the time, and Senator Inhofe's reliance upon that same article now is disengenious.

[TrueSceptic]

I realize that you and other radical environmentalists feel obliged to make the "global cooling scare" of the 1970s go away, just like you and others feel obliged to make the Little Ice Age go away, and the Medieval Warm Period go away, and the current period of cooling or non warming or whatever it is, go away.

Never mind that. Stick to the point.


However, you've partially reframed the argument and in doing so, mis stated what really happened in the 1970s. Your reframing is to ask about numbers of scientific articles. This has no relation to what was being said in the media and the popular press in the 1970s, does it?

Here, for example. (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf)

The claim was "all the experts". We know the MSM made a big thing of it, based on speculation from a small minority of scientists.

William Connelley has put paid to this myth once and for all so stop lying about it.


And then we all know about Hansen writing the program for his associate to use which in turn predicted global cooling.

You are truly a shameless liar, aren't you (again!)? You know perfectly well the truth behind that piece of fiction.

And were did you get that ridiculous list? One of your fellow liars' blogs?

[mhaze]

Deniers want to say that the experts were all predicting global cooling in the past; now the experts are predicting global warming. Of course if they were wrong before, why should we believe them now?.....

More precisely, people/scientists noticed it was cooling in the 1970s, and with some scientists behind them, the media blitz started. Of course that included Stephen Schneider, who has now scurried over to Warmerville. Keeping with the trend isn't he?

Let's see


1970's....it was cooling, and people including scientists worried about/predicted more cooling
1988 on....it's been warming, and people including scientists worried about/predicted more warming

Wait....It's warming?

[TrueSceptic]

Deniers want to say that the experts were all predicting global cooling in the past; now the experts are predicting global warming. Of course if they were wrong before, why should we believe them now?

This particular talking point is one straight out of the Luntz memo (http://www2.bc.edu/~plater/Newpublicsite06/suppmats/02.6.pdf), produced for the GOP in 2002. In his words,…

It’s just FUD. One should be willing to accept that scientific findings and consensus change over time. It’s a feature, not a bug, of the scientific method. However, in this instance we don’t have to accept that the consensus opinion on warming has changed over this time period, because it hasn’t; it’s been really quite consistent. In the scientific peer reviewed literature, predictions of global warming far exceeded predictions of global cooling. That was the case 40 years ago and it is still the case today, as this peer reviewed review article (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)shows.

The sensible thing to do, of course, is to rely on the scientific literature. If all one does is read magazine articles and airport bestsellers instead, you can get suckered. Inhofe was (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf):

The Newsweek article was not an accurate overview of the body of scientific opinion at the time, and Senator Inhofe's reliance upon that same article now is disengenious.
Inhofe was not suckered. He thought he could sucker others. He knew he was being dishonest, just as mhaze and his fellow liars do now.

[TrueSceptic]

Add: I have randomly clicked a few more of the links in your list. One word: laughable. I especially like the ones that are about extreme weather. Are you impervious to embarrassment?
Hard to say but we know that he is impervious to anything resembling honesty.

[Pipirr]

Inhofe was not suckered. He thought he could sucker others. He knew he was being dishonest, just as mhaze and his fellow liars do now.

Yeah, I think that is the case. After all this time, he can't be ignorant of the science.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4306058#post4306058)
Inhofe was not suckered. He thought he could sucker others. He knew he was being dishonest, just as mhaze and his fellow liars do now.
Yeah, I think that is the case. After all this time, he can't be ignorant of the science.

Unfortunately, you've been misled in your parroted lines. Your "Peterson/Connally peer reviewed paper" seems to misrepresent Inhofe by misquoting him out of context. They'd like to make the Global Cooling Scare of the 1970's go away. What a joke - these guys are to say the least....slightly biased. Actually the articles seems to drag up all the old CO2 studies and count them versus a strange collection of "cooling studies" from a time before climate science. But I digress...

Let's look at what Inhofe said ....Inhofe, 7-28-2003:Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector, sounded both ridiculous and alarmist when he said in March, "I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict."....

Science writer David Appell, who has written for such publications as the New Scientist and Scientific American, parroted Blix when he said global warming would......
Then the analogy by Inhofe that your radical Warmers in their "peer reviewed study" take out of context: Appell and Blix sound very much like those who warned us in the 1970s that the planet was headed for a catastrophic global cooling. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek printed .....
Awww....Your house of cards just fell, didn't it? So Inhofe wasn't misled, didn't misquote science, and wasn't a liar. I note Peterson and Connally, even while misquoting Inhofe, are quite respectul of the Senator. Unlike you and TS. Inhofe was specificially referring to public comments by policy advocates. Awww....

Then Inhope comments on radical environmentalists, Warmers and similar climatozoa:.....To the environmental extremists, my insistence on sound science is outrageous. For them, a "pro-environment" pilosophy can only mean top-down, command-and-control rules dictated by bureaucrats. Science is irrelevant-instead, for extremists, politics and power are the motivating forces for making public policy. But if the relationship between public policy and science is distorted for political ends, the result is flawed policy that hurts the environment, the economy, and the people we serve. Sadly that's true of the current debate over many environmental issues. Too often emotion, stoked by irresponsible rhetoric, rather than facts based on objective science, shapes the contours of environmental policy.

[CapelDodger]

Then the analogy by Inhofe that your radical Warmers in their "peer reviewed study" take out of context:
Appell and Blix sound very much like those who warned us in the 1970s that the planet was headed for a catastrophic global cooling. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek printed .....
Awww....Your house of cards just fell, didn't it? So Inhofe wasn't misled, didn't misquote science, and wasn't a liar. I note Peterson and Connally, even while misquoting Inhofe, are quite respectul of the Senator. Unlike you and TS. Inhofe was specificially referring to public comments by policy advocates.

The Newsweek piece was not public comment by policy advocates. It was a magazine article. That's the point. Inhofe regards a magazine article as a sound source of information, as sound as any set of scientific journals.

Inhoffe is a buffoon.

[CapelDodger]

Inhofe was not suckered. He thought he could sucker others. He knew he was being dishonest, just as mhaze and his fellow liars do now.

I really think Inhofe is stupid enough to be sincere. He believes this sort of crap - it's confirmation-bias writ large.

[CapelDodger]

Yeah, I think that is the case. After all this time, he can't be ignorant of the science.

Perish the thought.

[CapelDodger]

On the other hand you could prove me wrong by citing several of the peer-reviewed studies that predicted a looming ice age. Surely the denial echo chamber would be bleating about them ad nauseum especially since "all the experts" were on board. It should be a walk in the park for you to locate some of these studies (except for the pesky little problem of their non-existence).

Your logic is impeccable.

[CapelDodger]

Perhaps, but having lived through those years when all the experts were saying "ice age by year 2000" one tends to take current prediction of experts with a grain of salt, that's all.

You seem to be suffering from false-memory syndrome. I too was alive and paying attention at the time; it was just newspaper hype that itself gained very little attention.

[TrueSceptic]

I really think Inhofe is stupid enough to be sincere. He believes this sort of crap - it's confirmation-bias writ large.
You could be right, in which case I'm not justified in calling him a liar. If someone is delusional and therefore not aware that he is propounding falsehood then he is off the hook.

[TrueSceptic]

Unfortunately, you've been misled in your parroted lines. Your "Peterson/Connally peer reviewed paper" seems to misrepresent Inhofe by misquoting him out of context. They'd like to make the Global Cooling Scare of the 1970's go away. What a joke - these guys are to say the least....slightly biased. Actually the articles seems to drag up all the old CO2 studies and count them versus a strange collection of "cooling studies" from a time before climate science. But I digress...

Let's look at what Inhofe said ....Inhofe, 7-28-2003:Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector, sounded both ridiculous and alarmist when he said in March, "I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict."....

Science writer David Appell, who has written for such publications as the New Scientist and Scientific American, parroted Blix when he said global warming would......
Then the analogy by Inhofe that your radical Warmers in their "peer reviewed study" take out of context: Appell and Blix sound very much like those who warned us in the 1970s that the planet was headed for a catastrophic global cooling. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek printed .....
Awww....Your house of cards just fell, didn't it? So Inhofe wasn't misled, didn't misquote science, and wasn't a liar. I note Peterson and Connally, even while misquoting Inhofe, are quite respectul of the Senator. Unlike you and TS. Inhofe was specificially referring to public comments by policy advocates. Awww....

Then Inhope comments on radical environmentalists, Warmers and similar climatozoa:.....To the environmental extremists, my insistence on sound science is outrageous. For them, a "pro-environment" pilosophy can only mean top-down, command-and-control rules dictated by bureaucrats. Science is irrelevant-instead, for extremists, politics and power are the motivating forces for making public policy. But if the relationship between public policy and science is distorted for political ends, the result is flawed policy that hurts the environment, the economy, and the people we serve. Sadly that's true of the current debate over many environmental issues. Too often emotion, stoked by irresponsible rhetoric, rather than facts based on objective science, shapes the contours of environmental policy.


You love to misrepresent, don't you? The entire point is that there was never anything more than minority scientific support for global cooling. What the MSM said is not the issue.

Regardless, Inhofe said

That's why I established three guiding principles for all committee work: it should rely on the most objective science; it should consider costs on businesses and consumers; and the bureaucracy should serve, not rule, the people.

Without these principles, we cannot make effective public policy decisions. They are necessary to both improve the environment and encourage economic growth and prosperity.

One very critical element to our success as policymakers is how we use science. That is especially true for environmental policy, which relies very heavily on science. I have insisted that federal agencies use the best, non-political science to drive decision-making. Strangely, I have been harshly criticized for taking this stance. To the environmental extremists, my insistence on sound science is outrageous.

and then refers not to scientific reports but to magazine articles.

Appell and Blix sound very much like those who warned us in the 1970s that the planet was headed for a catastrophic global cooling. On April 28, 1975, Newsweek printed an article titled, "The Cooling World," in which the magazine warned: "There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production-with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth."

In a similar refrain, Time magazine for June 24, 1974 declared: "However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades."

Peterson, Connelley, and Fleck quoted Inhofe correctly and in context.

[Pipirr]

I note Peterson and Connally, even while misquoting Inhofe, are quite respectul of the Senator. Unlike you and TS.

Why should I be respectful of Senator Inhofe?

[varwoche]

I really think Inhofe is stupid enough to be sincere. He believes this sort of crap - it's confirmation-bias writ large. Inhofe thinks that a/gw is one of the two greatest hoaxes of all time, the other being evolution. This is someone who unabashedly bases foriegn policy position on biblical texts. In other words, he's nuttier than an almond orchard.

[macdoc]

TS said

The entire point is that there was never anything more than minority scientific support for global cooling.

I'd caveat that a bit- global dimming is /was widely accepted due to particulates lowering radiation during that period ( might be again given the coal levels in the South East :(

It's also the geo-engineering with sulphur that is floating about as a last gasp ( pardon the pun ) cooling method.

Aside from that - Inhofe et al are an embarrassment to the US amongst other things best left unsaid...;)

[macdoc]

MHaze
realize that you and other radical environmentalists feel obliged to make the "global cooling scare" of the 1970s go away, just like you and others feel obliged to make the Little Ice Age go away, and the Medieval Warm Period go away, and the current period of cooling or non warming or whatever it is, go away.

Except climate scientists are not radical environmentalist - whatever those happen to be.....

Global dimming was real and acknowledged. Particulates and measured dimming which cleared up late 80s as pollution controls kicked in.

Little Ice age has solid explanation if you keep up with the science
Stanford Report, December 17, 2008
Reforestation helped trigger Little Ice Age, researchers say

BY LOUIS BERGERON


sorry can't link yet and perhaps you HAVE heard of LaNina and ENSO and that the Pacific happens to be in a cool phase......despite which the last decade continues trends of warming.

Oscillation Rules as the Pacific Cools

Earth data A cool wedge of lower-than-normal sea-surface heights continues to dominate the tropical Pacific, ringed by a horseshoe of warmer waters. The continuation of this long-term cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation stacks the odds against a wetter-than-average winter/spring in the southwestern United States. Image credit: NASA/JPL

December 09, 2008

PASADENA, Calif. -- The latest image of sea-surface height measurements from the U.S./French Jason-1 oceanography satellite shows the Pacific Ocean remains locked in a strong, cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a large, long-lived pattern of climate variability in the Pacific associated with a general cooling of Pacific waters.

You cannot take a El Nino peak in 1998 through to a long round of La Nina over this year and last and say global warming has stopped - it's flat out dishonest - of course that is the denier stock in trade which is why we look to scientists - not bloggers ala watts et al.

Medieval Warm period still has some puzzles to solve but information out of China indicate it was not global but rather European and shifts in the Atlantic oscillation ( as is happening now as well ) have a part to play.

To deny AGW at this point is pure :boggled: and is irresponsible from a science standpoint.

What the implications are, how fast impacts will occur and to what scale ....lots of uncertainty.

No uncertainty that the impacts are here and now at varying levels across the planet.

Global Warming Impacts On U.S. Coming Sooner Than Expected, Report Predicts

ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2008) — A report released at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union on December 16 provides new insights on the potential for abrupt climate change and the effects it could have on the United States, identifying key concerns that include faster-than-expected loss of sea ice, rising sea levels and a possibly permanent state of drought in the American Southwest.

There are dozens of papers/reports like that and a large compilation of individual reports made earlier this year which showed the actual changes already observed.

[TrueSceptic]

I'd caveat that a bit- global dimming is /was widely accepted due to particulates lowering radiation during that period ( might be again given the coal levels in the South East :(

It's also the geo-engineering with sulphur that is floating about as a last gasp ( pardon the pun ) cooling method.

Yes, we see that with industrial pollution, and with major volcanic activity.

The point is that the West cleaned up (smog used to be a killer in cities like London), and the CO2 signal then emerged.

Aside from that - Inhofe et al are an embarrassment to the US amongst other things best left unsaid...;)
The thing is, the denialists really don't care who's on their side. They'll take anyone, no matter how wacko, dishonest, or in contradiction to other denialists.

We can point you to a few if you like. :)

[macdoc]

I'm all too familiar with the public ones having played whack a mole for a few years now. I suspect they'll emerge rather obviously on here.:rolleyes:

You could answer the PM - would be helpful thanks;) ( answered thanks)

I find it important not to discount the global cooling aspect as it was very real with some areas down 10% of radiation that would normal reach the surface :eek:

And the variation could be very strong even in regions less than 1,000 km seperation.

I've been niggling Gavin at Real Climate to see if anyone is remeasuring given the high sulphur coal that China and India are using.

Beijing looks like London 1952 these days despite Olympic clean up efforts.

That has to be dimming the Pacific somewhat and tipping an already cool oscillation period back towards La Nina which is rare.

I don't know of any transparency measurements tho.:boggled:

[TrueSceptic]

I'm all too familiar with the public ones having played whack a mole for a few years now. I suspect they'll emerge rather obviously on here.:rolleyes:

You could answer the PM - would be helpful thanks;)

Replied over an hour ago. Have you checked? :)


I find it important not to discount the global cooling aspect as it was very real with some areas down 10% of radiation that would normal reach the surface :eek:

And the variation could be very strong even in regions less than 1,000 km seperation.

I've been niggling Gavin at Real Climate to see if anyone is remeasuring given the high sulphur coal that China and India are using.

Beijing looks like London 1952 these days despite Olympic clean up efforts.

That has to be dimming the Pacific somewhat and tipping an already cool oscillation period back towards La Nina which is rare.

I don't know of any transparency measurements tho.:boggled:
It would be good to see some figures from there. All that pollution must make some difference.

[macdoc]

All Gavin gave me was "would be hard to measure" which since it was measured in the 70's made no sense to me.:confused:

If you look at some of the pollution plumes of China every day ( can't post a link yet :()

There is a good one here just add the usual etc :rolleyes:

ww.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/a_picture_china_air_pollution.php

BTW what is the policy for images - graphs etc??? Links only?

[TrueSceptic]

All Gavin gave me was "would be hard to measure" which since it was measured in the 70's made no sense to me.:confused:

If you look at some of the pollution plumes of China every day ( can't post a link yet :()

There is a good one here just add the usual etc :rolleyes:

ww.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/a_picture_china_air_pollution.php

BTW what is the policy for images - graphs etc??? Links only?
You can upload and link to images here or link to external ones, or at least I've done that. Example:- http://nsidc.com/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

[macdoc]

I might not be able to - you COULD use a smaller example ;)

No I can't yet but good to know.

Pick off the image here and put it up instead..

ww.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/a_picture_china_air_pollution.php

[macdoc]

http://www.treehugger.com/china%20air%20pollution.jpg

there we go - 15 posts on....:rolleyes: Chinese parasol taken to new levels. That's gotta be changing albedo.

[Pipirr]

I'm still waiting (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4307013&postcount=101) to find out why the heck I should be respectful to Senator Inhofe. Care to enlighten me, mhaze?

Is it all politicians that deserve respect, or only senators? Why not Vice Presidents for example, or is it any politician that comments on climate science?

Has Inhofe done anything that indicates that he deserves respect, like win international accolades for his stance on certain issues? I can't help but think I am missing something here.

[macdoc]

Here's an overview ;):D

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/07/whats-wrong-with-james-inhofe.html

I suppose you could show respect for his jail dodging al these years....

Polite people don't talk about the fact that Inhofe is also one of the most corrupt men in the U.S. Senate. It just is never said aloud. But it doesn't make it untrue and Emily Post was never a fave of mine. Arianna did mention, almost in passing, that Big Oil lavished more donations on Inhofe in 2002 than anyone but John Cornyn. Well, what do you think they're doing in 2008? Not counting the presidential contenders-- after all how could anyone compete with McCain's $1,010,868 from Oil & Gas?-- and again we find Cornyn at #1 for the year ($480,100) and Inhofe at #2 ($220,350). His career total from the Oil and Gas industries is $1,076,573, the biggest single chunk of his campaign funds, more than double the next closest.

Inhofe may come across as a cranky, crazy old retrobate but he knows precisely what he's doing. He's never met a corporate lobbyist to whom he was unwilling to sell a vote-- and make no mistake about it: James Inhofe is selling his votes. He consistently votes against the interests of his constituents and in favor of his heavy corporate campaign donors. He is one of the biggest toadies in the entire Congress when it comes to shilling for Big Business. It isn't the way he presents himself to the public, of course, and it isn't something the Oklahoma media is ever willing to get into, but if the Senate wasn't making its own rules governing what its members are allowed to do and not do, James Inhofe would have been hauled off to prison years ago and charged with suborning bribery.

[TrueSceptic]

I'm still waiting (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4307013&postcount=101) to find out why the heck I should be respectful to Senator Inhofe. Care to enlighten me, mhaze?

Is it all politicians that deserve respect, or only senators? Why not Vice Presidents for example, or is it any politician that comments on climate science?

Has Inhofe done anything that indicates that he deserves respect, like win international accolades for his stance on certain issues? I can't help but think I am missing something here.
I think we know the answer. Mhaze demands respect only for those who propagate right-wing anti-science garbage. Anyone else is part of some great left-green-socialist conspiracy.

[CapelDodger]

Inhofe thinks that a/gw is one of the two greatest hoaxes of all time, the other being evolution. This is someone who unabashedly bases foriegn policy position on biblical texts. In other words, he's nuttier than an almond orchard.

That "greatest hoax" comment came before Inhofe's hearings, which says it all. He's singing from exactly the same song-sheet as Lord Munchkin, which is nearly as old as the Bible (and equally debunked).