Thursday, March 20, 2008

Global Warming fails to defend Chicago!

Continuing its year long retreat, Global Warming has abandoned Chicago to the clutches of a spring snow storm of 6 to 8 inches.

But the planet, according to Pope Algore and his cadre of climatology for dummies, must be saved.

In related news many expect Hussein's Spiritual Advisor, aka Reverend Wright, to note that America is to blame for AIDS, crack cocaine and Global warming.

5 comments:

  1. Global Warming means the average temperature of the planet is rising, as can be seen here.

    It doesn't mean that places won't get cold or freezing on this planet because of global warming, but you knew that already, didn't you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. If the globe's average is warming then the globe is warming. It can't be warming here and cooling there...

    And if carbon D is causing the problem, what happened last year??

    Everyone quit driving?

    While you are here, perhaps you can explain the Medievial Warming Period.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The overall temperature can be going up, while there are still seasonal changes. The Artic region
    was warm enough to have crocodiles swimming in it during the Eocene period of our geological history, but the four seasons as we know them were taking place even then.


    And if carbon D is causing the problem, what happened last year??

    If you can find anyone who says that what happened last year disproves AGW, that would be interesting.

    As for the Medieval climate optimum, here's what's in the Wikipedia:

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) states that the "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect" and that what those "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2]

    Palaeoclimatologists developing region-specific climate reconstructions of past centuries conventionally label their coldest interval as "LIA" and their warmest interval as the "MWP".[4][5] Others follow the convention and when a significant climate event is found in the "LIA" or "MWP" time frames, associate their events to the period. Some "MWP" events are thus wet events or cold events rather than strictly warm events, particularly in central Antarctica where climate patterns opposite to the North Atlantic area have been noticed.


    Here's what it says about the Little Ice Age:

    The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the Medieval climate optimum. Climatologists and historians find it difficult to agree on either the start or end dates of this period. Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th century to the mid 19th century. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.[1]

    and

    It was initially believed that the LIA was a global phenomenon; it is now less clear if this is true. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on Bradley and Jones, 1993; Hughes and Diaz, 1994; Crowley and Lowery, 2000 describes the LIA as "a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C," and says, "current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and Medieval Warm Period appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."[2]

    and

    Scientists have identified two causes of the Little Ice Age from outside the ocean/atmosphere/land systems: decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity. Research is ongoing on more ambiguous influences such as internal variability of the climate system, and anthropogenic influence (Ruddiman). Ruddiman has speculated that depopulation of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during the Black Death, with the resulting decrease in agricultural output and reforestation taking up more carbon from the atmosphere, may have prolonged the Little Ice Age. Ruddiman further speculates that massive depopulation in the Americas after the European contact in the early 1500s had similar effects. [22]

    One of the difficulties in identifying the causes of the Little Ice Age is the lack of consensus on what constitutes "normal" climate. While some scholars regard the LIA as an unusual period caused by a combination of global and regional changes, other scientists see glaciation as the norm for Earth and the Medieval Warm Period (as well as the Holocene interglacial period) as the anomalies requiring explanation.[11]


    I realize these observations don't answer your simplistic questions, not that there's anything wrong with that................

    ReplyDelete
  4. I see that you engage in the usual blather of the know nothing Left when you can't answer a question...

    Shorter, the politically correct answer is that it was warm enough for Greenland to be green, and without any cars to blame, it has to have been a "local" thing.

    hehe

    I'll stick with the sun. Waxing and waning as it has done for millions of years...

    Try Occam's Razor.

    It slices your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I see that you engage in the usual blather of the know nothing Left when you can't answer a question...

    I did, but you choosing to ignore my answer doesn't mean it didn't exist.

    Shorter, the politically correct answer is that it was warm enough for Greenland to be green, and without any cars to blame, it has to have been a "local" thing.


    What part of

    "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century".[2]

    don't you understand?

    I'll stick with the sun. Waxing and waning as it has done for millions of years...

    Try Occam's Razor.

    It slices your argument.


    Not if you actually understand the science:


    Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.


    Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.


    This is almost a year old:

    “Recent estimates (Figure 9.9) indicate a relatively small combined effect of natural forcings on the global mean temperature evolution of the seconds half of the twentieth century, with a small net cooling from the combined effects of solar and volcanic forcings”

    Here's a list of the fly-by-night lefty organizations that believe in AGW with their reasonings:

    A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

    American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[23]

    US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[36]

    Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[37]
    Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[38]

    American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[39]



    Care to apply Occams' razor to this?:

    Oreskes, 2004
    A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[40] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

    ReplyDelete