|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
An inconvenient Truth -- update
"Dane Buson" wrote in message ... Sorni wrote: Peter Cole wrote: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676 "WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council." So the earth was warmer over 400 years ago. Fascinating. Err, that's not what it said. At all. Essentially - what it said is: "In the last 400 years that we have *good* data for, it is now warmer than it has ever been." Full stop. It's not making inferences (which other reports do) about what the other data they have says for any time longer than 400 years ago. They did go farther than 400 years, but not in the direction Sorni implies -- there's weaker evidence that it's warmer now than any time in the last 2000 years. See for instance,this AP headline for the same NAS study: "Earth hottest it's been in 2,000 years " http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060623/...bal_warming_11 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
An inconvenient Truth -- update
"Sorni" wrote: (clip) If the earth is warmer today than at any time in the last 400 years, that certainly /implies/ that some time before that the earth was warmer than today. (Otherwise, why didn't they say 600 years? Or a thousand years?) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Come on, Sorni, you're smarter than that. Mike Kruger covered that point. Their statement is based on a 400-year period with very strong evidence. Prior to that, the evidence is not as strong, but indicates the same trend. Besides, there are clear scientific explanations for what is going on, that are consistent with the observed data. Trying to ignore global warming is like pretending you don't feel the pain of a cancer--sure, you can fool yourself for a while, and then it's too late. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
An inconvenient Truth -- update
Rich Clark wrote:
"Sorni" wrote in message ... Anyways, AIUI there is quite comprehensive expert concensus that global warming is indeed currently taking place. The dispute is over the cause -- human or natural. Indeed. And also whether unprecedented It is certainly unprecedented on an Earth where climate change will so profoundly effect so many people. Climate changes happen pretty rapidly in geological terms. There's absolutely nothing unprecedented about the current warming trend, and certainly no indication (much less proof) that mankind is responsible for it. (many "real" scientists say not). "Real" scientists don't make inferences in public. Huh? I'm not even an unreal scientist. However, many /genuine/ ones disagree completely with this current global warming fad. I just saw a small segment of an Al Gore interview (as much as I could stand). It was absolutely comical when the interviewer quoted professors, researchers and other /true experts/ and all ol' Al could say was "they're wrong". He might as well have followed with "I'm Al Gore" as his offer of proof. But hey, we'll all know when the earth melts in, what, *10 years*, right?!? LOL |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
An inconvenient Truth -- update
Leo Lichtman wrote:
"Sorni" wrote: (clip) If the earth is warmer today than at any time in the last 400 years, that certainly /implies/ that some time before that the earth was warmer than today. (Otherwise, why didn't they say 600 years? Or a thousand years?) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Come on, Sorni, you're smarter than that. Mike Kruger covered that point. Their statement is based on a 400-year period with very strong evidence. Prior to that, the evidence is not as strong, but indicates the same trend. Another /possibility/, Leo: they picked 400 years because that was a "cold point", making the infamous "hockey stick" graph look much more forboding than is really the case. Besides, there are clear scientific explanations for what is going on, that are consistent with the observed data. Trying to ignore global warming is like pretending you don't feel the pain of a cancer--sure, you can fool yourself for a while, and then it's too late. I'm not disputing that we're in a warming trend -- only that it's nothing special, and not caused by man. In the 70s they were decrying the coming Ice Age, fergawdsake... BS |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
An inconvenient Truth -- update
"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message ... "Sorni" wrote: (clip) If the earth is warmer today than at any time in the last 400 years, that certainly /implies/ that some time before that the earth was warmer than today. (Otherwise, why didn't they say 600 years? Or a thousand years?) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Come on, Sorni, you're smarter than that. Mike Kruger covered that point. Their statement is based on a 400-year period with very strong evidence. Prior to that, the evidence is not as strong, but indicates the same trend. 400 years ago Al Gore said we would be past the point of no return in 410 years, then he went out and invented the Internet. And that's where to 400 years came from. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
An inconvenient Truth -- update
"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message ... Come on, Sorni, you're smarter than that. Mike Kruger covered that point. Their statement is based on a 400-year period with very strong evidence. Prior to that, the evidence is not as strong, but indicates the same trend. I think that's an aggressive characterization of the report, based on my reading of the executive summary, including a chart going back to 1000 A.D., that plots the results of a half dozen secondary theories for establishing probable temperatures before 1600. The Report labeled only as "plausible" the argument that the medieval "warm period" (whose existence is likely but whose extent is difficult to establish) was cooler than today. No effort was made to argue a long term trend. It was fairly clear that there was a distinct cooling period for 150 or more years prior to 1850. More recently, there was distinct warming from 1900 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1970, and warming from 1970 to 1998; those 1998 temperatures haven't since been equaled. As another poster has noted, by the 1970s, some "experts' had seen enough "global cooling" to predict a coming ice age, with 30 years data to support them. (30 years during which a lot of fossil fuels were burned, BTW). I'm not in a hurry to embrace the equally speculative assertions of today that go in the opposite direction. But it's a plausible enough theory to provide a reason for bike commuting, as I do, though I'd be lying if I said global warming was a big factor in my decision to do that. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
An inconvenient Truth -- update
Sorni wrote:
Another /possibility/, Leo: they picked 400 years because that was a "cold point", making the infamous "hockey stick" graph look much more forboding than is really the case. The movie shows data going back thousands of years (obtained via ice core samples from the antartic). The evidence of global warming is very convicing. You might not believe now, but I'm guessing if you're still around in 20 to 25 years you'll believe then, if not much sooner. Rich |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
An inconvenient Truth -- update
Rich wrote:
Sorni wrote: Another /possibility/, Leo: they picked 400 years because that was a "cold point", making the infamous "hockey stick" graph look much more forboding than is really the case. The movie shows data going back thousands of years (obtained via ice core samples from the antartic). The evidence of global warming is very convicing. You might not believe now, but I'm guessing if you're still around in 20 to 25 years you'll believe then, if not much sooner. So what if a panel of -- let's be conservative here -- 20 highly respected scientists and climatologists and researchers said unanimously that the movie is pure hysteric crap? Would you even listen, or is YOUR mind made up? Let's discuss it in 20-25 years... BS |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
An inconvenient Truth -- update
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message ... Come on, Sorni, you're smarter than that. Mike Kruger covered that point. Their statement is based on a 400-year period with very strong evidence. Prior to that, the evidence is not as strong, but indicates the same trend. I think that's an aggressive characterization of the report, based on my reading of the executive summary, including a chart going back to 1000 A.D., that plots the results of a half dozen secondary theories for establishing probable temperatures before 1600. The Report labeled only as "plausible" the argument that the medieval "warm period" (whose existence is likely but whose extent is difficult to establish) was cooler than today. No effort was made to argue a long term trend. It was fairly clear that there was a distinct cooling period for 150 or more years prior to 1850. More recently, there was distinct warming from 1900 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1970, and warming from 1970 to 1998; those 1998 temperatures haven't since been equaled. As another poster has noted, by the 1970s, some "experts' had seen enough "global cooling" to predict a coming ice age, with 30 years data to support them. (30 years during which a lot of fossil fuels were burned, BTW). I'm not in a hurry to embrace the equally speculative assertions of today that go in the opposite direction. But it's a plausible enough theory to provide a reason for bike commuting, as I do, though I'd be lying if I said global warming was a big factor in my decision to do that. So where's the criticism of Clinton for that toasty 1998? (Was that the summer when all those mostly poor and black Chicagoans died in a summer heat wave? You know, the kind of thing that would cause all manner of outcry today with you-know-who in office?) Oops, sorry. It was 1995: http://thomasgalvin.blogspot.com/200...n_archive.html http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_08_12_a_heat.htm http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...9/134917.shtml http://katrinacoverage.com/tag/bill-clinton/ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
An inconvenient Truth -- update
Bill Sornson writes:
"WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council." So the earth was warmer over 400 years ago. Fascinating. "The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s. The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years. In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year. So does Gore deplore his own administration's abominal record? Fascinating. I haven't seen you respond to any subject that has been presented either in the movie or by people discussing its content. All you do is make "smart" ad hominem attacks on those writing or the people whose work is being discussed. As I said, you take your cues from GWB who is a master at ridiculing the messenger bearing information inconvenient to his agenda. Your response to the Terri Gross's interview is a classic of such retorts. Cutting down the interviewer, especially Gross, is a silly dodge, she being noted for unbiased presentation of both sides issues... which she did. The supreme court supported the first interviewee's defense of people held as "enemy combatants", a non legal term invented by the administration to cover illegal detention, after which the administration speaker, when interviewed, presented a raft of ad hominems and ridicule in defense of the illegal action, never addressing the issues. Guantanamo is being gradually shut down as the new prison in Afghanistan is building up. There are over 600 detainees there and the conditions are no better. I expect to see some more show rials of PFC's who are responsible for the management of that installation. You should not wonder why this prison is in Afghanistan. Jobst Brandt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
An Inconvenient Truth | William Asher | Rides | 0 | June 12th 06 08:28 PM |
An Inconvenient Truth | Zoot Katz | General | 7 | June 11th 06 08:12 PM |
An Inconvenient Truth | Zoot Katz | Social Issues | 5 | June 11th 06 04:41 PM |
An Inconvenient Truth | Neil Brooks | General | 0 | June 10th 06 04:26 PM |
An inconvenient truth - Global Warming is desperately NOW! | harbinger | Australia | 1 | June 1st 06 01:47 PM |