Static line? Really, you expect daily up and downs to show up on a graph that is designed to show a 400k year span?
Why should it be coming down more? These are measurements, not predictions – have CO2 measurements been deliberately altered since 1950? If you are predicting that the CO2 should be coming down and measurements show otherwise, then something is wrong with your prediction.
Perhaps you just see reality differently – here’s a non-static graph of global temp:
That reminds me of the argument that I saw from a Creationist “scientist” who explained away the superior (no blind spot) eye of an octopus by saying “…they say that a octopus’ eye has no blind spot, but why should we believe them…” (a simple visit to a fish market with an x-acto knife could confirm it)
Are you a Climatologist ? Me, I’m a Quaternary Geologist. Fact is, we’ve been in, and are STILL in an Ice Age that started approximately 2.6 million years ago. And we’ve been warmer in human history: mean temps in both the Medieval Optimum and at the height of the Roman Empire.
The more interesting fact is that we are between continental glaciations, and that in geologic terms, are due for another “any time now” (which in geologic terms would be any time in the next few thousand years. . . )
But the pattern suggests that major climate change is related more to planetary and solar output cycles, considering we’ve had periods substantially warmer than the latter half of the 20th century, prior to industrialization.
Unless, of course, the dinosaurs were killed by their SUV’s (grin)
Doing an initial scan of the paper and its’ bibliography, I’d say they were overestimating greenhouse gas effect and pretty much ignoring variations in solar insolation over time. But I admit a bias towards the solar insolation side of the climate change argument: I did work as an undergrad gathering data on insolation losses versus ashfall from the Mount Saint Helen’s Event, and that work was one of the underlying chunks of data behind the TTAPS “Nuclear Winter” theory of the late 1980s. . . And from the evidence I’ve seen, I’m more convinced by a solar variability argument than a pure anthropocentric industrial input being the crux of climate variation. . .
Those are strange things to compare to global warming. Most sources give the Medieval warm period as applying to Europe, the North Atlantic, or maybe northern hemisphere, but as far as I can tell the global temperature is supposed not to have been warmer than now. That’s certainly what Skeptical Science gives with some discussion of how well the sun explains current climate changes.
I don’t think anybody disputes that major climate changes can be driven by planetary cycles; that’s the usual story for the ice ages. But that doesn’t preclude atmospheric changes causing others, which is what for instance what I’ve seen suggested for the existence of ice ages in the Carboniferous, and by nearly all accounts is a much better explanation for the present peak.
Out of curiosity, what is your reaction when Climatologists, Ecologists, or Physicists weigh in on Geological matters, especially when their opinion relates to a matter which over 95% of Geologists agree on but which is also highly political? Because that seems to be the situation here: something like 97% of Climatologists agree on anthropogenic climate change, and I’m afraid to say that the views of scientists from other fields carry relatively little weight with me (especially since they are often presented as though their views should carry significant weight, especially if they’ve take a course or attended a symposium and can claim they’ve studied climatology).
You’re also no researcher, writer, or thinker. Especially writer. How lazy you must have been in school, and disrespectful of authority (your teachers).
Honestly ? I consider Climatology to be just slightly above Quija boards and horoscopes. They look at planetary-scale processed in human scales of activity and time. I also find it amusing that they rely on computer models, but then do not do regression testing to confirm accuracy, We HAVE nearly a century of decent data: plug it into the model, set the date to 1970, and run it, then compare it to actual results.
I guess my most common reaction is Category Error, leading to GIGO. And what TRULY amuses me is the long term politics of “Global Warming”, considering the first politician to make it an issue: Maggie Thatcher. . . I’m still amazed at the migration, politically, from hard right to hard left. . .
Sure, nobody does anything to confirm accuracy. I take it then that in addition to casual mistakes, you don’t actually follow what climate scientists are doing or why they trust to their models, which have somehow held up despite great interest in finding fault; but you’re comfortable in assuming it’s all probably worthless astrology. May none of your peers ever spit on your field in such an arrogant fashion.
Please elucidate on this reported accuracy. ANYONE can do a google search. Please show me a paper where an EXISTING model was used, historical data plugged in to a given date (say, 1980), and then allowed to run, and THEN a comparison of results with ACTUAL recorded results. I’ll ALSO note that 4 of the ten references you provided did not discuss regression testing of models at all.
When I submit research, the data is included, not “lost”, not edited, not redacted. That cannot be said of all too many of the major “climate” researchers. And I’m also amused at this “vast conspiracy” of conservative businessmen. One might point out that the orgs that fund anthropogenic climate change research ALSO have agendas, which we are told are as pure as the driven snow. Well, maybe in Brooklyn. . .
[quote=“Salgak, post:97, topic:17463”]I’ll ALSO note that 4 of the ten references you provided did not discuss regression testing of models at all.
[/quote]
That’s to be expected; it was a keyword search. But for instance the first page of the 17000 results brings up this, which seems pretty close to what you ask for. Not good enough? You can check through the others, because you know what particular thing you’re insisting on better than I do, not to mention…
…that if you are willing to posit that the reason the vast majority of researchers all agree is that groups like the US government have a major interest in biasing things toward global warming, despite all the muzzling that happened under Bush and the serious reluctance it has had in taking any recommended measures, you are well into the land of making crap up and it isn’t worth trying to find things to convince you.
Sorry to have given the benefit of the doubt above; when you said you had done work in geology I thought you earned some, but evidently are happy to fall back to talking points (“GIGO”) here. So I will just say the contempt you have for other researchers is staggering and disappointing, and leave you to your Christmas.
it’s interesting that not only would these ‘non-profits’ (pro-business interested) manage to avoid taxes while not providing any benefit, but that they would write such a long (and boring) article about it. funding for this particular piece is of interest.
Adler supported former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson in the 2008 presidential election.
Adler attended law school at the George Mason University School of Law.
While at Yale, Adler majored in History, graduating magna cum laude in May 1991 with distinction in (History).
but here it is:
From 1991 to 2000, Adler worked at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market research and advocacy group in Washington, D.C., where he directed the Institute’s environmental studies program, and worked on a wide variety of environmental policy matters.
Note that the ability to call out one potentially biased group is pretty meaningless, though. When the massive consensus is agreeing on one set of conclusions, you either need to assume a massive conspiracy to reach that set of conclusions or that the [typo fixed] answer they’re giving is the one best supported by the data.
As has been said elsewhere, I find it much easier to believe a small conspiracy by those who are pushing the minority opinion.
Or simply that everyone is trying to do honest research but that, in fact, normal random factors and human error are causing a small percentage to reach conclusions that don’t hold up when the larger body of evidence is examined. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity… and while the majority of researchers may be wrong, that’s not usually the way to bet.
actually i don’t mind cutting all government involvement in climate change funding. i would rather the epa actually got the funds to be effective. i would also like congress to listen to scientists that aren’t lobbyists.
it’s not a question of sides for me. it all seems corrupt and wasteful.
I see a conflict there. Either the EPA gets the funding needed to be effective – which includes the funding needed to understand the problems properly – or they aren’t as effective as they should be because some of the funds are wasted on tackling the wrong problems in the wrong way.
It isn’t all, or even mostly, corrupt and wasteful. There’s a lot of good work being done. Unfortunately there are people who want you to believe it’s corrupt and wasteful because they don’t like the answers being reached.
did i say i liked either side of the climate change discussion? it’s a very dramatic topic… the sky falling. meanwhile, fracking doesn’t affect the basal temperature of the planet… .
politicians avoiding pollution by arguing climate change reminds me of
Static line? Really, you expect daily up and downs to show up on a graph that is designed to show a 400k year span?
