Just like the past ones, there won't be any significant media coverage there. Some great minds, great presentations, but not what the media wants to hear.
There has been a recorded trend of global (air and sea) temperature warming. Anyone who denies that is not looking at the data objectively, IMO. There is a correlation between greenhouse gases and the warming is in dispute by two hard core sectors of science and education guesses, but I believe that the correlating data is strongly suggestive of a cause and effect scenario. In the past, I cited links to observed air and sea temperature rises, showed pictures and presented data of glacial melt and retreats (search this forum for those threads), but none of the critics of global warming responded when I asked for comments on the evidence. If you were among that group of two or three -- it is pointless to reply. I defend against superficial barbs in response to data.
I don't think anyone could have a problem with the actual warming part. It was why we were warming that had so many panties in a wad.
And with computer models too. Don't forget those useful tools. They are just as accurate as a test tube in warning us that the warming of the 20th century was very unusual, and that it warmed at an alarming rate never seen before. Ooops.
if you are referring to the cooling, that is being attributed to unusual sun activity. The same activity that caused the little ice age the experiment I am referring to is where they duplicated the atmosphere and added the same gases they attribute to global warming. It caused a warming. But you're right, all that laboratory experimentation is nonsense............
The sun's activity is not unusual, and it has been driving Earth's climate for at least the last half a billion years. Yup. One day they will stop using ridiculous amounts of CO2 to prove their point and start adding the millions of variables and climate drivers (if they could fit it in that jar).
The warming trend is from data sampled over a 1000 year period. It's not sufficiently long enough to claim that global temperatures are on the rise, particularly since the larger historical trends indicate that we are in a cooling period.
Right it works in cycles. Right now we are in a cooling cycle. It is based off the amount of activity on the surface which I believe is caused by less reactions on the surface. I don't understand your point? How much co2 was it to be ridiculous? If you are harping on the fact that they can not implement the system as a whole exactly in the lab, those wonderful computers you were harping on can. Not really sure what climate drivers you are referring to?
Actually, Earth was warmer 1000 years ago. Infact, the bronze age of Greece was warmer than what the dooms-dayers are predicting for our future. How about a 3500 year record. Draw a line from the minoan warm period to the present day, and its a down-hill slope. Unfortunately, we are on the verge of a major cooling period. We are teetering on the back edge of one of the few and very coveted climatic optimums of the last 400,000 years. As you can see from below, the last half million years were dominated by ice age climates. Gold (global warming) = life Light Blue (global cooling) = mass starvation and death. Sorry, but the billions wasted on Kyoto protocol should instead be used to prepare humanity for the inevidable.
My point is that it's the sun doing the warming, not Co2. Co2 has never driven Earth's temperatures in the past. Infact, ice core and geologic records show that the Earth warms first, then Co2 goes up. Not the other way around. I've seen them use up to 4 times actual. But thats moot anyway. Even a modest amount in an isolated lab setting can show the desired results. Too bad the real world isn't that simple. Not even close my brother. They cannot even deal with water vapor, the principle green house gas. Or the sun/cosmic ray/cloud formation connection. They cannot deal with ocean current/heat transfer or El Nino/La Nina events. Or the urban heat island effects. They are truly useless. And since the infamous "hockey stick" graph has been thoroughly debunked and finally removed from the IPPC 's latest rendition, these models are pretty much all they have to hang their hats on now. I listed a few, but there are tons more. Plus the flawed data and assuptions that are fed into these computer models leave alot to be desired.
Horse ****. Who was measuring temperatures 1000 years ago or longer? We can't accurately extrapolate temperatures over long periods of time.
I don't think that's true. Here's an article that shows one method. I've also heard of scientists using deep ice cores for the same purpose. Of course there are also many scientists that would agree with the opposite position. I don't think a definitive statement either way can be accepted as a fact. Ancient shells tell tale of climate change — Saeon Ancient shells tell tale of climate change by Vene — last modified 2007-11-22 08:24 The shell is the thermometer that indicates the growth temperature of a fossil. By studying the chemical composition of ancient marine fossils, researchers have found new evidence that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have a big impact on climate. The researchers used a new method of studying marine fossils to learn temperatures millions of years ago, turning each ancient shell or piece of coral into a climate thermometer. "All of the information needed to study the surface temperature at the time the animal lived is stored in the fossil itself," said Rosemarie Came of the California Institute of Technology, whose study appears in the journal Nature. This new method relies on a study of rare clumps of oxygen and carbon isotopes - charged particles - that bond with each other. This bonding varies depending on surface temperature, with more formed at low temperatures and fewer formed at higher temperatures. By knowing the age of the marine fossil and measuring the concentration of these isotopes, the scientists can tell the temperature of the seawater in which they lived. "The shell is the thermometer," said John Eiler, a Caltech professor of geochemistry who worked on the study. He said the researchers studied the concentration of these isotopes, which are made up of oxygen-18 and carbon-13 atoms. "We measure how many are stuck to each other rather than being randomly scattered. That tells us the growth temperature of that fossil," Eiler said. The method differs from the current approach that involves a study of both the fossil's carbon and oxygen content and the knowledge about the chemistry of ancient seawater. Using this new method, researchers studied fossil growth temperatures from two ancient time periods to see if changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide are actually linked with temperature change, an important part of understanding climate change. They studied fossils from the Silurian period about 400 million years ago, during which carbon dioxide levels are believed to have been 10 times higher than at present. They compared these with fossil temperature readings in the Carboniferous period, roughly 300 million years ago, during which atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have resembled current levels. "Our study found that in fact there was a huge temperature change - that the time of high carbon dioxide was a time of quite high temperature in tropical oceans, about 34 degrees centigrade (93 F)," Eiler said. "If you got in it, you would think it was a pretty warm bath." Based on this finding, the researchers believe they have fossil evidence that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide are associated with changes in temperature. "It shows that carbon dioxide has been a powerful driver of climate change in the Earth's past," Eiler said. Source: Reuters News Service
This is so laughable, I don't even know where to begin. First of all, I am not the least bit suprised that they only used these two time periods. Especially the carboniferous ice age. Its the only time of paleoclimate that could give a global warming alarmist a stiffy. It is one of the only time periods were temps appear to be following Co2. The rest of the time, either temps and Co2 were moving in OPPOSITE directions, or like most of the records show, temperatures rose FIRST, then Co2 levels FOLLOWED. The last two senarios are what were happening during the Silurian period. At one point, Co2 was plummeting while temps were skyrocketing, then a huge lagtime with Co2 finally spiking while temps were at stasis. Of course these guys wouldn't dare mention the Orodovian period, when we were in the depths of the coldest ice age on record, all while Co2 levels were 12 TIMES HIGHER than today. Good grief, deliberately misleading people is rewarded with more grant money. When is this **** gonna end.
I posted the article merely to show that some scientists believe that we can measure temperatures from ancient times. I don't, however, agree with their conclusion. I find the data that supports human caused climate change to be correlative not causal.
Sorry brother. I certainly wasn't attacking you. I love the methods, already knew the results, but yeah, the conclusion was flat out, and deliberately misleading. They cherry picked a period when Co2 and temps were indeed very high by todays standards, but failed to mention that they were moving in opposite directions during that entire time period of about 30 million years. Twice actually. First they were rapidly converging, then they diverged. When plotted, they show no correlation what-so-ever. So then Eiler concludes: Amazing isn't it?
