[Sonart]

.

Quote by: simple simon Pretty much ....... 3 feet of snow in January and a high of 30 degrees is by no means a sign of Global Warming but by all means .... inform me what is .... im all ears

Betcha looked out'yer winda and din't see none 'o them greenhouse gases floatin' by neither, didja! You certainly don't call yourself simple for nothing.

Quote by: doc303 “Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

Dr. Ian Wilson is a well-known global warming skeptic whose claim that Global Warming "Bites the Dust" based on Dr. Schwarz' paper is hyperboly in the extreme, and Senator James Inhofe, whose MINORITY PAGE the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works you are quoting from, is an even more notorious GW denier.

To begin with, even Dr. Schwartz himself does not claim to have disproven global warming. Far from it, he accepts it completely. He simply suggests that the amount of warming per amount of CO2 may be more uncertain than has been claimed.

As to Schwartz' paper, it's all how you read his findings...

--"However, as Schwartz points out in his study, climate recovers at different rates depending on the nature of the forcing causing the perturbation. A short term change such as a volcanic eruption results in a short time constant of a few years. A long term increase in CO2 levels results in a recovery spanning decades. Schwartz rightly points out "as the duration of volcanic forcing is short, the response time may not be reflective of that which would characterize a sustained forcing such as that from increased greenhouse gases because of lack of penetration of the thermal signal into the deep ocean."

Nevertheless, Schwartz filters out long term changes by detrending the time series data which has the effect of biasing the result towards a shorter time constant. The time constant for non-detrended data yields a time constant of 15 to 17 years. Consequently, the estimated time constant of 5 years is questionable - a value the final result hinges on."--

I will assume the rest of doc's links are equally biased nonsense.

Quote by: xyzer Oh really? And I'm sure they appear in the predictive models upon which forecasts of climate change are based? Recently we see that the anomaly is in the models. Actual measuremnts refute the predictions?

You're absolutely right, Xyzer. Actual measurements show the warming trend happening FASTER than predicted.

Quote by: Foxfyre It was fun reading some of the reviews of Robert W. Felix's "Not By Fire But By Ice" in which he lays out the case for why we are much more likely to be in the early stages of the next ice age rather than in danger from runaway global warming.

Exactly, foxfyre. Based on 'historic Natural Fluctuations', we should be, right now, on the downward slope of a 25,000 year cooling trend towards the next Ice Age.

The anomoly of anthropogenic global warming has completely reversed that trend. The famous "Little Ice Age" was very likely the first dip towards that cooling trend, which was reversed 200 years ago.



.