Woops! Here we go again. Answer the question with a long uninformed diatribe about climate variation? Throw in a bunch of source titles without any narrative,and of course mix in a modicum of ad hominem blather?
Durn it Sonart, you just don't want to get it do you?
Quote:
|
If you actually LOOKED at the chart I posted, you would see what I'm referring to. Here's a chart showing a variety of temperature estimates for the last 1,000 years... Pick the colored graph of your choice and look very, very carefully now, Xyzer. Temperatures will go UP for 30 or 40 years, then go DOWN for 30 or 40 years. UP, then DOWN, yet the OVERALL TREND is a slow, steady decrease in temperatures, as should be happening after the sharp climb out of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago.
|
I asked you many pages back how do you reconcile the fact that if the temperature has warmed about 1 Degree C. in 100 years according to
Temperaturre Estimates to translate the obvious how do we know this with any accuracy when we didn't start closely measuring global temps accurately until about 25 years ago? Are you suggesting that estimates and proxies are in any way certain?
We could only inexactly measure temps at the surface level and on a few mountains or use proxies(dendrology, ice cores) for most of the last century?? How do you or any scientist really know what temps were at other levels of our atmosphere? Can a dendrologist tell from a tree ring what the temperatures were within one degree, within any growing season? Now some daring mix of politicians and scientists(The IPCC Panel) have used studies with that inexact data to predict climate change hundreds of years in the future?? And 'sheeplike humans believe its bound to happen based on such flawed data? Hey wake up Sonart we are talking about a very tenuous set of predictions?
Next lets address the affect of CO2 (Less than 1% of our atmospheric gas) It has been determined to have a forcing effect on reflected sunlight.(It blocks reflection which prevents some reflected heat from escaping.) We humans create an estimated .04% of the 1% of this gas? And while we are burning carbons for energy at an increased rate the globsl temperature cools and then as you point out, warms? In the last decade it hs leveled and even cooled.again?
Why can we then point to CO2 as a major factor in climate warming? As our CO2contributions increase why does climate cool? Why are we supposed to believe that cutting our .04% contribution can overcome natural(non human made) effects on climate? Do you climate sheep really believe that all the industrial powers of the world can be induced to cut their energy use? Cut their standards of living on such flimsy evidence?
I know logic is not your strong point?. But I want you to apply your limited mental powers to the logical problem and above all answer the questions.
While you are at it tell us how the scientists who made studies were able to use any constants in their models..such as the variation in the suns brilliance, volcanic activity, shifting ocean currents, changing cosmic particles and the suns changing magnetism? Did they have any such magic wand so as to be able to predict accurately what would happen many years from now?
As has been pointed out several major climate experts have backed away from the hyteria and downright nonsense created by Al Gore and the IPCC with help from sensationalist press.
We really don;'t know with any scientific certainty what the major influences are Plus as you pointed out climate drivers vary?