Senate Democrats abandon comprehensive climate bill

Crunch said:

Talk about distorting.......... the second graph is sun spot activity. First graph is solar output, and it has been going up steadily since 1950.

So much for your powers of perception and dispassionate evaluation of the facts. :roll:

Click to expand...

Crunch said:

What next? A new tax to limit water in the atmosphere? :lamo

Click to expand...

Gipper said:

Well, the newest twist I've heard to "global warming" is that the mean temperature has dropped approximately 1/2 to 1 degree over the past 100 years. I believe that's why they changed it to "climate shift" instead of "global warming". Too easy to debunk the latter, but these eco-terrorists still have to get their point across.

These are the same guys who beat off vigorously to The Day After Tomorrow and yell "see, I told you it can happen".

Click to expand...

BCR said:

isn't there a very direct correlation between global warming and the industrial revolution?? I guess it's all a big coincidence.

Click to expand...

Greenland was first inhabited about 4,500 years ago. The earliest residents arrived from the west, but either left or died due to periods of exceptionally cold weather and/or poor hunting. Signs of their presence have been found near Maniitsoq. The region seems to have then been uninhabited for about 3,000 years.

The next migration came from the east, following "Erik the Red" Thorwaldsson's exploration of the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he led a group of Viking families from Iceland, and settled at Brattahlid, traditionally known as Qassiarsuk (route map). The climate at this time was very warm, much wamer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time.

Click to expand...

Crunch said:

A direct correlation....



The History of Greenland - ExploreNorth

:lamo

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

You should take another look. The first graph is of solar proxies. The bottom half is in fact sunspots. The top half conveniently stops its long-term trend line around 1980. Exactly the same place that every other skeptic likes to cut it off.

Click to expand...

BCR said:

that has nothing to do what I was getting at.

Click to expand...

Crunch said:

A very direct correlation....



The History of Greenland - ExploreNorth

:lamo

Click to expand...

Gill said:

Didn't you know ???? That's the "trick" to hide global warming. Very similar to the alarmist trick mentioned in the emails to stop temperature trend graphs of tree proxies in the 1970s because trees inconveniently forgot how to tell the temperture properly.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

Oh hey it's the medieval warm period trope again. Crunch, you're doing what skeptics always do. Spam links to dodgy information in hopes that quantity will win over quality. It takes longer to debunk these claims than it does to make them.

There was a warmer period 1000 years ago. Greenland was especially warm. This is essentially cherry-picking data from Greenland to show as warm a temperature as possible. This trope started because of this graph:

It was one of the earlier attempts to start temperature reconstructions for periods long before the instrumental record, known as a "temperature proxy." It was more of a proof of concept, and the data came entirely from northern Europe, mostly from England.

However, the temperature proxies have expanded to other methods and to cover the globe. Now we get this:

The "medieval warm period" was mainly a regional effect. The earth was relatively warm at the time, and temperature did decrease after that, but it wasn't as drastic as the Greenland trope would lead you to believe.

Besides, just because the earth has changed temperature without man's input doesn't mean man's input is incapable of causing temperature. That would be like saying people got lung cancer before the discovery of tobacco, therefore tobacco can't possibly cause lung cancer!



What? No. That's not the context of the "trick" statement at all. The guys who wrote that email were not working at all with solar measurements. And the trees didn't "forget" how to tell temperature. After 1970's trees in the high northern latitudes diverge from the known temperature record. Other regions and other periods match fine. The reason for the divergence in one dataset is not known for certain, but there are several theories and many papers that discuss it.

Basically, everything you just wrote is completely wrong.

Click to expand...

Despite substantial uncertainties, especially for the period prior to 1600 when data are scarce, the warmest period prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100, but temperatures were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. The heterogeneous nature of climate during the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ is illustrated by the wide spread of values exhibited by the individual records.[12]

Click to expand...

What? No. That's not the context of the "trick" statement at all. The guys who wrote that email were not working at all with solar measurements. And the trees didn't "forget" how to tell temperature. After 1970's trees in the high northern latitudes diverge from the known temperature record. Other regions and other periods match fine. The reason for the divergence in one dataset is not known for certain, but there are several theories and many papers that discuss it.

Basically, everything you just wrote is completely wrong.

Click to expand...

Crunch said:

:lamo

Click to expand...

Gill said:

Lousy attempt at a dodge. If it was only one proxie dataset, why is the graph of it included in all the IPCC reports??? The IPCC obviosly thought it was an important dataset, even though they hid that it's line ended 20 years ago.

I didn't say the "trick" had anything to do with sunspots. The trick was to suddenly end a line of data because th data became inconvenient.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

Some day we might figure out that some things are more important than money.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

Again, the fact that climate can change naturally does not mean man can't also change it. Is this really that hard for you to understand? There are many different climate forcings. Greenhouse gases are one of them. Also, a lot of those rapid changes you see on that chart coincide with mass-extinction events.

Click to expand...

Crunch said:

Mass-extinction event?.... there was more than 1, like 65 million years ago?

Click to expand...

1. Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event (End Cretaceous or K-T extinction) - 65 Ma ago at the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition. About 17% of all families, 50% of all genera[4] and 75% of species went extinct.[citation needed] It ended the reign of dinosaurs and opened the way for mammals and birds to become the dominant land vertebrates. In the seas it reduced the percentage of sessile animals to about 33%. The K-T extinction was rather uneven — some groups of organisms became extinct, some suffered heavy losses and some appear to have been only minimally affected.
2. Triassic–Jurassic extinction event (End Triassic) - 205 Ma at the Triassic-Jurassic transition. About 23% of all families and 48% of all genera (20% of marine families and 55% of marine genera) went extinct.[4] Most non-dinosaurian archosaurs, most therapsids, and most of the large amphibians were eliminated, leaving dinosaurs with little terrestrial competition. Non-dinosaurian archosaurs continued to dominate aquatic environments, while non-archosaurian diapsids continued to dominate marine environments. The Temnospondyl lineage of large amphibians also survived until the Cretaceous in Australia (e.g., Koolasuchus).
3. Permian–Triassic extinction event (End Permian) - 251 Ma at the Permian-Triassic transition. Earth's largest extinction killed 57% of all families and 83% of all genera[4] (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species) including vertebrates, insects and plants.[citation needed] The "Great Dying" had enormous evolutionary significance: on land, it ended the primacy of mammal-like reptiles. The recovery of vertebrates took 30 million years,[5] but the vacant niches created the opportunity for archosaurs to become ascendant. In the seas, the percentage of animals that were sessile dropped from 67% to 50%. The whole late Permian was a difficult time for at least marine life, even before the "Great Dying".
4. Late Devonian extinction - 360-375 Ma near the Devonian-Carboniferous transition. At the end of the Frasnian Age in the later part(s) of the Devonian Period, a prolonged series of extinctions eliminated about 19% of all families, 50% of all genera[4] and 70% of all species.[citation needed] This extinction event lasted perhaps as long as 20 MY, and there is evidence for a series of extinction pulses within this period.
5. Ordovician–Silurian extinction event (End Ordovician) - 440-450 Ma at the Ordovician-Silurian transition. Two events occurred that killed off 27% of all families and 57% of all genera.[4] Together they are ranked by many scientists as the second largest of the five major extinctions in Earth's history in terms of percentage of genera that went extinct.

Click to expand...