My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Moontanman]

Modest,in the chart of the last 3000 years it appears that the Earth was much warmer then than it is now. Does this not have any bearing on current levels of warming?

[modest]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Modest,in the chart of the last 3000 years it appears that the Earth was much warmer then than it is now. Does this not have any bearing on current levels of warming?

I have no idea. This link talks about it:

Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~modest

[Flying Binghi]

I have no idea. This link talks about it:

Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~modest

modest, a link to Wikipedia ???

Not a very reliable resource it seems -

Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia “editor” who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics.

Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia “editor.” Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of “administrator” is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party.

And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry.

Is Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria? | NewsBusters.org

I would recomend a google search on "wikipedia false inforemation" and simular

[modest]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Modest,in the chart of the last 3000 years it appears that the Earth was much warmer then than it is now. Does this not have any bearing on current levels of warming?

Also, I don't think it's exactly accurate to say temps were higher three thousand years ago. I mean... that is what BioChem's graph shows and the data is accurate (as far as accurately reporting what it is). But, it reflects only the temperature of ocean water in the North Atlantic and that judged by sediment cores. Not only is that data obviously incomplete as far as global temps go, it's also subject to shifting tides or changes in migrating life forms and the like.

A better composition of data is:


-source


Each colored line represents one particular spot on the earth where ice cores or sediment cores were tested. The black line is their average. The dotted horizontal line is the 20th century average, and 2004 is noted about a half degree above that.

From this, it could easily be said that temperatures today (the average for this decade, for example) are as high as they've been in the past 12 thousand years. But, I personally wouldn't go as far as to say that (even though it may-well be true). It seems, at the very least, that temps 3,000 years ago were not well above what they are today.

The data above still seems inadequate to me. I don't see how global climate can be judged from just 8 spots on earth which is all the graph above considers. The entire continent of Asia is missing—and, that's the best and most current info I could find.

It may be very significant that temperatures are once again reaching (or perhaps surpassing) the Holocene optimum (if there was such a thing). But, I don't know if that's the case. I hope you didn't think I was dismissing your question when I said "I have no idea" last night—really, I just don't know.

~modest

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

The pro-AGW people will say that because these charts were created by anti-global warming people that we need to disregard them. This is a scientific fallacy called Circumstantial Ad Hominem. I have referenced this data in this thread before, and the pro-AWG people will not acknowledge or bother to critically look at this information.

This is probably the most alarming reality of the pro-AGW crowd.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Cedars

This is probably the most alarming reality of the pro-AGW crowd.

Well I guess since just any old chart that supports my position is automatically valid, then the one I've attached below would have to be irrefutable.

Granted, I did not provide the source, but to simply criticize it because it doesn't support your position is nothing but an Ad Hominem fallacy.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

I actually very much understand the mechanism which the AGW people say exists. I have done extensive reading of everything I could find, and as far as I know I have reviewed and I fully comprehend what the AGW scientists have put forth.

Just because I understand the process put forth does not mean that I say it is logical or correct. By my judgment it is neither.

Want proof? The IPCC created sophisticated computer models based on their climate theories. They used these models to project out how changes in our atmosphere will affect global temperatures. Their projections had a max and min range, with uncertainty increasing over time, but basically they showed that if CO2 kept increasing things were going to get a whole lot warmer.

Real world climate has in no way done what the IPCC claimed they would do since they first published their projections in 2001. World temperatures have not in fact increased at all despite a substantial increase in CO2 levels. Our current planetary temperature is so far below even the lowest IPCC projection that clearly something in their science or methodology is clearly screwed up.

Did they mess up programming their model? Or is the science incorrect that their model was based on? I think both, but you decide for yourself.

Here's a link to an article with all kinds of charts and data concerning this, and verifying what I have stated above:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008...ecent-warming/

"...is logical or correct. By my judgment it is neither.
Want proof?"

Showing that the models aren't correct doesn't "prove" anything about the CO2 mechanism.
Or maybe I'm confusing whether or not the models are "logical and correct" with the physics of the CO2 mechanism.

How that CO2 mechanism plays out in our atmosphere is open to question and modeling, but just because the models aren't perfect doesn't mean that CO2 isn't contributing more instability (heat) to the overall system.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I think you're aware of the claim that pre-industrial levels of CO2 help keep the planet a few degrees warmer than it would be without the CO2.
Do you think that widely publicized number is wrong?
...or do you think that doubling the CO2 concentration won't have a similar effect?

[Essay]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

I actually very much understand the mechanism which the AGW people say exists. I have done extensive reading of everything I could find, and as far as I know I have reviewed and I fully comprehend what the AGW scientists have put forth.

Just because I understand the process put forth does not mean that I say it is logical or correct. By my judgment it is neither.

Want proof? The IPCC created sophisticated computer models based on their climate theories. They used these models to project out how changes in our atmosphere will affect global temperatures. Their projections had a max and min range, with uncertainty increasing over time, but basically they showed that if CO2 kept increasing things were going to get a whole lot warmer.

Real world climate has in no way done what the IPCC claimed they would do since they first published their projections in 2001. World temperatures have not in fact increased at all despite a substantial increase in CO2 levels. Our current planetary temperature is so far below even the lowest IPCC projection that clearly something in their science or methodology is clearly screwed up.

Did they mess up programming their model? Or is the science incorrect that their model was based on? I think both, but you decide for yourself.

Here's a link to an article with all kinds of charts and data concerning this, and verifying what I have stated above:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008...ecent-warming/

Thanks for answering my first paragraph.

What about the rest of the post:

Originally Posted by Essay

I sure agree with you that there are many immediate, tangible problems which need attention. It is fortuitous that the solution to many of those problems also involves limiting CO2 levels.

The three items you mention (...we destroy coral, pollute rivers, erode topsoil...) are "solved" if we reduce CO2 levels: ...to halt acidifying the oceans; and use the sequestered carbon, instead of petrofertilizers, to fertilize our crops--thus avoiding the runoff, helping the rivers--and simultaneously building up topsoil, ala Terra Preta. This is all achieved thru a carbon mitigation strategy that incorporates biochar into more organic agricultural policies and procedures.

Regardless of how CO2 affects the climate, could we agree that a program of biosequestration would help the reefs, rivers and topsoils (& possibly help restore harvests in the anoxic coastal dead-zones; reduce our dependence on oil; contribute to a healthier diet and population; focus education more on health and production-- instead of entertainment and consumption; and provide new jobs, careers, and technologies-- helping the economy)?

Sorry to get rhetorical with that last parenthetical excursive, but....

Rather than spend billions to solve each of these problems individually, maybe we should focus on one, relatively cheap, synergistic strategy as a solution.

~ SA

[Flying Binghi]

a program of biosequestration would help the reefs,

Looks like the AlGorians can scrub that one from their list. Some new research from a pro AGWer -

(extract)
The persistence of coral reefs through geologic time – when temperatures were as much as 10-15°C warmer than at present, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 2 to 7 times higher than they are currently – provides substantive evidence that these marine entities can successfully adapt to a dramatically changing global environment. Thus, the recent die-off of many corals cannot be due solely, or even mostly, to global warming or the modest rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the course of the Industrial Revolution.

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by Essay

Thanks for answering my first paragraph.

What about the rest of the post:

Sorry I didn't comment on your last point 'cause it sounds fine to me. But doesn't the planet already remove CO2 from the air via biosequestration?