On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, wrote:



Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, wrote:


... snip
This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
in controversy is the magnitude and direction.

Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
statistics can determine which answer is correct.

...


The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
compared to several centuries in the past.

In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
likely didn't understand it in the first place.


... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
weather records were kept.

Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
that anyone claims to be able to do so.



As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend. Try to hearken
back to various debates in which the infamous "hockey stick" chart is shown
that attempts to show departures from average temperatures in 1961 to 1990
for the years 1000 AD to current time, showing this sudden jump of +.5C
when the other tempertures were below. The difference is less than 0.5 C.
The "measurements" from tree rings, corrals, ice cores and "historical
records" (remember that no calibrated met stations existed in 1000 AD) are
all being pegged at less than 0.5 C increments.

...
Unfortunately peer reviewed journals aren't what they once were.

Regardless, letters to the editor for the Washinton Post remain pretty
much what they always were, eh?

... This does not seem to be true today; statistical correlation
techniques are often substituted for root-cause phenomenological analysis.

You can show this some way?


Yes, but it wouldn't be worth it, would it?


Finally, the other thing missing is identifying causality; even when long
term trends are identified, showing that human activity is the cause for
said phenomena has thus far been highly speculative. To derail an entire
culture on such speculative evidence should make people question the
underlying motives of those demanding such actions. Again, note that I am
not saying that human activity cannot mess up local environments; ample
evidence for this exists. However, scaling that evidence to a global scale
is far from a proven fact.


Non sequitor.

Any local effect IS part of a global effect. As tricial example, if
you raise the temperature of a city by one degree, that has an effect
on a 'global average temperature.' The issue is the magnitude
and direction of the cumulative global effects.

Fine, you are right. By rasing the average temperature of the area of a
city by one degree, you will have raised the "average" temperature of the
earth (depending, of course upon whether that city area is one of the
regions in which you take measurements to compute the average). Now, let's
see, a city on the order of 1000 square miles will contribute to the
overall average for the Earth's surface area of 197,000,000 square miles by
1/197,000, or a total influence of 5 microKelvin. Now, given that a fair
amount of that will be re-radiated into space, depending upon season, cloud
cover, etc, this amount is typically what most people would call
"negligible".



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+