Strategies to reduce global warming?

[Crick]

I think the question is why you believe that what you cannot see must exist. And then there's the question of what mechanism would cause temperatures to rise 1C and drop 1 C in less than 200 years.

 

[SSDD]

Why do you believe that what doesn't exist does?...do you think altering data makes it reality?

As to mechanism...we don't know....we don't know enough about the energy movement through the atmosphere to make any rational claim...the whole CAGW scam is political...supported by as much pseudoscience as it can buy...nothing more.

 

[IanC]

I think the question is why you believe that what you cannot see must exist. And then there's the question of what mechanism would cause temperatures to rise 1C and drop 1 C in less than 200 years.

I dont profess to know the mechanisms but large swings in temperature abound in single proxy data. for example-

 

[IanC]

or Antarctica -

 

[Crick]

I dont profess to know the mechanisms but large swings in temperature abound in single proxy data. for example-

Perhaps why Shakun used 65 of them.

Do you yet have a mechanism?

 

[SSDD]

I dont profess to know the mechanisms but large swings in temperature abound in single proxy data. for example-

Perhaps why Shakun used 65 of them.

Do you yet have a mechanism?

Climate science doesn't have the foggiest idea of a mechanism...and it is easier to fudge 65 proxies than 1....like it or not, ice cores are the gold standard...

 

[Crick]

and it is easier to fudge 65 proxies than 1....like it or not, ice cores are the gold standard...

Why don't you show us a real scientist saying these things?

 

[jc456]

He thinks the rapid rise is bad for our species. The question is why don't you.

rapid rise? where?

 

[Crick]

Outside your door.

 

[IanC]

I dont profess to know the mechanisms but large swings in temperature abound in single proxy data. for example-

Perhaps why Shakun used 65 of them.

Do you yet have a mechanism?

the proxies are all different in some ways. the range of variation, the timing, the accuracy, the precision. we dont know which one is 'right', or if any of them are.

how do we get information out of them? we check to see if the majority follow the same general trends. if 90% of them are increasing for a specific time range we can make an assumption that temps were rising, although we cannot be certain that the other 10% werent more correct. if a recognizable shape of ups and downs is present in many of the proxies we can check the timing of those occurences. if 90% of the proxies show the event happened in a small time range then we can make an assumption that it happened at roughly that time but we cannot be certain that the other 10% were not more correct.

I have already shown you how mathematically the variance must be reduced by averaging proxies together. some have low variation, some have high variation, we can average the variation and artificially reintroduce it, but that is highly uncertain.

ice cores are by far the easiest to examine and date because they have yearly layers built up with tiny bubbles enclosed. mudbugs etc have many more problems to solve before information can be extracted. often there are even difficulties as to which orientation they should be used in! how useful is a proxy when it you cant even figure out if it is upsidedown?

after using the full compliment of proxies to give a general shape and timing for the reconstruction, I think the proxies showing the best reconciliation should be given further examination.

do the superior ice core data agree with MBH98 or Marcott? not really
y

 

[Crick]

I think the question is why you believe that what you cannot see must exist. And then there's the question of what mechanism would cause temperatures to rise 1C and drop 1 C in less than 200 years.

I dont profess to know the mechanisms but large swings in temperature abound in single proxy data. for example-

And are you suggesting that those accurately record global conditions? Do you believe this particular proxy has no noise and is perfectly representative? And before you moan that I haven't read what you wrote, that you claimed no such thing, the conversation was most assuredly about global conditions to which you threw up these data.

 

[Old Rocks]

so most of us think global warming is inevitable?

Climate change is and not enough data on global warming. Except for the fact we are still leaving the last ice age.

Given the length of the last three inter-glacial cycles were over due for a rapid drop into the next glacial cycle.. When that drop sets in there is going to be wide spread famine and death. And that is not an IF its a WHEN IT HAPPENS..

Nothing Man does or can do will stop this natural cycle.

Yup. Cold kills. I don't know when the next ice age will arrive but when it does, it won't be pretty.

Right now global warming and CO2 fertilization have been a boon to civilization. Also, we could easily cool the world with aerosols if need be. Artificially warming the world would be more difficult.

Damn, Ian, I thought you were smarter than that. Look at this graph. Not only is the descent into an ice age far slower than the warming, it has far more peaks and valleys. Then you state that it is easier to cool the earth, than to warm it?

We know how easy it is to warm the earth, we have just began to do that in the span of a lifetime and a half.