On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 11:09:44 -0500, john fernbach
wrote:

Uh - what about the economic analysis that Stern has offered, folks?
Because so far
it seems that most responses to the original post about the Stern
Report, as per above, have involved either

(A) A mindless exchange of insults resembling "a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" [Shakespeare], OR


that is genetic. so no i dont give that any drecit

(B) Fervent debate over the SCIENCE of global climate, which apparently
is not the main focus of what Stern wrote.

A modest question: Has anybody in here read actually what the Stern
report concludes about the ECONOMICS of climate change and efforts to
slow, stop, or adjust to it?
If so, do you care to share some of that ECONOMIC analysis with us?

I confess I haven't read the report yet, either, so this is not a trick
question.

But if we're arguing over a 700 page report by an economist, it's
probably a good idea to be examining his economic analysis. Just for
starters. Not whether he completely took into account the latest
wrinkle in climate science. And certainly not whether "Bawana" or "CO2
Storms from Hell" or "Claudius Denk" is this group's biggest doo-doo
head.

--------
"The devil has got a slippery shoe
If you don't watch out, he'll put it on you --
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on."
-- American civil rights movement hymn, 1960s

In message , Orator
writes
Orator wrote:
John Beardmore wrote:

Isn't it interesting to see the AWG mob dared not touch this at all. :-)

To be fair, I don't suppose most people will have had time or
inclination to read it in detail if at all.

While we may be critical of naive attempts to rubbish it, none of us are
hear either to defend, promote or analyse it, and I doubt any of us have
seen any of the calculations which might underpin its statements or
conclusions.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:38:57 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

If the temperature of the sun increases, the rate at which energy
radiates away from this hotter object increases.

Yes. And the extent of this is ?

Quite substantial:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/p...olar_variabili
ty/lean2000_irradiance.txt

Doesn't look like a huge increase, though I grant it may make some
difference.

1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/br...ll_03/fig2.gif

BTW, the sun makes _all_ differences (the sun being the source of
energy). What AGWers seem to claim is that the solar flux variations
will have no real effect on the largest amplifier: water vapor (and
water's positive feedback loop). The contributions of water vapor are
very poorly understood, so claiming that we understand the various
atmospheric interactions extremely well is nonsense (as is the claim
that "we can reject water vapor as a main driver").

Are you asserting that climate modellers haven't taken this
into account ?

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-8.htm, figure C.

Indicates that they use _perhaps_ as high as 0.2 w/m^2, but probably
less than that (assuming they arrived at this number by averaging this
over the Earth's surface, that's still only 0.8 W/m^2 flux increase
from the sun, which they may have folded into their models). If they
didn't average to arrive at this result, then they even more grossly
underestimated the flux.

And we note that these "models" are largely curve fits, and not ab
initio calculations...

"The conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that 50 years is
the absolute minimum sea level record length that should be considered
in an analysis of global sea level rise or acceleration from tide
gauge data alone."

This may be true in some sense, but it stands to reason that if the
planet warms, the ocean will expand, so there is more than one approach
to considering this issue.

People have calculated thermal expansion effects for the ocean. It's
not as much as you might think -- you can compare that variation to
natural variations such as tidal activity, and storm surge.

The problem with measuring "sea level" is not dissimilar to measuring
a global "average temperature". By what method do you choose to
average these data? Weighted by latitude? Weighted for population?
Weighted for area? Unweighted?... What determines an "area of
interest"?

Further there does seem to be real world experience of more frequent and
extreme tides from sites like the Thames Barrage which is now required
to operate to protect London much more frequently than it was thirty or
so years ago.

Thirty years is nothing, on the time scales of natural variation.
Recall that the sunspot period averages about 11 years.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

And there are much longer cycles which occur in the solar activity.

While there may be "low-frequency fluctuations of sea level" of
considerable complexity, there seems no reason to assume that the
warming of the planet isn't contributing as well.

Other than Occam's Razor. There is no doubt that human action results
in "changes" on the Earth's surface. Heat islands, concrete,
blacktop, growing/harvesting crops, clear cutting... But even YOUR
breathing, your water use, your home heating, and your computer use
contribute (and yet we can see that you are still using your computer,
and burning electricity)...

The question is, what is the magnitude of these contributions
(particularly compared to natural variations)? Small changes are
inevitable, so live with it. Not all changes are harmful.

The second question is, will any changes resulting from these
contributions, be deleterious? If it's not harmful, why do you care?

Which leads to the third question, how would you mitigate them, if you
determine that they are both anthropogenic and harmful -- or more
correctly, how would you mitigate those changes without murdering a
billion people or so... (and yes, if you take an action -- such as
shutting off heat, food, water, etc -- that results in the "natural
death" of billions, it is _murder_).

The US and a couple other "bread baskets" feed much of the world.
Sure, we could stop burning fuel to produce those crops. And/or we
could convert all those crops to alternative fuels. And, of course,
we simply could let the world starve... Is that the desired solution?

We presume that Parker is prepared to support this claim with data...

A trivial google search finds

Nice, but Parker's claims are in general based on nothing at all.

Hmmm... Not that I'd noticed, but I guess that sort of bickering can
stay between you and him.

Then you shouldn't step in the middle of it...

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Doesn't seem to show an increase in hurricane frequency...

What about intensity ?

That was also in the table. An average of 6.0 major hurricanes per
decade, with a high of 10 and low of 1. I have merely presented the
data as it was reported.

But do note, that "proving" anthropogenic causes for observed
variations requires more than simply stating "it's different than it
was in the past". Neither does correlation prove causality.

It is unclear how the various natural forcings contribute to these
weather variations. There are people who dabble in predictions:

http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/


Retief

Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!

Retief wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:38:57 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

If the temperature of the sun increases, the rate at which energy
radiates away from this hotter object increases.

Yes. And the extent of this is ?

Quite substantial:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/p...olar_variabili
ty/lean2000_irradiance.txt

Doesn't look like a huge increase, though I grant it may make some
difference.

Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!
1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/br...ll_03/fig2.gif

The 1910 data petered out after a few decades. The most recent data is
ONLY for the minima of the last two solar cycles, two years out of 22
years.

The increase at those two years, seperated by eleven years of no
increase, is 2 watts in outer space at the top of the atmosphere. Like
all the rest of the suns radiation those two watts get tithed on their
way inbound through the atmosphere. If either of both of those two
years had a major Pinatubo volcano eruption than zero of that extra
energy made it down to the ground.

Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!

How about RETIEF digging up supporting documentation on those TWO YEARS
he claims had increased radiation of two watts up in space? The burden
is on him to support HIS THESIS.






BTW, the sun makes _all_ differences (the sun being the source of
energy).

NO **** Sherlock. Does Bush know yet?


What AGWers seem to claim is that the solar flux variations
will have no real effect on the largest amplifier: water vapor (and
water's positive feedback loop).

It has a big effect -- it self-cancels in a big way ending up in net
zero difference.

That's your BIG EFFECT -- ZERO.

The burden of proof is on Retief the chronic liar to produce evidence
supporting his quackery.

Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack!
Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack!
Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!!
Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack!
Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack!
Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!!



The contributions of water vapor are
very poorly understood,

Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!

You can stop right there. You admit you have a poor understanding.
Everything else below about water vapor is therefore bull****.

Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack!
Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack!
Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!!
Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack!
Quack!!!



so claiming that we understand the various
atmospheric interactions extremely well is nonsense (as is the claim
that "we can reject water vapor as a main driver").

Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!

Retief does understand the subject. He can't possibly evaluate what
other's know who do indeed understand the subject.

Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!


Are you asserting that climate modellers haven't taken this
into account ?

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-8.htm, figure C.

Indicates that they use _perhaps_ as high as 0.2 w/m^2, but probably
less than that (assuming they arrived at this number by averaging this
over the Earth's surface, that's still only 0.8 W/m^2 flux increase
from the sun, which they may have folded into their models). If they
didn't average to arrive at this result, then they even more grossly
underestimated the flux.

They understand the subject that you admitted above you cannot
understand.

You are in no position to criticise until you improve your own
understanding. Leave the science to the pros and go back to your comic
books.


And we note that these "models" are largely curve fits, and not ab
initio calculations...

Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!

Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack!
Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack!
Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!!
Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack!
Quack!!!


Retief

In article ,
Retief wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:38:57 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

If the temperature of the sun increases, the rate at which energy
radiates away from this hotter object increases.

Yes. And the extent of this is ?

Quite substantial:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/p...olar_variabili
ty/lean2000_irradiance.txt

Doesn't look like a huge increase, though I grant it may make some
difference.

1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.


"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the
sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with
radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the
1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-hit-record-h
ighs-over-the-last-few-decades/

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/br...ll_03/fig2.gif

BTW, the sun makes _all_ differences (the sun being the source of
energy). What AGWers seem to claim is that the solar flux variations
will have no real effect on the largest amplifier: water vapor (and
water's positive feedback loop). The contributions of water vapor are
very poorly understood, so claiming that we understand the various
atmospheric interactions extremely well is nonsense (as is the claim
that "we can reject water vapor as a main driver").

Are you asserting that climate modellers haven't taken this
into account ?

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-8.htm, figure C.

Indicates that they use _perhaps_ as high as 0.2 w/m^2, but probably
less than that (assuming they arrived at this number by averaging this
over the Earth's surface, that's still only 0.8 W/m^2 flux increase
from the sun, which they may have folded into their models). If they
didn't average to arrive at this result, then they even more grossly
underestimated the flux.

And we note that these "models" are largely curve fits, and not ab
initio calculations...

"The conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that 50 years is
the absolute minimum sea level record length that should be considered
in an analysis of global sea level rise or acceleration from tide
gauge data alone."

This may be true in some sense, but it stands to reason that if the
planet warms, the ocean will expand, so there is more than one approach
to considering this issue.

People have calculated thermal expansion effects for the ocean. It's
not as much as you might think -- you can compare that variation to
natural variations such as tidal activity, and storm surge.

The problem with measuring "sea level" is not dissimilar to measuring
a global "average temperature". By what method do you choose to
average these data? Weighted by latitude? Weighted for population?
Weighted for area? Unweighted?... What determines an "area of
interest"?

Further there does seem to be real world experience of more frequent and
extreme tides from sites like the Thames Barrage which is now required
to operate to protect London much more frequently than it was thirty or
so years ago.

Thirty years is nothing, on the time scales of natural variation.
Recall that the sunspot period averages about 11 years.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

And there are much longer cycles which occur in the solar activity.

While there may be "low-frequency fluctuations of sea level" of
considerable complexity, there seems no reason to assume that the
warming of the planet isn't contributing as well.

Other than Occam's Razor. There is no doubt that human action results
in "changes" on the Earth's surface. Heat islands, concrete,
blacktop, growing/harvesting crops, clear cutting... But even YOUR
breathing, your water use, your home heating, and your computer use
contribute (and yet we can see that you are still using your computer,
and burning electricity)...

The question is, what is the magnitude of these contributions
(particularly compared to natural variations)? Small changes are
inevitable, so live with it. Not all changes are harmful.

The second question is, will any changes resulting from these
contributions, be deleterious? If it's not harmful, why do you care?

Which leads to the third question, how would you mitigate them, if you
determine that they are both anthropogenic and harmful -- or more
correctly, how would you mitigate those changes without murdering a
billion people or so... (and yes, if you take an action -- such as
shutting off heat, food, water, etc -- that results in the "natural
death" of billions, it is _murder_).

The US and a couple other "bread baskets" feed much of the world.
Sure, we could stop burning fuel to produce those crops. And/or we
could convert all those crops to alternative fuels. And, of course,
we simply could let the world starve... Is that the desired solution?

We presume that Parker is prepared to support this claim with data...

A trivial google search finds

Nice, but Parker's claims are in general based on nothing at all.

Hmmm... Not that I'd noticed, but I guess that sort of bickering can
stay between you and him.

Then you shouldn't step in the middle of it...

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Doesn't seem to show an increase in hurricane frequency...

What about intensity ?

That was also in the table. An average of 6.0 major hurricanes per
decade, with a high of 10 and low of 1. I have merely presented the
data as it was reported.

But do note, that "proving" anthropogenic causes for observed
variations requires more than simply stating "it's different than it
was in the past". Neither does correlation prove causality.

It is unclear how the various natural forcings contribute to these
weather variations. There are people who dabble in predictions:

http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/


Retief

Lloyd - thanks for sharing! Seriously. BTW - have you read the Stern
Report? If so, could you recap some of the main points for us here?

It seems that most of the posts in this string are inviting the reader
to consider everything in the world except for the Stern Report's
conclusions.

Has anybody here read the thing? Or are we just arguing about the
usual stuff?

--------------------------
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Retief wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:38:57 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

If the temperature of the sun increases, the rate at which energy
radiates away from this hotter object increases.

Yes. And the extent of this is ?

Quite substantial:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/p...olar_variabili
ty/lean2000_irradiance.txt

Doesn't look like a huge increase, though I grant it may make some
difference.

1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.


"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the
sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with
radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the
1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-hit-record-h
ighs-over-the-last-few-decades/

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/br...ll_03/fig2.gif

BTW, the sun makes _all_ differences (the sun being the source of
energy). What AGWers seem to claim is that the solar flux variations
will have no real effect on the largest amplifier: water vapor (and
water's positive feedback loop). The contributions of water vapor are
very poorly understood, so claiming that we understand the various
atmospheric interactions extremely well is nonsense (as is the claim
that "we can reject water vapor as a main driver").

Are you asserting that climate modellers haven't taken this
into account ?

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-8.htm, figure C.

Indicates that they use _perhaps_ as high as 0.2 w/m^2, but probably
less than that (assuming they arrived at this number by averaging this
over the Earth's surface, that's still only 0.8 W/m^2 flux increase
from the sun, which they may have folded into their models). If they
didn't average to arrive at this result, then they even more grossly
underestimated the flux.

And we note that these "models" are largely curve fits, and not ab
initio calculations...

"The conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that 50 years is
the absolute minimum sea level record length that should be considered
in an analysis of global sea level rise or acceleration from tide
gauge data alone."

This may be true in some sense, but it stands to reason that if the
planet warms, the ocean will expand, so there is more than one approach
to considering this issue.

People have calculated thermal expansion effects for the ocean. It's
not as much as you might think -- you can compare that variation to
natural variations such as tidal activity, and storm surge.

The problem with measuring "sea level" is not dissimilar to measuring
a global "average temperature". By what method do you choose to
average these data? Weighted by latitude? Weighted for population?
Weighted for area? Unweighted?... What determines an "area of
interest"?

Further there does seem to be real world experience of more frequent and
extreme tides from sites like the Thames Barrage which is now required
to operate to protect London much more frequently than it was thirty or
so years ago.

Thirty years is nothing, on the time scales of natural variation.
Recall that the sunspot period averages about 11 years.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

And there are much longer cycles which occur in the solar activity.

While there may be "low-frequency fluctuations of sea level" of
considerable complexity, there seems no reason to assume that the
warming of the planet isn't contributing as well.

Other than Occam's Razor. There is no doubt that human action results
in "changes" on the Earth's surface. Heat islands, concrete,
blacktop, growing/harvesting crops, clear cutting... But even YOUR
breathing, your water use, your home heating, and your computer use
contribute (and yet we can see that you are still using your computer,
and burning electricity)...

The question is, what is the magnitude of these contributions
(particularly compared to natural variations)? Small changes are
inevitable, so live with it. Not all changes are harmful.

The second question is, will any changes resulting from these
contributions, be deleterious? If it's not harmful, why do you care?

Which leads to the third question, how would you mitigate them, if you
determine that they are both anthropogenic and harmful -- or more
correctly, how would you mitigate those changes without murdering a
billion people or so... (and yes, if you take an action -- such as
shutting off heat, food, water, etc -- that results in the "natural
death" of billions, it is _murder_).

The US and a couple other "bread baskets" feed much of the world.
Sure, we could stop burning fuel to produce those crops. And/or we
could convert all those crops to alternative fuels. And, of course,
we simply could let the world starve... Is that the desired solution?

We presume that Parker is prepared to support this claim with data...

A trivial google search finds

Nice, but Parker's claims are in general based on nothing at all.

Hmmm... Not that I'd noticed, but I guess that sort of bickering can
stay between you and him.

Then you shouldn't step in the middle of it...

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Doesn't seem to show an increase in hurricane frequency...

What about intensity ?

That was also in the table. An average of 6.0 major hurricanes per
decade, with a high of 10 and low of 1. I have merely presented the
data as it was reported.

But do note, that "proving" anthropogenic causes for observed
variations requires more than simply stating "it's different than it
was in the past". Neither does correlation prove causality.

It is unclear how the various natural forcings contribute to these
weather variations. There are people who dabble in predictions:

http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/


Retief

john fernbach wrote:
Uh - what about the economic analysis that Stern has offered, folks?
Because so far
it seems that most responses to the original post about the Stern
Report, as per above, have involved either

(A) A mindless exchange of insults resembling "a tale told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" [Shakespeare], OR

(B) Fervent debate over the SCIENCE of global climate, which apparently
is not the main focus of what Stern wrote.

A modest question: Has anybody in here read actually what the Stern
report concludes about the ECONOMICS of climate change and efforts to
slow, stop, or adjust to it?
If so, do you care to share some of that ECONOMIC analysis with us?

I confess I haven't read the report yet, either, so this is not a trick
question.

But if we're arguing over a 700 page report by an economist, it's
probably a good idea to be examining his economic analysis. Just for
starters.

I have made the observation that many economists have raised their
eyebrows at the conclusion by Stern - meaning they too believe Stern to
be hysterical.

Orator wrote:
I have made the observation that many economists have raised their
eyebrows at the conclusion by Stern - meaning they too believe Stern to
be hysterical.

Orator - two points, briefly.

1. You're not really answering my question, quite. Have YOU read the
Stern report, and can YOU tell us a little of what's in it, for good or
evil?

2. You say "many economists" have raised their eyebrows at Stern's
conclusion. Can you cite us some of these "many" economists? Can you
cite their conclusions and/or criticisms?

Not trying to be picky here, though it looks like we're on different
sides of the AGW issue.

I think your side is in total denial of reality, actually - that you're
crazier than bedbugs But who cares, because most of us knew the two
sides disagreed on the bigger AGW issue before Stern published
anything.

What I'm asking is if anyone knows anything in any detail about Stern's
economic conclusions. Or the report's methodology, for that matter.

On Mon, 13 Nov 06 11:13:12 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.

"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the
sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with
radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the
1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."

Then clearly, by this same argument, CO2 is not the cause of warming,
as: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/db1009/inputs/co2-sens.dat, shows that
the CO2 concentration increased from 278 ppm (~1770), to 298 ppm by
1910, however the temperature did NOTHING during this period...:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png

If CO2 was the cause of the warming, it clearly would have warmed by
this time...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-hit-record-h
ighs-over-the-last-few-decades/

Realclimate.org is not a refereed scientific journal, Lloyd... Didn't
you recently demand that people cite scientific journals?

Retief

Retief wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 06 11:13:12 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.

"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the
sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with
radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the
1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."

Then clearly, by this same argument, CO2 is not the cause of warming,

Clearly LYING RETIEF is a jerk and turd.




as: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/db1009/inputs/co2-sens.dat, shows that
the CO2 concentration increased from 278 ppm (~1770), to 298 ppm by
1910, however the temperature did NOTHING during this period...:

The Earth energy system did many things during this period of miniscule
investments in science and global monitoring. Unfortunately data
uncollected then cannot be resurrected now. We know that 1933 was the
all time peak for cyclones in the Atlantic, a record which went
unbroken until 2005. We know there was extreme heatwaves in the North
American Continent in the mid 1930s. Nobody even bothered to check how
much ice was melting. Nobody kept track of asian cyclones or southern
hemisphere cyclones.

Energy may have many forms -- it is not restricted to heat alone.

The records which do exist show a continuous upwards trend in cyclones
in the places where records were kept. Where temperature records were
kept there is continuous trends towards higher temperatures.

It is plain LYING WRONG to state that NOTHING happened.

The natural sinks had surplus capacities which were getting filled.
That was happening. There were vastly more forests worldwide to sop up
CO2. That was happening.

The CO2 records before the 1950s were uncorrected for local biases. The
lanscapes and industry and even fuels have changed. Gasoline was hardly
used in 1910. It is now impossible to reconstruct the world of 1910 and
take modern precision measurements. Scientific instruments were made od
sticks and mud in 1910. They didn't even have radio or vacuum tubes in
1910.

Clearly LYING RETIEF is a jerk and turd.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png

If CO2 was the cause of the warming, it clearly would have warmed by
this time...

Clearly LYING RETIEF is a jerk and turd.

It was energizing. The term warming is inaccurate and deceptive. CO2
holds in ENERGY, which is popularly equated to heat, but also manifests
as winds and ice melting.

Before the IGY International Geophysical Year in 1959 most of the data
we take for granted did not exist.

The US government didn't bother to keep records of tornadoes before
1950. People didn't even know there were tectonic plates until the
1950s.

The arguments that RETIEF uses to blast Mann can be applied to his own
sources. The furthe back you go the less reliable are the "records", or
the more care is required in understanding the flaws in the record
procedures.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-hit-record-h
ighs-over-the-last-few-decades/

Realclimate.org is not a refereed scientific journal, Lloyd... Didn't
you recently demand that people cite scientific journals?

Retief

Clearly LYING RETIEF is a jerk and turd.

http://www.realclimate.org%2Findex.p...y8-BuONX-ofdng
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (2006)
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC)

http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html/1.html
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html/3.html
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html/4.html