Barrett, I’m a little confused. I can’t quite get a grip on what you consider “ancient”. I was, once, a professional archeologist. I’ve done dendrochronological analysis. “Dendro" sampling from archeological sites in the American Southwest can be a confusing state of affairs. However, one thing you could be sure of, one couldn’t extract a meaningful dendrochronological date of more than ~10,000 years B.P. I never had one close to that extreme, but it is possible to extrapolate a date that far back based on tree-ring analysis. In terms of the climate discussion we’re having, however, tree ring analysis would be, virtually, meaningless. The problem today is how much carbon we’re putting into the atmosphere. Until, approximately, 200 years ago the amount of carbon humans were putting into the atmosphere was of little significance in terms of altering global climate. Human “urban” civilization began about 10,000 years ago. Of course, tree-ring analysis will register what you described as a “normal” state of affairs in terms of climate during this period. Global climate has been remarkably “stable” for the past 10-15 thousand years, at least as far as human dispersal is concerned. That’s one reason for the rapid expansion of human civilization to nearly every part of the globe during the past 10,000 years. CO2 levels, globally, have been fairly stable for nearly the last one million years, hanging in there at about 250 ppm on average. The levels have steadily gone up since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The levels we are experiencing, today, exceed the CO2 levels for the past 800,000 to 1 million years. These are measured CO2 levels from ice core samples. This is not one of your “GIGO” computer-modeling scenarios. If you want to refute it you need to gather substantially different ice core data. I haven’t gathered any lately, have you? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.abstract?sid=2939853d-7aa7-4... Also, you say 'The REAL problem is that people don't get awards and grants and fame from saying that everything is NORMAL, so why do we reward people who get it wrong?’ In this, I think you miss the point. What the climatologists are saying is that the past 1 million years have been fairly “normal” in terms of CO2 levels. From ice core data it has been shown that a fluctuation in 30 ppm CO2 (in a “normal” situation, i.e., no industrialized humans) takes, on average, about 1000 years. Our last 30 ppm increase took 17 years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm What the climatologists are reporting is the extremely abnormal situation occurring at this time. The problem is, very few are listening. Dave On Jun 18, 2014, at 18:58, BWFlowers <BWFlowers@comcast.net> wrote:
I saw a very in depth article a while back dealing with ancient and modern tree ring analysis (and since then several TV programs). According to that article and the tree ring evidence, what we are going through right now is well within the "normal" parameters exhibited by the tree ring evidence. It was also backed up by the layers in the ancient glaciers and the conclusion of the article is that the earth is in a very "normal" state according to the ancient evidence over the geological time, in short- nothing out of the long term ordinary is happening right now, including fluctuating sea levels and CO2 levels. In fact we are in a moderate era. There is far too much knee jerk reactions going on, rather than a close and careful study of the available data that we already have on hand. The "human effect" on the earth may actually be preventing us from heading into another "cold period" that was abundant in the dark ages. Is the glass half full or half empty? Everyone had a right to their N, but let's not make a few peoples personal opinion a FACT until there is reliable proof. Look at the FREON debacles from the '70's and '80's and the impact that it had on all of us, now that has been PROVEN to be wrong so we are all stuck with far less efficient air conditioning because someone's OPINION was wrong and yet we are still living with the consequences of it. Scientist and politicians with personal agendas is the real problem. Computer modeling is only as good as the person writing the code and imputing the data, get either wrong and the output in garbage- GIGO- garbage in, garbage out. The REAL problem is that people don't get awards and grants and fame from saying that everything is NORMAL, so why do we reward people who get it wrong?
Why is it so easy for people to forget the scientific process and revert to witchcraft and sorcery?
Yep, that's my two cents worth! -Barrett www.BarrettsCustomLeather.com
-----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:40 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article
This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time.
I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic.
Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".