Yet another stand on the issue of Global Warming

Well, it's a novel approach, and right up adam1991's alley.

The basic argument is that there is no meaningful definition of "global temperature", as how do you take the "average" temperature of such a complex system?

Therefore, any statements about overall global temperature depend on how you calculate that average temperature.

Okay, I agree. But that tells us nothing about climate science in the slightist, or what is actually happening. It's the adam1991 "question everything" approach. I don't see any specific critiques of the averaging currently agreed on, or why another one would be better.

And on top of that, it's not as if climate science is really simplistically reducing everything to one average anyway. We can model and measure temperatures throughout the world, and watch the temperature in every region increase. Averages don't come into it, except for the purpose of producing overall headline figures.

Now, maybe he has an argument about specific headline figures. Maybe he might prefer a headline figure of +2.2C instead of +2.4C, say. But that doesn't change what's happening.

 

I'll tell you what. You go up and convince the polar bears that Climate Change is a hoax and I'll believe you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 20 2007, 10:32 PM) [snapback]409325[/snapback]</div>

And heck, I'll further assert, that since we can't find the Graviton , there must be no gravity ... uh oh ... wait ... I'm floating away from the key bo r d

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 20 2007, 11:22 PM) [snapback]409354[/snapback]</div>

Yes. I believe this is the Wile E. Coyote theory of gravity (i.e. the effect of gravity will only change if you notice it).

 

Remember, gravity is only a theory!

 

Gravity has a known liberal bias!

 

That's right! Why can't they teach Intelligent Falling in our schools!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 21 2007, 01:30 AM) [snapback]409417[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 20 2007, 08:32 PM) [snapback]409325[/snapback]</div>

This article disagrees with yours (no surprise). Basically, they are some groups of bears with declining populations, some with stable populations, and some with increasing populations. The article talks about why polar bear populations have risen over the past years and the effects of GW on their habitat. It's not all rosy, but it's not doom and gloom either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(McShemp @ Mar 21 2007, 11:32 AM) [snapback]409528[/snapback]</div>

Well, it's no surprise that link disagrees, as it's a policy paper from a free-market think tank, the Institute for Public Affairs, not a peer reviewed scientific piece. The science magazine Nature offers a different opinioin:
Polar bears sink deeper into danger
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060501/full/060501-2.html

And the Bush admin is trying to stop scientists even talking about polar bears:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/washingt...nyt&emc=rss
“Please be advised that all foreign travel requests (SF 1175 requests) and any future travel requests involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice and/or polar bears will also require a memorandum from the regional director to the director indicating who’ll be the official spokesman on the trip and the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears.â€

So I'm just not overly persuaded by an Austrailian free-market think tank. Especially as the bears live near the north pole and not at all in the southern hemisphere. That, and the fact that the author of your piece doesn't think climate change is caused by CO2. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jennifer_Marohasy . And that she's an entomologist. That bugs me ;P

Oh, that, and the funders of the Institute for Public Affairs:
Funding
The IPA has heavily relied on funding from a small number of conservative corporations. Those funders disclosed by the IPA to journalists and media organisations include:
Major mining companies - BHP-Billiton and Western Mining Corporation;
Pesticides/Genetically modified organisms: Monsanto; and
A range of other companies including communications company Telstra, Clough Engineering, Visy, and News Limited;
Tobacco companies - Philip Morris (Nahan) and British American Tobacco [6]
Oil and gas companies: Caltex, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of Exxon) and Shell [www.ips.org] and Woodside Petroleum; and fifteen major companies in the electricity industry; (Nahan 2)
Forestry: Gunns, the largest logging company in Tasmania; (Nahan 3)
Murray Irrigation Ltd - a major irrigation company contributed $40,000.[7]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title..._Public_Affairs

 

Thank God for Philip Morris, the same folks who funded those studies that refuted those of these so-called "scientists" who insist there's some sort of link between smoking and cancer!

 

ok fine, GW is a myth... or is the guy just unhappy with the terminology? would "climate shift" be more acceptable?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Mar 20 2007, 08:22 PM) [snapback]409354[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Mar 20 2007, 10:30 PM) [snapback]409417[/snapback]</div>

Hey, the guy in the Onion piece is right! Everyone knows that the real reason we don't float off into space is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is pressing down on us with His noodly appendages. There is no gravity. Just noodles.

 

Here is RealClimate's rebuttal to the article:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...perature-exist/

 

Interestingly we saw plant species, on our vernal pool field class this Saturday, that normally do not appear until may or june. The docent that was giving us a tour of the preserve said they have been documenting a trend in the last few years. The study is based on the migrating patterns of birds and amphibians that use the vernal pools and the native plants blooming habits.

Does this prove GW? Not really but it could add to the evidence base is the studies being done at UC Davis conclude that this is indeed a trend of shifting blooming times and migration habits.

(I'll add the pictures of the plants when I get home)