<p>And remember, when all else fails, “It’s the liberals’ fault!”</p>
<p>(Sorry…couldn’t resist)</p>
<p>“There is absolutely no evidence that man influences weather through burning hydrocarbons.”</p>
<p>You may discount the evidence, but you can’t argue rationally that it doesn’t exist. I may have doubts that Jesus ever lived, but I don’t get there by making believe the evidence isn’t there, but only by suggesting the problems with the available evidence.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.jamstec.go.jp/jamstec-e/iugg/htm/abstract/abst/mc12/015265-2.html[/url]”>http://www.jamstec.go.jp/jamstec-e/iugg/htm/abstract/abst/mc12/015265-2.html</a>
MULTISCALE ANALYSIS OF THE HOLOCENE CLIMATE VARIATIONS ASREPRESENTED IN DIFFERENT DENDROCHRONOLOGIES
Dmitry Mikhailovich SONECHKIN(Hydrometeorological Research Center of Russia)
Nina Mikhailovna DATSENKO(Hydrometeorological Research Center of Russia)
Andrey Sergeevich MONIN ( P.P. Shirshov Oceanology Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences )
Nadejda Viktorovna VAKULENKO ( P.P. Shirshov Oceanology Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences )<br>
Studying past climate variations is a topic of an incessantly increasing interest now. In order to do results of such studying to be reliable it is essential to carefully investigate properties of different kinds of proxy climatic data. A special wavelet-based scaling technique is developed for this purpose. First of all, such an analysis is fulfilled for some dendrochronologies because dendrochronology is one of the most important sources of proxy climatic data. The dendrochronologies considered envelope the latest one-two millennia and even the whole Holocene. It turns out that the majority of these dendrochronologies reveal a spectral leakage within the time scales of several centennials even if the RCS technique of the tree-ring standartization is applied. Therefore, these dendrochronologies can not be used as reliable indicators of the super-low-frequency (many-centennial and millennial) climate variations without some additional processing of these. In order to do it, a hypothesis was voiced that the recently observed phenomenon of the insensitivity of tree growth to temperature could take place in the past time too. Thus, this phenomenon can be respondible for an underestimation of past warming events, for example, the warming observed during the so-called Medival Warm Period. A new temperature scenario for the latest millennia is presented that takes this hypothesis into consideration. This new scenario represents temperatures during the Medival Warm Period to be much higher, and in more harmony with the classical temperature reconstruction indicated by Lamb who used the only historic data.An 8000-year-long dendrochronology from California seems to be a unique exception to the above rule. It seems this dendrochronology represents many-centennial and millennial climate variations without essential distortions. Two kinds of wavelet transform of this dendrochronology evidence several recurrent fluctuations within the Holocene climate. The fluctuations spread all over a huge range of time scales beginning from the interdecadal one up to the scale of millennium constituting a complex but mutually ordered aggregate like a polyphony of musical chords. In the frame of this aggregate, a partition of the Holocene onto five 1600-year long climatic cycles seems to be admissible. **The latest of these cycles is formed by the following chain: Medieval Warm Period - Little Ice Age - Current Climate Warming. The existence of this latest cycle is a new argument supporting the attribution of the current warming to the natural origin mainly. **</p>
<p>It seems there is science to support either theory.</p>
<p>“And remember, when all else fails, “It’s the liberals’ fault!””</p>
<p>Nope, it’s not their fault. However, they are no more a part of the solution than the people who deride the alarmist views. At least, the other side does not have the hypocrisy to pretend the solutions are … tight in front of us.</p>
<p>The information conveyed by the movie or the book is worth sharing. He still makes the same generic mistakes (over-generalizations and unsupported conclusions) now than he did in his book “Earth in the Balance” One difference is that the presentator now has become an expert in using Keynote, and that he gets most of the science right. However, there is nothing unique about the information; only the Hollywood form of dissemination is somewhat novel. Of course, some penguins did pave the way -depiste having no roads in their icy realm. Similar, and more scientifically rigorous research, has been widely available for decades. Books such as “5000 Days to Save the Planet by Edward Goldsmith, Nicholas Hildyard and Peter Bunyard” are also a lot more accessible than the current Gore projects. </p>
<p>The main issue is what you DO -“DO” that pesky nemesis of liberal yappers- with the information. And this brings us to the Ozone Man, and why he is such an unfortunate spokesperson for the “movement.” While few doubt his long term attraction to the environment, there is little evidence of concrete proof of his commitment to seek solutions. To make things worse, he is also one of the least believable persons in the public arena. Even if this situation has been the result of a harsh media or the manipulation of the right, it remains that Al Gore is considered to be a hollow Washington suit who is prone to embellish his record at every opportunity. Also, despite his recent efforts to use deprecating humor, he still can shed his annoying patrician delivery that intimates everyone understands English at a second-grade level. </p>
<p>Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a career politician. So, we ought to measure his success as a politician in furthering the environment. Soon after releasing his first opus, Al Gore was thrusted in the limelight of the White House … and what did he do? Absolutely nothing compared to what he COULD and SHOULD have done. What good is it to write an alarmist book -even if it was a good one - and then fail to do anything MEANINGFUL for the eight long years that turned out to be, in many cases, less productive than ever in the development and support of new technologies? </p>
<p>Feel free to believe that this new crusade is about the survival of our planet. I’ll stick to my take that it is about one thing: the survival of the doomed political career. This is simply about Albert Gore.</p>
<p>Actually, what Gore did was distract the world from the “issue”. He went ahead and, representing the US, agreed to the Kyoto protocol knowing that it was DOA in the United States. The Senate told him 95-0 to not agree to what he went ahead and agreed to. (What’s that about Bush’s mantra being “my way or the highway?”)</p>
<p>As a result we now have a third world which takes as a starting point in any further negotiations that they are exempt from any new regulations. We have also lost 10 years where a real solution could have been advanced through technogical innovation rather than the lame, economic disruptive band aid that had no hope of actually solving anything and which the rest of the world is now realizing is impossible to meet.</p>
<p>Of course this presumes that the solution that is being pursued (reduction in CO2) is truly the reason for the phenomenon. Any serious discussion on global warming would indicate that there are views from the scientific community that dispute that hypothesis. The fact that Gore never presents these views is indicative of political huckstering at its worst.</p>
<p>“We have also lost 10 years where a real solution could have been advanced through technogical innovation rather than the lame, economic disruptive band aid”</p>
<p>So not being a party to the agreement, the U.S. has had 10 years to make major advances through technological innovation. As you can readily see, it has worked. We now have fewer polluting automobiles, those we have are smaller and get higher gas mileage, we have built new less-polluting mass transportation systems, we have weaned ourselves off fossil fuels, initiated massive new enforcements in wind and solar technologies, planted millions of new trees and stopped clearcutting of the old ones, provided trading incentives to our partners to invest heavily in these cutting-edge technologies, and all around made everything better.</p>
<p>mini…I wanted to cry when I read your post…isn’t it amazing that, we the “smartest” country in the world, can’t figure out how to make fuel efficient cars…or how do drive safely so our neighbors don’t drive tanks…or have high speed trains to get us from place to place…so much for being the best…we are so far behind the rest of the world we should be ashamed…</p>
<p>Rather than follow Gore’s folly which would have depleted our ability to fund research by hobbling our economy, he is putting money into such things as hydrogen fuel cell research. He has also championed nuclear energy only to be fought by the left.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably twice as many if not triple the amount making a career in denying it…</p>
<p>ff: HUH?</p>
<p>Lets see, so new technology is a bad thing, companies should just keep making goods that are ineffienct, don’t last, breakdown, and people don’t want to buy…yep that’s a plan…and all that profit they make, heaven forbid, they should do what companies did in the past, use it for research and to create NEW products, and better products, what a novel thought!!! To reinvest in your own company instead of pocketing billions of dollars</p>
<p>So if it is too hard for companies to figure out how to make better products, who should? </p>
<p>If you look at the oil pipelines, they are breaking because of permafrost melting, and I guess WE will pay for that because heaven forbid the oil companies make something that doesn’t fall apart</p>
<p>Ah well, companies all perfect, people all bad, and Chucknorris, you still never told me where YOUR oxygen comes from, oh yeah those evil trees you think don’t matter</p>
<p>CGM: I’ll see your “huh” and raise you 10 "huh"s. I have no idea what you are posting about or how you got there from what I posted. But what else is new.</p>
<p>Well, we certainly have cars on the streets that are on average far less polluting than those they replaced. Rapid transit is becoming a reality in more cities–Portland and Seattle are adding or expanding trains and older cities have continued to maintain and expand their systems. Most lumber now comes from second and third growth tree farms while cutting of old growth is limited. Wind farms are being built as we write even with the opposition of some enviros.</p>
<p>OK. Let me guess, Chuck, you are a kid?</p>
<p>Someone deleted my post.
Weenie, no.</p>
<p>“Well, we certainly have cars on the streets that are on average far less polluting than those they replaced. Rapid transit is becoming a reality in more cities–Portland and Seattle are adding or expanding trains and older cities have continued to maintain and expand their systems. Most lumber now comes from second and third growth tree farms while cutting of old growth is limited. Wind farms are being built as we write even with the opposition of some enviros.”</p>
<p>Strange how much more this is true in countries that ratified the Kyoto Treaty - think maybe it spurred technological innovation? Such a concept!</p>
<p>I liken global warming to health care reform. Almost everyone concedes that there is a problem but each has his own theory as to the cause of the problem and the ultimate outcome if the system is left unperturbed. It will take immense political will and consensus to address either of these two issues. I don’t think we’re ready to pay the price to deal with warming. A noted by Bjorn Lomborg, our money is probably better spent elsewhere.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmm…that’s odd for an adult.</p>
<p>You know Chuck, it’s OK for kids to be on the parent forum, in fact sometimes it is quite interesting, but maybe you could make an effort to rise to the occasion, so to speak.</p>
<p>Xiggi spitting on those ol’ punching bag liberals:
I think that’s what I didn’t like about liberals when I was young. You just aren’t going to get that dramatic, Superman-saves-the-world moment from a bunch of limp wristed, tree hugging liberals. All you get is a bunch of boring, incremental steps with no immediate payoff, just some vague promise of making things a little better, a day at a time. Go to some liberal enclave like Berkeley or San Francsico, and what do you see? A lot of hybrid cars and bicycles, people walking, taking buses. No drama at all. No punching the bad guy in the face and solving the problem all at once -boom! Just a bunch of people doing one little thing at a time. Boring. On the other hand, head out to the red blood, red meat, red politics suburbs where I live and you see — a bunch of Hummers and Suburbans, and people oozing with contempt for anyone who suggests that they should do anything differently… </p>
<p>By the way, if you get a chance, see “Who killed the electric car?” which is being released in a handful of theaters later this month. If you don’t get a chance to see it, just ask yourself why you have been thinking that there was no market for the few commercial electric cars that were built when there was actually a waiting list for them, and why General Motors took all of the EV-1’s out into the desert and crushed them after the government mandate ran out, refusing to let anyone buy one at any price. </p>
<p>Maybe it was those hypocritical liberal yappers? No? Hmmmm. May have to mull that one over for a while.</p>
<p>Kluge, I don’t disagree with your point about people doing the right in small unnoticed doses. I also agree that many, many of “our side” like to discredit the science behind the AGW while driving 1/10 of a mile to the local Fourbucks at the wheel of the Hummer. </p>
<p>While I was not too clear about it, my focus was really on people who found themselves in a position to make profound changes and … did not. </p>
<p>As you may gather from a number of posts on this issue, I do believe that the potential danger to our planet cannot be ignored. I also believe that a number of technologies are ready NOW and that adequate market incentives are the only thing needed to see entering in the mainstream. Inasmuch as it is remarkable that people decide to drive electric cars -and deal with the annoyances- or use a bike because their heart is in the right place, the same people should see a financial incentive for doing the right thing. It may be in the form of a bonus for them (tax credit or similar) or a … penalty for all others. Ultimately, when all is said and done, this country will do things because of an economic interest. The moral obligations exposed in Gore’s movie won’t ever go far enough. Crass capital is what flows in our veins and makes our brain tick. </p>
<p>PS One can be very conservative and still find your example of the EV-1 stomach-churning. :)</p>
<p>A free market approach is the niftiest thing in the world for some systems & problems. Where the greater good involves economic pain isn’t in the set. </p>
<p>I’m rather jaundiced since I grew up with the Big Three swearing up and down that they couldn’t make more fuel efficient cars and that nobody would buy them if they did and Big Tobacco swearing up and down that all their research showed no link between smoking and cancer. </p>
<p>Sometimes you just gotta hit 'em with a crowbar to effect change.</p>
<p>The potential of global warming is such that “probable cause” is a sufficient standard to act due to the scale of the solutions required.</p>