Ken reasonably asks:
> Instead of casting vague apersions, could you point out specific errors?
>
> I read the first three links and didn't see any glaring mistakes. In fact,
> in the third one, the letter and reply in naturalScience
> (http://naturalscience.com/ns/letters/ns_let06.html), it was Trenberth who
I
> felt distorted the facts, not Singer.
>
> Trenberth says "So it is always possible to select a point, such as 1940,
> and say there has been a decline in temperatures for a while since then. It
> so happens that 1939 to 1942 was one of the biggest and longest duration El
> Niņo events on record. Unfortunately it is not as well documented as recent
> events so its true magnitude is hard to determine. To claim that
> temperatures declined from 1940 to 1975, as Singer does, is disingenuous."
>
> Actually, Singer's interpretation is the mainstream one: "Globally averaged
> surface temperatures have been rising over the last century, but at an
> uneven rate. Temperatures increased from 1900 to the 1940s, and then
> leveled off or even decreased until the mid- to late-1970s." (Reconciling
> Observations of Global Temperature Change, p. 32). That's from a report by
> a panel of the National Research Council.
> (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068916/html/)
Looking at parameters such as "increased storminess" or even increasing
global temperatures always leads to inevitably to a variety of
interpretations, some of which can be used for any number of varying
political agendas, simply because these metrics are the consequences of a
great number of causal factors, many of which are intrinsically highly
stochastic in their nature.
A far better place to look initially to understand the magnitude of the
problem is in the various primary anthropogenic (human-caused) driving
functions. Primary among these primary drivers is the measured global
concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The following two graphics show that increase, as measured against a
pre-industrial baseline:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/sio-mlgr.gif
http://www.ec.gc.ca/Ind/English/Climate/Tech_Sup/ccsup05_e.cfm
The annual level of CO2 in the atmosphere cycles yearly with the spring
bloom, thus if the first graph were a little better resolved, you would see a
distorted sine wave in the data. Nonetheless, the trending increase in this
primary greenhouse gas is clear. It was this increase that the Kyoto accords
means to try to bring to a stop -- and ideally very modestly reverse.
Wirt Atmar
|
