« Facts about George Taylor and the “state climatologist” | Main | Shakira shakes at 2007 Grammys »

February 10, 2007

Comments

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6989/abs/nature02567.html


The Earth's climate has undergone a global transition over the past four million years, from warm conditions with global surface temperatures about 3 °C warmer than today, smaller ice sheets and higher sea levels to the current cooler conditions. Tectonic changes and their influence on ocean heat transport have been suggested as forcing factors for that transition, including the onset of significant Northern Hemisphere glaciation approx2.75 million years ago, but the ultimate causes for the climatic changes are still under debate. Here we compare climate records from high latitudes, subtropical regions and the tropics, indicating that the onset of large glacial/interglacial cycles did not coincide with a specific climate reorganization event at lower latitudes. The regional differences in the timing of cooling imply that global cooling was a gradual process, rather than the response to a single threshold or episodic event as previously suggested. We also find that high-latitude climate sensitivity to variations in solar heating increased gradually, culminating after cool tropical and subtropical upwelling conditions were established two million years ago. Our results suggest that mean low-latitude climate conditions can significantly influence global climate feedbacks.

First Point: Climatology is a sub-branch of Meteorology, just as Archeology is a sub-branch of Anthropology. I do suppose it would take someone who works in the scientific community to understand that. Next time you criticize someone's educational credentials it would be good to actually learn something about said credentials.

Point 2: The people that spoke at ICCC (International Counsel on Climate Change) were trying to address issues that the IPCC seemed to avoid. Some of the scientists there were actually a part of the IPCC and were dissatisfied with the work (or lack thereof) done by said panel. None of them deny that there is some effect from CO2. Taylor's talk was about the effects of the el-nino/la-nina cycle on the left-coast. Taylor's position is backed back science (but since you have not listened to said speech you would not know that). You can listen to the speech by downloading the mp3 at
http://www.heartland.org/newyork08/audio/Monday/GeorgeTaylor.mp3

Almost all the speeches and Q/A sessions can be downloaded at
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/audio.cfm

Any scientist that is worth anything will first listen to the content before judging it. These people are being more scientific than many out there by being skeptics. Because skepticism, according to T.H. Huxley, "is the highest calling of a true scientist."

Point 3: Mark Floyd is not the person that would know everything about Oregon State and Oregon State University. He is only the director of new and communication at OSU.

Point 4: I have seen nothing in any of your post that suggests you have any "real" knowledge of the many factors other than CO2 that are leading to global warming on Earth, and even on Mars and Neptune. There are many more factors besides those of the CO2 emissions. In Europe they are now dealing with the Forest Albedo effect (trees increasing the temp of the area by absorbing solar energy). The correlation to the global temps of Earth, Mars, and Neptune when compared with the number of sunspots. Due to the increase of solar radiation Mars' southern icecaps have been disappearing. There are many more which you should try to find.

Final point: when one posts something based more upon their feelings on the matter but with no "real" collaborating evidence, it just leaves people like me who demand empirical data and relevant sources believing that you do not know much about what you are saying. By "real" I do not mean a news article (as most journalists do not know enough about science be able to critique the information). Usually I would prefer data from a peer-reviewed journal (which has to pass many other scientists before it will be published). Add some sources other than the Oregonian (a poor publication when it comes to science).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight

  • Salem Political Snark
    My local political rants are now made on this badass blog. Check it out. Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals — we’re on it. 

  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.

  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...