I don't call the fire dept because there might be a whiff of smoke.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

We'd have to look at the speed of this climate change compared to other natural changes. Since the rate is much greater, the chance that it's mostly man-made is very good.

Wait a minute, you said scientific fact indicates GW.
Here the latest from science and you won't accept it? DUH
Tree rings don't lie.

I do accept it. I also think that man-made effects can add to natural cycles, and that natural cycles aren't a reason to refuse to abate CO2 emissions.

The thing about science is that it is easily skewed to show multiple different things. In the 1970's we were taught that an ice age was starting. Now they say that it's man made global warming.

However, science and history also shows us that there is a short warming period before an ice age.

It's all in how you perceive what you see, and how you spin it to get tax dollar funding.

__________________
1987 560SL
85,000 miles

I guess you missed the point of my post.

Science is not a religion in which one must maintain a single a central dogma regardless of events. Quite the opposite: When a scientific theory is so well established that it is embraced as dogma -- that's the time to start looking for alternatives. Take for instance, Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein. Had they embraced current dogma they would never have asked the questions and devised the conceptual framework that thoroughly overturned the scientific dogma of their day.

If you're going to use science in an argument, use it's handmaiden -- skepticism.

I should add that in practical terms, the current dogma of science is usually right and counter-arguments are usually wrong. Science is very conservative ... right up until it isn't.

Solar activity has been close with the heating/cooling periods. Nobody sees that.

Fine: let the scientists try to disprove it, and don't burn them at the stake for it. But until it IS disproven, may as well work with what we've got and reduce CO2 emissions. What do we have to lose?
* Wars in Middle Eastern pestholes, and the expense of keeping and feeding our military parasites there
* Pollution from oil drilling and from burning oil itself
* Groundwater pollution from natural gas collection

Whats been proven other than since the begining of time the climate has been changing and will continue to change.
It's the hows and whys no one quite understands.
If you read JPLinvilles link, the father of GW said he doesn't think its worth the money or effort.

That's a larry tactic: true until proven false. Unfortunately mmgw isn't as straightforward as a troll thread. IMO its all moot anyways.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

Most dying old men don't think that change is worth the effort, since they'll be dead soon anyway and they've had their fun on Earth.

Lie? No. But there are sure as heck easy to misinterpret. Let's say you're at a high latitude (above 30 deg lat). If you consistently take an increment bore from either the NS direction or the EW direction with regard to the tree you would come up with two different trends. See, latitude affects growth differentially. So does slope aspect. So does hydroperiod. And so does species. Also, individual trees within a stand will vary from each other. So the best thing to do is take a core from 90 deg off the same tree and stay consistently within a species and within similar slope aspect and hydroperiod (and soil type, etc).

Then there's the measuring of the rings themselves. One must recognize false rings and missing rings. One must recognize early wood from late wood. Consistent measurement requires that the same positions be consistently measured.

Then there's removal of autocorrelation. See, trees grow quickly when young and slow as they get older. So ring widths are naturally different, and narrowing over time. So to get them on the same time scale with respect to growth rate you have to remove the correlation of growth rate and age.

It is NOT simple. It is easy to make mistakes. It takes a long time and a lot of work to build a useful chronology. Univ of Arizona is probably the premier repository and analytical lab for dendrochronology. I suggest perusing their website for anybody interested in how tree rings are studied.

This one was taken out of the yard a couple weeks ago (long needle pine) and provides a good example of what B is talking about.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
Jim

Ok. Lets say the rate was 4% and today it is 8%. You need to rule out all that you can to explain the gain of 4% and not just say "The rate changed by 4% therefore it is man-made".

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow