Got ice? Mar 19, 2012 14:35:24 GMT -8
Post by AztecBill on Mar 19, 2012 14:35:24 GMT -8
When I started grad school my mother was making about $4500 a year as a sales clerk at Woolworth so your disparaging comments about who paid my way are nonsensical.
After grad school (and actually while I was still in grad school), I worked for archaeological firms - private sector. But the work was tied to development and when the recession hit in the '80s, the work dried up. So I went to work carrying mail for 6 years and then hired on at the County as a planner and remained there for 16 years. And now, being retired I work half time on streambed restoration projects. Take my word for it - I did't waste my education; but you'd be surprised how many people I worked with at USPS who had degrees, including one with an MBA. Not to mention someone on AM who still carries mail.
So now that our resumes are both on the table, my point was this - climate change is an argument among scientists and this or that smattering of data doesn't mean all that much and ideology unfortunately plays far too much a role - see the ridiculous notions put forward by the Creation Science Museum for a good example. One side or the other will prevail, but it will be over a period of at least 50 years, which is the average offered by Kuhn as best I recall- for a paradigm shift to occur.
I'm not arguing "facts", I'm arguing how things work in science. I don't have the background to understand the argument and no one else on here does, either. I'm willing to accept that and let the argument play out as it will and, in fact, my preference would be that you guys are correct because if the other side is correct, we're looking at something that's going to be very difficult to fix.
Anyone here has the background to understand what the climate warming mob is doing, if they take a little time to listen. Sea ice issue is very simple Look at the 1990 IPCC report linked below. Note: I use the IPCC because it is the actual heart of the global warming movement. I will use their own words to gut them. (by the way, Bob, did you happen to read this report?...it is an interesting read. You could learn a lot).
Go to page 224 and look at the graph of the Northern Hemisphere sea ice (right column top).
There it is. But it is a little off. Oh, they hadn't developed their later technique of picking the correct starting point - damn. The current starting point is there. Look at 1980 and back off one tick. That is their current starting point on all their graphs - 1979. That also just happens to be a relative high. Surprise, surprise, surprise (apologies to Jim N.). You can make a sign wave look like an increasing curve if you chose the starting point correctly. The 1990 report's starting point of 1973 wasn't the low point either. The previous relative low point was 1945. Sea ice was increasing from 1945 - 1979. That is why the cries of a coming ice age were all the rage.
It is easy to see that if anyone uses 1979 as the starting point in sea ice graphs, they are trying to deceive not inform. That is in line with their famous email words "hide the decline". It is all exaggerated.
In fact, they are using the known cycles to create illusory trends by carefully choosing starting points and sometimes end points for their data.
Another great example I found in that 1990 report is page 202. Notice the graph of temperatures of the last 1,000 years. It shows a hotter than today mideval warm period and the little ice age. They later went to great lengths to destroy it and only succeeded in disgracing themselves. Problem is they can't explain the medeval warm period by CO2. So it must die.