I suppose the primary way we can test to see if there is global warming is to see if the globe is warming. Here are the temperature measurements... Global Average Temp over time ----------------------------- 15.2| TEMP = Hansen Temperature Index .. | . | . | .. | .... . ^ | .. ..... . | | .. ... T | .. E | .. M | . P | .... . | .. .. | .. . 14.6| ... 1940 1970 |-|-------------------|--------|------|-- 1872 Year -> 1994 Gollie. Looks like the temperature of the globe is rising. Now isn't that special? I suppose the observation of a warming globe is good evidence of the reality of global warming. Mindless denialists think it is evidence that America is a communist country. Quite strange. Jim Blair: Hi, When I look at that, I see TWO things. A gradual increase in temperature, and an aborted "little ice age" that was scheduled to appear in about 1950 and last until about 2000. See my web page file and figures on CO2. tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis): I see the following - a human aerosol cooling with a maximum in the period after WWII masking a warming trend caused by greenhouse gas emissions, with a superimposed component due to an oscillation in the formation of North Atlantic Deep water, believed to have a period of about 70 years, peaking in 1940, plus a little noise from solar and volcanic forcing. 1940 is the year furthest from the trend line. Dividing the record up to "a lot of warming before 1940" and "not so much after" presumes a single cause and a noiseless measure. At best it shows a very weak grasp of statistical principles. ...... In fact, on the time scales of the change, it appears that the greenhouse forcing is of unprecedented magnitude, from the point of view of a sustained change per unit time, and that the associated climate change should now be beginning to be observable, and will be quite obvious within the next few decades. The real issues are what the impact of this change will be and how much of it we ought to tolerate. People who say that this is "unproven theory" invariably have little real knowledge of the science. It's a "theory", yes. So is the law of universal gravitation. How dare we pass laws about safe construction practices based on a mere theory? People should be able to build structures however they please until the theory is proved! Right? mt It is Me wrote: > > .. In New Jersey it was really mild. I had > to scrap my windows twice at most this year. "C. M. K." : Well, using this logic, here in south central Texas it never got to 100 degrees last year (VERY unusual), our Autumn was very cool, Winter is about normal so the Earth must be cooling (really, who knows). "Bill Mechlenburg" : Using one winters data from one part of the country to demonstrate basic climate change is childish and scientific idiocy. I spend my winters in the Florida Keys. This winter the weather and water temperatures were the lowest I have ever seen. Does this indicate the "world" is cooling? Of course not. It only indicates what it was - Florida was cooler than normal. The world has been going through cooling and ice ages and warming cycles for hundreds of millions of years. A few decades back the fear mongers were claiming we were entering a new ice age. The FACT is that we don't know whether we are entering a new warming or cooling trend. The evidence is that moderate world warming would have many beneficial effects. Hi, I see all of these examples as supporting the idea of "global climate CHANGE". The fact that it is warmer than expected here and cooler there are not contradictory indicators (is it getting warmer or cooler?). They are just more examples of CHANGE. And almost every night the national news is of unusual rain here, unexpected tornadoes there, hundred year floods, mud slides and ice storms, etc. Then the international news is more of the same. Now if there were no reason to expect a change in climate, this could all be seen as just a series of unusual exception to the "normal". But we all know that humanity has been increasing the CO2 level of the atmosphere, and that CO2 does "alter the energy balance", by absorbing infrared energy. About a hundred years ago a respected chemist and a geologist independently proposed that changes in the atmospheric CO2 would change the climate. The exact details of the change cannot be predicted by current computer models. It would be "warmer" in the sense of being in a higher energy state, but this would mean hotter in some places, and cooler in others (the upper part of the atmosphere for example). But the US government in the 1950's started the largest public works project in history to subsidize the transformation of US society into a dependence on the car and truck, to displace the far more energy efficient rail and trolly systems that the population had chosen when they had to actually pay for what they used. The Interstate Highways were first justified as a military need, but they have resulted in the US becoming critically dependent on massive amounts of oil that must be imported. Then to top it off, self styled "libertarians" justify the massive government subsidy to cars and roads as needed to counter "socialism". Is everyone nuts except me? ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) And an exchange with Michael Tobis about my post on theory and data: >Also it would be a big help if you separated the post by topic. >The confusion of ozone depletion and global warming in the mind >of the casually interested observer is unfortunate, and discussing >them in the same article only contributes to the muddle. Actually I was combining THREE subjects, not just two. CO2/global climate change, CFC's/ozone depletion AND the minimum wage/employment loss. This is because I thought (incorrectly it would seem) that those with a general knowledge of the world would know that in each of these cases, the prevailing theories are clear, but that the empirical data is still being debated. The point was not to "debate" ANY of the three issues, but to call attention to what I see as a parallelism between them. To be explicit: I thought that all educated people know that economic theory predicts that an increase in the mandated minimum wage will have the effect of reducing employment for the unskilled; that the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to change the climate, and that Freons are predicted to reduce the thickness of the ozone layer. And that in EACH of these cases, there is a problem with actually MEASURING the predicted effect. So much so, that if only the empirical data is considered (in the absence of theory), the effects could not be considered proven. >I agree ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth.