Jim Thompson wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 16:44:39 +0000, John Woodgate
> <jmw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>>I read in sci.electronics.design that bill.sloman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote (in
>><1105092913.800173.221300@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>) about 'OT: Wild
>>Weather', on Fri, 7 Jan 2005:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>The state of the weather in
>>>Arizona over the last hundred years isn't all that relevant.
>>
>>It's relevant, perhaps, but not a reliable indicator of any global
>>trend.
>
>
> It's all that matters to me.
>
> MIT* doesn't agree with the global warming theories... that's good
> enough for me.
>
> * Except for one leftist nut case ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
I recall seeing all the data collected from polar ice cores graphed
as global temperature over time. I wish I'd remember where the website
was. Prolly NOAA or something. The graph was very interesting to see,
it showed the temperature fluctuations oscillating rather predictably,
clearly showing the ice ages and warmer periods, and looked much like
the coercivity of a saturated iron core. (Ironic, seeing the earth has
an iron core...) Taking into consideration that the Earth not only
goes around our sun but also up/down in its orbit, this makes sense
even more sense.
What doesn't make sense is the last few thousand years of the graph.
It clearly should have started going into a colder period, but instead
the global temperature has stayed almost constant. So what we perceive
as being "no change" in global warming might actually be a "big deal."
Disclaimer: I'm no climatologist. :)
|
