Friday, June 10, 2011
Snowpack vs "global warming"
The big news from the Carbon Cult this morning is a study using tree rings and other proxies, which supposedly shows a long-term decline in snowpack that corresponds to Evil Carbon. The stories tell us not to be "fooled" by the recent huge increases; we all "know" that those increases can't signal the trough of a cycle, because Nature never moves in cycles. Everything in Nature moves in linear infinite trends. Straight up to infinity or straight down to zero. No such thing as a cycle, no such thing as equilibrium created by feedback. Don't be silly, you deniers!
= = = = =
I took the trouble to purchase the original article in Science Mag. The graph shows what really happened, and it doesn't justify the Carbon claim.
Here's the main graph clipped from the PDF, which doesn't seem to appear in any of the news stories:
Note that two of the regions show an abrupt step change at 1900, then no particular trend after that. The third shows no particular trend.
According to the Cult, the effects of CO2 didn't become obvious until about 1975, which also mysteriously happens to be the year when the Carbon Cult was founded.
The question should be: what happened in 1900 to those two regions but not the third? Whatever it was, it wasn't a gradual increase in anything, and it doesn't correspond to the usually given sequence for "Carbon effects".
= = = = =
I took the trouble to purchase the original article in Science Mag. The graph shows what really happened, and it doesn't justify the Carbon claim.
Here's the main graph clipped from the PDF, which doesn't seem to appear in any of the news stories:
Note that two of the regions show an abrupt step change at 1900, then no particular trend after that. The third shows no particular trend.
According to the Cult, the effects of CO2 didn't become obvious until about 1975, which also mysteriously happens to be the year when the Carbon Cult was founded.
The question should be: what happened in 1900 to those two regions but not the third? Whatever it was, it wasn't a gradual increase in anything, and it doesn't correspond to the usually given sequence for "Carbon effects".
Labels: Carbon Cult
¶ 6:29 AM
