QandO
Questions and Observations| « Swift Boats, "Liars" and Blogs | Main | Third Chechen Woman linked to third terror attack in Russia » |
|
August 31, 2004 Global Warming? Not according to the mussels An interesting find. From The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (which describes itself as "a non-profit public charity dedicated to discovering and disseminating scientific information pertaining to the effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on climate and the biosphere") comes a Swedish study of, you ready for this, freshwater pearl mussels which says, its no so different now than it was 217 years ago. Apparently based on the title of the review, yearly growth increments on the shells of these mussels is effected by the air temperature. These folks went to museums which had collected specimens alive and studied their yearly growth increments: The authors utilized 60 specimens of freshwater pearl mussels that had been collected alive between AD 1853 and 1930 (stored in museums) and between AD 1986 and 1997 from six rivers in northern, central and southern Sweden to reconstruct a 217-year history of summer (June-August) air temperature for the country, which they compared with the Scots pine tree-ring-derived summer air temperature reconstruction of Briffa et al. (1990). Findings? Schone et al. report that "both series do not reveal any significant long-term temperature trends," but they say that "the number of cold summers was higher prior to about AD 1900 as compared to the last 90 years." Also, their data reveal that the peak temperatures of the late 1980s and early 1990s were no higher than those of the 1930s and 40s, while the coldest summer of the entire record (by far!) occurred on the last full year of the series. Meaning? Clearly, these temperature reconstructions reveal absolutely nothing that is unusual about either the entire 20th century or its last two decades, which are routinely described by climate alarmists as having experienced unprecedented warming over the last thousand years and perhaps even the past two millennia. If such occurred anywhere, it wasn't in Sweden. Interesting. |
Ha...someone tell that to National Geographic. Check out this month's issue for your ration of doom.
Posted by: Looker at August 31, 2004 03:54 PM
The Earth was around long before us. We are, in the grand scheme - gnats. The Earth will still be here, thriving, long after we all have gone.
The Greenies that would have us all believe we are capable of killing Earth, simply are suffering extra bloated egos. Theirs is a death cult, and they do not like humans.
Posted by: Deb at August 31, 2004 04:11 PM
Hey, we're not doing too badly.
I distinctly recall the ice age that the greenies told me would occur, about now, that was back in the 60's.
I distinctly recall completely running out of oil, I heard that in the 70's.
I hear about the hole in the ozone layer - how big it's getting. And I wonder as compared to what? Who was on the Antarctic pole in 1800 taking those measurements? what? - oh, we 'extrapolated' from data we took....recently....oh....yeah....I see.
We blinked, plugged it into our computer model, which WE created the equations for based on our best guess about how it all works (read here, relatively clueless) and yep, we're headed for global warming, I mean an ice age....
Posted by: looker at August 31, 2004 04:32 PM