Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 Next
Comments 117601 to 117650:
-
TOP at 22:39 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
What I don't see is a reasoning for the cause of the MWP globally. -
batsvensson at 22:33 PM on 11 June 2010Collective Intelligence and climate change
@doug_bostrom at 18:41 PM on 10 June, 2010 Doug, I am sure you had a small chuckle when you wrote the comment, and so did I when read it but you miss my points. Fun as the analogy is I do not agree with the label imperfect even. Invalid is rather a word that comes to my mind. Comparing two different classes of physical system is not only a major fault. One is also a extremely well known system both in science and as well in engineering but the other is not. That's why we have transport vehicles in the first place, but we do not see planetary atmosphere transformers with specification charts and all sold off the shelf at special offers at super markets, or do we? While the methods to control transport for the past then thousand years - or even longer - has been a rudimentary but growing understanding of physics the very same principles has not been applied to control weather or climate - here other methods like prayers, rituals and scarifies has been major tools in the control – until just recently. But all this is a red herring and does not address the main point I made: you are demonetizing the opponent. Humor and even iron indeed has its part to clarify the ridiculous in things but I don’t see how a sweeping generalization would promote discussion and open talk. It is not possible to have a educated discussion when the opponent has postulated that anyone that does not agree need to have their ignorance or stupidity "educated". -
Ned at 22:26 PM on 11 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Glenn Tamblyn writes: And any similarities to the methods used by McLean, Carter & DeFreitas 2009 in their comparison of El Nino with temperatures is purely coincidence? Thus the comment "Perhaps if Hocker were an avid reader of Skeptical Science, he would have been familiar with this error in McLean's analysis and would have avoided repeating it!" :-) -
Glenn Tamblyn at 22:23 PM on 11 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
And any similarities to the methods used by McLean, Carter & DeFreitas 2009 in their comparison of El Nino with temperatures is purely coincidence? Derivatives to remove trends and all of that old rot... -
tomhuld at 21:59 PM on 11 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
First off, it is interesting to see that correlation is causation after all. I thought we'd been told it wasn't. This stuff is impressively silly. What jumps right out of the little equation is that for zero temperature anomaly you still have a rise in CO2! It comes out as 0.22 (ppm/month?) which sounds about right (~2ppm/year and rising). So his hypothesis is refuted by his own equation. (BTW, little nitpick: a trend is not removed by differentiation but is turned into a constant offset. That's what we see here). -
Daved Green at 21:37 PM on 11 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
I like where Hocker says 'The two coefficients, (0.22 and 0.58) were chosen to optimize the fit." sounds like a neat trick , Oh dear !! and also how its claimed the computer models only work if the right data is imputed . -
werecow at 21:24 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
"Rather than cut out the middleman, going direct to Keigwin would only complicate as the question would then be "did Abraham correctly quote you refuting Monckton quoting your work?"" Why? You could simply ask the same question Abraham asked Keigwin. -
JSFarmer at 21:16 PM on 11 June 2010It's the sun
OK, got it... Thanks! -
Marcus at 21:14 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Arkadiusz, you talk about Cherry Picking, but your entire claim is one cherry pick after another. You pick *one* study showing rapid warming, vs the roughly *dozen* studies which show much slower warming. Your preferred study looks at an aquatic environment, whilst most other paleo-climate studies look at terrestrial environments. Your preferred study looks at a *single* isolated region of the Southern Hemisphere, whilst the other studies cover quite broad regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Your preferred study looks only at *Summer* temperatures, whilst all the other studies look at temperature over the entire year. Your preferred study looks at temperatures with respect to the whole 20th century (much of which was quite cold by modern standards) whilst the other studies look at temperatures with respect to the 1961-1990 average. As to the methodology used-what's the accuracy? Whats the rate of deviation around the mean? So basically you're basing you FAITH in a strong MWP on a single paper, using a largely untested method focused on a single region of the Earth during the Summer months of the year. Yet you accuse *others* of cherry picking! Hilarious! As to Mann et al. They don't malign the MWP-so now you've moved on to simply making things up-which puts you in good company with the likes of Monctkon if you ask me! -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:30 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
@Marcus "... but the Surface Area isn't that great either: remember that less than 1/3rd of our planet is "dry" land-& not all of that is actually good for sequestration." From the Polish textbook for learning about soil: "Prairie soils are formed in continental climates of the characteristics of warm, temperate dry, and subtropical, areas in the forest -steppe, steppe, prairie and pampa". "The level of accumulation of humus in them reaches 1.2 m. [!!!] thickness (humus decay is about 12% weight of this layer), which is unheard of in any other soil." "The savannahs areas - in Africa (the Upper Nile Basin), India (Deccan) and Australia (Queensland) - implies the existence of black tropical soils. These are the fertile soil, but in times of excessively drying rainless." (...) "As opposed to dealing with areas of steppe soils (prairie), chestnut soils have developed in climates with characteristics very continental warm, temperate and subtropical - under low steppes." "Chestnut soils are classified as fertile ..." -
Berényi Péter at 20:24 PM on 11 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
#108 scaddenp at 11:39 AM on 11 June, 2010 this is so offtopic It is. We should wait for a thread on peak oil or something I guess. If that happens, I'll backlink here. Feel free to email Thanks, I will. However, it's so much more useful to discuss things like this in public. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:10 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
On the Mann map (2009) SH is a "strange" red squares completely unmatched to the rest blue squares... For example, this may be my favorite von Gunten et al. 2009.A quantitative high-resolution summer temperature reconstruction based on sedimentary pigments from Laguna Aculeo, central Chile, back to AD 850. They developed a continuous high-resolution (1-3 years sampling interval, 5-year filtered reconstruction) austral summer (December to February) temperature reconstruction based on chloropigments derived from algae and phototrophic bacteria found in sediment cores retrieved from Central Chile's Laguna Aculeo (33°50'S, 70°54'W) in 2005 that extended back in time to AD 850. "... quantitative evidence for the presence of a Medieval Climate Anomaly (in this case, warm summers between AD 1150 and 1350; ΔT = +0.27 to +0.37°C with respect to (wrt) twentieth century) and a very cool period synchronous to the 'Little Ice Age' starting with a sharp drop between AD 1350 and AD 1400 (-0.3°C/10 years, decadal trend) followed by constantly cool (ΔT = -0.70 to -0.90°C wrt twentieth century) summers until AD 1750." It is obvious here, that max. warmth of the MWP is about 0.5°C higher than that recorded for the past two decades (!!!) of the 20th century ... As professor Abraham and, for example, Marcus, or Chris; You to interpret these ones "inconvenient" cherry picking? "Interestingly, and even with the greatly biased "apples and oranges" [Figure 1 - here - Abraham’s] comparison utilized by Mann et al ., the nine researchers were forced to acknowledge that the warmth over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America during the Medieval Warm Period was "comparable to or exceeds that of the past one-to-two decades in some regions." (Idso, 2010 - Mann and Company Still Malign the Medieval Warm Period]. -
Passing Wind at 18:48 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
barry. Nobody is accusing Abraham is being dishonest, but he may well be quoting out of context and cherry picking. He should provide evidence to back up what he says rather than appeal to his own authority. Rather than cut out the middleman, going direct to Keigwin would only complicate as the question would then be "did Abraham correctly quote you refuting Monckton quoting your work?" Look. When Abraham makes a claim that he can back up with a citation, he does. When he makes a claim regarding an email, he should provide both the question and the answer in an unambiguous manner. It's only a question of probity. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:41 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
4. Well, you can not change these fundamental truths: the most productive (NPP) currently ocean areas, are also the most "acidic" (upwelling, Arctic), and those with pH> 8.2 - almost completely sterile ... 5. Warm water - "sapphire"; almost equally well remove CO2 ("shelf oolite mechanism") from the atmosphere and what the Arctic cold water. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:39 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part III – Acid Reflux?
3. 'Monaco Declaration' says: "Ocean acidification could affect marine food webs and lead to substantial changes in commercial fish stocks, threatening protein supply and food security for millions of people as well as the multi-billion dollar fishing industry by mid-century, ocean acidification may render most regions chemically inhospitable to coral reefs." Baird, Maynard, 2008 Science. Coral adaptation in the face of climate change. : "Indeed, the effects of temperature and acidification on even the most basic vital rates in corals, such as growth, mortality, and fecundity, are largely unknown, as are the physiological trade-offs among these traits. Consequently, the sensitivity of population growth to climate-induced changes in vital rates remains ALMOST COMPLETELY UNEXPLORED. In the absence of long-term demographic studies to detect temporal trends in life history traits, predicting rates of adaptation, and whether they will be exceeded by rates of environmental change, IS PURE SPECULATION." In a few of studies - even for the conditions of 3000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere - despite the absence of corals "limestone skeletons", showed a great weight gain!) Already dead, an eminent marine scientist, Professor K. Demel said: "Is calcium is an essential element for life, or whether it is a harmful element, the body hostile [...]" that the body uses: "... only in the inlay, armor, shells and skeletons, and so additional creations, with an excess of calcium MAY EVEN HINDER THE BODY'S VITAL FUNCTIONS [!]." (Demel, 1974). -
barry1487 at 18:29 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Passing Wind, is there anything preventing you making your own enquiries? After all, Abraham could fake some emails, yeah? Why not cut out the middle man and contact the scientists yourself? You would on the one hand remove a source of doubt, and, bringing your efforts to public attention, contribute to the debate. -
Passing Wind at 17:27 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Marcus. Please provide a citation or two to support your claims regarding the MWP. -
Marcus at 17:17 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Actually, PW, the other issues are: (1) how fast did the MWP occur-compared to modern warming & (2) what were the forcings for the MWP-compared to modern warming. Although I'm not 100% certain, it seems pretty clear from the available evidence that the MWP occurred at a *slower rate* than modern warming & that the MWP was underpinned by naturally occurring forcings (primarily solar output & changes in volcanism), wheras scientists can find precious little evidence for these same forcings in the modern warming period (of the last 60 years). Indeed, for the last 30 years, the solar forcing has been slightly *negative*! -
Riccardo at 16:57 PM on 11 June 2010It's the sun
JSFarmer, the last 50 years are indeed the highest of the last centuries. What I meant is that during the last half century sun's activity has been flat or declining. -
Passing Wind at 16:27 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
ScaredAmoeba: If part of the issue regarding acceptance of the MWP is that it was neither synchronous or global, why is it that both the hockey stick and the multi-proxy graph shown at the top of this article are for northern hemisphere only, and are not synchronous? There is absolutely no doubt what so ever that there was a medieval warm period. The only doubts I am aware of are whether it occurred both globally and synchronously, and how warm it was compared to today. Benchmark paleoclimate research by Huang et al (1997, 2008) reconstructed from borehole proxies show a distinct MWP (the 2008 paper puts it 0.5 k below today, the earlier paper is less clear), but are based on averaging thousands of borehole proxies. Individual locations were warmer and occurred at earlier and later time, and other location were cooler. -
Passing Wind at 16:12 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
doug_bostrom: "Not so far-fetched is that a speculation like that is skating on the very knife edge of suggesting Abraham is not telling the truth. Not flattering to the author." The only reason to believe Abraham over Monckton is the evidence he provides. I am saying with regard to the points I have raised is that Abraham has provided insufficient evidence with regard to Esper and Schweingruber, Keigwin, and Noon et al. With Schweingruber and Keigwin we are expected to trust Abraham's word instead of evidence - show us the emails in full, not just one cherry picked quote. As far as Noon et al (2003) goes, putting forward a quote from a co-author's website about current events in the ARCTIC and presenting that as evidence that Monckton is incorrect regarding a paper by Noon et al about the MWP in the ANTARCTIC is either sloppy work (which Abraham does not allow from Monckton) or it is dishonest. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:28 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
I'd say that in the brief time he's been working on this topic Abraham has established a vastly better track record of transparency than has Monckton. Perhaps, far fetched though it may sound, Schweingruber said, "Monckton is right, but don't quote me, you better ask Frank what he thinks." Not so far-fetched is that a speculation like that is skating on the very knife edge of suggesting Abraham is not telling the truth. Not flattering to the author. -
Doug Bostrom at 15:15 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Rob I think you'll find a lot in common between what Senator Inhofe repeats and what Monckton says. Monckton is one of Inhofe's primary go-to guys for learning about climate science, unfortunately. Why Inhofe would ignore actual scientists for learning about this topic is a matter of speculation but his home state and its history of connection with the oil industry is a reasonable clue. -
ScaredAmoeba at 15:01 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Thank-you Prof. Abraham for your hard work in revealing the truth about Monckton's claims. As I believe Dr. Weart was suggesting, the original evidence for the Medieval Warm Period came from the Northern Hemisphere only, IIRC, specifically from HH Lamb's work. Yet there are many who refuse to acknowledge that numerous high-quality, wide-ranging studies fail to find evidence for a global, synchronous AND warmer than now MWP. a) It has to be global and synchronous, or it's probably associated with localised cooling and is just heat being redistributed. b) It has to be warmer than now [obviously]. John Abraham has shown Monckton's repeated claims about seemingly every aspect of the climate to be serially & egregiously false. -
Passing Wind at 14:57 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
While your busy asking Abraham for the full picture regarding Keigwin, you might as well as for a copy of the correspondence with Schweingruber, and correspondence he may have received regarding Noon et at, and Huang et al. My reasons are an issues of probity and transparency. Abraham is claim Monckton is being dishonest, or shall we say "economical with the truth", and I wish to make sure Abraham isn't. As a gesture of openness, Abraham should make available the full email traffic. For example: Schweingruber said he has retired and passed him on to Frank. But Abraham does not show even a snippet of an email from Schweingruber. Perhaps, far fetched though it may sound, Schweingruber said, "Monckton is right, but don't quote me, you better ask Frank what he thinks." As far as Noon et al (2003) goes. Why does Abraham present a quote of Viv Jones's website about the Arctic, when Noon et al (2003) is about the Antarctic? Seems poles apart to me. BTW. I am looking forward to Monckton's rebuttal and I will subject it to similar scrutiny. -
gallopingcamel at 14:40 PM on 11 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
BP & Co: Very entertaining! I was hoping to make some kind of contribution but when you guys get going my ghast gets flabbered. -
yocta at 14:32 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
These authors [***], who amongst their findings that the balance of evidence does not point to a MWP that was as warm as or warmer than today also remarked that data from the Southern Hemisphere are too sparse to draw reliable conclusions about overall temperatures in Medieval time. [***] Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Henry F. Diaz Climate Change: Climate in Medieval Time Science 17 October 2003. -
Passing Wind at 14:18 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Passing Wind is given to me many moons ago by a cyclist friend. And no, it does not refer to farting. -
johnd at 13:28 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
This graph indicates that both hemispheres, at least over the period covered, seemed to cool to the same levels in the past but the current bias in NH warming is significant given the temperature differences estimated between now and the MWP.
-
Marcus at 12:17 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
#12 Passing Wind. So are you accusing Professor Abraham of lying? You frequently accept the misrepresentations of Monckton without feeling the need to demand he provide additional "proof" of his claims, yet you're automatically suspicious of claims made by Professor Abraham. Why the obvious double standard?Response: I didn't get that from Passing Wind's comment - he's just wanting the full picture which is a reasonable request. For John Abraham's first post, there was a similar exchange but before I posted it, I asked John for his initial email to Larry Hinzman to provide full context - anticipating questions such as Passing Wind's (btw, PW, can't you use a different username?! :-) -
Passing Wind at 12:12 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Will you please include the full content of your correspondence with Keigwin because the limited snippet you provide is ambiguous. We have no idea to what Keigwin is agreeing. Thank you.Response: Here's the email John Abraham originally sent to Keigwin:Dear Dr. Keigwin,
Pardon this interruption but I am a professor of thermal sciences and I frequently give public lectures on global warming. I noticed that recently, Christopher Monckton has been giving presentations where he uses your research to suggest that the MWP was significantly warmer than today and that the recent warming is not of concern. I don’t believe that is your conclusion but I wanted to verify this. Can you tell me, very briefly, whether your understanding of current temperatures is that they are higher than the MWP and/or are a cause for concern?
Thank you very much
Dr. John Abraham
University of St. Thomas
School of Engineering
jpabraham@stthomas.edu -
scaddenp at 11:39 AM on 11 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
BP, this is so offtopic, but if you want to continue offline, I am Phil Scadden at GNS Science. Feel free to email. -
ClimateNow at 11:34 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
#10 Marcus: What drives me crazy is that the media is still takes him seriously enough to give him his sound bites! -
Marcus at 11:28 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
#9 ClimateNow. Seems to me that its Monckton who needs to "wake up & smell the coffee". Last I checked, the price of oil & coal continue to rise, whilst the price of renewable energy systems continue to *fall*. Meanwhile, the biggest supporters of renewable energy-outside of Europe-are countries like China & India. Many poor countries in Africa & Asia are also side-stepping non-renewable energy systems-instead opting for decentralized grid options such as wind, solar & biomass gas. Monckton is sounding more & more like the kid standing with his finger in the dike trying to stop it from leaking! -
ClimateNow at 10:59 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
In the following article, on the subject of the Alliance of Small Island States seeking data from the IPCC prior to 2014 (which is being blocked by oil producing countries Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Venezuela) Monckton is referenced as follows: Meanwhile, vocal climate change critic Lord Christopher Monckton – a one-time adviser to Margaret Thatcher – gave a lecture to the press on how we shouldn’t “fall into worshipping” wind turbines and solar panels “merely because [they] are fashionable”. He claimed that switching to renewable energy would make only a marginal difference to the climate, that fossil fuels would remain “the cheapest way of generating electricity in poorer countries” and that adapting to climate change would be less costly that cutting emissions. When his thesis was challenged by John Vidal, environment editor of the Guardian, Lord Monckton responded: “Ah the Guardian, bless their little cotton socks. Wake up, sir, and smell the coffee.” [end quote] --- Article URL: Request for scientific data blocked by oil states June 11, 2010 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0611/1224272267819.html -
Spencer Weart at 10:35 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Plus, the MWP very likely was not global. The graph you show is for Northern Hemisphere only, and it seems that a "see-saw" tends to make the NH warmer when the SH is colder, and vice versa... except now, when both hemispheres are warming. Evidence for a non-global MWP is assembled by Michael E. Mann, et al., "Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly." Science 326 (2009): 1256-60 [doi:10.1126/science.1177303]. -
JSFarmer at 10:11 AM on 11 June 2010It's the sun
Thanks, I appreciate that there are many factors. I am trying to focus though, since its a complicated subject for me. I am trying to examine Skeptics' #1 argument, sunspots- that the sunspots are increasing, and the Science rebuttal that they are decreasing. Can you elaborate on your statement that the Skeptics' sunpot claim is true only if you exclude the last half century? The chart you provided is more of a visual representation so I'm not sure how to interpret it. The lows in the chart seem pretty consistant- seems to hit 0 every decade like clockwork. The vaiations seem to come in the highs. If I break it down into roughly half century segments (segments of 5 highs each), I get this for the highs: years abt 200 abt 150 abt 100 abt 50 1960 - now 3 2 1905 - 1950 1 2 2 1850 - 1895 2 3 1790 - 1840 2 2 1 The last half century is the highest when eyeballing the highs. Can you be more specific on the decline for me? Is the decline hidden somewhere in middle of these cycles? -
Marcus at 09:55 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Another fantastic post Prof. Abraham. Just one question though-do any of these papers deal with average *global* temperatures during the MWP, or merely the Northern Hemisphere? If the latter, then it further highlights the error in Monckton's claim. Indeed, to the best of my recollection, there remains precious little data about SH temperatures prior to the Mid-19th century. Another point Monckton & his cronies fail to point out is that, if you average out all the proxies we have to date, you see something in the order of a 0.5 to 0.6 degree warming-over a period of around 300-400 years. In some reconstructions, I've seen a 0.6 degree warming over as much as a 600 year period. My point is that this warming is extremely *slow*-on the order of 0.1 degree per century-as compared to the 0.1 degree per decade of warming that we've been seeing since 1950. This is what I think gets lost in the debate about the MWP-its not about the comparisons between the total anomalies involved, but the comparative rate of change that we should be looking at! -
yocta at 09:37 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Well done John A. My hat off to you. It reads very succinctly! -
David Horton at 09:35 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Excellent work John (well, both Johns). It is clear that not only doesn't Monckton bother contacting the scientists whose work he refers to, but he seems not to actually read their papers, limiting himself, apparently, to grabbing at a graph which appears to confirm his ideology and pasting it on to a slide. I know that we are beyond the realm of rational with this stuff. But you would think, wouldn't you, that Monckton might understand two things. First, that even if one granted, hypothetically, everything he believes about the MWP, he is (a) still referring to a "period" of several hundred years, not the thirty or so years of rapid increase in temp we are now seeing and (b) given that increased CO2 wasn't a factor in, say, 1000AD, the fact that it clearly is now would make you more worried, not less. Which leads me to http://davidhortonsblog.com/2010/05/28/swings-and-arrows/ where I argue in a summary form, that knowing climate changed substantially in the past should also make us more worried not less. Big changes mean that there is not, as deniers are increasingly claiming, any built in short term process on the planet that stops temperatures increasingly rapidly once CO2 begins to increase. Long term, thousands of years, millions of years, yes, short term no. -
kampmannpeine at 09:25 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Thanks John, I also downloaded the Monckton Video - and I must confess: listening to him brings a lot of fun, not to say seduction. You pulled him down to reality ... this is good to know -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:17 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
It's very strange. I was trying to see if I could google something up about who Monckton's 700 scientists are who show that the MWP was warmer than today. What I get is a list from Senator Inhofe of 700 scientists who reject AGW. I wonder if there is a connection? The number 700 seems too coincidental. -
KeenOn350 at 09:16 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Another superb post - excellent clarification of up-to-date info on the MW. Thanks again, Prof. Abraham -
Tenney Naumer at 09:09 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
You're on a great roll! Please keep it up! -
Megan Evans at 08:19 AM on 11 June 2010Radio interview with Skeptically Speaking
Great interview John! Well worth the listen. -
scaddenp at 07:07 AM on 11 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
BP - this sounds like rehash of long-resolved questions from the 1970s. The reactions require of course require energy - supplied by geothermal heat. For this reason, basin modelling concentrates so hard on the thermal evolution of a basin. The theory gets tested every time someone drills a well where we have a prediction for thermal regime and hydrocarbon chemical history. (Though by the way, coaly source rocks are generally poor oil sources - producers of gas instead. Favoured source rocks are marine black shales.) -
Kaare Fog at 06:19 AM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part II – Here Comes the Sun?
Comment to # 2: "How is it possible for Monckton to keep getting away with all these falsehoods ? I really can't understand it. " Yes, it is difficult to understand. I keep asking the same question about Bjørn Lomborg. When these guys are proven wrong, why do the media etc. still cite them as authorities? How do they prevent criticism from having any effect? I have written a little about the role of the media in this on www.Lomborg-errors.dk/Media.htm. My text there may be a little naive when I assume that the media have any intent to seek the truth - but it may also give a few hints and ideas to be followed up on by others concerning the way that sceptics present their ideas in ways that seem convincing to lay people. More discussion of this might be useful. -
Ned at 03:38 AM on 11 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
doug_bostrom writes: I don't think it's axiomatic that we absolutely must burn enormous quantities of natural gas in order to extract helium, there are undoubtedly more optimum arrangements that could be engineered. Besides burning it, natural gas is fairly important in fertilizer production. -
Doug Bostrom at 03:08 AM on 11 June 2010Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
BP while the helium problem is somewhat complicated it is significantly due to an ideological fixation with "the market" causing the U.S. government to tamper with a long-term policy that considered helium to be a strategically important element and thus maintained a policy of reserving it for applications more important that inflating childrens' balloons. The U.S. has subsequently sold most of its helium reserve for relatively little money though of course downstream marketers have done well with profits on the gas. You can look it up, or just check this article for a synopsis: Helium shortage hampers research and industry I don't think it's axiomatic that we absolutely must burn enormous quantities of natural gas in order to extract helium, there are undoubtedly more optimum arrangements that could be engineered. -
Ned at 03:02 AM on 11 June 2010Glaciers are growing
Dave D: Unfortunately there's not a "real-time" glacier observing system, so we'll have to wait for 2009-2010 data to be made available. But the WGMS website does have updated information on glacier mass balance through 2007-2008:
Overall, mass balance of the observed glaciers continues to be negative, but the loss of mass in 2007 and 2008 was less than in 2003 or 2006.
I'm not sure what you mean by "The Arctic [Ice] has certainly recovered in area and thickness since 2007, but it is not talked about?"
Are you referring to sea ice? The 2008 and 2009 minumum Arctic sea ice extent was above 2007, but still below the long-term downward trend (and far below the levels of the 1980s). I wouldn't call that a "recovery" unless it continues long enough that late-summer sea ice extent actually returns to normal.
As for Arctic sea ice thickness, it clearly has not shown any sign of recovery; instead, it continues its downward trend:
Prev 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 Next
