Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 Next
Comments 117801 to 117850:
-
Marcus at 00:39 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
A list of papers summarising the likely forcings contributing to the Medieval Warm Period -
Doug Bostrom at 00:35 AM on 12 June 2010Collective Intelligence and climate change
Batsvensson, analogies are only useful for helping folks think of a subject in a different way, drawing on a mental model where one may not be in place for the topic being proxied. Analogies are helpful when the person for whom an analogy is constructed is seeking to understand a topic. Analogies are largely useless when employed in an argument. For instance, I've personally explained more directly at least two dozen times in various locales that looking at a two year increase in Arctic ice extent and forming a conclusion that ice is on the increase while failing to notice that such "increases" are regularly repeated while still being part of a steady decline is a mental instrumentation failure. Yet it's possible to explicitly point that out and have the point entirely missed, or rather simply ignored. I can't think of a single time the feature of noise versus signal has been acknowledged because in the cases where I make this point my interlocutor has been intent on not understanding what's going on but rather is fixed on defending the notion that Arctic ice has nothing to say about climate. I've learned that writing for the person making an argument against facts is pointless, but I do think it's helpful to explain things for those not directly engaged in the discussion. Those of us operating automobiles are familiar with some of the foibles of fuel gauges. So referring to that model may be a helpful way for some to picture the problem. Yes, I become sarcastic and that's not helpful. It's easy to forget, limitless patience is required when speaking of the topic of anthropogenic global warming. There are a lot of folks intent on confusing the public and they're quite successful. So you're right, I could have done better by eschewing sarcasm. Thanks for helping me to remember this. -
Marcus at 00:26 AM on 12 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
By the way, PW-you could have a look at the paper by Servonnat et al (2010) that modeled the likely effects of TSI & CO2 variability on the climate of the last 1000 years. They seem to conclude that solar variation accounts for 80% of the warming during the Medieval Climate Anomaly. There is also a paper relating to the impacts of Volcanic & Solar Forcing on the MWP in the paper of Goosse et al (2006), which itself relies on the work of Crowley (2000, 2003 & 2004), Ammann (2004), Lean et al (1995) & Bard et al (2000). All of these studies seem to suggest that the Medieval Warm Period was underpinned by a combination of high TSI & relatively low volcanic activity-compared to more modern times. I've definitely read other papers relating to the relatively slow pace of Medieval Warming-but have not had success in tracking them down yet. -
Paul W at 00:18 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
Nice to see another debunk. I am how ever left wondering what is going on here? Perhaps some one who has studied the climate more than my recent interest can tell me. I'm a commercial scientist (Chemist) and a little light on with climate. My guesses so far are that global increase in temperature might be increasing the rate of CO2 being released by such things as rotting biological matter. Perhaps just the respiration of the land based biomass increased and decreased with heat. The chart is hard to see clearly but it also seems that temperature increase precedes CO2 increase at some of those points so I'm wondering if we are just looking at a positive feedback. It is after all prediced that AGW will cause a positive feedback of more CO2 from such things as arctic tundra, methane hydrates and other carbon sinks. I would have thought that if one was wanting to look for ocean release of CO2 one would looked at pH. Since that is found to be dropping my chemical background would have me doubt Hocker on that ground alone! A release of CO2 from an ocean would, I expect see an increase in pH at that point. As a chemist I'm use to finding multiple causes and in this case I expect that the AGW from CO2 increase from fossil fuels is being added to by a positive feedback from the carbon cycle or carbon sink due to natural variation. Could it be as simple as having reduced the trend to a constant one sees the positive and negative feedback. Perhaps AGW deniers are making a contribution to science by finding ways to quantify positive and possibly negative feedbacks. Interesting that Hocker sees just one effect and claims a cause when there is so much evidence for AGW caused by Fossil fuels. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:18 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
The same "trick" of looking for a correlation between detrended series has already appeared on WUWT at least once, for instance here by Roy Spencer, to make pretty much the same argument. It was wrong then as well. IIRC, the transition between glacial and interglacial periods give a rise in CO2 of about 100 ppm, but that was a 6-10 degree change in global temperatures, as dorlomin suggests (angband player?) one wonders why the carbon cycle is so sensitive now that you get a 100 ppm rise from less than a degree of change in global temperatures. Doubting that the rise in CO2 is anything other than anthropogenic seems to me to be the least supportable skeptic argument by a large margin. The annual rise in atmospheric CO2 is only about half anthropogenic emissions, so the natural environment must be a net sink for the carbon budget to balance. If the oceans are a net source of CO2 the "missing sink" must be way larger than anyone thought! ;o) -
Berényi Péter at 00:16 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
This reminds me of argon. It is neither produced nor consumed by either industrial or biological processes, so its mass in hydrosphere and atmosphere combined should be pretty constant. Its atmospheric concentration is said to be 9340 ppmv. However, solubility in water at 0°C is 100 mg/kg, while at 20°C it is 60 mg/kg. In equilibrium conditions there should be 3-4 times more argon dissolved in seawater than in the atmosphere. If average ocean temperature goes up by 0.01°C, argon concentration in air is expected to increase by about 2 ppmv. Therefore it is a rather sensitive global thermometer. Is there anyone out there measuring argon? Any pointer to data? -
CBDunkerson at 00:16 AM on 12 June 2010Request for mainstream articles on climate
Had to find one more to add (article about a new study which says biomass power releases more CO2 than coal and growing forests will reduce CO2) just so I could pass you Ned. :] On the other hand, I'm about to leave on a trip for a week so you'll have plenty of time to get ahead of me again. -
dorlomin at 00:14 AM on 12 June 2010Is the long-term trend in CO2 caused by warming of the oceans?
How does this theory fit in with the stall in warming in the 60s and 70s? How does it fit with all the proxy data we have for the past 700 000 years? And what would this say about the much higher CO2 levels in the deeper past (Phanerozoic era). It is somewhat 'idiosyncratic' to say the least. -
CBDunkerson at 23:55 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
PW #26: "Nobody is accusing Abraham is being dishonest" Really? PW #21: "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." BTW, you might note that the Antarctic paper in question covers "hydrological" changes... that is, water, not temperature. Which, in and of itself, shows how Monckton plays fast and loose with the facts. -
Marcus at 23:53 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
Further to post #29. If we *were* to accept the study Arkadiusz refers to, then it would validate the claim about the asynchronous nature of the Medieval Warm Period (starting in the SH around 12th century AD, if the Chile data is to be believed, as opposed to the 8th or 9th century in the NH). Not exactly the "proof" the so-called skeptics were hoping for! -
Riccardo at 23:45 PM on 11 June 2010Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
Berényi Péter, one more try to disprove something with trivial high school level arguments? I rememebr I was 16 when I was thaught about the lorentzian and gaussian curves. Read the scientific litterature on line broadening if you think you've found something wrong. Anyways, first quote the origin of the data and how they were taken. Second, detail your calculations. Third, show the full spectrum. Otherwise your graph is meaningless. Finally, as I said before, lorentzian is just an aproximation; try the full calculations including all the sources of broadening at the relevant temperature and pressure. -
Passing Wind at 23:28 PM on 11 June 2010Monckton Chronicles Part IV– Medieval Warm Period?
werecow. See John Cook's reply in post 12 above. -
Ned at 23:11 PM on 11 June 2010Request for mainstream articles on climate
Whoa, CBDunkerson wasn't even in the top 10 when John posted this, and now they've tied me for 6th place? I'd better step up my game here! -
James Wight at 23:10 PM on 11 June 2010Why Greenland's ice loss matters
John, should this post be a response to "Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass"?Response: Yes, it should. Why hasn't it? Because I forgot to add it! Thanks for the reminder, have now added the 115th skeptic argument, "Greenland has only lost a tiny fraction of its ice mass". -
James Wight at 22:54 PM on 11 June 2010Request for mainstream articles on climate
Wow. I didn't realise I'd submitted so many links! -
Berényi Péter at 22:42 PM on 11 June 2010Has the greenhouse effect been falsified?
Nah. Spectral line shape of far wing in fact does not even come close to a lorentzian. Next guess?
Lorentz line profile: dashed curve
Reality is missed by up to three orders of magnitude.
laboratory measurements: shown by + -
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!
Prev 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 Next
