Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 Next
Comments 42101 to 42150:
-
What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints
hank_ - Indeed, that's hilarious. They posted something attempting to diss the SkS Escalator emphasizing year-to-year variations (strawman, nobody seriously discusses trends from yearly varations) and portray a 12 year time-span for their "rational observers" (which is a prime example of the 'too short for significance' timespans shown in the SkS Escalator, uncertainties of about ±0.168 °C/decade 2σ).
Quite frankly an "own goal" for ACM, it makes them look quite the fools.
-
hank_ at 01:50 AM on 18 September 2013What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints
Just a heads-up for all SkS readers. The Skeptical Science 'escalator' gets a mention on this Aussi blog. Well worth a look for a few laughs;
australianclimatemadness.com/2013/09/16/the-skeptical-science-escalator-of-alarmism/
Click the graph.
-
K.a.r.S.t.e.N at 00:48 AM on 18 September 2013The Pacific Ocean fills in another piece of the global warming puzzle, and puzzles Curry
@Icarus:
Which forcings did you use? In case it is based on GISS, please see my comments #5 and #10 in which I point to some rather intractable inconsistencies with these data.
Kosaka and Xie don't touch upon the sensitivity issue. However, J-N Gammon did, coming up with a rather low TCR estimate (based on the CM2.1 model used in the study) after an initially more plausible range. While his revision was certainly justified, the model itself seems to have issues with the aerosol forcing as Paul S pointed out in the comment section. I agree with him, which should bring the TCR estimate back to J-N-G's original posting. -
dvaytw at 00:23 AM on 18 September 2013What's causing global warming? Look for the fingerprints
Arguing about climate change is sort of a hobby of mine, and the SkS "fingerprints" list has been a primary weapon in my arsenal since I discovered it. I've done a lot of such arguments, and to this day I've yet to see a "skeptic" who can respond to it.
-
Icarus at 23:38 PM on 17 September 2013The Pacific Ocean fills in another piece of the global warming puzzle, and puzzles Curry
Does the Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie study cite a value for climate sensitivity based on their data? The value which drops out of my 2-box model is 0.77°C/W/m², or around 2.8°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂.
-
Jim Hunt at 22:01 PM on 17 September 2013The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report
Dana @5 - Thanks for your good wishes. I rather suspect that the PCC has many fewer teeth than a great white shark, so maybe a bit of luck will come in handy? Time will tell! I'll certainly let you know if we start making any significant progress.
-
libertarianromanticideal at 20:28 PM on 17 September 2013The Economist Screws Up on the Draft IPCC AR5 Report and Climate Sensitivity
From "Commie" Hedegaard, Europe's climate action commissioner, said:
"Let's say that science, some decades from now, said 'we were wrong, it was not about climate', would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?."
EU policy on climate change is right even if science was wrong, says commissioner
-
Klapper at 15:35 PM on 17 September 2013The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report
@Albatross #3:
I can't speak for other skeptics, but I'm certainly not in a panic over AR5.
-
YubeDude at 13:04 PM on 17 September 2013Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Wow, look what happens when you have a life away from online threads...
A few days back I was reading a rather disingenuous post by josieki and asked her two questions about her observation that science, from her personal experience, is often corrupt. My questions were directed at her personal experience and inquired if working in the corporate world of science for profit that certain shareholder issues may have had more to do with creating the air of corruption she precived then any other explanation…it was her world I wondered if she had considered that possibility. After her opening salvo aimed at the integrity of science she attempted to anchor her point to "Climategate"
It was her mention of Climategate that caused me to log in and reply I responded and thought I had accurately characterized the nature of this non-conspiracy conspiracy. She started this with an attempt to kick a dead horse that has long ago been shown to be a rotting corpse of cherry pick snippets and out of context personal correspondence that in no way has been shown to establish evidence of scientific collusion in the service of an agenda that is counter to the findings. Now she gets to have my own post pulled and retreat into the ether and anyone who was engaged by her is to suffer a moderated silence?
The beauty is that there is still a world outside of thread discussions and moderation...time to go enjoy the day.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:46 PM on 17 September 2013The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report
The worst among the contrarians are the ones who "actually know better but refuse to fully and properly inform on this issue or try to misinform", the ones who are informed and intelligent but deliberately develop and disseminate deceptive claims. Those claims then get repeated by the second worst type of people, the ones who deliberately want to fight against the best understanding of all the available information because such increased public awareness does not suit their interests. And those misleading messages get ready acceptance by the third worst type of people, the ones who want more personal wealth, pleasure, comfort and convenience for themselves without caring about how sustainable their actions are.
Burning non-renewable resources has to end because it is simply not sustainable, even without considering any future consequences it creates.
And the denial/delay dance continues because most of the wealth and power is in the hands of those who did not care about how they got that wealth and power. They will fight to maximize their short-term personal gathering of wealth, power, pleasure, comfort and convenience any way they can get away with.
The future has already lost a lot. It stands to lose a lot more from the careless actions of those who only want more for themselves.
The truth will eventually win out, but the more fortunate changing their way of life to be sustainable forever should have started 20 years ago (or even earlier). All the deliberate contrarians who know better are the most despicable intelligent people on the planet. But despicable people can be popular. Therein lays the flaw of promoting popularity as a measure of legitimacy.
-
Riduna at 12:05 PM on 17 September 2013Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph
The author correctly points out that, compared to the 2012 record lows of Arctic ice area and volume, a relative recovery in both was to be expected in 2013 and this has occurred – but with what effect on ice cover in future years?
Increased area of sea ice cover in 2013, means that albedo has also recovered so might we expect a further increase in area covered by sea ice in 2014?
Or will on-going Arctic amplification of average global surface warming combined with loss of 2013 ice volume outweigh the effects of increased albedo, resulting in decline of sea ice mass and area in 2014?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 11:16 AM on 17 September 2013Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
This is indeed a dilemma. Restoring the responses but not the posts would be unfair and even somewhat misleading. Now that decision has been taken to remove all the posts and associated responses, I think mods should stick with it and leave it at at that. Restoring per request only should be grounds for selectively restoring responses, but that would put undue burden on the mods, and the authors would probably be unsatsified because of a loss of context. No real good option, I think it should be left alone now.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:52 AM on 17 September 2013Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
DSL, a reasonable compromise would be to restore all the posts, but to snip the contents of josieki's posts as per her request with an explanation that her request is the reason for the snip. Moderators call, of course.
-
Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
I'm torn. I agree with Tom re the posts replying to Josiecki. On the other hand, I'd argue that error is the actual reason Josiecki wants all the posts removed. After all, if she believes in the truth of those posts, she'd defend their publication. I'm also sad about losing such an excellent, sustained example of empty rhetoric.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:34 AM on 17 September 2013Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
I seriously object to the actions of the moderator in complying with josiecki's requist.
She does not have the right to request the deletion of anybody's posts other than her own. Nor does she have the right to remove the context of other people's replies to her by removing her posts. Therefore the complete removal of all her posts is an unreasonable request that should not have been complied with IMO.
This situation is very different from that in which a poster immediately after posting discovers an error in their post and requests removal before others have responded. Rather, we have had several days worth of debate removed because josiecki found it personally embarassing just how little she could defend her opinions (none of which, I believe, she ever offered substantive support of).
I request that the moderators actions in removing those post be reconsidered by the entire moderation team and that the posts be reinstated.
Moderator Response:[DB] The matter has been brought up for discussion.
-
johnrabbit at 10:26 AM on 17 September 2013Global Warming’s Missing Heat: Look Back In Anger (and considerable disbelief)…
Philippe, I disagree. I like to look at WUWT to see what is the latest thing they are now trying to deny. I find reading their posts and finding the errors to be a good way to pass my time.
-
To frack or not to frack?
Note that the UT/EDF study was just published in PNAS (a useful press release is here). It shows that extensive mitigation of emissions as advocated does work as expected, pushing total "leaked" emissions quite low (likely <1%). Unfortunately, mostly sites where active mitigation measures are in place were investigated.
While we study the results and wait for more studies to be published, stay tuned for an update to this post some time in the fall.
-
josiecki at 07:10 AM on 17 September 2013Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Waiting for a response....
Moderator Response:[JH] You hae requested that all of your comments be deleted. Your request will be honored.
-
Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph
Part of the explanation is Agung. See figure 2 of Domingues et al. 2008 and especially Balmaseda et al. 2013.
-
John Hartz at 07:04 AM on 17 September 2013Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
All:
Per his/her request, the most recent post of josiecki has been deleted. DSL's response to it has also been deleted.
-
tmbtx at 06:45 AM on 17 September 2013Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph
I've had a question for a while about the heat content chart. What is the "dip" in the ocean heat content between 1960 and 1970? Is that a plot artifact, or have to do with the baseline? It's just always a bit weird how it starts at 0, then drops, then jumps back up. I reference people to that chart fairly often but some of them point to that drop and try to cliam there's something wrong.
-
MThompson at 05:07 AM on 17 September 2013CO2 effect is saturated
davidwell, regarding comment 277"
If a ring-down optical path lengh was say 900 meters, then the pulse duration would be 3 microseconds. If the lifetime of the v2 CO2* state is much longer than that would some probe beam intensity survive even at 100% CO2? I ask this because I'm guessing that the excited state (v2 CO2*) does not absorb the probe beam. Anyway, I'm just a guy that likes science, and your question is interesting to me.
-
dana1981 at 04:29 AM on 17 September 2013The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report
Jim @2 - good luck. Rose is one of the worst "journalist" serial climate misinformers on the planet. Climate scientists in particular (except Curry of course - go figure) are clearly getting really sick of him distorting their work.
-
davidnewell at 03:31 AM on 17 September 2013CO2 effect is saturated
Excuse me, I am but a poor and ignorant engineer. Also, as MThompson , above, I have not read all the pages.
so, with that, I venture the following question:
with ring down IR spectrophotometers with path lenghts of hundreds of meters, would not the premise that "saturation" in the heating of the atmosphere from increasing CO2 occurs..
also mean that the spectrophotometers might become useless at a % CO2 level which intercepts all their source laser IR energy?
Which doesn't happen, up to 100% CO2.
Probably I'm missing something here, your elucidation is solicited.
-
davidnewell at 03:20 AM on 17 September 2013The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report
This is a good thread. I'd like to compare it to "The Stages of Dying", but don't have the time or inclination.
Stage 5 "it's too damn late, may as well enjoy the process" is an analogue to what I have felt which is "WTF, nobody gives a s...." and go away in despondence and rejection.
Direct Air Capture can possibly "save the day": here's hoping.
-
davidnewell at 03:15 AM on 17 September 2013Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Since late 2009 this somewhat heated debate has gone on, "deniers" are falliing off the wagon by droves. Only the most "attached to their arguments" persons can fail to accede to some facts, inconvenient or not, that the reality bearing down will affect us all the same.
"It's not that warm", saith the lobster, turning pinkish..
-
Albatross at 01:16 AM on 17 September 2013The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report
Well the fake skeptics and those in denial are in a panic with the release of the IPCC's fifth assessment report looming. They don't seem to be able to decide whether they accept the stolen draft report's findings or that the report is largely wrong or part of some conspiracy. No surpises there though, fake skeptics are renowned for the logical fallacies and contradictory nature of their arguments. As Dana shows they are also very nicely demonstrating all five elements of denial, sometimes simultaneously!
Steve Sherwood in response to Judith Curry's musings (see more at the Australian Media Centre):
"Just as it is possible to know that a cancer patient is likely to die without treatment, even if the date or particular symptoms cannot be predicted accurately."
To build on Prof. Sherwood's excellent analogy-- fake skeptics like Dr. Curry seem to believe that uncertainty always means the patient will die later, never sooner. Or at its extreme, that the patient will not die, even though 97% of patients will the same disease do die. I'm all for optimism, but denying reality when their is so much on the line is just irresponsible and to be frank, stupid.
-
chriskoz at 22:42 PM on 16 September 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #37
I sort of agree with numerobis because quantity is not quality and sometimes I don't have time to read the trolls and debunk them, espetially if the troll authors are helpless and the best tactic is "don't feed the troll". So "trolling threads" could be indicated as such.
I noticed that recent trolls are evolving around "GW has stopped since 1997" and Cook at al 2013 about 97% consensus. I don't understand the reason for the former because science is so simple in our debunkings. The latter suggests poor understanding of statistics and polling techniques in general public, so there is something to do in that area.
I remember other weeks with proliferate scientific discussions both explaining and complementing the articles. But this week lacks them.
Moderator Response:[DB] Fixed text per request.
-
Jim Hunt at 21:13 PM on 16 September 2013The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report
We're now officially pursuing David Rose and the Mail on Sunday via the UK's Press Complaints Commission. Our latest riposte to "The David & Judy Show":
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2013/09/shock-news-why-isnt-the-arctic-ice-free/
For Lomberg et. al. we're still at the Twitter stage! -
Paul D at 20:29 PM on 16 September 2013The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report
Alternative POV (or the same view stated differently):
If someone wants to protect their investment, whether financial, political, business or just their way of life. Attack the source of the problem (climate science) so that delays make it impossible to proceed with the changes that effect your investment.
-
Jim Hunt at 17:47 PM on 16 September 2013Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph
@funglestrumpet - Thanks for your kind words. As recommended by the PCC I have had several communications with the Managing Editor of the MoS. A brief extract:
Them - "If you wish to express a different opinion, you are welcome to write a letter for publication which I will forward to our letters editor for consideration. "
Us - "There's been a large "hole" in the sea ice near the North Pole for weeks. It's invisible in the images in your article. 100-200 words is nowhere near enough to explain the significance of that one "inaccuracy" to your readership, let alone all the others."More on my own blog:
http://econnexus.org/the-great-white-con-continues/ -
Tom Curtis at 16:01 PM on 16 September 2013CO2 effect is saturated
MThompson @275, that mental picture is largely correct. What is missing at this point is that the probability of a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon falls of towards the wings of the absorption band so that near those wings, the distance before nearly all light is absorbed is 100s of meters, or at the very fringes, thousands.
More important, however, is the next step, which is described here (which, if you have not already covered that material, I recomend you read before going further).
-
MThompson at 14:31 PM on 16 September 2013CO2 effect is saturated
I’m new to this thread, and I confess that I’ve not yet read all the preceding comments. I’m still trying to construct a good mental image of the role of CO2 in global warming.
According to the article that starts this thread, “Consider the CO2 absorption band around 15 μm (about 650 cm-1), it is strong enough to not let any light go through after a few tens of meters at surface temperature and pressure.”
Now I believe this statement to be even more generally true because the earth’s blackbody radiation in the entire 750 to 600 cm-1 band is around 3x1022 photons per square meter per second. Furthermore, I estimate that near the earth’s surface there are about 1x1022 CO2 molecules per cubic meter. Thus a few tens of meters of the near-earth atmosphere should be plenty to absorb all photons in the band, not just the central emission at 650 cm-1. The high rate of collision between bending-mode CO2 (v2 CO2*) and the other atmospheric molecules will transfer that vibrational energy to translational energy quickly, thus converting the photon energy to thermal energy. The v2 CO2* population should stay very close to the distribution predicted by Boltzmann statistics for the observed temperature and pressure ranges. Any increase in CO2 concentration within these “few tens of meters” will not lead to additional warming.
Of course the observed increase in CO2 is not confined to very near the surface of the earth.
This is where I’m at so far in my mental picture. I want to make sure I’ve got this right before I continue. Any corrections or suggestions would be most appreciated.
-
michael sweet at 11:04 AM on 16 September 2013Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Spoonieduck,you are an extraordinaryly selective reader. When I read Dugmore et al 2011, I saw that Greenalnd never raised crops, only pastoral animals. Today they raise cabbages and a number of other crops in Greenalnd. It must be warmer in Greenalnd now since they were unable to raise crops in 1200 that they can raise now. Dugmore states:
"the Greenlandic economy seems from the outset to have been geared to obtaining and exporting rare and prestigious commodities such as walrus tusk and hide, narwhal teeth, and live polar bears."
It would have taken years or decades to build barns for herds and to breed sufficient animals to support a society. The original settlers were primarily engaged in hunting and exporting high value objects. You ignore this completely. Dugmore goes on to say:
Climate variability always provided challenges to NorseGreenland’s TEK, and the notion of a uniform medieval warmperiod has long been replaced by the realization that even theearliest periods of settlement saw considerable variability requiringeffective coping strategies. The Norse Greenlanders survived manyhard years before the 13th century and not only persevered but prospered.Dugmore states blankly that your argument that your notion of a midieval climate optimum is false. The paper you referenced does not support your wild speculations. -
Bert from Eltham at 10:33 AM on 16 September 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #37
Exactly moderator! The more trolls that comment is a fair indicator of the fear these same trolls have in the veracity of the real information in that story. This also gives a a better measure of the 97% as the tiny minority still loudly decry its insignificance! Bert
-
numerobis at 07:57 AM on 16 September 20132013 SkS Weekly Digest #37
I find that the story that "attracted the most comments of the articles posted on SkS during the past week" is actually the one that got the most trolls posting. I'm not sure that's something to highlight. Maybe remove that line?
Moderator Response:[JH] My purpose is to highlight "where the action is" re comment chatter. In that context, a comment is a comment.
-
scaddenp at 07:26 AM on 16 September 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #37B
William, try PIOMAS. You need to identify yourself to download.
-
Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
Philippe Chantreau - The Richelieu quote was from me, directed towards josiecki and pointing out how out of context quotes were abused by folks wishing to deny the science.
-
william5331 at 06:11 AM on 16 September 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #37B
Does anyone know where one can get the data on ice volume in the Arctic over the past three years as determined by Cryosat. My searching abilities aren't all that great but this information seems to be hidden behind a pay-wall.
Signed
A computer dinosaur.
-
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Again, MrGibbage, the problem is in the wording. Whenever scientists use "global warming" to refer to global mean surface temperature, confusion is the result. I don't know why Fyfe did that in his published work. Note that he says "warming" in his email. I take "global warming" to mean the entire climate system, including oceans. One cannot talk about the future of GMST without factoring in the energy going into the oceans. That energy MUST come back through the atmosphere, so it's ridiculous to say that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is _________ based on any analysis that ignores ocean heat content.
In other words, when Fyfe says "global warming has paused," he's not saying that CO2 is suddenly not continuing to store more energy within the climate system. He's just saying that the accumulating energy is not, over time, uniformly going into the various components of the climate system. The top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance remains.
So my question to you is "what is 'the planet'"?
-
MrGibbage at 02:14 AM on 16 September 2013It hasn't warmed since 1998
So, if the point of this page at SkepticalScience is to suggest that the planet hasn't been cooling since 1998, and has in fact been warming, then who do we believe? Dr. Fyfe, who suggests that it hasn't cooled or warmed, or Skeptical Science? Does this page need to be updated?
-
Lanfear at 01:38 AM on 16 September 2013Medieval Warm Period was warmer
"I think the problem that some people are having with the Little Climatic Optimum concept is not so much as to whether temperatures were a little warmer then than now or vice versa. That is largely irrelevant."
I don't know about the other commenters here, but as far as my view goes, you have a serious problem of being myopic in your arguments. And as such it is strictly your and not my problem. Maybe you should actually read what other commenters respond to your writings, instead of 'thinking' what their motivations might be?
"The real problem is that the temperature seems to have undergone a long, hundreds of years cycle, in Greenland in which human produced atmospheric carbon couldn't have played much of a role."
'Seems'? Based on what? Do you even realize that you are solely arguing for a warm(er) Greenland in the time of ca. 1200-900 bp? And that your basis is only in the anecdotal oral stories which were only later written down? If you still fail to show any actual material to support your assertions, then you are merely mixing in two other often recited myths, "It's a natural cycle" and "It's not us" through the non sequitur-fallacy.
As for the irrelevance that you talked earlier, your arguments are irrelevant as long as you continue repeating the same stuff over and over again, without providing any actual material.
Moderator Response:[JH] Spoonieduck has now been officially warned about excessive repitition and sloganeering.
-
spoonieduck at 23:59 PM on 15 September 2013Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Tom,
I don't believe that Iceland then or now is "less verdant" than Greenland. Quite the contrary. Even during the medieval period, the Greenland settlements' total population hovered at 10% that of Iceland. I'm not saying that temperatures aren't warmer now than they were 100 years ago. One poorly documented internet site I've come up with claims that the growing season in southwestern Greenland is 3 weeks longer now than it was not so many years ago. Then again, I came up with another not so well-documented site, that claims that temperatures now--in the same area--have plunged 1.0-1.6 C, although they predict that temperatures will rise 2.0C by 2100.
I'll refer you to Dugmore et al, Arctic Anthropology, 2007. Dugmore is supportive of climate change theory and believes the colony collapse to be multifactorial, although he believes Greenland cooling, with reduced growing season and increased sea ice--tougher for trade vessels and harder for Norse hunters to access herds of Walrus--was a major factor.
Dugamore and Rachel Bold [Norse Utilization of Archaebotanical Resources with the Myvatssvert locale, Northern Iceland, Dept. of Arch., Durham University, 2011] describe a biota in what became the Eastern and Western colonies far different than today. Bold: [I'm paraphrasing]: "Greenlad attracted settlers with its wide open grassy spaces close to the coast. Remaining land deemed suitable for occupation was predominantly covered in dense scrub--birch and willow in the Eastern Settlement, with the addition of alder in the Western Settlement. Land clearing, manually, and by burning was necessary to increase agricultural utility as evidenced by a thin black deposit underlying the occupational layer of the Western Settlement." Note: There is only one tiny "National Forest" today in southern Greenland composed of dwarf birch and willow.
Therefore evidence suggests the possibility that southwestern Greenland was undergoing a warm period before the Vikings ever arrived. We can't know for certain, of course, because, as I wrote to Michael Sweet, "The Vikings didn't carry thermometers."
On to Erik or Erik. You are correct and quoted the Saga accurately, but I'll paraphrase Dugmore, who references the same line. I'd like to quote him perfectly but my printer is on the fritz so I had to scribble it down. "Despite Erik's sales pitch, it is unlikely that the traditionally strong-willed Viking women and mothers could have been lured to go to and/or stay in a marginal land." My point exactly. Certainly, Erik wanted to see his settlements grow but an outright lie would have provoked a blood feud that he couldn't have survived. Erik's "Green Land" was--at least in a few isolated areas--a "Green Land" suitable for settlement.
I think the problem that some people are having with the Little Climatic Optimum concept is not so much as to whether temperatures were a little warmer then than now or vice versa. That is largely irrelevant. The real problem is that the temperature seems to have undergone a long, hundreds of years cycle, in Greenland in which human produced atmospheric carbon couldn't have played much of a role.
Moderator Response:[JH] You are now skating on the thin ice of sloganeering and excessive reptition -- both of which are prohibited by the SkS Comment Policy. Please cease and desist, or face the consequences.
-
Lanfear at 23:47 PM on 15 September 2013Medieval Warm Period was warmer
"Lastly, we just don't know. Unfortunately, and unlike today, the Norse didn't have thermometers. If they had them in Greenland, used them frequently, recorded the results for posterity, we wouldn't be having this discussion now"
Why do you expect the only way to get the temperature from past to be by the way of thermometers? Or reinterpreting the, initially oral, history tales?
It is as if you deliberately want to avoid looking at the multitude of reconstruction graphs, linked both to the article, as well as previous commenters.
And if your objection to them is that they are too general (being global or NH-centric), then I would point out that Kobashi et al. 2011, did reconstruct the temperature located on Greenland.
It is considered poor form to disregard other evidence and just concentrate on one detail in order to carry on an argument.
-
spoonieduck at 23:19 PM on 15 September 2013Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Michael,
One of the primary justifications for this particular thread is historical accounts of a so-called medieval warming trend i.e. written histories. If it weren't for the histories--oral and written accounts--researchers [in my opinion] wouldn't be much concerned about anomalies in pollen samples, ice cores, sediments, tree rings from this period of time.
The Sagas i.e. Icelandic Sagas, Saga of the Greenlandders, Vinland Saga are some of the primary sources. Yes, Diamond wrote "Collapse" amongst other pop science histories. I haven't read it, yet, but reviewed his interesting "Guns, Germs and Steel." In a similar vein, I suggest "West Viking" by Mowat who supports the concept of the "Little Climatic Optimum."
Science is, of course, a generally materialistic approach to get at the truth and is usually best handled in a multidisciplinary fashion. It is not adequate to say "things were colder" in the face of historical testimony that things may have been "warmer". You may be right but you have to back it up.
Back to Diamond, Mowat and Dugamore et. al., Arctic Anthropology, 2007. None of these authors--including Diamons--dispute a medieval Greeland warming trend. After all there were two [East and West] Norse Greenland Settlements that existed for 450 years, from about A.D. 985 to at least A.D. 1427. Deteriorating cold weather was a major factor in the ultimate retreat from Greenland.
The various authors above also believe--entirely correctly--that the colony collapse was multifactorial. Political disruptions in Norway with reduced trade were possibly important. They also believe that the Norse were "slow learners" and might have hung on if they'd adapted eskimo lifestyles. I find the last contention amusing. It's almost like stating that the Aztecs might have defeated the Spaniards if they had guns.
Lastly, we just don't know. Unfortunately, and unlike today, the Norse didn't have thermometers. If they had them in Greenland, used them frequently, recorded the results for posterity, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
-
MA Rodger at 21:31 PM on 15 September 2013Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph
Or try here for the AR4 graphic.
-
MA Rodger at 21:29 PM on 15 September 2013Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph
Here is the link to the latest David Ruse nonsense in the Rail on Sunday mentioned @3. An interesting quote from Myles Allen apparently made "last night" that will likely get some discussion. The headline pronouncement of the nonsense is effectively debunked by this AR4 graphic showing the 1956-2005 trend that Ruse says has been revised so much in the final draft AR5 that he say he's got hold of. He (or his paper) also takes ambiguous credit for their early detection of "the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year."
-
funglestrumpet at 20:39 PM on 15 September 2013Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph
Jim Hunt @ 1
I wish you the very best of luck. It is difficult to see how we stop such people unless they face some form of meaningful sanction, though I have my doubts that any complaint to the PCC will result in such.
It would be better for the U.K. media at least to face another Leverson type enquiry, but this time on the deliberate publication of misinformation on climate change, surely a more important issue than the hacking of some celebrity's 'phone in order to discover who they were sleeping with - information that will be long forgotten by this time next year, or even next week, let alone by the time climate change is wreaking its seemingly inevitable havoc, I fear.
P.S. - Great graphic on your 'Great White Con' link! Have you offered it to the Mail and Telegraph? I am sure they would jump at the chance to show graphically what they are obviously trying (and failing) to say in words, being such honest and upstanding fellows that they are, of course.
-
Jim Hunt at 18:49 PM on 15 September 2013Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph
In reality I fear the PCC has far less teeth than a great white shark, and that US legal precedents don't carry a whole lot of weight over here in the UK. Nevertheless we shall pursue matters to the bitter end!
David and Judy are on show again in the Mail this Sunday morning. More over on the Arctic Sea Ice Blog. -
John Mason at 17:26 PM on 15 September 2013Arctic sea-ice 'growth', a manufactured IPCC 'crisis' and more: David Rose is at it again
There's a typo in that latest one (which has even more of a squawk-factor):
For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human influence caused more than half the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ – 90 per cent certain – in 2007.
Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt.
should read:
For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human influence caused more than half the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ – 90 per cent certain – in 2007.
Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible - to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt.
The well-trained parrot strikes again!
Prev 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 Next
